Genealogy Of Jesus

[jeremyp]

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.

It should be obvious to you why Spud is so desperate for Luke’s genealogy to be that of Mary. If both Luke’s and Matthew’s purport to be of Joseph (as the actually do), then there must be a mistake in the Bible.

[Harrowby Hall]

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

And "he" would have been female.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

But Luke and Matthew were written after the destruction of the temple in AD70 and decades after Herod the Great. So if they somehow had perfect access to the genealogies, why wouldn't the Jewish authorities who, let's face it, were much closer to the 'action' so to speak. So why wouldn't those Jewish authorities have just recreated those genealogical records to replace the ones that had been destroyed?

But frankly this is yet again special pleading - the destruction of the temple is used by christian apologists to explain away all sorts of things where there is a lack of corroborating evidence when there really should have been if the events claimed actually happened. Yet the Jewish people seemed to have comfortably protected their historical context and knowledge of their history despite (if you believe the christian apologists) everything going up in smoke in AD70.

Weird how they seem to have retained knowledge of the history of the jewish people, yet nothing is recorded about a guy who was purported to have performed miracles, and is purported to have come back to life after being dead. Weird indeed.

[Spud]

Some notes on the Greek of Luke 3:23, in summary of an extract from this pdf:

The entire sentence itranslated literally from the Greek reads, "And himself was Jesus beginning about years (old) thirty being son as was supposed of Joseph of Heli".

"And himself was Jesus beginning about thirty years"

"beginning about thirty years". This is an independent clause. Putting the verbs 'was' and 'beginning' together (was beginning) does not make sense in the context. 'Was' refers to something else (see below).

'beginning' needs an object; most translators insert something like 'his ministry'.

"being son, as was supposed, of Joseph". The word 'as' is a literal translation, and implies that Jesus was the son of Joseph. This is inconsistent with the rest of the narrative, which tells us that he was not. Thus we should render it, "being son, so it was supposed, of Joseph".

"being son, so it was supposed, of Joseph". This clause is also independent from "And Jesus was". It's also independent from "of Heli, of Matthat etc", since otherwise the text would say, 'