The Gospel According to Matthew is traditionally
believed to have been first penned, written down, after 70AD after the Temple
was destroyed. However, the destruction of the Temple is not portrayed in such
a way as to reflect a recent great catastrophe for the Jews. From an online article, “In the late 19th century,
Charles B. Huleatt, an Egyptologist, got his hands on three small fragments of
papyrus that were dug up in Upper Egypt and gave them to his former college,
Magdalen College, Oxford, in 1901.
These three segments contain the Greek text of
Matthew's Gospel, Chapter 26, verses 23 and 31. There are a total of 24 lines,
text on both sides. (This implies that they were part of a codex-a book with
pages rather than a traditional scroll, which was written on the smooth side
only. These were beginning to make their appearance during the Gospel period.
In his final letter, Paul requested Timothy to bring his books to him. See
2Timothy 4:13)
In 1953, Colin H. Roberts, a notable British papyrologist,
declared that these papyrus fragments were probably from the late second
century A.D. It would be 40 years later that advanced technology would reveal
that these three small fragments are apparently the oldest New Testament
manuscripts in existence, contemporaneous with the Apostles themselves and
other eye witnesses!
In 1994, Dr. Carsten Peter Thiede, Director of the
Institute of Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany, used a
scanning laser microscope to more carefully examine these fragments,
"P.Magdalen Greek 17/P64," as they are formally designated.
A scanning laser microscope can now differentiate
between the twenty micrometer (millionth of a meter) layers of papyrus,
measuring the height and depth of the ink, and can even determine the angle of
the stylus used by the scribe. Dr. Thiede compared the fragments with four
other known references: a manuscript from Qumran, dated to 58 A.D.; one from
the Herculaneum, dated prior to 79 A.D.; one from Masada, dated between 73-74
A.D.; and one from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus, dated 65-66 A.D. He
astounded the scholastic world by concluding that the Magdalen fragments were
either an original from Matthew's Gospel, or an immediate copy, written while
Matthew and the other disciples and other eye witnesses were still alive!
Matthew's skills in shorthand (an essential requirement for a customs official
in a society devoid of printing, copiers, and the like) are evident in his
inclusion of the extensive discourses, which he apparently was able to
record verbatim!”[1]
This makes, if
correct, Matthew as the oldest written manuscript of the Bible, although that
conclusion is only based on the idea of it being the oldest simply because we
have a copy of it that is the oldest which makes no sense. We cannot know if
there were earlier gospels written down such as Luke because we don’t have the
originals. Think about it. The oldest copy we have of the Iliad, the epic Greek
poem, is from around 900AD but we know it wasn’t first put to paper then because
it is referred to before that back to antiquity. Alexander the Great even slept
with a copy under his pillow.
I would refer you to Thiede’s book Eyewitness to
Jesus—Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About the Origin of the Gospels.
So to say something is a certain date because the
oldest copy we have of it is then is rather arrogant and short sighted when the
likelihood is that it was written not long after events took place, perhaps in
the late 30s or early 40s AD. We just don’t have a copy that old.
Matthew
was first written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek according to an old
introduction to the Bishop's Bible reported by J.R. Dore. (J.R. Dore, Old
Bibles, An Account of the Early Versions of the English Bible, 1888)
The
New Testament was translated into Syriac and Latin almost as soon as it was
first penned. Some copyists made copies in mulitple languages at the same time
In other words the New Testament was written in Latin and Syriac almost as
early as it was written in Greek. (H.C. Hoskier, Concerning the Genesis of
the Versions of the New Testament, 1910)
Matthew is often called
a distinctly Jewish book. Sometimes that is a legitimate appraisal and other
times it is an excuse to keep a Christian from viewing the importance and
validity of Jesus’ statements to our present-day world. You’ll see what I mean
briefly. I also intend to compare Matthew to the other gospels. Modernists
insist that one gospel copies from another which, to me, is a blasphemy. Only
Luke purports to have read eyewitness accounts and talked to those living at
the time of events happening so only Luke, as an historian, can be said to have
“copied” if you want to use that word. Those same modernists will say that an
Old Testament prophecy was written after events because they don’t believe God
could give a prophet a foretelling of the future.
There is no reason to
believe that Matthew’s work was not original.
The Gospel
According to Matthew
Matthew,
chapter 1
Matthew 1:1 ¶ The book of
the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob;
and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3
And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and
Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat
Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz
begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6
And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that
had been the wife of Urias; 7 And
Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat
Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And
Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses
begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11
And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were
carried away to Babylon: 12 And after
they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat
Zorobabel; 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud;
and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim;
and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud
begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat
Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are
fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are
fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are
fourteen generations.
