The Song of Moses and Divine Begetting in Matt 1,20 57 apparent in Deut 32,10, where Egypt, like the world in the beginning, is described as a wht. The reference here to the Exodus is significant because this paradigmatic event is portrayed as the creation of the nation of Israel as God’s special people, and therefore as God’s son (Exod 4,22). The overlap between Israel’s redemption and creation is especially conveyed by the term hnq in Exod 15,16 and Deut 32,6, the latter of which is related explicitly to God as Israel’s Father (66). Thus, in Deut 32 Israel’s deliverance is related to Israel’s sonship by means of creational language. The allusion to Deut 32,18 in Matt 1,20 evokes this creative and redemptive imagery, further connecting the beginning of the gospel with both the Song of Moses and Gen 1 (67). It has been argued that there are insufficient grounds for connecting the Spirit’s activity in Jesus’ birth with new creation because the latter does not offer an adequate explanation of Jesus’ divine sonship (68). However, a reference to the Song of Moses in Matt 1 is able to link the supernatural begetting of Jesus with (new) creation via Israel, thereby answering this objection. Most of these connections between Gen 1 and Deut 32, however, are only evident in the MT (69). Therefore, this point likely necessitates that Matthew either knew the Hebrew tradition represented in the MT or was familiar with a Greek version that reflected this tradition. Either way, there is widespread agreement that some degree of Hebrew influence is evident in Matthew’s scriptural references (70), so it is no stretch to believe that Matthew may have been aware of these associations. * ** Israel’s scriptural traditions pervade the Gospel of Matthew. In the account of Jesus’ conception in Matt 1,20, the Evangelist draws upon filial imagery from the Song of Moses in order to connect Jesus with his people and connote Israel’s failures to be the faithful son of God. Just as Israel’s redemption from Egypt was concomitantly their creation as God’s son, so for Matthew the birth of Jesus inaugurated a new creation that would lead to (66) S.R. DRIVER, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC; Edinburgh 21896) 354; P.C. CRAIGIE, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI 1976) 379; B.S. CHILDS, The Book of Exodus. A Critical, Theological Commentary (OTL; Louisville 1974) 251. Deut 32,6 LXX employs the verb ktivzw. (67) There may also be hints of messianic expectations wrapped up in conception by the Spirit, which was thought to have a recreating and revivifying power of the days of the Messiah (so BARRETT, Holy Spirit, 21, 23-24). (68) NOVAKOVIC, Messiah, 46-50. (69) Note especially Deut 32,10-11 in relation to Gen 1,2. The critical Vetus Testamentum Graecum editions of Genesis and Deuteronomy edited by J.W. WEVERS do not list any variants that would verbally link these passages as strongly as they are in the MT. (70) DAVIES – ALLISON (Matthew, I, 33, 45) argue that Matthew knew Hebrew. M.J.J. MENKEN, Matthew’s Bible. The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist [BETL 173; Leuven 2004] 7-10, 282) proposes that Matthew used a revised LXX that was often brought into greater conformity with the Hebrew, although he does not believe Matthew’s copy of Deuteronomy was revised in this way.