Genealogy Of Jesus

[Spud]

Frankly Eusebius' agenda in large parts of his writing is to try to prove provenance and 'fix' contradictions etc in the bible rather than provide anything close to historical accuracy.

I don't think that applies in this case. He is quoting Africanus, eu se. Btw in case you missed it, you need to scroll down to chapter 7 of the page in the link.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think that applies in this case. He is quoting Africanus, eu se. Btw in case you missed it, you need to scroll down to chapter 7 of the page in the link.

He is attempting to explain away the discrepancies in genealogy between Luke and Matthew - why, because as an early christian apologist this discrepancy is harmful to belief and confidence in the gospels. He has a clear, no-neutral agenda, and is looking for evidence (realistically scraping the bottom of the barrel) to try to justify his pre-formed opinion.

Eusebius is a master at cherry picking earlier writers, often adding to what they said, in order to prove a point - we see this with Josephus as his likely interpolation. For Eusebius earlier authors are largely a tool to be used (or abused) to try to justify his clear agenda.

And, of course, why would Africanus (likely born in AD160) have any great insight into what was happening in centuries earlier, in another part of the world and another culture. We also (I think) have no evidence that Africanus actually claimed this, as I think virtually nothing of his work independently exists. All we know of him is largely through the prism of Eusebius and we should all know better that to assume that something viewed the prism of Eusebius had not been altered to fit Eusebius' agenda.

[Spud]

I came across a sentence in a medical book by Gerald Sandler:

"Contraindications to β-blockade [beta-blockers] include obstructive lung disease, especially bronchial asthma, heart failure and intermittent claudication."

This should really be phrased,

"Contraindications to β-blockade include obstructive lung disease (especially bronchial asthma), heart failure and intermittent claudication."

I can't help wondering if Luke may have done a similar thing, so that what he meant was "a son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Eli" instead of "a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Eli".

I don't know whether the Greek supports this view, though.

[Spud]

He is attempting to explain away the discrepancies in genealogy between Luke and Matthew - why, because as an early christian apologist this discrepancy is harmful to belief and confidence in the gospels. He has a clear, no-neutral agenda, and is looking for evidence (realistically scraping the bottom of the barrel) to try to justify his pre-formed opinion.

Eusebius is a master at cherry picking earlier writers, often adding to what they said, in order to prove a point - we see this with Josephus as his likely interpolation. For Eusebius earlier authors are largely a tool to be used (or abused) to try to justify his clear agenda.

And, of course, why would Africanus (likely born in AD160) have any great insight into what was happening in centuries earlier, in another part of the world and another culture. We also (I think) have no evidence that Africanus actually claimed this, as I think virtually nothing of his work independently exists. All we know of him is largely through the prism of Eusebius and we should all know better that to assume that something viewed the prism of Eusebius had not been altered to fit Eusebius' agenda.

It doesn't really matter who said it. it's a theory anyone could put forward.

[ProfessorDavey]

It doesn't really matter who said it. it's a theory anyone could put forward.

The only people who might have put forward such an assertion (not really a theory) are people whose pre-existing beliefs requirement them to demonstrate that the gospels are correct, despite the clear evidence that the genealogies in Luke and Matthew cannot both be correct (as they contradict each other) - they could of course both be wrong.

To come up with such convoluted and un-evidenced assertion to, rather desperately, try to make out that both are correct demonstrates that the person making that assert is being neither objective nor rational.

Any rational and/or objective person would conclude that one, other or both of the genealogies in Luke and Matthew are incorrect.

[jeremyp]

No, just that he didn't name any women in a 77-generation list, suggesting that Joseph could have been substituted for Mary. And it's not a lie if you state beforehand that William//Joseph is not the natural parent.

But Professor Davy has already shot down your assertion that women were not mentioned in genealogies. Why on Earth would Luke not mention Mary if it was Mary's genealogy?

