Genealogy Of Jesus

[Spud]

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.

I do agree. There doesn't seem to be much online suggesting restriction on women in genealogies, and as you say women are commonly mentioned in the OT ones. However, Luke makes no mention at all of any in 77 generations, suggesting he has a men-only policy. It may be nothing to do with what was acceptable.

[jeremyp]

I do agree. There doesn't seem to be much online suggesting restriction on women in genealogies, and as you say women are commonly mentioned in the OT ones. However, Luke makes no mention at all of any in 77 generations, suggesting he has a men-only policy. It may be nothing to do with what was acceptable.

Oh FFS.

If I decided to make a list starting with me and listing only the father of the previous person on the list, even going back to the beginning of Homo sapiens, there would be no women on the list.  The doesn't mean I've got a man only policy, only that fathers are, by definition, men.

[Spud]

Oh FFS.

If I decided to make a list starting with me and listing only the father of the previous person on the list, even going back to the beginning of Homo sapiens, there would be no women on the list.  The doesn't mean I've got a man only policy, only that fathers are, by definition, men.

So the contention is that Luke would have included Mary if it was her genealogy. Maybe so, but I don't think we can assume it.

[Spud]

So the contention is that Luke would have included Mary if it was her genealogy. Maybe so, but I don't think we can assume it.

The reason being: if this is Joseph's genealogy, then the passage comes across as stating that Jesus was thought to be, but wasn't really, the son of Joseph [which is consistent with the context] but also that Jesus was thought to be, but wasn't really, the son of Heli, of Matthat etc and the son of God. Obviously this is would be inconsistent with the preceding two verses which describe the voice from heaven calling Jesus his Son, and with the next passage where the devil tempts Jesus to prove that he is God's son.

Thus it seems very likely that Luke has indeed written Mary's genealogy, but omitted her name in order to add that Joseph was thought to be but was not Jesus' father.

[jeremyp]

So the contention is that Luke would have included Mary if it was her genealogy.

Yes it seems logical that, when talking about a genealogy you mention who is in it.

Maybe so, but I don't think we can assume it.

Yes, I think we can.

[jeremyp]

The reason being: if this is Joseph's genealogy, then the passage comes across as stating that Jesus was thought to be, but wasn't really, the son of Joseph [which is consistent with the context]

Yes.

but also that Jesus was thought to be, but wasn't really, the son of Heli,

No, it doesn't say that. It says Jesus was incorrectly thought to be the son of Joseph and that Joseph was the son of Heli.

Thus it seems very likely that Luke has indeed written Mary's genealogy

No it doesn't. It is never hinted or implied that this genealogy had anything to do with Mary.

but omitted her name in order to add that Joseph was thought to be but was not Jesus' father.

Those two options are not exclusive. And if he ws doing Jesus' genealogy through Mary, he wouldn't even need to mention Joseph. He could have said "Jesus, son of Mary, daughter of Heli". He didn't.

I think this conversation is over. Your arguments have been thoroughly debunked. Unless you can come up with some more sensible reason for Luke not mentioning Mary in a genealogy of Mary other than "because otherwise the Bible is wrong", we are done here.

[Spud]

No, it doesn't say that. It says Jesus was incorrectly thought to be the son of Joseph and that Joseph was the son of Heli.

And this can mean son-in-law, as I said in #97: Jair was the son-in-law of Manasseh through Manasseh's granddaughter and is referred to as the son of Manasseh in Numbers and Deuteronomy without any mention of her.

[ProfessorDavey]

And this can mean son-in-law, as I said in #97: Jair was the son-in-law of Manasseh through Manasseh's granddaughter and is referred to as the son of Manasseh in Numbers and Deuteronomy without any mention of her.

Then why bother to mention Joseph at all.

Were that approach to be used, Jesus would simply have been described as he son of Heli - but he isn't.

[jeremyp]

And this can mean son-in-law, as I said in #97: Jair was the son-in-law of Manasseh through Manasseh's granddaughter and is referred to as the son of Manasseh in Numbers and Deuteronomy without any mention of her.

I told you we are done unless you can provide some credible evidence for Luke not mentioning Mary.

[Spud]

No, it doesn't say that. It says Jesus was incorrectly thought to be the son of Joseph and that Joseph was the son of Heli.

Actually, it doesn't say 'Joseph the son of Heli', but '...Joseph, of Heli'. Jesus, not Joseph, is the subject of the entire sentence ending at v.38 (thus: "Jesus himself... being son, so it was thought, of Joseph, of Heli...").

So my point still stands: if you read it as 'Joseph the son of Heli' then there is no logical consistency to the passage, because it implies that Jesus was also thought to be, but not really, the son of Zerubbabel, David and Abraham (not to mention Adam and God).

