The Song of Moses and Divine Begetting in Matt 1,20 51 ordained pronouncements of Israel’s divine sonship spoken in Deuteronomy by Moses, the prophet par excellence (29). Other options for the language of divine begetting in Matt 1 include Psa 109,3 LXX, which is quoted elsewhere in Matthew (22,44), apparently in connection with Jesus’ Davidic sonship. However, Ps 109,3 LXX attests a slightly different word (ejkgennavw) than Matt 1,20 (gennavw) (30). It is similarly unlikely that the passing reference to Israel’s divine begetting in Num 11,12 (MT) is of any great consequence in Matt 1, as it only implies what Deut 32,18 makes explicit. In sum it may be observed that Deut 32,18 is not commonly associated with Jesus’ conception in Matthew, and, more broadly, very few have observed the relationship of Deut 32,18 to Matthew in any way (31). However, it will be argued below that the language of divine begetting in combination with the fecundity of filial language throughout Deut 32 do not merely render the associations between Deut 32,18 and Matt 1,20 possible, but probable. 3. The Significance of Divine Begetting in Matthew 1 Although the imagery of divine begetting does occur in a few other texts from the OT and it is feasible that one or more of these passages have been brought to bear on Matt 1,18-25 it is more likely that Deut 32,18 serves as a Scriptural precedent for Jesus’ divine begetting in Matt 1 for several reasons. a) Deuteronomy 32 in Matthew First, allusions to Deut 32,5.20 in Matt 12,39 and 17,17 indicate that Matthew most likely knew Deut 32 in some form. It is also possible that Deut 32 is in view in Matt 12,45; 16,4. This makes it plausible that he alludes to Deut 32 elsewhere. Admittedly, the verbal parallels with Deut 32,5 in Matt 12,39 are not overwhelming, as the agreement is mainly conceptual. Indeed, only geneav is shared vocabulary from the LXX (32). Nevertheless, this Deuteronomic allusion is affirmed by numerous commentators (33) and is included in Index 4 of NA27, which is considered here to be generally reliable. The influence of Deut 32 is even clearer in Matt 17, as geneav / diestrammevnh in 17,17 echo Deut 32,5 LXX, while geneav / a[pisto" reflect Deut 32,20 LXX (oujk e[stin pivsti"). (29) Note especially the sermonic expositions of Israel’s filial status: Deut 14,1; 32,4- 6.18-20. (30) Although A does read ejgennhvsa. (31) One exception is P. NEPPER-CHRISTENSEN, Das Matthäusevangelium. Ein judenchristliches Evangelium? (AThD 1; Aarhus 1958) 167. He notes the typological relationship of national Israel begotten by God in Deut 32,18 with Jesus in Matt 2,15. (32) Although it is, of course, possible that Matthew has produced his own translation from a Hebrew Vorlage. (33) E.g., DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, II, 354; C.S. KEENER, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI 1999) 367; FRANCE, Matthew, 433, n. 47; D.L. TURNER, Matthew (BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI 2008) 326.