[ProfessorDavey]

No, just that he didn't name any women in a 77-generation list, suggesting that Joseph could have been substituted for Mary. And it's not a lie if you state beforehand that William//Joseph is not the natural parent.

I'm sorry but your Luke is Mary's genealogy and Matthew's is Joseph's doesn't work for another reason (providing you think they are both correct).

If one is Mary's genealogy and the other is Joseph's genealogy then quite reasonably they will head off in different directions - Mary's father vs Joseph's father and so on. Now they could remain separate ever onward, but they could align again many generations earlier - in other words if you go far enough back both Mary and Joseph share a common ancestor (quite likely in the relatively narrow Jewish community of the time). And indeed we see this several generations back with Salathiel and Zorobabel in common. Let's ignore this issue of markedly differing number of generations to get to them.

However my point is that once Mary and Joseph share a great, great great etc etc grandfather all generations tracing back from this person should be the same, as their great, great great +1 grandfather will be the same, as will their great, great great +2 grandfather and so on.

Yet the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, having aligned at Salathiel and Zorobabel take off in different directions again.

So if they are both intended to be Joseph's lineage they are inconsistent and one or both must be wrong. But the same applies even if we accept that Luke is Mary's genealogy and Matthew's is Joseph's (not that there is the slightest credible evidence for this) - even in this case one or both must be wrong.

[Spud]

But Professor Davy has already shot down your assertion that women were not mentioned in genealogies.

Women are mentioned when they are wives or daughters of a man, or if a man only has daughters. But genealogies always run through the male line. (Correct me if I'm wrong).

Why on Earth would Luke not mention Mary if it was Mary's genealogy?

I now think it's unlikely he would put Joseph down meaning the son-in-law of Heli, as illustrated in my example of William III. The reason I investigated it was because of a recent sermon at church which suggested something similar, where George I might have two genealogies leading back to James I: one going back through the line of succession - Charles II and Charles I (despite his not being descended from them) and the other going back through Sophia and Elizabeth to James I. The reason I think it doesn't work is that in Matthew, although he gives the line of succession of Kings of Judah, the line of succession is a continuous run of descendants, from David to the exile, at least.

Luke's purpose might have been to give the bloodline of Jesus, in which case Heli was the father of Mary. Since he doesn't mention women at all like Matthew does (Tamar, for example) and since he has provided the context of Mary's involvement, he might have felt no need to include her name. The commentator John Gill is of this opinion.

Another point to note is that when the Hasmoneans (Maccabees' descendants) ruled Judea, they were not of the house of David. Infighting led to Roman domination and the Romans set up the Herod dynasty as rulers over Judea. But the promised Messiah was expected to be from the house of David; no-one could claim to be the Messiah without proof of their descent from David. So it isn't surprising that Joseph's and Heli's(?) ancestries were preserved.

[ProfessorDavey]

Women are mentioned when they are wives or daughters of a man, or if a man only has daughters. But genealogies always run through the male line. (Correct me if I'm wrong).

You really are arguing yourself into a corner.

If genealogies always run through the male line, then how can Jesus' genealogy run through Mary.

[Roses]

You really are arguing yourself into a corner.

If genealogies always run through the male line, then how can Jesus' genealogy run through Mary.

A very good question.

[Spud]

You really are arguing yourself into a corner.

If genealogies always run through the male line, then how can Jesus' genealogy run through Mary.

By writing, "he was a son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli. Your question solves the riddle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Luke's purpose might have been to give the bloodline of Jesus,

But that is pure supposition and runs against your argument that genealogies always run through the male line.

in which case Heli was the father of Mary.

And where, exactly do you have corroborating evidence that Heli is Mary's father - note please don't use a circular argument.

And what about my earlier point - even if we accept that Luke is providing genealogy through Mary's line, Luke and Matthew cannot both be correct as the align at Salathiel and Zorobabel and then diverge again. So whichever way you look at it, Luke or Matthew (or both) have to be in error at some point. They cannot both be right, even if you think one is Joseph's line and the other Mary's.

