Genealogy Of Jesus

[ProfessorDavey]

it wouldn't automatically mean the virgin birth wasn't true.

The reason why the virgin birth isn't true isn't to be found in a couple of lines in a 2000 year old text. No it is to be found in fundamental human physiology and biology.

[jeremyp]

but it shows that you can't dismiss the genealogy as wrong.

It's only one of many reasons why we can dismiss the genealogy as wrong.

Here's a couple more:

As PD stated earlier, the two genealogies have a point in common (between David and Jesus) other than Joseph. As soon as two genealogies got to a common ancestor, they should be identical thereafter. These two genealogies are not.

Almost nobody in 1st century Palestine would have had any idea of their genealogy going back a thousand years.

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.

The virgin birth is definitely not true, but for different reasons. It's not completely impossible for an accurate genealogy spanning a thousand years to exist - after all, the Queen has got one. It is impossible for a human to be born from a virgin birth.

[Spud]

Just a thought, maybe Luke wanted to demonstrate that Jesus is the 'seed' which would crush the serpent's head, promised to Eve (Luke's very next story is the temptation). Luke would, then, have to give a blood line from Adam and Eve all the way to Jesus to show that he was indeed descended from them, and the only way would be through Mary's line. Hence the complete family tree in Luke.

[Spud]

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

'Son' can mean son of his father or grandfather in Luke 3.

[ProfessorDavey]

'Son' can mean son of his father or grandfather in Luke 3.

If true, then that would mean that Joseph might have been Heli's grandson, rather than his son. Doesn't really help your clutching at straws, must make up evidence to fit with my preformed belief, approach.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just a thought, maybe Luke wanted to demonstrate that Jesus is the 'seed' which would crush the serpent's head, promised to Eve (Luke's very next story is the temptation). Luke would, then, have to give a blood line from Adam and Eve all the way to Jesus to show that he was indeed descended from them, and the only way would be through Mary's line. Hence the complete family tree in Luke.

Just a thought, maybe Luke was making things up in order to retrospectively demonstrate that a prophecy had been met in order to fit with his clear bias and agenda in writing the gospel.

Hint ... he isn't writing a historical document, he is writing to try and support a faith-based opinion.

[Sebastian Toe]

Luke would, then, have to give a blood line from Adam and Eve all the way to Jesus to show that he was indeed descended from them,

Under what circumstance would he not be descended from the first man and first woman?

[Gordon]

Spud

1. You'll never know anyway, unless you invent a time machine and use it to ascertain who was fucking who (leading to pregnancy) in antiquity.

2. The notion that one human throughout the history of our species wasn't the result of two other humans reproducing biologically (even using 'test tubes' in more recent times) is just plain silly: not a serious proposition.

3. Since you can't exclude the risks of mistakes or lies in your Bible, and in the absence of DNA samples to establish parentage and lineage, then what it says about genealogy really is worthless.

While this subject might be important for card-carrying Christians, I find it hard to envisage that the rest of us would lose sleep over it. 

[Harrowby Hall]

And even if parthenogenesis were possible in homo sapiens it would result in female offspring because no y-chromosone would be involved.

[Spud]

As PD stated earlier, the two genealogies have a point in common (between David and Jesus) other than Joseph. As soon as two genealogies got to a common ancestor, they should be identical thereafter. These two genealogies are not.

We might think that way, but when you take the ancient practice of levirate marriages into consideration it becomes possible for lines to converge and diverge. We should possibly even assume that happened, since it was the law for a man to marry his deceased brother's widow if they had not had children.

This is interesting:

One thing to consider is that the Zerubbabel in Chronicles is not the same as the Zerubbabel in the New Testament. Chronicles lists Zerubbabel as the son of Pedaiah and Nephew of Salathiel, son of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah). Some think this is in error and try to force the NT Zerubbabel in there because of Matthew.

This is clearly a misunderstanding, as God promised that none of the male seed of Jehoichin (JeConiah) would ever be on the throne. He says he is no longer the "Signet of Authority" (Jeremiah 22:24). The Lord then says in Haggai 2:23 that Zerubbabel the son of Salatiel is now His "Signet of Authority". So the inheritance passed, not necessarily by Levirate Marriage, but by the Authority of God.

You do state that the Levirate marriage requires the next brother, although the case of Ruth and Boaz shows that it can be the nearest kin. When the royal family was taken captive into Babylon, many were killed or dispersed. So when she married her "next of kin" (i.e. the closest relative available), it ended up being another line from King David, thus fulfilling all of God's promise.