Compare 1:1 with the following book of genealogy.
Genesis 5:1 This is the
book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the
likeness of God made he him;
Now, look at Luke’s genealogy in chapter 3 of that gospel going
backwards from Jesus through Joseph. It is commonly noted that Luke’s genealogy
starts with Mary and Joseph, as the text says, was presumed to be Jesus father
in the sense of the world. Her genealogy goes backwards all the way to Adam
connecting Christ with Adam as the Saviour of all mankind. Matthew’s genealogy
would then be Joseph’s genealogy, from Abraham, the first Hebrew, to Joseph
connecting Jesus under the Law as the Saviour of the Jewish people
specifically. Think of Joseph adopting Jesus as his son with full rights of
being a legal heir which would give this perfect meaning. Both Joseph and Mary
come from the line of David but through a different son of David; Mary through
Nathan and Joseph through Solomon.
Jesus is called the son of David. The son of David denotes that
Jesus, in the flesh, is a descendant of David and then it says son of Abraham
as David and Jesus are also descendants of Abraham in the flesh. The lowercase
“s” indicates a descendant.
In verse 2 Judas is of a particular note because it is the
transliteration of the Greek version of the Hebrew name, Judah. But Judas here
refers to Judah, which we know by our knowledge of the genealogy presented in
Genesis. It is just plain, common sense.
How does Luke have it? In Luke 3:33 it is written as Juda. I have
noted in my comments on the Old Testament that the KJV translators were
sensitive to variations in spelling in both Hebrew and Greek. I point you to,
as an example, Nebuchadnezzar and Nebuchadrezzar. As each verse was reviewed by
all of the committees after being included in each committees translating
assignment it has been said that each verse of the Bible was reviewed a total
of fourteen times at least. I am sure if they wanted to they could have made
all spellings match but all of the committees agreed on these variations as
being faithful to the documents they used.
Matthew 1:3 takes us back to Judah’s affair with his
daughter-in-law thinking she was a prostitute. See Genesis 38. Then, we come to
the characters discussed in the book of Ruth.
In verse 6 it goes through David to Solomon then Rehoboam,
transliterated here as Roboam. Luke 3:31 going the other way has
Christ’s lineage in human terms coming through Nathan not Solomon in Luke 3:31.
The two lines of descent part here.
We know Solomon was the son of David and Bathsheba. Nathan,
according to many commentators is another son of David and Bathsheba. There are
a lot of reasons given why these lines diverge and a lot of speculation from
many different commentators with authority.
In verse 7 we have Abia and Asa. This Abia could not have been
from whom Zacharias, John the Baptist’s father, came through because this Abia
was not of the sons of Levi but from Judah, his brother.
Luke 1:5 There was in the
days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the
course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was
Elisabeth.
This Abia is mentioned previously;
1Chronicles 3:10 And
Solomon’s son was Rehoboam, Abia his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son,
Jesus was not a Levite but came through Judah on both sides of his
family, his physical mother and his stepfather.
You can read about King Asa in 1Kings 15. Ozias is a
transliteration from the Greek for the Hebrew Uzziah who you can read about in
2Chronicles 26.
Joatham in verse 9 is Jotham, Uzziah’s son, as per 2Chronicles 26:23. Achaz, Ezekias, and Manasses are Ahaz,
Hezekiah, and Manasseh.
1Chronicles 3:13 Ahaz
his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son,
Salathiel’s mention presents a problem for many. The differences
between the genealogies have been handled very well by many commentators. I’m
going to quote one directly.
One of the
charges of contradiction brought by skeptics against the Bible is the surface
appearance of contradiction between Matthew’s genealogical list (1:1-17) and
the one provided by Luke (3:23-38). As is always the case, the charge of
contradiction is premature and reflects an immature appraisal of the extant
evidence. In every case of alleged contradiction, further investigation has
yielded additional evidence that exonerates the Bible and further verifies its
inerrancy. The alleged discrepancies pertaining to Matthew and Luke’s
genealogies were explained and answered long ago (e.g., Haley, 1977, pp.
325-326; McGarvey, 1910, pp. 344-346; McGarvey, 1974, pp. 51-55; cf. Lyons,
2003).
When one
places the two genealogical lists side by side, several factors become
immediately apparent that combine to dispel the appearance of conflict.
