Expert: Scott Talbot - 10/22/2006

Question
The Vulgate and the King James translate both references to David in Matt 1:6 as "David the king" (ie "Jesse begot David the King, and David the King begot Solomon ...")

However, my Greek NT and modern versions only use the appellation "the king" in the first reference to David (ie "Jesse begot David the King, and David begot Solomon").

Is there any textual support for the Vulgate/NT version?

(I also find this intriguing:  If the Greek text only refers to David as King in the first reference, why is this so?  David was not a king when Jesse fathered him, but he was a king when he fathered Solomon.)


Answer
Hi, Henry! Nice to hear from you.

While I have studied the original languages extensively, and have also done some research on textual origins, I will admit that I am not an expert on this subject. However, I will share a few thoughts which may or may not help.

First, there are often numerous texts to support the authenticity of our current translations. However, despite careful copying, there do exist some slight discrepancies. Fortunately, these discrepancies are not major, nor do they effect our understanding of key issues in the Bible.

About this passage ... reference is made to King David. One of the most notable facts about his life is that he was one of the first kings of Israel, and perhaps the most noteworthy. In other words, it's difficult to think of him without thinking about his kingship.

It's likely that someone put the extra "king" into the one description--not to describe his royalty at the time of his birth or even at the time of Solomon's birth, but simply to recall his all-important role as one of Israel's greatest and most significant kings.

It's like referring to President Lincoln. It's hard to think of Abraham Lincoln without acknowledging his important role as one of the presidents of the United States of America. (Not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea.)

So which translation is accurate? It's hard to say. But the point is that both are fine and acceptable, and certainly do not distort the intent of the passage.

Scott