by
In this three-part article we attempt to
learn what Matthew the Evangelist himself
had intended with regard to certain
challenging aspects of his Gospel.
Part One: The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel
Bernard Sadler started the ball rolling aright when
he, in The
Structure of Matthew (“For Mary Immaculate,
Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, Queen of Evangelists”), sought to learn from Matthew himself what was the
Evangelist’s intended structure for his Gospel, as Bernard put it, “to explain
the basic structure Matthew used composing his gospel”. Bernard wrote (www.structureofmatthew.com):
Introduction
The structure of
Saint Matthew’s gospel has long remained obscure. Scholars believe that Matthew
wrote his gospel in a Semitic language, probably Hebrew. We do not know what
his manuscript looked like because the original and any copies that may have
been made from it have been lost. A Greek language version was made, some
scholars think by Matthew himself, and that too has been lost. But copies of
this Greek version, of uncertain degrees of relationship, have come down to us.
These early Greek versions seem not to show any structure, and editors since
have offered a wide variety of suggestions. The familiar division of the gospel
into 28 chapters made in the 13th century and the further division into verses
made in the 16th century do not help. They are indispensable today for
reference purposes, and are retained here, but they tell us little about the
gospel structure.
Understanding
the structure of the gospel and how Matthew ordered the various parts to each
other and to the whole is important, because unless this structure is correctly
understood what Matthew is saying is likely to be misunderstood. Understanding
the gospel’s structure will not prevent readers or commentators making errors
of interpretation but misunderstanding the structure certainly will not help.
The purpose of
this book is threefold: to explain the basic structure Matthew used composing
his gospel; to present outlines showing how this basic structure is found
throughout the gospel; and to provide a gospel text laid out using those
structures.
Basic structure
Now, contrary to
modern perceptions, early Greek versions do show the structure—but not the way
modern readers expect. Matthew wrote his gospel in paragraphs grouped into
larger symmetrical units called chiasms. A chiasm is a passage of several
paragraphs (or other units) so written that the last paragraph of the chiasm is
linked to the first paragraph, the second-last paragraph is linked to the
second paragraph, and so on. It is the linking of paragraphs this way that
binds them together as a chiasm. A chiasm usually has a freestanding central
paragraph about which the others are arrayed. Chiasm is the only structure
Matthew used in his gospel.
The linking of
the paragraphs of a chiasm is done by parallelism. Parallelism consists in the
repetition of words or phrases. A differently inflected form of a word may be
used and occasionally a synonym is used; for example, Matthew uses the word
treasures in 6:19 and repeats it in 7:6 as pearls. Sometimes two words are
repeated in reverse order to produce what is called inverted parallelism.
There are other
kinds of chiasms and other uses of parallelism in Hebrew literature but here we
are considering only those Matthew used to shape his gospel. ….
Part Two: Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus Christ
Question:
What does Saint Matthew have to say about Our Lord’s Genealogy?
A merely superficial reading of this text (Matthew 1:6-17) will
not suffice to unravel its profound meaning.
According to Monsignor John McCarthy, in his Introduction to “The Historical
Meaning of the Forty-two Generations in Matthew 1:17” (http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt13.html):
For
those who study deeply into the Gospel text, Matthew’s prologue, contained in
his first two chapters, is one of the most masterful pieces of writing ever
presented to human eyes. The genealogy with which this prologue begins displays
its full share of wondrous artistry, but so subtle is its turn that many
commentators have failed to grasp the logic that it implies. ….
Deep study is indeed required to grasp the logic of it all,
because it appears that Matthew has, within his neat triple arrangement of “fourteen generations” (1:17):
“Thus
there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David,
fourteen
from David to the exile to Babylon,
and
fourteen from the exile to the Messiah”.
completely dumped four kings
of Judah whose history is written in Kings and Chronicles.
Those familiar with the sequence of the kings of Judah as recorded
in Kings and Chronicles will be struck by the fact that Matthew 1 is missing
these: Ahaziah; Joash (Jehoash); and
Amaziah, three virtually successive
kings - Matthew understandably omits the usurping Queen Athaliah before Joash -
and later, Jehoiakim. Four in all!
