GENEOLOGY OF JESUS

by Mary 29 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  euripides

  Every genealogy is a political statement. What I mean by that is that no name appears by chance. That said, look at some of the interesting differences between these two genealogies:

  Matthew's lists four women, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of Uriah (a/k/a Bathsheba). Each of those stories proves to be an interesting subtext to the so-called Messianic line as it fits into Matthean portrayal of Jesus. Matthew's also begins with Abraham and has a distinctly numerological flavor, commenting on the importance of thrice fourteen successive generations.

  Luke's lists no women, and as you noted does not agree with Matthew's. Additionally, Luke's genealogy goes to back to Adam "son of God" universalizing the Lukan Messiah.

  I am sure more could be shown between these two, which apparently were using two sets of traditions that occasionally overlapped but often did not agree.

  Euripides
• 

  Elsewhere

  I discovered this discrepancy a few years ago and created the following chart.

  • Green is where Luke and Matthew match up
  • Yellow is where things look fishy
  • Red is where there is a blatant contradiction
• 

  the_classicist

  I believe the particular greek verb used can also mean not only the "begotting" relationship between father and son, but also between grandfather and grandson, and so on.
• 

  Mary

  Thank you everyone for your comments........some excellent thoughts.........Elsewhere that chart is really good for showing the comparisons in the different geneology........what I find interesting is the verse in Luke that says:

  And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli...

  Why would the writer basically be saying '...Well, Jesus was supposedly the son of Joseph..' Did the writer believe Jesus to be Joseph's biological son? Or was it believed in the 1st century CE that God was his biological father? Another point I hadn't thought of that was brought out here, is: What difference does it make if King David was an ancestor of Jesus? If Jesus' father was Jehovah, then it would not matter one bit if he was related to David. And having the geneology go all the way back to Adam is, in my opinion, a complete waste of space and time, because, assuming that Adam and Eve were our first parents, you'd be able to trace every single human being back to them...............
• 

  glitter

  I don't buy this "Mary's geneology" BS that people who insist the Bible is true put forward - otherwise if it was *meant* to be Mary wouldn't the translators put "son of Mary, daughter of Heli, son of Matthat etc" or whatever and have a footnote?
  
  
  The "as was supposed" bit is because Joseph was bringing him up - it's what the neighbours of the family would have thought. But if he's only through David through his "dad" then is he *really* decended from David? Why would they even list it through Joseph *at all*??
  
  Elsewhere - brilliant chart, thanks.
• 

  Narkissos

  "As was supposed": this parenthesis, which may be a late (2nd-century?) addition to the Gospel, just as chapters 1--2, is obviously added in an otherwise regular genealogical pattern to make room for the virgin birth.

  Notice that the rest of Luke, just as Mark, doesn't require the man Jesus to be anything special before his baptism, where he is begotten as God's Son -- especially if we follow the Western reading (Codex Bezae):

  And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; today I have begotten you."
• 

  peacefulpete

  As Narkissos has said the geneaologies are later creations. Leolaia has made some great comments in the past as well that demonstrated that the virgin birth was a later addition to tale, leaving some clues behind. Also I did a thread a while back about the use of the name David among zealot leaders and how this was open to free use as the records had already been destroyed: son of David?
• 

  Tashawaa

  You know what else is confusing...

  Starting from the common denominator in the two geologies, David, Luke lists 41 generations. Matthew only lists 26. They both land up at Joseph. What the hell? Thats a big difference.
• 

  hmike

  Is it possible that Joseph was adopted, or that his mother's husband died and he was fathered by one of his uncles? That way one of the genealogies is a legal one (possibly Matthew's) and the other is a biological one. Is that reasonable?
• 

  Narkissos

  hmike,

  A variant of this explanation exists since the 3rd century, by Julius Africanus as quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History I.7:

  Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with one another. Since as a consequence every believer, in ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation which shall harmonize the two passages, permit us to subjoin the account of the matter which has come down to us, and which is given by Africanus, who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to Aristides, where he discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies. After refuting the opinions of others as forced and deceptive, he give the account which he had received from tradition in these words:
  "For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in Israel either according to nature or according to law;--according to nature by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless; for because a clear hope of resurrection was not yet given they had a representation of the future promise by a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the
  name of the one deceased might be perpetuated;-- whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name. Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately. But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begat Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son Eli was the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Eli,the son of Melchi. Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph. Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begat children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another. By Estha then (for this was the woman's name according to tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, married her as before said, and begat a son Eli. Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet
  brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter's wife and begat by her a son to Joseph, his own son by nature n and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: 'Jacob begat Joseph.' But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him. Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void, which the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: 'Jacob begat Joseph.' But Luke, on the other hand, says: 'Who was the son, as was supposed' (for this he also adds), 'of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Melchi'; for he could not more clearly express the generation according to law. And the expression 'he begat' he has omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the genealogy back to Adam the son of God. This interpretation is neither incapable of proof nor is it an idle conjecture. (...) And at the end of the same epistle he adds these words: "Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both."
  Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, inter-marriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here.