The Song of Moses and Divine Begetting in Matt 1,20 49 2. The Background of Divine Begetting Taking into consideration this widespread influence of the Song of Moses on the one hand, and the prominence of various passages from Deuteronomy throughout Matthew on the other hand (17), it is proposed here that Deut 32,18 serves as a scriptural precedent for the unique imagery of Jesus’ begetting by the Holy Spirit in Matt 1,20 (18). Indeed, as C. K. Barrett has so cleverly quipped, one might expect to find scriptural references in this account of Jesus’ conception since Matthew is “clearly impregnated with OT ideas” (19). The pericope in view immediately follows the genealogy that traces the lineage of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham. Verses 18- 25 recount the revelation to and response of Joseph to the angelic message that Mary was with child. The key Matthean phrase for the present purposes is: to; ga;r ejn aujth/' gennhqe;n ejk pneuvmatov" ejstin aJgivou (“that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” [RSV]) (20). A glance at Deut 32,18 LXX shows that the verb gennavw is there used to indicate God’s begetting of Israel, his son (qeo;n to;n gennhvsantav se). It is highly significant that the ascription of this particular paternal activity to God, using the term gennavw, is rare in the LXX. Here it translates the Hebrew dly (Qal), a verb that is attributed to God in the MT even less frequently than gennavw is in the LXX(21). Relevant passages from the LXX include Isa 1,2; 66,9; Psa 2,7; Prov 8,25, while Psalm 109,3 LXX attests the slightly different verb (17) Deuteronomy is (at least) the second most cited scriptural corpus in Matthew. Index 4 in NA27 lists 10 citations to Deuteronomy in Matthew, second only to Isaiah’s 12. Interestingly, UBSGNT4 lists 13 citations to Deuteronomy in Matthew, and only 10 to Isaiah. M.J.J. MENKEN (“Deuteronomy in Matthew’s Gospel”, Deuteronomy in the New Testament. The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel [LNTS 358; London 2007] 42) posits 15 citations. (18) Regarding Matthew’s supposed Vorlage(n), it will suffice for the present purposes to observe that Matthew’s language often reflects the LXX (or his sources), but some of his unique material differs from the LXX, perhaps reflecting his own rendering of the Hebrew. Cf. K. STENDAHL, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (ASNU 20; Lund 21968) 151; R.H. GUNDRY, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope (NTS 18; Leiden: 1967) 28, 157. Since there is reason to believe that Matthew may have utilized more than one version (in more than one language), it is best to leave open several possibilities when encountering a supposed OT reference, especially an allusive one. It is also significant that the state of the OT text before 100 C.E. was in flux, rendering the identification of the Matthean text-form(s) even more difficult. (19) C.K. BARRETT, The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (London 1966) 17. BARRETT observes the same is true of Luke. See also the older study of J.G. MACHEN (The Virgin Birth of Christ [London 1939] 174), who rightly notes that the character of the Matthean birth narrative is thoroughly Jewish in nature. (20) The construction of the last three words is a bit awkward, as ejsti;n stands between pneuvmato" and aJgivou. BROWN (Birth of the Messiah, 130) renders this: “is of a Spirit which is Holy”. Similar constructions occur in Luke 2,25; Acts 1,5. (21) R.S. HENDEL (“‘Begetting’ and ‘Being Born’ in the Pentateuch: Notes on Historical Linguistics and Source Criticism”, VT 50 [2000] 38-46) notes that the Hiphil pattern of dly came to replace the Qal by exilic and post-exilic times when speaking particularly of the father’s (causal) role in begetting. He observes, however, that Deut 32,18 was likely pre-exilic and therefore predated this practice.