Matthew’s
omissions can be seen clearly in this chart, a comparison of him with I
Chronicles (http://www.contradictingbiblecontradictions.com/?p=1179):
Matthew 1: 6-16
|
1 Chronicles 3:10-16
|
David
Solomon
Roboam
Abijah
Asa
Joshaphat
Joram
-
-
-
Ozias
Joatham
Achaz
Ezekiah
Manasses
Amon
Josiah
-
Jecohnias
|
David
Solomon
Rehoboam
Abijah
Asa
Jehoshaphat
Joram
Ahaziah
Joash
Amaziah
Azariah
(Ozias)
Jotham
Ahaz
Hezekiah
Manasseh
Amon
Josiah
Jehoiakim
Jeconiah
|
What is going on
here?
Was
Saint Matthew the Evangelist mathematically deficient, somewhat like the
schoolboy whose ‘sum of all fears’ is actually the fear of all sums?
Even
a mathematical dope, however, can probably manage to ‘doctor’ basic figures in
order to arrive at a pre-determined number!
Monsignor
McCarthy, when discussing Fr. Raymond Brown’s attempted resolution of this
textual difficulty, begins by asking the same question:
Could Matthew count? Raymond
Brown, reading Matthew's genealogy from the viewpoint of a modern reader, does
not plainly see fourteen generations in each of the three sets of names, but by
using ingenuity he can "salvage Matthew's reputation as a
mathematician." He cautions, for one thing, that we should not expect too
much logic in Matthew's reasoning, since omissions are frequently made in
tribal genealogies "for reasons that do not seem logical to the Western
scientific mind" (pp. 82-84). ….
On the face of
things - or, as Monsignor McCarthy puts it, “reading Matthew's genealogy from
the viewpoint of a modern reader” - what Saint Matthew may seem to have done
would be like, say, a horse owner whose nag had come fourth in the Melbourne
Cup, who later decided to re-write the story by completely ignoring any
reference to the first three winners (trifecta),
so that his horse now came in ‘first’. We however, believing the Scriptures to
be inspired by the Holy Spirit, cannot simply leave it at that: a supposed
problem of the sacred writer’s own making. Though this is apparently where the
more liberally-minded commentators are prepared to leave matters in the case of
a scriptural difficulty that it is beyond their wisdom to solve; thereby, as
Monsignor McCarthy writes with reference to Fr. Brown, leaving things “in a
very precarious state”. We had discussed previously a similar case: that of Fr.
D. Dumm writing on “Tobit” for The Jerome
Biblical Commentary, who, being unable to make any sense of the geography
of the book, had had to conclude that:
“[The
angel] Raphael knows the journey of life far better than the route to Media!”
See also my:
A Common
Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit
As with Fr.
Dumm, so with Fr. Brown, there is a failure to attempt to “salvage” the sacred
text. Rightly, therefore, does Monsignor McCarthy proceed to suggest:
Brown's reasoning leaves a big
problem. In the light of the deficiencies that he sees in Matthew's counting,
how can one seriously believe that Matthew really shows by his 3 x 14 pattern
that "God planned from the beginning and with precision the Messiah's
origins" …? What kind of precision is this? And what could the number
fourteen seriously mean in the message of Matthew? Brown believes that for
Matthew fourteen was, indeed, "the magic number" …, but he cannot
surmise what that number was supposed to mean. He knows of no special symbolism
attached to the number fourteen, and, therefore, he cannot grasp at all the
point that Matthew is trying to make. So, rather than "salvage"
Matthew's reputation as a theologian, Brown leaves Matthew's theology of 3 x 14
generations in a very precarious state.
Monsignor
McCarthy will, like Bernard Sadler in Part
One above, seek to determine what Matthew himself is saying. Thus: “Let us
look at the plain message of the text of Mt 1:17”. Contrary to what Fr. Brown
had imagined: “Matthew is not plainly saying that there were fourteen immediate
biological generations in each period. In fact, when in his opening verse
Matthew speaks of Jesus as "Son of David, son of Abraham," he is
setting up a definition of terms which enlarges the notion of a generation”.
The Evangelist’s
ways are not our ways - not how we might operate in a modern context.
Accordingly, Monsignor McCarthy will allow Matthew to speak for himself:
Just as Matthew can use the
word 'son' to mean any descendant in the direct line, so can he use the word
'begot' to mean any ancestor in the direct line. Therefore, he does not err in
saying in the second set of names that "Joram [Jehoram] begot Oziah
[Uzziah]" (Mt 1:8), even though there were three immediate biological
generations in between. Matthew is saying that there were fourteen
undisqualified generations in each period of time, and his point has force as
long as there is a discernible reason for omitting some of the immediate
generations in keeping with the purpose of his writing.
