50 Brandon D. Crowe ejkgennavw. In the MT dly (Qal) is found in Num 11,12 and Ps 2,7. One possible parallel from Qumran is 1QSa II, 11, which may speak of God begetting (dylwy-[Hiphil]) the Messiah. This reading is supported by Geza Vermes, who suggests that, although the last letter is difficult to determine, computer imaging has made the d-more certain (22). Others, however, are more skeptical. These include James H. Charlesworth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, who suggest that the proper reading of 1QSa II, 11 is ˚ylwy- (“he leads forth”) (23). Although a definitive conclusion may not be possible, the rendering of Charlesworth and Stuckenbruck may have more to commend it, especially given the context of 1QSa II (24). In light of these other passages relating to divine begetting in the OT, the question arises: if one is looking for an OT echo in Matt 1,20, why choose Deut 32,18? Surely the references from Isaiah have much to commend them, especially since Isaiah is most likely the only OT collection cited more frequently than Deuteronomy in Matthew, and Isa 7,14 is quoted only a couple verses later in Matt 1,23. Alternatively, if Matthew’s use of gennavw alludes here to Ps 2, it may further highlight Jesus’ status as the ultimate Davidic king — a theme that is clearly important in Matthew, as the opening verse of the gospel indicates. Indeed, Novakovic suggests it is “very likely” that the Evangelist deliberately uses gennavw in Matt 1 to allude to God’s begetting the Messiah in Ps 2,7 (25). Another work that relates Jesus’ begetting to the OT use of gennaw is B. M. Nolan’s 1979 monograph (26). He suggests the name kuvrio" v for the deity in Matt 1-2 is significant, since this title is used for Jesus elsewhere in the gospel. He also sees here a connection to Ps 2,7, where the Lord (kuvrio") declares the Davidic king to be his son. Although Nolan’s argument has much to commend it, not least of which is his focus on the significance of gennavw in these verses, his is not the best explanation. Nolan claims: “in the Old Testament only the Davidic king is divinely declared son to God, at his succession” (27). However, this is not entirely correct. In the OT the nation of Israel was portrayed as God’s son more often than the king (28). If, however, Nolan intends to emphasize the declaration of the king’s sonship the difficulty remains. The declaration of sonship is indeed divinely proclaimed in Ps 2, but one should not discount the divinely (22) G. VERMES, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York 1997) 159; BROWN, Birth of the Messiah, 137, n. 14. (23) J.H. CHARLESWORTH – L.T. STUCKENBRUCK, “Rule of the Congregation (1QSa)”, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations (ed. J.H. CHARLESWORTH) (Tübingen 1994) I, 116-117. For more on the debate, see L. NOVAKOVIC, Messiah, the Healer of the Sick. A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew (WUNT II/170; Tübingen 2003) 22, n. 51. (24) So DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, I, 215. (25) NOVAKOVIC, Messiah, 46-50. (26) B.M. NOLAN, The Royal Son of God. The Christology of Matthew 1–2 in the Setting of the Gospel (OBO 23; Göttingen 1979) 224. (27) NOLAN, Royal Son, 224. (28) So G. FOHRER, “uiJo", uiJoqesiva,” TDNT VIII, 340-354; cf. G. COOKE, “The Israelite King as Son of God”, ZAW 73 (1961) 217.