[ProfessorDavey]

By writing, "he was a son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli. Your question solves the riddle.

You are tying yourself up in knots.

Either Jewish genealogies always run through the male line, in which case Jesus' must be through Jospeh, not Mary. If through Mary then, by definition, all Jewish genealogies cannot run through the male line, as this one runs through the female line.

Also who on earth is Heli - at one point you are arguing he is Mary's father (although you have no corroboratory evidence) and earlier you are arguing that he is Joseph's legal father. Which is it?

And you still have failed to address my issue of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke aligning at at Salathiel and Zorobabel and then diverge again. That means (regardless of whether they are Joseph's of Mary's lineage) both cannot be correct.

[jeremyp]

Women are mentioned when they are wives or daughters of a man, or if a man only has daughters. But genealogies always run through the male line. (Correct me if I'm wrong).
I now think it's unlikely he would put Joseph down meaning the son-in-law of Heli, as illustrated in my example of William III. The reason I investigated it was because of a recent sermon at church which suggested something similar, where George I might have two genealogies leading back to James I: one going back through the line of succession - Charles II and Charles I (despite his not being descended from them) and the other going back through Sophia and Elizabeth to James I. The reason I think it doesn't work is that in Matthew, although he gives the line of succession of Kings of Judah, the line of succession is a continuous run of descendants, from David to the exile, at least.

Luke's purpose might have been to give the bloodline of Jesus, in which case Heli was the father of Mary. Since he doesn't mention women at all like Matthew does (Tamar, for example) and since he has provided the context of Mary's involvement, he might have felt no need to include her name. The commentator John Gill is of this opinion.

Another point to note is that when the Hasmoneans (Maccabees' descendants) ruled Judea, they were not of the house of David. Infighting led to Roman domination and the Romans set up the Herod dynasty as rulers over Judea. But the promised Messiah was expected to be from the house of David; no-one could claim to be the Messiah without proof of their descent from David. So it isn't surprising that Joseph's and Heli's(?) ancestries were preserved.

Luke says Heli was the father of Joseph. That’s the end of it really.

[Spud]

PD,
See the OP on shealtiel.

[Spud]

Luke says Heli was the father of Joseph. That’s the end of it really.

Jesus was son, supposedly through Joseph, of Heli

[ProfessorDavey]

Jesus was son, supposedly through Joseph, of Heli

Which means that Luke is citing Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's. You really are all over the place in your arguments Spud.

[jeremyp]

Jesus was son, supposedly through Joseph, of Heli

Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. 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...

Clearly the "as was though" refers to Jesus' relationship with Joseph, not Joseph's relationship with Heli.

[Spud]

Which means that Luke is citing Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's. You really are all over the place in your arguments Spud.

But fundamentally he's citing Jesus' genealogy, right? What if Jesus was due to inherit land that had been left to his mother by his grandfather? When Luke says, "being son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Heli" this can be read two ways, just like the example in #53; it can also be read, "being son (as was supposed, of Joseph) of Heli". The context determines which way it should be read.

Given that Luke in principle omits women's names (compare with Matthew), what would he do if a man in the genealogy had no sons but did have a daughter?

Supposing a man gets engaged to a prostitute, like Hosea did. She becomes pregnant by someone, they don't know who the father is, but they know it's not her fiancee. Suppose also she has no brothers and is due to inherit her father's land, as stipulated by Moses in Numbers 27.

The baby boy is born and she wants to draw up a family tree to prove his right to inherit from her. If we make the assumption that women are to be excluded from the family tree, all the way back to Adam, then it would be necessary to replace her name with her husband's, with a note that he was the supposed father. This would also preserve the son's dignity by not mentioning that the mother was promiscuous (Matthew gives the names of 3 promiscuous women where Luke could have, but did not).

