Matthew 1:6

“`html

body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; max-width: 900px; margin: 2em auto; padding: 0 1em; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 2em; }
h3 { margin-top: 1.5em; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #eee; margin: 1.5em 0; padding-left: 1em; color: #555; font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
b.greek-text { font-family: ‘Gentium Basic’, ‘Palatino Linotype’, serif; font-size: 1.1em; }
i { font-style: italic; }

An Exegetical Analysis of Matthean Genealogy: The Anaphoric Article in Matthew 1:6

This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of Matthean Genealogy: The Anaphoric Article in Matthew 1:6 is based on a b-greek discussion from Tuesday, January 25, 2011. Regarding a prior discussion, a query is raised concerning the grammatical form γυνῆς in contrast to γυνή, and whether a lexical distinction exists between the two, particularly concerning a spousal implication. The question also explores whether such a word can be implicitly understood in common Greek writing or if its absence might indicate a textual transmission issue.

The main exegetical issue at hand pertains to the grammatical construction in Matthew 1:6, specifically the phrase ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου, which presents an anaphoric article without an explicitly stated noun. This challenges the translator and interpreter to determine the precise meaning and rhetorical intent behind this elliptical expression. While the context strongly implies “wife” or “woman,” the absence of the explicit noun raises questions about Greek idiomatic usage, potential textual variants, and the theological implications of referring to a key figure in salvation history indirectly, emphasizing the marital status with Uriah rather than the individual’s proper name (Bathsheba).

Ἰεσσαὶ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Δαυὶδ τὸν βασιλέα. Δαυὶδ δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐγέννησεν τὸν Σολομῶντα ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου.

— Nestle 1904, Matthew 1:6

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• There are no significant textual differences in the critical phrase ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου between Nestle 1904 and the SBLGNT (2010). Both texts consistently present the definite article τῆς followed by the genitive proper noun phrase τοῦ Οὐρίου without an explicit noun for “wife” or “woman.” This indicates that the elliptical construction is the universally accepted reading.

Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

The Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) also reads ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου, confirming the stability of this reading across major critical editions. The textual apparatus for Matthew 1:6 does not indicate any significant variants that would supply an explicit noun like γυναικός or μητρός in this position. This solidifies the understanding that the elliptical construction is the original and intended reading.

Lexically, the discussion surrounding γυνῆς (genitive singular of γυνή) and γυνή (nominative singular) relates to the choice of form, not a distinct lexical entry. According to BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature), γυνή (woman, wife) carries a semantic range that broadly includes “female human being” and more specifically “a wife (in relation to her husband).” In the context of Matthew’s genealogy, where maternal lineage is often noted, and given the possessive genitive τοῦ Οὐρίου, the implication of “wife” is paramount. KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, TDNT) reinforces that γυνή, especially when coupled with a possessive, frequently denotes a marital relationship, thus affirming the common understanding of “Uriah’s wife” as the implied referent. There is no independent lexical entry for γυνῆς; it is simply the genitive case form of γυνή, necessary for grammatical agreement in phrases such as “of a woman” or “a woman’s (possession).”

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The phrase ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου is a classic example of the substantivized article in Greek, where the definite article τῆς (feminine genitive singular) functions to refer to an implied or previously mentioned noun, or to denote a person or thing characterized by the accompanying genitive. Here, τῆς points to a feminine individual, and τοῦ Οὐρίου specifies her relationship as “of Uriah.” Grammatically, it functions as a possessive, indicating “the one belonging to Uriah.” The context of a genealogy, explicitly listing mothers (or in one case, a non-biological mother, as with Joseph and Mary), overwhelmingly points to “wife” or “woman” as the implied noun.

Rhetorically, the omission of the proper name Bathsheba and the indirect reference through “Uriah’s wife” is highly significant. It serves several purposes:

• Emphasis on Circumstance: It highlights the contentious and scandalous circumstances surrounding David’s union with Bathsheba, drawing attention to her prior marital status and Uriah’s death. This aligns with Matthew’s pattern of including four women in the genealogy (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and “Uriah’s wife”) who are often associated with irregular unions or non-Israelite origins, subtly foreshadowing the inclusion of Gentiles in Christ’s lineage.
• Conciseness: The construction is a concise and idiomatic way in Greek to refer to a person defined by their relationship to another, without needing to explicitly state the noun.
• Theological Nuance: By presenting her as “the one of Uriah,” Matthew maintains a certain narrative tension and perhaps even a hint of judgment or memory of the sin, while simultaneously showing how God works through imperfect human situations in the unfolding of salvation history.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The phrase ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου in Matthew 1:6 is a stable textual reading in Greek, consistently lacking an explicit noun for “wife” or “woman.” The anaphoric use of the definite article τῆς with the genitive τοῦ Οὐρίου clearly implies “the wife of Uriah” within the genealogical context. The absence of the explicit noun, including Bathsheba’s name, serves a significant rhetorical and theological function, drawing attention to the circumstances of her relationship with David rather than her identity as an individual. Therefore, any translation must convey this implicit meaning while considering the rhetorical impact.

Based on this analysis, the following translation suggestions are offered:

1. “David the king became the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah.”
   This translation is direct and common, explicitly supplying “wife” as the implied noun, which is the most natural and accurate English rendering.
2. “David the king became the father of Solomon by Uriah’s wife.”
   This phrasing maintains the possessive relationship more concisely, similar to the Greek genitive construction, while still clarifying the implied noun “wife.”
3. “David the king became the father of Solomon from her who had been Uriah’s.”
   This option is slightly more literal in reflecting the substantivized article “τῆς” (“the one, the female”) followed by the possessive genitive, and subtly hints at her previous marital status without explicitly naming her.

“`