The γένεσις of
Jesus Christ
The first sentence of Matthew’s Gospel exhibits textual self-
consciousness and competitive textualization. Both matters are clear when Matt
1:1 is viewed alongside Mark 1:1.
Mark 1:1: ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγέλιου ‘Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ”
Matt 1:1: βίβλος γενέσεως ‘Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
“The book of the beginning/ origin of Jesus Christ”
Matthew makes two alterations to Mark’s incipit. First, he
exchanges Mark’s reference to the εὐαγγέλιον with a reference to his βίβλος:
instead of Mark’s “the beginning of the gospel,” we have Matthew’s “book of the
beginning.” Second, Matt 1:1 uses γένεσις for “beginning” (or “origin”) instead
of Mark 1:1’s ἀρχή (cf. John 1:1). Although still an allusion to Genesis, the
Matthean phrase is likely drawing upon Gen 2:4 and 5:1 LXX, where the phrase
βίβλος γενέσεως also occurs. Since Matthew’s Gospel includes a genealogy of
Jesus in Matt 1:2– 17, some scholars argue that Matt 1:1 functions as a formal
introduction only to the genealogy of Matt 1:2– 17 or only the birth narrative in
Matt 1– 2, and thus that βίβλος γενέσεως should be translated as “a record of
the genealogy” or “an account of the origin,” even while admitting that the phrase
literally means “book of the genesis” or “book of the origin.”
One can rather easily
dismiss the idea that Matt 1:1 clearly introduces only the genealogy of Matt
1:2– 17. Genesis 5:1 LXX indicates that βίβλος γενέσεως can refer to a listing
of lineage, but Gen 2:4 LXX shows equally that it does not necessarily have to,
since it here refers to an account of origins that does not include a family
lineage. Furthermore, although one can read Matt 1:18— “The beginning (γένεσις)
of Jesus Christ was thus”— as a closing to the preceding sense unit or as a
seamless transition between the genealogy and subsequent narrative, it was
often taken as an introduction to the following sense unit, in which case the
γένεσις of Jesus includes what occurs subsequently in the narrative. Fourth-century Sinaiticus (א) and fifth- century Vaticanus (B) both present this
reading by placing Matt 1:18 in a sense unit with Matt 1:19, separated from the
close of the genealogy of Matt 1:17. Whatever Matthew means by Jesus’s γένεσις,
it is not clear that scholars should restrict it to Jesus’s lineage.
Due to the flexibility
of the phrase and the narrative connection between Matt 1:1 and 1:18, it may be
that Matt 1:1 has in its immediate purview the wider birth narrative of Matt
1:1– 2:23. Without denying this possibility, there are several reasons that
scholars nevertheless should not limit the purview of Matt 1:1’s βίβλος
γενέσεως to Matt 1:1– 2:23. First, and perhaps to state the obvious, there is
no known evidence that the incipit (Matt 1:1), genealogy (Matt 1:1– 17), or
Matthean infancy narrative (Matt 1:18– 2:23) ever circulated without the rest
of the Gospel.
Second, interpreting
βίβλος γενέσεως as “a record of the genealogy” or “an account of the origin”
misses a larger connection that Matthew is likely making with inherited Jewish
tradition. As has been already observed, the phrase βίβλος γενέσεως occurs
already in Gen 2:4 and 5:1 LXX. It is highly unlikely that Matthew is unaware
of these texts. Two- thirds of the other firstcentury Jesus books also begin
their narratives with allusions to Genesis. The author of Mark’s Gospel and the
author John’s Gospel open their accounts of Jesus with ἀρχή and ἐν ἀρχῇ,
respectively, the latter of which is a verbatim citation of Gen 1:1 LXX.
Furthermore, as Davies and Allison observe, “Genesis was a βίβλος, and its name
was Γένεσις.” They follow this observation to its logical conclusion: “One is
therefore led to ask whether the introductory use of βίβλος γενέσεως would not
have caused Matthew’s readers to think of the Torah’s first book and to
anticipate that some sort of ‘new genesis,’ a genesis of Jesus Christ, would
follow. It is difficult to think otherwise.” I am in agreement, and in the very
least it is clear that Matthew is following Mark’s practice of opening his
Jesus book with an allusion to Genesis. If βίβλος γενέσεως is a purposeful
allusion to the Book of Genesis as the first book of Torah, the phrase’s
hermeneutical significance extends far beyond referring only to Jesus’s
genealogy— the author is claiming that with Jesus a new creation or “origin”
begins, but one that should be thought of in connection to the origin story in
the book of Genesis. More important, this reference is an instance of soft
competitive textuality— Matthew’s Gospel is parasitically relying upon the
authority of Genesis and Torah to undergird its presentation of a written
narrative about Jesus.
These observations
gain even more force if the narrative structure of the five major discourses in
Matthew’s Gospel (cf. the formulae at 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1) mimics the
five books of Torah. If that is the case, which is far from certain but also
not impossible, Matthew’s Gospel would be presenting itself even more
thoroughly as a new Torah, perhaps even a rival to Torah. The concept of a new
or updated Torah is not entirely out of place within the narrative of Matthew’s
Gospel, which presents Jesus’s “antitheses” on Torah (5:17– 48), placing him on
the mountain while giving them, like Moses when he received the law (Matt 5:1;
8:1; cf. Exod 19:3– 25; 24:1– 18; 31:18; 32:15; 34:2– 29). Since Jesus is the
new Moses for Matthew’s Gospel, does the author intend to suggest that the
Gospel’s narrative itself contains the new law, beginning with the βίβλος
γενέσεως? Regardless of how one answers that question, the likelihood of
Matthew drawing upon the symbolic significance of Torah, and Genesis as its
first scroll, at Matt 1:1 remains. (Chris Keith, The Gospel as Manuscript:
An Early History of the Jesus Tradition as Material Artifact [Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2020], 115-18)