Matthew traces the "Kingly Line" calling them "sons". Men get so caught up in "this law" or "that law", but God is overall, and He can do what he wants.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/26932/can-differences-in-the-line-of-zerubbabel-in-the-genealogies-of-jesus-in-matthew

[Spud]

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.

Why?

Why would we make that assumption?

Simply because it was common practice to give the names of males only in the genealogy. This video reasons that the reader would know Mary was being referred to because of the missing definite article before 'joseph':
https://youtu.be/qavIXRNXCbY

[Spud]

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.

Matthew does that, for legal purposes, just as we would take the surname of an adopted father.
We wouldn't write a genealogy using an adopted parent's ancestry, though. So since there was only one natural parent, Luke would have used her genealogy.

I've noted your point about not believing other sacred and ancient texts. For another thread, maybe?

[ProfessorDavey]

Matthew does that, for legal purposes, just as we would take the surname of an adopted father.

Sure - genealogies may use either biological (obviously the strict sense) or legal parentage.

We wouldn't write a genealogy using an adopted parent's ancestry, though.

Yes you would, certainly in the Jewish context where there are many examples of either biological or legal parentage being used - indeed you've tried to explain away Salathiel and Zorobabel.

So since there was only one natural parent,

That is clearly not true, but nonetheless ...

Luke would have used her genealogy.

You may wish that to be true to get yourself our of a 'belief before evidence' hole, but there is no evidence for this - Luke is clearly talking about Joseph and Joseph's father as he starts his genealogy. Were he using her genealogy and did not want to mention women (why?, others do) then he'd simply skip a generation from Jesus directly to Mary's father - there would be no earthly point in even mentioning Joseph. Yet he does and is clear that Heli is Joseph's father, and onward from there.

I've noted your point about not believing other sacred and ancient texts. For another thread, maybe?

Nope, for this thread as it is an important issue - you are special pleading, cherry picking, bending arguments way beyond any evidence in order to prove your preformed belief to be true. Why is that the case and why not apply the same to other sacred texts. The point is that you aren't neutral in this discussion - you have a clear bias and you are only interested in 'evidence' as a means to justify your bias. That isn't objective - Jeremy and I are being objective - looking at the evidence (there is precious little of it) an applying a rational and objective approach to it, just as we'd do to other sacred texts.

And if you take an objective and rational viewpoint the following become clear:

1. There is no realistic way that people living in 1stC palestine would have been able to accurately trace back their ancestry over dozens and dozens of generations.
2. Matthew and Luke both include genealogies, and do so for a purpose and with an agenda, which is slightly different in each case.
3. Matthew and Luke are not in agreement - not unreasonable as neither would have access to credible information to substantiate their claims (see 1 above).
4. Their choices (and disagreements) likely reflect both inconsistent evidence available to them and the need to come up with the 'right answer' because of their agendas (see 2 above)
5. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that either of them is describing Mary's lineage, rather than Joseph's.
6. Due to the inconsistencies Matthew and Luke cannot both be right, however they could both be wrong.
7. Trying to trace back to Adam is based on the myth that Adam was the first man - we know that not to be true and therefore the whole approach is flawed.

[ProfessorDavey]

Simply because it was common practice to give the names of males only in the genealogy. This video reasons that the reader would know Mary was being referred to because of the missing definite article before 'joseph':
https://youtu.be/qavIXRNXCbY

While we are on the subject of bias, any video that at its outset boldy states a conclusion that:

'We are simply not in a position to criticize, much less decide against the historicity of these accounts'

Prior to providing any evidence suggests an achingly biased approach - one that has already decided its conclusion prior to looking at the evidence, rather than one that bases its conclusion on the evidence.

So we aren't allowed even allowed to  criticize the accuracy of the genealogies - here's news for you, chum, yes we are and we will continue to criticise until and unless you provide credible evidence to justify your claims of historicity and accuracy - which currently is painfully lacking.

[jeremyp]

Simply because it was common practice to give the names of males only in the genealogy.

You still haven't provided any evidence for this assertion.

[jeremyp]

Simply because it was common practice to give the names of males only in the genealogy. This video reasons that the reader would know Mary was being referred to because of the missing definite article before 'joseph':
https://youtu.be/qavIXRNXCbY

That's pretty funny. That video claims that the writer of Matthew broke with Jewish tradition in two ways

1. by mentioning women

2. by skipping generations

And yet your argument relies on the assertion that Luke would not break with Jewish tradition in his genealogy. If Matthew can do it, so can Luke.

[ProfessorDavey]

You still haven't provided any evidence for this assertion.