The reason Luke doesn't mention Mary is that genealogies were always patrilineal, from father to son, and Luke has already explained Mary's involvement at length.

I am not saying this is the explanation but that it is a credible one. Other possible explanations include that it is Joseph's biological line (notwithstanding the abovementioned logical inconsistency) and that there was levirate marriage at the points where it differs from Matthew's.

[jeremyp]

Actually, it doesn't say 'Joseph the son of Heli', but '...Joseph, of Heli'. Jesus, not Joseph, is the subject of the entire sentence ending at v.38 (thus: "Jesus himself... being son, so it was thought, of Joseph, of Heli...").

So my point still stands: if you read it as 'Joseph the son of Heli' then there is no logical consistency to the passage, because it implies that Jesus was also thought to be, but not really, the son of Zerubbabel, David and Abraham (not to mention Adam and God).

The reason Luke doesn't mention Mary is that genealogies were always patrilineal, from father to son, and Luke has already explained Mary's involvement at length.

I am not saying this is the explanation but that it is a credible one. Other possible explanations include that it is Joseph's biological line (notwithstanding the abovementioned logical inconsistency) and that there was levirate marriage at the points where it differs from Matthew's.

I told you we are done unless you can find evidence that genealogies were always patrilineal and didn't mention women. Find that evidence and we can start discussing it again. At the moment you have no credible alternative to the proposition that both Matthew and Luke were describing Joseph's genealogy.

While you're at it, some independent evidence that ordinary people knew their genealogies in 1st century Palestine would interesting to see too.

[Spud]

I told you we are done unless you can find evidence that genealogies were always patrilineal and didn't mention women. Find that evidence and we can start discussing it again. At the moment you have no credible alternative to the proposition that both Matthew and Luke were describing Joseph's genealogy.

While you're at it, some independent evidence that ordinary people knew their genealogies in 1st century Palestine would interesting to see too.

Genealogies were always father-son lineages, with relevant women sometimes mentioned. Luke mentions no women in a 77 generation list and has already described Mary's involvement so there is no reason to expect him to mention her if his genealogy was through her.

Anyway lately I've been more inclined to think of early church historians as reliable with regard to the order of the gospels, and so I'm inclined to prefer the view of Africanus and Eusebius that Joseph was 'begat' by Jacob (Mt 1) and legally 'son of' Heli (Lk 3).

I think I'm done too.

[ProfessorDavey]

Genealogies were always father-son lineages, with relevant women sometimes mentioned. Luke mentions no women in a 77 generation list and has already described Mary's involvement so there is no reason to expect him to mention her if his genealogy was through her.

Anyway lately I've been more inclined to think of early church historians as reliable with regard to the order of the gospels, and so I'm inclined to prefer the view of Africanus and Eusebius that Joseph was 'begat' by Jacob (Mt 1) and legally 'son of' Heli (Lk 3).

I think I'm done too.

So you are accepting that Luke is reporting Joseph's genealogy then?

But beyond that there is no evidence that the genealogies are actually correct, and there are glaring inconsistencies that Eusebius tries to explain away - but then Eusebius always tries to explain away things that cast doubt on the accuracy of the bible and christianity, because he has a clear agenda. He is not a neutral commentator and therefore anything he claims in relation to christianity must be taken with a massive dollop of salt.

And we have no idea what Africanus actually said on the topic as I think everything is seen through the lens of Eusebius, and the latter isn't averse to making stuff up and adding to the purported words of earlier writing in order to justify his thesis.

[jeremyp]

Genealogies were always father-son lineages, with relevant women sometimes mentioned.

Two problems here.

1. You have no evidence

2. You've just claimed that Luke could not be giving Mary's genealogy because that wouldn't be a father-son lineage.

Luke mentions no women in a 77 generation list and has already described Mary's involvement so there is no reason to expect him to mention her if his genealogy was through her.

There's every reason to mention her if it's her genealogy. He doesn't, so the obvious conclusion is it's not her genealogy.

I think I'm done too.

You have been.

[Spud]

So you are accepting that Luke is reporting Joseph's genealogy then?

I agree that we would expect Luke to mention Mary if it was hers, but I don't think he necessarily would. If the Greek points to one or the other, I'd be swayed by that. It seems that if it is Mary's line, then Luke has worded it so that it can be mistaken for Joseph's.

If it is Joseph's line, why would Luke insert "autos" (himself) when Jesus is already the subject of the preceding verse? If it is Mary's, however, this could be to highlight the contrast between what was believed about Joseph, and the reality. Thus the passage could read,

Beginning (his ministry) at about thirty years of age, being, so it was supposed, son of Joseph, Jesus himself was (son) of Heli, of Matthan, of Levi...

