1. 1-17: Genealogies: Endless are the discussions on how to reconcile the genealogy in Matthew with that in Luke. It has been suggested that Luke gives the line for Our Lady - but that was not usual at all for Jews to give. It has been suggested that if we assume a few levirate marriages (cf. Dt. 25:5-6) the two could harmonize. That law provided that if a married man died without offspring, his brother should take his wife to continue the line.

But really we need to note that in ancient times genealogies were not always intended as family trees: they were often constructed to present other relationships. Cf. R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (Yale, 1977, esp. p. 166) and idem, in Biblical Archaeologist, Winter 19, pp. 11-22.

1:18-24: Angel speaks to Joseph: After the engagement, but before the marriage itself, Joseph found that his wife was with child. He had several options: he could denounce her to the tribunal to annul the engagement; he could keep her and celebrate the marriage itself; he could repudiate her in public, but without asking for any punishment, or he could do it privately before two witnesses without having to give a motive, and without dating the bill of rejection, to save her honor. It is this last option that Joseph was planning to use, for he was "just", that is, a man who did everything that was morally right- such is the sense of Hebrew sedaqah and sadiq. He was interiorly convinced of her honor and moral rightness even though he could not reconcile that with the pregnancy. If he did not have that conviction he might have publicly repudiated her. But in divine matters at times we meet two conclusions which clearly clash. Then we should hold to both without straining either one until finally, we hope, a solution may appear.

It is obvious that she had not told Joseph of the annunciation. As soon as the angel told her that her Son would reign over the house of Jacob forever, she at once knew He was to be the Messiah, for only the Messiah was to reign forever. (She most likely knew also of His divinity - more on that in our commentary on Luke).

An ordinary soul might have reasoned: "Now my people have been waiting for this day for centuries. I should share the joy with them, and especially I should tell the authorities in Jerusalem. And Joseph- if I do not tell him, soon he will not be able to avoid dark suspicions. Yet guided by the Holy Spirit through the Gifts, she did nothing of the kind. She kept silent, so silent that it was necessary for God to send an angel to tell Joseph the truth.

An objection is raised: In Matthew, the angel speaks to Joseph, in Luke, to Our Lady. Reply: This is not problem at all, both things could easily happen.

Further objection: How can the two accounts, of Matthew and of Luke, be reconciled? John P. Meier, in A Marginal Jew [Jesus!] p. 216 even speaks of "the somewhat contorted or suspect ways in which Matthew and Luke reconcile the dominant Nazareth tradition with the special Bethlehem tradition... may indicate that Jesus' birth at Bethlehem is to be taken not as a historical fact but as a theologoumenon," that is, merely a way of saying Jesus was son of David.

Reply: There is nothing contorted in Scripture. The sequence is this: Jesus was born at Bethlehem - Meier thinks nothing of the prophecy of Micah 5! He was then circumcised on the 8th day, presented in the Temple of the 40th day. Then He was taken either back to Bethlehem, or, to Nazareth. Lk 2:39 could imply a return to Nazareth, though it would not have to imply it. Yet from Mt 2:22 on the return from Egypt it seems they had first thought of going to Bethlehem, changed mind only because of the rule of Archelaus in Judea. and then went back to Bethlehem. In this second possibility the Holy Family may have finally intended to settle in Bethlehem, but changed because of the angel's warning to the Magi. There was definitely enough time for these travels, because Herod ordered infants to be slain up to 2 years of age. He was a crazy tyrant, and gave himself a margin, yet it does mean there must have been some time. Matthew does definitely speak of their being in a house, not a stable, when the Magi came. For as we said there would have been some time before their coming. At once then, after the warning, they fled to Egypt. As noted above, Mt 2:22 seems to imply on their return they had planned to settle in Bethlehem, changed to Nazareth because they found Archelaus was reigning in Judea. This fact fits as we said with the supposition that they had earlier intended to settle in Bethlehem - and Joseph had obtained a house there, in which the Magi found them.

If we ask why Matthew has some facts, Luke others, there is more than one possibility. One very good one is this: Ancient witnesses all put Matthew's composition before that of Luke (cf. our remarks in the general introduction on Marcan alleged priority). Considering Our Lady's remarkable modesty and humility - which led her to not even tell Joseph - it could be that the author of Matthew did indeed speak to her, but she modestly omitted the items that pertained to her. Yet later, Luke might have privately induced her to speak, and so he brought out the Marian elements. Luke might have thought it not needed to record the Matthean elements since they were already known. (Cf. the theory that John in his Gospel intended to supplement the earlier Gospels). We recall too that Luke in his opening lines said he had used written accounts - that could have included Matthew.

