...thoughts about genealogies in Scripture

I am presuming everyone who reads the Holy Bible realizes that they are reading a translation since the original materials from which it comes are written in the ancient languages of Hebrew and Greek.
   

In a delightful book I am currently reading, the statement “translation is always interpretation” appeared.  It seemed obvious at first as I zoomed over it, but in reflecting a bit I thought about the word “interpretation.”  Interpretation???  Yes, there is interpretation in translating since there are some words and phrases that don’t have direct substitutes from language to language.  So in order to get the “meaning” across, the translator has to select alternate words and phrases in order to translate.  And the translator selects alternate words and phrases based on HIS understanding of what needs interpreting.  The natural question that pops into my mind is, what if the translator’s understanding is not the same as the original author’s?  After all, they lived 2000+ years apart, and in totally different cultures on opposite sides of the world.  Hmmm.  Good question!           

OK, to the subject.  Most of us who read the Bible skip over genealogies because…well, they are kind of like organization charts at work—i.e. they are important only to the people who are on them.  And besides that, the lists contain names that are near impossible to pronounce.  So, I skip over them…along with everyone else who is willing to admit it.

But the delightful book (mentioned in paragraph 2 above) pointed my attention to the genealogy in Matthew 1.  And specifically to the five women mentioned in the list.  Now keep in mind, in the ancient world, it was VERY unusual to list women in genealogies—they were normally for men only.  But Matthew lists five women…four by name and one as the wife of her first husband.  Here they are: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Uriah’s wife, and Mary. 

I must add at this point that some of you may have a translation, e.g. NASB and NLT, that mentions all five women by their names—they include Bathsheba.  But when you go to the ancient Greek from which it is translated, the name Bathsheba is not there.  It has “the wife of Uriah.”  The modern translator in this case chose to include “for clarity” what the original writer left out.  But the question screams at me, WHAT IF THE ANCIENT WRITER OMITTED THE NAME FOR A REASON?  We have to remind ourselves that every word in Scripture is there for some reason, and every word that is not there is very likely not there for a reason.  For a translator to add or subtract words for whatever reason is very, very risky…risky to the point of causing misunderstanding of something that is important.

Well, hopefully by this point you are interested to the point that you wonder about the remainder of this story.  I think I have it, but will wait for another time when wider awake to tell it.  In the meantime I hope you ponder those five women’s rolls in the history of God’s people, and try to determine for yourself why only four of their names appear in Matthew’s original. 

Blessings,

Gene Pool

P.S. If you find error in my material, please point them out…gently.