This brings us
to that exceedingly interesting matter of the “discernible reason for omitting
some of the immediate generations”. For, how to justify bundling out of a
genealogical list two such mighty Judaean kings as Jehoash and Amaziah? Between
them they occupied the throne of Jerusalem for about three quarters of a
century! Well, say some liberals, Matthew was using faulty king lists. No, say
some conservatives, those omitted kings of Judah were very evil, and that is
why Matthew had chosen to ignore them. But, can that really be the case?
2 Kings 12:2: “Jehoash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord
all the years Jehoiada the priest instructed him”.
2 Kings 14:3: “[Amaziah] did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, but not as his father
David had done. In everything he followed the example of his father Joash”.
Why, then, does Matthew’s
Genealogy include the likes of Jehoram (Joram), and Ahaz (Achaz), for instance,
about whom Kings and Chronicles have nothing whatsoever favourable to say?
2 Chronicles 21:6 “[Jehoram] followed the ways of the kings
of Israel, as Ahab’s family had done, because his wife was Ahab’s daughter. So he did what the Lord considered evil”.
2 Kings 16:2-4 “Unlike David
his father, [Ahaz] did not do what was right in the eyes of the
Lord his God. He followed the ways of the kings of Israel and even
sacrificed his son in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the
nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites”.
Monsignor
McCarthy, wisely basing himself upon the Fathers, seems to have come up with a
plausible explanation for why these particular kings were omitted from the
genealogy, and why the name of the wicked Jehoram, for instance, was
genealogically preserved:
Regarding the second set of
"fourteen" generations, we read that "Joram begot Oziah"
(Mt 1:18). But we know that Joram was actually the great-great-grandfather of
Oziah, because Oziah is another name for Azariah (cf. 2 Chr 26:1; 2 Kg [4 Kg]
14:21), and in 1 Chr 3:11-12 we read: "and Joram begot Ochoziah, from whom
sprang Joas, and his son Amasiah begot Azariah." Hence, Matthew omits the
generations of Ochoziah, Joas, and Amasiah from his list, and the judgments
given in the Old Testament upon these people may tell us why.
St. Jerome 3 sees a reason in the fact that Joram married
Athalia, the daughter of Jezebel of Sidon, who drew him deeper and deeper into
the practices of idolatry, and that the three generations of sons succeeding
him continued in the worship of idols. In the very first of the Ten
Commandments given by God through Moses on Mount Sinai it was stated:
"Thou shalt not have foreign gods before me. ... Thou shalt not adore or
serve them. I am the Lord thy God, powerful and jealous, visiting the iniquity
of fathers upon their children unto the third and fourth generation of those
that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands to those that love me and keep
my commandments" (Ex 20:3-6). Now Solomon was a sinner and an idolater (1
Kg f3 Kg] 11: 7-8), but he had a good man for his father and was therefore not
punished in his own generation (1 Kg [3 Kg] 11:12).
St. Augustine 4 points out that the same was true of Joram, who
had Josaphat for his father, and therefore did not have his name removed from
Matthew's genealogy (cf. 2 Chr 21:7).
St. John Chrysostom 5 adds the further reason that the Lord had ordered
the house of Ahab to be extirpated from the face of the earth (2 Kg [4 Kg]
9:8), and the three kings eliminated by Matthew were, as descendants of Athalia,
of the seed of Ahab. Jehu eradicated the worship of Baal from Israel, but he
did not forsake the golden calves in Bethel and Dan. Nevertheless, the Lord
said to him: "Because you have diligently performed what was right and
pleasing in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab in keeping with
everything that was in my heart, your children shall sit upon the throne of
Israel unto the fourth generation (2 Kg [4 Kg] 10:28-31). So it is interesting
to note that while these generations of Jehu were inserted into the royal
lineage of Israel, the three generations of Ahab were taken out of the
genealogy of Jesus by the judgment of God through the inspired pen of St.
Matthew.
[End of quote]
A Further Note on Matthew 1:17
Further
to my:
The"
Toledoths" of Genesis
Matthew
1:1 has an apparent toledôt: “This is the
genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah”, supposedly the only one in the New
Testament, that may seem at first to contradict the thesis of P.J. Wiseman that
toledôt are colophon endings, rather
than headings. Though it does conform nicely with his argument that toledôt refer to "ancestors"
not "descendants".
But
the Gospel of Matthew is, like so many other Bible books, chiastically
structured, with the first division coming at 1:17 according to Bernard
Sadler’s (Part One above) findings.
In other words Matthew 1:1 chiastically connects with 1:17. And, guess what,
"generations" is mentioned 4 times in 1:17. So this latter may be our
actual colophon, whereas 1:1 is a link to this (perhaps Wiseman's 'catch-line'
theory).
