Justin Martyr and the Genealogy of Mary

Writing in the first half of the third century, Julius Africanus is our earliest writer to raise the two genealogies of Jesus as a potential apologetic issue.1 But before Africanus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and apparently even Celsus all refer to the two genealogies, yet mention not a word about any conflict between them.

Thus, Origen takes Celsus to task for his failure to mention discrepancies between the genealogies that caused “some difficulty even to Christians.”2 Irenaeus mentions both genealogies by name, but makes no comment on their use of different ancestors.3 With Justin the citations are less clear, though, if we follow one plausible conjecture, he too apparently alludes to both genealogies without any comment on their differences.

Why were these early writers silent about any conflict between the two genealogies?

One possibility is that they believed one of the genealogies to belong to Mary. The obvious choice would have been Luke. While Matthew asserts that Jacob “begat” Joseph, Luke does not say specifically how Jesus was known as “the son of Joseph.”4

The problem is that none of these writers states explicitly that the Lukan genealogy belongs to Mary. Except perhaps Justin.

In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin is quite interested in Mary’s ancestry.

  • In 43.1 Justin writes of Jesus as “born of a virgin, of the family of Abraham and tribe of Judah, and of David.”5
  • In 45.4 Justin refers to “this virgin of the family of David.”6
  • In 100.3 Justin again refers to “the virgin … of the family of David, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham.”7

Of course, the biblical text never states that Mary belonged to the tribe of David. It is possible though that Justin inferred this from her betrothal to Joseph.

But did Justin have any more secure reason for his belief that Mary, like her husband, was of the tribe of David? Did Justin believe that he had access to Mary’s genealogy?

A Lukan Genealogy of Mary?

It is often thought that Justin alludes to the Lukan genealogy in Dialogue 100.3. In most editions, Justin refers here to a genealogy headed by Adam “from whom Mary derives her descent.” Presumably, this would refer to the Lukan genealogy.8 Thus:

“Jesus said then that he was the Son of man, either because of his birth by the virgin, who was … of the family of David, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham; or because Adam was the father both of himself and of those who have been first enumerated from whom Mary derives her descent.”9

Unfortunately though the word Adam is a conjecture. While this conjecture is popular among editors, our only surviving manuscripts have Abraham where most editors put Adam.10

Editors seem to prefer Adam because it makes better sense in the context.11 After all, it makes little sense to call Abraham the father of a list of patriarchs that includes himself. Moreover, since Justin is trying to explain why Jesus called himself Son of Man, it makes sense that he would refer to the first man in his argument.

So Adam is not a bad guess. But if this is Justin’s intention, in a context that also invokes the descent of Mary, in order to explain why Jesus called himself Son of Man, we have to wonder, did Justin regard the Lukan genealogy as the genealogy of Mary? Perhaps this is why he mentions no conflict between the genealogies.

Fathers of Daughters and their Sons

But Justin leaves us with one more clue. Almost as an afterthought, he adds:

“For we know that the fathers of women are the fathers likewise of those children whom their daughters bear.”12

Is Justin calling Mary’s child the child of Mary’s father? Is Justin connecting Jesus to Luke’s genealogy through Mary? After all, Mary is the only woman or daughter mentioned in the context.

Maybe Justin is referring to the patriarchs as the fathers of Mary. But this hardly makes sense. The patriarchs already had sons to trace their lineage. By invoking the daughter as bearer of her father’s lineage, Justin seems to be referring to Mary’s immediate father and, more specifically, to her father’s lack of sons. Perhaps it is better then to understand Justin’s expression the fathers of women as fathers who have no sons.13 So it is possible that Justin understood Joseph to be the adopted son of Heli, presumably because in his view Mary had no brothers.14

Does Justin believe that the Lukan genealogy is the genealogy of Mary?

We cannot be certain. But his obscure reference to fathers passing their inheritance to the sons of their daughters suggests that he was prepared to understand Mary’s child, Jesus, as the son of her father. At the same time, Justin’s confidence in repeatedly mentioning Mary’s lineage from the family of David suggests that he had a text in mind to back this up. But Justin would have been hard pressed to find such a text outside of the genealogies of Jesus. Of course, since Justin argues passionately on behalf of Jesus’s miraculous birth, this would only have offered him more incentive to emphasize Mary’s tangible role in the genealogy of Jesus.

New Essay on Codex Bezae’s Lukan Genealogy

I have recently published an essay on Codex Bezae’s remarkable and singular Lukan genealogy in the Papers from the Tenth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, edited by H. A. G. Houghton and published by Gorgias Press.1 The essay is a development and expansion of a paper I presented at the Tenth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament in March 2017.