1:23: Matthew cites Isaiah 7:14, and understands it of the virginal conception. Vatican II in LG §55, as cited above, was careful to avoid saying that the human writers of Gen 3:15 and Is 7:14 understood as much as the Church now sees. So we do not know if Isaiah himself saw this text as a prophecy of the virginal conception. All admit today that the child in 7:14 is the same as the child in Is 9:5-6: "A child is given to us... his name will be called, wonderful counsellor, Mighty God...." The reason is that both passages belong to a stretch we call the Book of Immanuel. Yet the characteristics shown fit partly Jesus, partly Hezekiah, son of Achaz, to whom Isaiah spoke. On the one hand, a sign to come more than 700 years in the future would not be much a sign for Achaz. On the other hand, the characteristics given in 9:5-6 are much too grandiose for Hezekiah. So we had best see 7:14 as a case of multiple fulfillment: a divine prophecy can go through, be fulfilled more than once.

So Matthew is right in seeing it fulfilled in Jesus. And of course Our Lady, seeing it fulfilled in herself, could not miss the true sense.

We add: very much help can be had from the Targums. These are old Aramaic versions of the Old Testament - we have them for nearly all the Old Testament. They surely show how the Jews understood the prophecies, without seeing them fulfilled in Christ, whom they hated. Further, a great modern Jewish scholar, Jacob Neusner, in his study, Messiah in Context (Fortress, 1984) reviewed all Jewish writings from after 70 to the Babylonian Talmud (500-600 AD). He found no interest in the Messiah up to 500, then interest only in saying He was to be of the line of David - other features of the prophecies were not mentioned. In contrast, the Targums see the Messiah in so many texts, in so many respects. On this cf. Samson Levey, The Messiah:An Aramaic Interpretation, Hebrew Union College, 1974. It is evident, the sections on Messianic prophecies had to be written before 70 A.D. Some think they go back, in oral form, to the time of Ezra.

Now oddly, the Targums do say 9:5-6 is messianic, but do not say it of 7:14 - even though it is evident the child is the same in both places. The answer to the riddle comes again from Jacob Neusner, op. cit. p. 174, who cites Hillel, one of the greatest teachers at the time of Christ, saying that Hezekiah had been the Messiah - and so 7:14 was messianic. But Neusner adds, on p. 190, that when the Jews found Christians using 7:14 they began to say it was not messianic. Samson Levey, op. cit. p. 152, n. 10 admits the Jews did such things. So also does H. J. Schoeps, Paul (Westminster, 1961, p. 129). (We note too, Isaiah used Hebrew almah, which can readily mean virgin, but need not - instead of betulah, which would be fully clear. The Septuagint later used Greek parthenos, which is clearly virgin. Vatican II, LG §55, as we said, carefully avoided saying the original authors of Gen 3:15 and Is 7:14 saw in their writings all that the Church now sees - hence a reason for almah.

In 1:25 Joseph had no relations until she bore her son. The actual Scriptural usage of the word until sometimes means a change at that point, at other times does not. Examples of the latter: DT. 34:6; Ps. 110:1; Ps. 72:7; 2 Sam 6:23; Mt 11:23; Mt 28:20. Some manuscripts here add the word firstborn , probably taken from Lk 2:7. It expresses the special position of the bekor in the Hebrew family, does not have to imply more sons later. A Greek tomb inscription at Tel el Yaoudieh (Biblica 11, 1930, 369-90) uses that word in connection of a mother who died in childbirth. Another epitaph like this is from Leontopolis (Biblical Archaeology Review, Sept/Oct. 1992, p. 56.

Further, even J. P. Meier (op. cit. pp. 340-41) admits that the rabbis beginning with Philo, held that Moses, after his first encounter with God, no longer had sex with his wife. What then of Our Lady who had a nine months encounter with Him in her womb, in which He even took flesh from her! And Joseph, knowing the conception was by the Holy Spirit, surely would have had the same attitude.

As to the mentions of brothers and sisters of Jesus we first notice that Hebrew and Aramaic had few words for relationships, and so used ah for all sorts of relatives. Yes, Greek did have words, but in so many places to understand the Greek we need to look to the Hebrew word that is in the mind of the writer, e.g., in Rom (9:13 Paul cites Mal 1:2-3:"I have loved Jacob and hated Esau." Hebrew and Aramaic had no degrees of comparison, and so used such language where we would say: "I love one more and the other less." Again, in 1 Cor 1:17 Paul says "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach". Yet Paul did baptize. We would say: One role is greater than the other. Also, in Rom 5:19 Paul uses the word polloi, "many" for all, since all receive original sin. (Polloi reflects Hebrew rabbim).

Further at the time of His death, Jesus asked John to take care of His Mother. If He had 4 blood brothers and some sisters, this would have been out of place. More specifically, we know that James, a "brother" was still alive in 49 AD (cf. Gal 1:19).