Perhaps,
more importantly, 1:1 constitutes the title,
in the way that Genesis 1:1 does
It
may open up a whole new field for study.
Part Three: The Zechariah Problem (Matthew 27:9)
Monsignor John
McCarthy and Bernard Sadler were thorough and convincing in their respective
studies of the Gospel of Matthew.
Here I shall be
much more tentative as I propose what I think could possibly be a solution,
albeit a controversial one, to why Saint
Matthew would have attributed to the prophet Jeremiah words that we actually
find in the book of the prophet Zechariah.
Put simply, I
intend to argue that Zechariah was Jeremiah.
Now, here is the
Zechariah problem as set out by D. Miller and E. Lyons at Apologetics Press: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=658:
Who was Matthew Quoting?
…. After reporting in his gospel account about Judas’ suicide and the
purchase of the potter’s field, Matthew quoted from the prophets as he had done
many times prior to chapter 27. He wrote: “Then was fulfilled what was spoken
by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver,
the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced,
and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me’ ” (27:9-10).
For centuries, these two verses have been contemplated by Christians and
criticized by skeptics. The alleged problem with this passage, as one
modern-day critic noted, is that “this is not a quote from Jeremiah, but a
misquote of Zechariah” (Wells, 2001). Skeptics purport that Matthew misused
Zechariah 11:12-13, and then mistakenly attributed the quotation to Jeremiah.
Sadly, even some Christians have advocated this idea (see Cukrowski, et al.,
2002, p. 40). What can be said of the matter? ….
Miller and Lyons
then go on to provide their answer to this difficulty.
My short-cut
solution to it on the other hand, that Zechariah was Jeremiah, would seem to be
disqualified immediately on chronological grounds. Whereas we last hear of
Jeremiah (qua Jeremiah) as an exile
in Egypt, where he is generally thought to have died around 570 BC, Zechariah’s
time of prophesying – {the Book of Zechariah} - is specifically dated some 50
years later than that (520-518 BC).
However, the
“Darius” referred to in Zechariah 1:1: “In the eighth month of the second year
of Darius, the word of the LORD came to the prophet Zechariah”, generally
thought to have been Darius the Great, actually fits much better as a previous
king given the early stage of the restoration (Zechariah 4:9): “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this temple …”.
Compare this with what happened in “the second year”, again, of Cyrus (Ezra
3:8, 10):
In the second
month of the second year after their arrival at the house of God in Jerusalem,
Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, Joshua son of Jozadak and the rest of the people
(the priests and the Levites and all who had returned from the captivity to
Jerusalem) began the work.
….
When the
builders laid the foundation of the temple of the Lord ….
Common
denominators are: second year (with month); Zerubbabel; and foundation of Temple. That a Darius (namely, Darius the Mede) can
also be this Cyrus of the Book of Ezra has been well argued by many, usually by
those who would take Daniel 6:28 to intend only the one king: “So Daniel
prospered during the reign of Darius, even [not “and”] the reign of Cyrus the
Persian”. The Hebrew waw explicative
function allows for such an interpretation. James Jordan,
moreover, has connected Darius the Mede with Cyrus by chiasmus (The Handwriting on
the Wall, ch. 12: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=l25D1d4ub_0C&pg=PA675&lpg=PA67).
And I, previously,
had identified the great world-ruling “King Ahasuerus” of the Book of Esther
also with Darius the Mede of the Book of Daniel:
Taking away any
chronological impediment now opens the way for the prophet Jeremiah to be Zechariah.
It actually brings to completion the prophet Jeremiah who, appointed by God
(1:10) “over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to
destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant,” had so far (as Jeremiah)
seemingly done little by way of ‘building and planting’.
Moreover,
according to Jewish tradition, Zechariah was ‘possessed’ of the spirit of
Jeremiah (http://biblehub.com/topical/z/zechariah.htm): “[Zechariah]
leans avowedly on the authority of the older prophets, and copies their
expressions. Jeremiah especially seems to have been his favorite; and hence the
Jewish saying that "the spirit of Jeremiah dwelt in Zechariah”."
Again, both
Jeremiah (29:10) and Zechariah (1:12) refer to the “70 years” of punishment.
For those
interested in reading further on this, and how the genealogy of Zechariah may
tell us more about the origins of Jeremiah, see my:
A Case for Multi-identifying the Prophet Jeremiah
No comments:
Post a Comment