<\/p>
Dale Allison argues that Matthew\u2019s opening words, BIBLOS GENESEOS, should be translated as \u201cBook of the Genesis,\u201d a translation ambiguous enough to capture all that Matthew intended \u2013 an allusion to the first book of the Bible, a new creation theme, an introduction to the genealogy or birth story, etc. GENESIS was, he argues, established as the title of the first book of the Bible by Matthew\u2019s time. He suggests that Matthew 1:1 is a title: \u201cBook of the New Genesis of Jesus Christ . . . .\u201d <\/p>\n
He and WD Davies also note (in their jointly authored ICC volume) how the phrase is used in the LXX of Genesis 2:4 and 5:1. There, the phrase does not, as in Matthew 1:1, introduce a genealogy; rather, BIBLOS GENESEOS in Genesis 5:1 introduces a list of descendants <\/em> and in 2:4 does not (on their reading) introduce any sort of ancestry or genealogy at all. <\/p>\n Let\u2019s assume, though, that Matthew meant to draw a very direct link between his use of the phrase and that of Genesis 2:4 and 5:1. What would that mean? <\/p>\n If this is correct, and if Matthew is using the phrase in the same sense, then Jesus is being presented not only as the descendant of those named (though he is that, 1:16) but also as the progenitor of those listed. Israel\u2019s history is initiated by Jesus, even as it also climaxes in Jesus. He is the Alpha and the Omega of this genealogy, the first Man and the Last Man, the beginning Israelite and the final Israelite. This is neatly captured by the chiastic structure of Matthew\u2019s genealogy \u2013 moving from Jesus-David-Abraham [v. 1] and then through Abraham [v. 2]-David [v. 6]-Jesus [v. 16]. <\/p>\n Jesus is the heavens-and-earth that generates a new world, a new Adamic race, a new Bride; Jesus is the Adam who gives birth to a race of true Sethites. <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dale Allison argues that Matthew\u2019s opening words, BIBLOS GENESEOS, should be translated as \u201cBook of the Genesis,\u201d a translation ambiguous enough to capture all that Matthew intended \u2013 an allusion to the first book of the Bible, a new creation theme, an introduction to the genealogy or birth story, etc. GENESIS was, he argues, established […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2930","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bible-nt-matthew"],"yoast_head":"\n
First, I think it likely that the phrase in Genesis 2:4 does in fact introduce a series of \u201cgenerations.\u201d This is the use of the similar phrases throughout Genesis. 10:1, for instance, introduces the \u201cgenerations of Shem, Ham, and Japheth,\u201d and then goes on to list those who are born from them, and the events generated by those generations. In 2:4, the \u201cheavens and earth\u201d are the \u201cparents\u201d who generate (though God\u2019s work) plants, mist, a garden, a man, etc. Adam\u2019s mother is the earth, as his father is the God of heaven; he is taken from the dust, and his Father breathes life into Him from heaven. Genesis 5:1 definitely introduces a list of those \u201cgenerated\u201d by Adam. Thus, in both places where Genesis uses the same phrase as Matthew, the text goes on to describe those things that come from the one named. <\/p>\n