This could be what Luke has done. If for example Jesus had been due to inherit land from his mother, she not having brothers for it to go to, and to avoid people suspecting that Mary had been promiscuous, Luke as a solicitor could have written exactly the way he has done. Of course there are assumptions here (Mary had no brothers and a male-only family tree), but it shows that you can't dismiss the genealogy as wrong. It may appear like a desperate attempt to resolve a contradiction, however, even if Luke made a mistake and got the wrong Joseph, the Bible can contain errors and its message still be true: it wouldn't automatically mean the virgin birth wasn't true. It is the skeptic who appears desperate to prove the Bible unreliable.

[ProfessorDavey]

But fundamentally he's citing Jesus' genealogy, right?

He is citing Jesus' genealogy back through the male line, in other words via Joseph, not Mary.

Given that Luke in principle omits women's names (compare with Matthew), what would he do if a man in the genealogy had no sons but did have a daughter?

But a genealogy works backwards, not forwards. The question isn't about what happens if a man has no sons, only daughter, it is about whether an individual is the son of a man - and in all cases they are, albeit I get that sometimes there is an issue over biological vs legal.

[Spud]

He is citing Jesus' genealogy back through the male line, in other words via Joseph, not Mary.
But a genealogy works backwards, not forwards. The question isn't about what happens if a man has no sons, only daughter, it is about whether an individual is the son of a man - and in all cases they are, albeit I get that sometimes there is an issue over biological vs legal.

The question for Luke was what happens if a man has no biological father?

It is correct to say that Jesus is son of Heli, even if Heli was not his biological father.

[ProfessorDavey]

The question for Luke was what happens if a man has no biological father?

He follows the lineage of the person acting as his father, in the legal if not the biological sense. Hence his genealogy runs from Jesus, through Joseph to Joseph's father and so on.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is correct to say that Jesus is son of Heli, even if Heli was not his biological father.

But Luke doesn't say that Jesus is the son of Heli, he says that Joseph was the son of Heli.

[jeremyp]

But fundamentally he's citing Jesus' genealogy, right? What if Jesus was due to inherit land that had been left to his mother by his grandfather? When Luke says, "being son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Heli" this can be read two ways, just like the example in #53; it can also be read, "being son (as was supposed, of Joseph) of Heli". The context determines which way it should be read.

Given that Luke in principle omits women's names (compare with Matthew), what would he do if a man in the genealogy had no sons but did have a daughter?

Supposing a man gets engaged to a prostitute, like Hosea did. She becomes pregnant by someone, they don't know who the father is, but they know it's not her fiancee. Suppose also she has no brothers and is due to inherit her father's land, as stipulated by Moses in Numbers 27.

In all of those cases, you would mention the mother's name. There was no taboo on mentioning women's names as you seem to think. It's just been made up as an excuse to explain away the contradiction between Matthew and Luke.

The baby boy is born and she wants to draw up a family tree to prove his right to inherit from her. If we make the assumption that women are to be excluded from the family tree

Why?

Why would we make that assumption?

This could be what Luke has done.

But it isn't. Luke gives Joseph's genealogy but just like Matthew's it is fictional.

[ProfessorDavey]

the Bible can contain errors and its message still be true

Likewise the Bible can contain errors and its message may also be untrue.

And the Bible can contain elements that are true and its message may still be untrue.

In order to come to a proper understanding you need to come to the subject with a neutral and unbiased mind, which expects evidence and rational engagement with the topic. That doesn't presuppose things as true regardless of whether there is evidence to support it. That uses the evidence to develop its conclusions rather than to try to fit the evidence to support a preformed conclusion. That doesn't allow belief to cloud rational judgement.

The question you need to ask yourself Spud is why you don't believe other sacred and ancient texts that have no more, or no less evidence to support them. And where your comment that the Bible can contain errors and its message still be true is applied equally to those text (and likewise my comments. I apply the same criterial to all supposed sacred texts, you on the other hand appear to apply a complete different level of credulity to the bible when compared to other sacred texts. That reveals inherent bias and therefore any comments you make need to be view in the context of that bias.