The genealogy in Matthew 1.1-17 has long triggered exegetical headaches:
Abraham Isaac Jacob Judah Perez Hezron Aram Amminadab Nahshon Salmon Boaz Obed Jesse David (14) | Solomon Rehoboam Abijah Asaph Jehoshaphat Joram Uzziah Jotham Ahaz Hezekiah Manasseh Amos Josiah Jechoniah (14) | Shealtiel Zerubbabel Abiud Eliakim Azor Zadok Achim Eliud Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph Jesus (13) |
The problem is ancient. Matthew tells us that there are 3 groups of 14 each; but 14 + 14 + 14 = 42, and Matthew lists only 41 names. What gives? As Raymond Brown famously asked, can Matthew count?
Carlson first observes the value of the number 14:
Then Carlson deftly summarizes and then argues against various hypotheses that involve Matthew simply miscounting (notice that Matthew himself never mentions the number 42!) or covertly pointing to missing generations in the genealogy (of which there are several), and then turns to hypotheses that involve doubling up on one of the names in order to get the three sets of fourteen. For example, here is an arrangement that doubles up on Jechoniah (the arrangement I used to prefer):
Abraham Isaac Jacob Judah Perez Hezron Aram Amminadab Nahshon Salmon Boaz Obed Jesse David (14) | Solomon Rehoboam Abijah Asaph Jehoshaphat Joram Uzziah Jotham Ahaz Hezekiah Manasseh Amos Josiah Jechoniah (14) | Jechoniah Shealtiel Zerubbabel Abiud Eliakim Azor Zadok Achim Eliud Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph Jesus (14) |
However, Carlson argues for the doubling up of David instead of Jechoniah, since that is how Matthew 1.17 is actually worded:
He also mentally positions the Babylonian exile in between Josiah and Jechoniah, thus doubling up on neither of the two:
Abraham Isaac Jacob Judah Perez Hezron Aram Amminadab Nahshon Salmon Boaz Obed Jesse David (14) | David Solomon Rehoboam Abijah Asaph Jehoshaphat Joram Uzziah Jotham Ahaz Hezekiah Manasseh Amos Josiah (14) | Jechoniah Shealtiel Zerubbabel Abiud Eliakim Azor Zadok Achim Eliud Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph Jesus (14) |
This is, I admit, now my preferred arrangement. It is faithful to the Matthean text, especially the wording of 1.17 (which names David twice). However, there is more to be said here.
Critics have long postulated that Matthew himself did not originally draft this genealogy. The evidence derives from several mismatches of genealogical content and the broader Matthean context:
- The genealogy has to be somewhat forced (content) into an arrangement that yields three sets of 14 (context). And the results, of course, have to double up on David between sets 1 and 2, but not on anyone between sets 2 and 3. It is assymetrical.
- The genealogy gives the patrilineal descent (content) of somebody whom Matthew asserts was born of a virgin (context).
- The genealogy makes passing mention of the brothers of Judah (verse 2), Perez (verse 3), and Jechoniah (verse 12). Why this interest in brothers? The more commonly noticed women who merit mention in the genealogy (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, the wife of Uriah, and Mary herself) would fit in with the overall Matthean theme of the virgin birth by noticing important or unusual feminine contributions to lineage; but the brothers are a mismatch, given that Matthew, following Mark, has let Jesus redefine what family is (Matthew 12.50) so as to exclude flesh and blood relationships. So the interest in brothers in the genealogy (content) probably predates the composition of the gospel of Matthew (context).
Abraham Isaac Jacob Judah Perez Hezron Aram Amminadab Nahshon Salmon Boaz Obed Jesse David (14) | David Solomon Rehoboam Abijah Asaph Jehoshaphat Joram Uzziah Jotham Ahaz Hezekiah Manasseh Amos Josiah (14) | Josiah Jechoniah Shealtiel Zerubbabel Abiud Eliakim Azor Zadok Achim Eliud Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph (14) |
Notice that there are now 40 generations in total from Abraham to Joseph, counting inclusively: 40, with all its heavy scriptural symbolism. Notice also that both David (the messianic king par excellence) and Josiah (the last good king) are doubled up. This is a royal lineage, to be sure.
It is here that Carlson proposes something, however, that I do not follow:
While the genealogical mention of various brothers might well be read as a reminder that royal lines can sometimes be diverted fraternally, my issue with the specific point that Carlson makes here is that the same 40-generation genealogy which mentions those brothers also ends at Joseph. In other words, the various brothers, to his mind, are apparently mentioned in order to justify the Davidic lineage of men whose brother (Jesus) does not even appear in the genealogy!
I think a better solution presents itself. Eusebius notes in History of the Church 3.11.1-2 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm):
I submit that, if anybody can lay claim to being the brother whose line the genealogy was meant to justify, Clopas is he. The original genealogy, with its fraternal emphases and its termination at Joseph, does a much better job of explaining how Symeon, son of Clopas, came to replace James as leader of the church in Jerusalem than it does of justifying the lines of the putative brothers of Jesus. The brothers at issue are those of the last name on the list: Joseph.
Ben.