GENEOLOGY OF JESUS

Mary

I was doing some research for one of my courses and I discovered that the geneology of Jesus, outlined in Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3, are different. Does anyone know why?

iiz2cool

The JW explanation, if I recall correctly, was that one book gave the geneology to Jesus' mother, the other to Joseph. I think they converged at some point as well.

Walter

DevonMcBride

Here is a link from a Jewish web site that addresses this issue.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/genealogy.html

Both genealogies are clearly intended to be by Joseph (Matthew 1:16; Luke 3:23). IMO both are fictional. They were written to fit Jesus into the pattern of a Davidic Messianism such as prevailed in the Pharisaic school by the end of the 1st century -- whence the arguments in the rabbinical (= post-pharisaic) Jewish site given by DevonMcBride, which however do not reflect the variety of Messianic conceptions (or the lack thereof) in pre-70 Judaism. Matthew chooses the royal line from David, Luke (perhaps conscious of the curse on Jehoiachin in Jeremiah 22:30 and/or the political implications of a royal Messiah) chose a non-royal line.

At some early stage in Christian origins, no claim was made for Jesus to be descendent of David. Cf. Mark 12:35ff:

While Jesus was teaching in the temple, he said, "How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared,
'The Lord said to my Lord,
"Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet." '
David himself calls him Lord; so how can he be his son?" And the large crowd was listening to him with delight.

The same is echoed in John 7:41ff:

Others said, "This is the Messiah." But some asked, "Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he? Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?"
So there was a division in the crowd because of him.

Those two examples show that at an early stage of Christian apologetics before Pharisaism the Christians argued that the true "Messiah" didn't need to be David's descendent. Later the apologists changed their minds and tried to fit Jesus into the Davidic pattern (whence the genealogies and the birth in Bethlehem, through two equally incompatible narrative devices, in Matthew and Luke).

Midget-Sasquatch

So much of the gospel is probably mythologized from the reality, so I'd say the lineages were both made up as well to bolster the legitimacy of JC as Messiah.

Edit: Way to many typos today. :S

Deputy Dog

Mary

I hope this will help you out.

www.lifeofchrist.com/life/genealogy

D Dog

Narkissos

DD,

Even when I was a JW I was somewhat uneasy explaining that Luke's genealogy is through Mary, with absolutely no scriptural evidence, when it so flatly contradicts the Lukan text:

He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph...

http://campus.fortunecity.com/defiant/666/genluke.html

Now about the name Joseph (there are three of them in Luke's genealogy, v. 23,24,30): It is not a highly plausible name in a Davidic (i.e. Judean) line, as the patriarch Joseph is linked to the Northern tribes (including Galilee). On the other hand, "ben Joseph" is a convenient surname for a Galilean Messiah, cf. Testament of Benjamin 3:6ff (depending of the extent of Christian interpolations):

For Joseph also besought our father that he would pray for his brethren, that the Lord would not impute to them as sin whatever evil they had done unto him. And thus Jacob cried out: My good child, thou hast prevailed over the bowels of thy father Jacob. And he embraced him, and kissed him for two hours, saying: In thee shall be fulfilled the prophecy of heaven [concerning the Lamb of God, and Saviour of the world], and that a blameless one shall be delivered up for lawless men, and a sinless one shall die for ungodly men [in the blood of the covenant. for the salvation of the Gentiles and of Israel, and shall destroy Beliar and his servants].

stillajwexelder

The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived book talks about this from the WTBTS point of view

Carmel

Being of the Davidic line was likely a twist but Jesus was what He was not by physical lineage but by confered status. Don't be confused!

carmel

gumby

Carmel, ya caveman bastard from hell....you stole my comment!

That was my thought. Jesus had NO linage other than from Mary. He had no earthly father, so why is there discussion as to Jesus linage on Joseph's side? Jesus wasn't from Judah.....he had ZERO Judah in his genes. His dad was god......and god has no linage cuz he was the first biasterd to exist.

Gumby

GENEOLOGY OF JESUS

Share this