Since one of the themes of the colloquium was to reflect on David Parker’s The Living Text of the Gospels, I examine Bezae’s Lukan genealogy through the method Parker outlines in his book, namely, collecting and describing the textual evidence, reconstructing the path of change, and attempting to contextualize these changes in the history of the users of the text.2

As far as external evidence, one startling fact about Bezae’s genealogy, as mentioned in this earlier post, is that its otherwise highly-original list of names, while singular in the manuscript tradition, corresponds to a nearly-identical list in Aphrahat’s Demonstrations. I say “nearly identical” because Bezae’s only divergence from Aphrahat is its puzzling duplication of Jehoiakim’s name, first (according to the reverse order of the Lukan genealogy) under his regnal name, Jehoiakim (ιωακειμ), and then under his birth name, Eliakim (ελιακειμ).

A second surprising observation is that the structure of the genealogy in Bezae the manuscript appears to mirror the structure of the names in Aphrahat’s list. The structure of Aphrahat’s list seems to divide the names into six groups of ten names around a central group of three names, culminating with the name of David. It turns out that Bezae’s page divisions fall precisely at these theorized divisions in the genealogy. Since Bezae has 33 lines per page, three groups of ten and the group of three occupy a single page on Folio 196.

The greater part of the essay is devoted to an effort to contextualize Bezae’s peculiar Lukan genealogy in the early church. Beginning with Justin’s two allusions to Jesus’s genealogy, I consider remarks on the genealogies by sixteen writers, including Aphrahat himself, down to the time of Jerome and Augustine, who were contemporaries of Bezae’s producers.

It is clear that anxiety about discrepancies between the Matthean and Lukan genealogies becomes more pronounced the later we go, reaching a peak in the Latin church in the second half of the fourth century. Earlier writers, such as Justin, Irenaeus, and even Celsus appear to have seen no conflict between the two genealogies, apparently understanding them as belonging respectively to each of Jesus’s human parents, Mary and Joseph. But starting with Julius Africanus, it is generally assumed that both genealogies belong to Joseph, whom they are purported to represent in the two gospel texts.

So later writers, when they mention the genealogy of Jesus, sense a need to explain that any appearance of conflict between the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke is merely an appearance. By the end of the fourth century, the preferred explanation is some form of the interpretation based on Levirate marriage, though this is not the only explanation given, as discussed in the essay.

The Lukan genealogy supplies a fascinating background to examine the development of Bezae’s tradition, given that its secondary character is so obvious and yet it is one of the longest variations in any of the gospels, consisting of eighty words.

How to Classify Codex Bezae’s Greek Text

For two centuries, Bezae’s classification has been thought of in terms of the so-called “Western” text type. Of course, the label “Western” tells us little if anything about Bezae’s relationships with other witnesses.

But Bezae does have relationships. Its parallels with 03 were noted by F. J. A. Hort.1 In Mark, Bezae’s parallels with 038 and 565 were pointed out by H. von Soden.2 Also in Mark, Bezae’s parallels with 032 were observed by H. A. Sanders to be a byproduct of the latter’s parallels with the Latin version.3 The question is, how does Bezae’s peculiar mix of relationships affect the classification of its text?

The most systematic attempt to classify Bezae’s text form to date is Text und Textwert (TuT), a project that seeks to classify every manuscript on the basis of agreement profiles at non-mainstream readings, which are found in the main list for each manuscript and book. When we inspect Bezae’s main list in Mark, we discover that its closest non-fragmentary relative is 038, which attests 40.4% agreement with Bezae’s profile — certainly not an impressive level of agreement.4 Overall, the impression we gain from Bezae’s main list in Mark is that of a text form isolated from the larger Greek tradition.

Of course, TuT considers only Greek manuscripts. For practical reasons, it relies on test passages, 196 in Mark. These test passages are not randomly selected and, hence, reflect a distinct bias in favor of passages of greater perceived text-critical interest. The result is a high proportion of test passages in which Bezae attests a unique reading in the Greek tradition, a situation that tends to exaggerate Bezae’s apparent isolation.

We can resolve the problem of bias in the selection of test passages with either a random sampling or a complete data set of variation units. According to my collation of transcripts prepared for the Editio Critica Maior (ECM) in Mark, in work for my dissertation, Bezae attests 1383 non-mainstream readings in Mark, setting aside readings that are singular or subsingular in the Greek tradition.5

Bezae’s closest Greek neighbors at these 1383 non-mainstream readings in Mark are 565 at 51.2% agreement, 038 at 47.3%, 032 at 39.3%, 01 at 35.3%, and 03 at 35.3%.6 So Bezae’s closest neighbor, 565, still only registers at 51% agreement.

Now according to TuT, 565 and 038 are closely related in Mark.7 So are 01 and 03.8 So we find at least three different traditions represented among Bezae’s closest witnesses in Mark: 565/038, 032, and 01/03. These results are summarized in the table:

Manuscript Non-Mainstream Agreements with Bezae in Mark
565 51.2% (706/1380)
038 47.3% (654/1383)
032 39.3% (522/1327)
01 35.3% (479/1356)
03 35.0% (482/1376)

Still, none of these witnesses exhibits an overwhelmingly high level of agreement.

