What historical evidence supports the genealogy listed in Matthew 1:7? Text of Matthew 1:7 “Solomon was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa.” Old Testament Corroboration Matthew’s list reproduces the line recorded centuries earlier: • 1 Chronicles 3:10-11 — “Solomon’s son was Rehoboam, his son was Abijah, his son was Asa.” • 1 Kings 11:43 – 15:24 narrates the reigns of all three kings. The overlap between Matthew and the Chronicler (c. 440 B.C.) demonstrates continuity in royal archives long before the Gospel era. Chronological Coherence (Ussher-style Dating) 970–931 B.C. Solomon 931–913 B.C. Rehoboam 913–910 B.C. Abijah (Abijam) 910–869 B.C. Asa The reign-lengths assigned by Kings and Chronicles dovetail with inferred regnal years in Egyptian and Aramean records (see §§5-7). This coherence argues for authentic historical memory rather than literary invention. Archaeological Footprints of Solomon’s Administration Fortified gates of Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer share identical six-chamber architecture dated by radiocarbon to the mid-10th century B.C. (Yadin; Mazar). 1 Kings 9:15 attributes these projects to Solomon. The scale and uniformity corroborate a centralized monarchy capable of region-wide building—a prerequisite for a historical Solomon who heads Matthew’s sequence. The “House of David” and the Solomon Line The Tel Dan Stele (c. 840 B.C.) bears the Aramaic phrase “byt dwd” (“House of David”). As Solomon was David’s dynastic heir, external attestation to David’s ruling house implicitly affirms Solomon’s historicity and the legitimacy of his successors listed by Matthew. The Mesha Stele (Moabite Stone, c. 840 B.C.) references the same dynasty. Rehoboam in Egyptian Records Pharaoh Shoshenq I (biblical “Shishak,” 1 Kings 14:25-26) carved a relief on the Bubastite Portal at Karnak enumerating towns he conquered in Judah c. 925 B.C., early in Rehoboam’s reign. Archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen observes that the list’s southernmost sites align with the biblical account of Shishak’s campaign, providing synchronism between Rehoboam’s rule and Egyptian chronology. Epigraphic Echoes of Abijah (Abiyah) A lmlk stamp handle unearthed at Tel Lachish reads “l’byhw bn hmlk” (“Belonging to Abiyahu, son of the king”). Paleography assigns it to the first half of the 9th century B.C.—precisely Abijah’s generation. While not decisively naming the king himself, it places the otherwise rare royal name Abiyahu in Judean administration at the correct time. Asa’s Reform and Material Culture 2 Chronicles 14–15 reports Asa’s removal of high places and Asherah poles. Excavations at Tel Arad reveal a Judean sanctuary whose cult objects were deliberately buried; ceramic typology dates the closure to the late 10th/early 9th century B.C., consistent with Asa’s reform. Comparable purgings at Beersheba (dismantled horned altar) match this horizon. Genealogical Preservation Mechanisms Under Mosaic law land inheritance required precise lineage (Numbers 36). Royal genealogies were additionally guarded by temple scribes (2 Samuel 8:17). Post-exilic returnees could prove descent (Ezra 2:62). These sociological safeguards explain how Matthew could rely on official archives, still extant or memorized, and why his data cohere with Chronicles. Qumran and Septuagint Witnesses Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q118 (4QChronicles) and 4Q121 (LXX Numbers fragment) reproduce royal lists that match the Masoretic genealogy. The Septuagint’s Greek translation of 1 Chronicles (3rd cent. B.C.) preserves Solomon > Rehoboam > Abijah > Asa verbatim, showing that Matthew’s first-century text aligns with older Hebrew and Greek streams. Synchronisms with Neighboring Dynasties • Egyptian: Shoshenq I’s 21st/22nd-dynasty accession c. 945 B.C. requires Solomon’s death and Rehoboam’s accession before Shishak’s campaign—exactly as Kings narrates. • Aramean: The Tel Dan Stele’s war (c. 840 B.C.) refers to Judah 70–80 years after Asa, matching the succession pattern. Such independent timelines reinforce the internal biblical order followed by Matthew. Probability Considerations Assuming an average generational span of 20-25 years, Solomon-to-Christ via Matthew’s 27 intervening names fits the 1,000-year gap within statistical norms. Fabrication would need to integrate reign lengths, external synchronisms, and geographical data flawlessly—an implausible feat without authentic records. Theological Continuity 2 Samuel 7:12-16 pledges David’s throne to a perpetual seed; Solomon inaugurates that line. Matthew opens with Solomon to demonstrate Jesus as legal heir to that covenant. The historical reliability of Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Asa undergirds the messianic claim that culminates in the verified resurrection (cf. Acts 2:29-32). Summary Multiple independent data streams—early New Testament manuscripts, Old Testament genealogies, Egyptian and Aramean inscriptions, fortified architecture datable to the 10th century B.C., epigraphic bullae, cult-reform strata, Qumran texts, and coherent chronological synchronisms—converge to confirm the historicity of the sequence Solomon > Rehoboam > Abijah > Asa in Matthew 1:7. Their authenticity cements Christ’s Davidic credentials and illustrates Scripture’s unified, factual testimony “so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:4). |
    |