First,
Matthew reported the lineage of Christ only back to Abraham; Luke traced it all
the way back to Adam. Second, Matthew used the expression “begat;” Luke used
the expression “son of,” which results in his list being a complete reversal of
Matthew’s. Third, the two genealogical lines parallel each other from Abraham
to David. Fourth, beginning with David, Matthew traced the paternal line
of descent through Solomon; Luke traced the maternal line
through Solomon’s brother, Nathan.
A fifth
factor that must be recognized is that the two lines (paternal and maternal)
link together in the intermarriage of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. But the linkage
separates again in the two sons of Zerubbabel—Rhesa and Abiud. Sixth, the two
lines come together once again for a final time in the marriage of Joseph and
Mary. Joseph was the end of the paternal line, while Mary was
the last of the maternal line as the daughter of Heli.
The reason
Joseph is said to be the “son” of Heli (Mary’s father) brings forth a seventh
consideration: the Jewish use of “son.” Hebrews used the word in at least five
distinct senses: (1) in the sense used today of a one-generation offspring; (2)
in the sense of a descendant, whether a grandson or a more remote descendant
many generations previous, e.g., Matthew 1:1; 21:9; 22:42 (“begat” had this
same flexibility in application); (3) as a son-in-law (the Jews had no word to
express this concept and so just used “son”—e.g., 1 Samuel 24:16; 26:17); (4)
in accordance with the Levirate marriage law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; cf. Matthew
22:24-26), a deceased man would have a son through a surrogate father who
legally married the deceased man’s widow (e.g., Ruth 2:20; 3:9,12; 4:3-5); and
(5) in the sense of a step-son who took on the legal status of his step-father—the
relationship sustained by Jesus to Joseph (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 3:23;
4:22; John 6:42).
Notice
carefully that Joseph was a direct-line, blood descendant of David and,
therefore, of David’s throne. Here is the precise purpose of Matthew’s genealogy:
it demonstrated Jesus’ legal right to inherit the throne of
David—a necessary prerequisite to authenticating His Messianic claim. However,
an equally critical credential was His blood/physical descent from
David—a point that could not be established through Joseph since “after His
mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found
with child of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18, emp. added). This
feature of Christ’s Messiahship was established through His mother Mary, who
was also a blood descendant of David (Luke 1:30-32). Both the blood of David
and the throne of David were necessary variables to qualify and authenticate
Jesus as the Messiah.
Once again,
the Bible’s intricate complexities shine forth to dispel the critic’s accusations,
while simultaneously demonstrating its own infallible representations. The more
one delves into its intricacies and plummets its intriguing depths, the more
one is driven to the inescapable conclusion that the Bible is, indeed, the Book
of books—the inspired Word of God.
REFERENCES
Haley, John
W. (1977), Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker).
Lyons, Eric
(2003), The Anvil Rings (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
McGarvey,
J.W. (1910), Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McGarvey,
J.W. (1974 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN:
Gospel Advocate).[2]
While Paul warns against being bogged down by genealogies…
1Timother 1:4 Neither give
heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than
godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish
questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for
they are unprofitable and vain.
…we must understand that genealogies were not, in the ancient
world, a hobby or a diversion but were designed to establish a pedigree, an
authority. As such they might serve different purposes. The Holy Spirit is
giving us something here to point out Jesus as fully man and fully God, the Son
of man and the Son of God. Read both Genealogies.
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself
began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of
Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the
son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of
Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the
son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26
Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was
the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the
son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel,
which was the son of Neri, 28 Which was
the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which
was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son
of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was
the son of Levi, 30 Which was the son of
Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the
son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31
Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the
son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son
of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the
son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of
Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the
son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34
Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the
son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of
Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the
son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36
Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was
the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the
son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which
was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the
son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was
the son of God.
Verse 16 makes several very important statements.
16 And Jacob begat Joseph
the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
First, Joseph was the husband of Mary but not the Father of Jesus.
We have this verse in Luke.
Luke 2:33 And Joseph and
his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Mary would confront Jesus when His hanging back at the temple to
talk with the doctors of the Law.
Luke 2:48 And when they saw
him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus
dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
And He would reply;
Luke 2:49 And he said unto
them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s
(that’s uppercase F for God) business?
It is very clear the Holy Spirit does not say Joseph is Jesus’
father and Jesus makes it clear who His Father is.
Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, and said so.
John 4:25 The woman saith
unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come,
he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus
saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
[1] Chuck Missler, Koinonia House,
“The Magdalen Papyrus: Astonishing Rediscovery,” https://khouse.org/articles/2001/333/ (01 Apr 2001).
[2] Dave Miller, PhD, “The Genealogies
of Matthew and Luke,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/the-genealogies-of-matthew-and-luke-932/ (December 31, 2002).
No comments:
Post a Comment