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree that we would expect Luke to mention Mary if it was hers, but I don't think he necessarily would. If the Greek points to one or the other, I'd be swayed by that. It seems that if it is Mary's line, then Luke has worded it so that it can be mistaken for Joseph's.

Again you are straying into the world of special pleading. We have no idea what the motivation of the author of Luke was in using certain words, and frankly we can never know. Indeed we have no idea who the author of Luke actually was, and nor can we know whether the words that have come down to us via multiple copyists, translations, alterations etc bear any meaningful resemblance to the original as written, let alone whether those words actually aligned with the author of Luke's actual view.

So this is speculation built on speculation on a foundation of special pleading. Frankly all we can reasonably take away from the genealogies in Luke and Matthew is that the versions that have come down to us are inconsistent between them, that they are part of a very partial text with a clear agenda and that it is implausible that anyone living in those days would have been able to accurately trace back their ancestry over dozens and dozens of generations. Plus of course that the very concept (tracing back to Adam and therefore god) is completely flawed as Adam was not the first human.

[Spud]

.that it is implausible that anyone living in those days would have been able to accurately trace back their ancestry over dozens and dozens of generations

   I think knowing their expectation of a Messiah, and their tradition of not marrying outside their tribe, keeping land owned by the same tribe, the Jews would have kept very detailed records.

[jeremyp]

   I think knowing their expectation of a Messiah, and their tradition of not marrying outside their tribe, keeping land owned by the same tribe, the Jews would have kept very detailed records.

Where are these records?

[Spud]

Again you are straying into the world of special pleading. We have no idea what the motivation of the author of Luke was in using certain words, and frankly we can never know.

No, just trying to understand how the (what we presume is the original) Greek should be rendered. If that's 'Joseph who was the son of Heli', so be it.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, just trying to understand how the (what we presume is the original) Greek should be rendered. If that's 'Joseph who was the son of Heli', so be it.

Why are you so desperate for Luke's genealogy to be via Mary - I don't understand why this is so important to you, but it clearly is. Is it because it allowed you to get around the gaping inconsistencies between Matthew and Luke which mean one, or other, or both must be wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

   I think knowing their expectation of a Messiah, and their tradition of not marrying outside their tribe, keeping land owned by the same tribe, the Jews would have kept very detailed records.

So what happened to these detailed records Spud - they seem to have vanished, and of course if fastidious record keeping was important the the Jewish people prior to Jesus it would have been afterwards too as they were still waiting for the Messiah.

Again the special pleading and clutching at straws. Either the Jewish people kept detailed records, in which case we'd have evidence of this. Or they didn't, in which case the notion of being able to accurately trace back 77 generations is non-sense.

You cannot have it both ways.

[Spud]

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.

What he is saying in the video (from about 5 minutes in) is that there is no example of a woman's family tree being traced. (Yes, we find lists of descendants which might contain daughters, or wives from different families, but not in the opposite direction - "Sheila was daughter of Joe, who was son of John, etc". So Luke's situation would have been unprecedented, had he been wanting to trace Mary's ancestry).
Thus he says, if Luke wanted to trace a woman's family tree, but felt it would not be correct to name her, he would insert the name of her husband and use a grammatical device (omit 'tou' before his name) to indicate that it was not his but his wife's line.

[ProfessorDavey]

So Luke's situation would have been unprecedented, had he been wanting to trace Mary's ancestry).
Thus he says, if Luke wanted to trace a woman's family tree, ...

But there is no suggestion that Luke is tracing anyone's family tree other than Jesus. That's why his genealogy starts with ... err ... Jesus. Had he been tracing Mary's genealogy he would have started with Mary and Jesus wouldn't have been mentioned.

[Spud]

Why are you so desperate for Luke's genealogy to be via Mary - I don't understand why this is so important to you, but it clearly is. Is it because it allowed you to get around the gaping inconsistencies between Matthew and Luke which mean one, or other, or both must be wrong.

The inconsistencies do not mean either or both of them must be wrong, but yes, there is a desire to harmonize the two.

So what happened to these detailed records Spud - they seem to have vanished, and of course if fastidious record keeping was important the the Jewish people prior to Jesus it would have been afterwards too as they were still waiting for the Messiah.

Again the special pleading and clutching at straws. Either the Jewish people kept detailed records, in which case we'd have evidence of this. Or they didn't, in which case the notion of being able to accurately trace back 77 generations is non-sense.

You cannot have it both ways.

I read that they had perished in AD 70 and also that Herod the Great had destroyed the Messianic ones to enable him to become the king.

[Spud]

But there is no suggestion that Luke is tracing anyone's family tree other than Jesus. That's why his genealogy starts with ... err ... Jesus. Had he been tracing Mary's genealogy he would have started with Mary and Jesus wouldn't have been mentioned.

You seem to have missed the point. If Jesus had no human father then he only had biological ancestors on his mother's side.