Assessing the Unique Contribution of Witnesses

One question that remains unanswered by these figures is how much overlap exists between these agreements. To what extent do the 51% of agreements with 565 overlap the 47% of agreements with 038, the 39% of agreements with 032, or the 35% of agreements with 03? If we take 565 as the closest witness at 51%, which next witness accounts for the highest percentage of non-mainstream readings not attested by 565?

It turns out that the witness that contributes the most new agreements which are not already attested by 565 is 03 — even though this witness registers at fifth place in overall agreement. While 038, 032, and 01 all agree at higher individual percentages than 03, it turns out that many of their agreements are shared with 565.

On the other hand, 03 contributes the most new agreements. Sixteen percent of 03’s agreements at Bezae’s non-mainstream readings are not attested by 565. So between the agreements of 565 and 03 we can account for nearly two thirds or 67.5% of Bezae’s non-mainstream readings in Mark.

The witness that contributes the most new readings not attested by either 565 or 03 is not 038, but 032, which adds 9% to our cumulative percentage of agreement. This brings the total cumulative agreement between the three witnesses — 565, 03, and 032 — to over three quarters or 76.6% of Bezae’s non-mainstream readings in Mark.

With the fourth witness we start to encounter diminishing returns. The witness that contributes the most new readings after 565, 03, and 032 — 038 — contributes just 3.5% to the total cumulative agreement, bringing the total agreement to four out of five or 80.1% of non-mainstream readings. As we noted above, 038 is closely-related to 565 in Mark. So it is not surprising that it contributes so few new agreements.

The respective contributions of the four witnesses that together agree with 80% of Bezae’s non-mainstream readings in Mark are illustrated in the chart.

How are we to understand this result?

It appears that Bezae is related in Mark, not to a single witness or family, but primarily to three witnesses or families in the Greek tradition, namely, 565-038, 032, and 03-01 and their relatives. The implication is that Bezae attests a composite text form in Mark, a result that can be explained by mixture.

Classifying Bezae’s Mixed Text Form

So to answer our initial question, how to classify Bezae’s Greek text, the answer is that there are at least two ways.

One way is to classify the text as a whole. We find then that Bezae’s text form is closest in the Greek tradition to that of 565 across all of Mark, with which it agrees at 51% of its non-mainstream readings. The downside of this all-or-nothing approach is to create the misleading impression that Bezae’s Greek text is not particularly related to any other traditions.

A second way is to partition Bezae’s non-mainstream readings according to the witnesses and families with which they most closely agree. So we acknowledge that different sets of Bezae’s readings are closely related to different parts of the tradition.

As a starting point, we might assume that the largest set of readings — in which Bezae agrees with 565, 038, or both — represents the base tradition before the mixture of readings from other traditions.9

If so, we can assume that, in the case of readings where 565 and 038 overlap with other traditions, the reading entered Bezae’s tradition through the base text, that is, through the tradition represented by 565 and 038. But the readings of traditions that do not overlap with this base tradition presumably entered through mixture.

So we classify Bezae’s text form in parts rather than as a whole. The upside is that Bezae is now shown to be thoroughly related to the rest of the Greek tradition, though not to any single part of it. The classification of its text form consists of sets of readings that are closely related to different parts of the tradition.

We find then that, while Bezae’s text form is perhaps unique among surviving witnesses in its pattern of mixture, its text form is not unrelated to the larger Greek tradition. In fact, it is closely related to multiple witnesses and families.

Profiling Codex Bezae’s Greek Text Form as a Composite Text

On Tuesday, I presented a paper at the SBL International Conference in Helsinki on profile-based classification of composite text forms, in which I highlighted Codex Bezae’s Greek text of Mark as a case study in the profiling of highly-mixed text forms. This paper previewed some of the research for my dissertation on Bezae’s Greek text of the Gospel of Mark.

Highly-mixed text forms, such as Bezae’s, present unique challenges when we compare them to other known traditions, as their total profiles are likely to be substantially unique — unless of course we can identify other manuscripts with precisely same patterns of mixture, an unlikely prospect for text forms that lie far outside of the mainstream.

Are we to conclude from this that such text forms have no significant relationships with the wider tradition at all? Intuition tells us that this could not be so. After all, mixture by definition implies the existence of relationships with a variety of other traditions. Thus, in Bezae’s text of Mark, we find agreements with a variety of witnesses — for example, 03, 032, 565 — that are not otherwise closely related. In fact, Bezae does agree with other manuscripts and with some manuscripts more than others.

To understand how these diverse traditions may have interacted in the development of Bezae’s final text form, we require a more granular approach to manuscript profiling that relates these traditions only at the specific set of readings that they share in common, rather than across their total profiles. In this paper, I discuss such a granular approach to profiling that addresses complex mixed text forms by splitting the total profile into a composite of smaller sub-profiles, each with specific alignments within the tradition and hence modeling different relationships in the development of the final text form. In this way, we can begin to reconstruct Bezae’s textual history and potentially the textual histories of other highly-mixed witnesses.