It goes further than that - there is clear evidence to completely debunk this notion, in that pretty well all the other genealogies in the bible (there aren't many by the way) mention women, in some cases just as 'daughter' but in other cases specifically by name. So this includes:

Matthew's genealogy of Jesus
The genealogy in Genesis indicating the descendent of Adam and Eve
Abraham's family tree

So the question isn't that Luke doesn't mention women because no-one else does, but why Luke fails to mention women when most other examples do. In that context the notion that Luke is describing Mary's genealogy but without mentioning Mary becomes increasingly bizarre.

[jeremyp]

7. Trying to trace back to Adam is based on the myth that Adam was the first man - we know that not to be true and therefore the whole approach is flawed.

Abraham is also mythical and so, potentially, is David.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's pretty funny. That video claims that the writer of Matthew broke with Jewish tradition in two ways

1. by mentioning women

2. by skipping generations

And yet your argument relies on the assertion that Luke would not break with Jewish tradition in his genealogy. If Matthew can do it, so can Luke.

But it is patently non-sense that there was a biblical Jewish tradition not to mention women.

Genesis chapter 4 describes the lineage from Adam through Cain for several generations. In that description the following women are mentioned (by name); Eve, Adah, Zillah, Naamah.

Genesis chapter 5 describes the lineage from Adam through Seth for several generations - although no woman is mentioned by name the word 'daughters' appears 9 times in a very short chapter.

[ProfessorDavey]

But it is patently non-sense that there was a biblical Jewish tradition not to mention women.

Genesis chapter 4 describes the lineage from Adam through Cain for several generations. In that description the following women are mentioned (by name); Eve, Adah, Zillah, Naamah.

Genesis chapter 5 describes the lineage from Adam through Seth for several generations - although no woman is mentioned by name the word 'daughters' appears 9 times in a very short chapter.

And while we are on Genesis, what on earth is this non-sense of Adam living for 930 years and Seth living for 912 years etc etc. All just patent non-sense.

[Spud]

It goes further than that - there is clear evidence to completely debunk this notion, in that pretty well all the other genealogies in the bible (there aren't many by the way) mention women, in some cases just as 'daughter' but in other cases specifically by name. So this includes:

Matthew's genealogy of Jesus
The genealogy in Genesis indicating the descendent of Adam and Eve
Abraham's family tree

So the question isn't that Luke doesn't mention women because no-one else does, but why Luke fails to mention women when most other examples do. In that context the notion that Luke is describing Mary's genealogy but without mentioning Mary becomes increasingly bizarre.

That's pretty funny. That video claims that the writer of Matthew broke with Jewish tradition in two ways

1. by mentioning women

2. by skipping generations

And yet your argument relies on the assertion that Luke would not break with Jewish tradition in his genealogy. If Matthew can do it, so can Luke.

Uh, hello, Luke is writing for gentiles. How about if the Greeks and Romans were not into including women?

[ProfessorDavey]

Uh, hello, Luke is writing for gentiles. How about if the Greeks and Romans were not into including women?

Grab that straw Spud.

[Spud]

Behold one prominent Israelite, Jair ben Manasseh (Numbers 32:41, Deut 3:14) who judged Israel for 22 years (Judges 10). Manasseh was his great grandfather through his granddaughter (1 Chron 2:21-22).
Here then is an OT example of the expression "son of so and so" when it means great-grand-son-in-law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#Maternal_ancestry_in_Luke

[jeremyp]

Uh, hello, Luke is writing for gentiles. How about if the Greeks and Romans were not into including women?

I have never heard of this restriction about mentioning women in genealogies either by Jews, Greeks or Romans before this conversation with you. It looks like you are really just clutching at straws.

What you need to do is find actual evidence that your assertion is true. Until you do, we'll just call bullshit on your idea that you can't mention women.

[jeremyp]

Behold one prominent Israelite, Jair ben Manasseh (Numbers 32:41, Deut 3:14) who judged Israel for 22 years (Judges 10). Manasseh was his great grandfather through his granddaughter (1 Chron 2:21-22).
Here then is an OT example of the expression "son of so and so" when it means great-grand-son-in-law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#Maternal_ancestry_in_Luke

Let's see what it says

18 Caleb son of Hezron had children by his wife Azubah, and by Jerioth; these were her sons: Jesher, Shobab, and Ardon. 19 When Azubah died, Caleb married Ephrath, who bore him Hur. 20 Hur became the father of Uri, and Uri became the father of Bezalel.

21 Afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir father of Gilead, whom he married when he was sixty years old; and she bore him Segub; 22 and Segub became the father of Jair, who had twenty-three towns in the land of Gilead

The thing that jumps out at me here is how many women are mentioned in these family trees. It's not none.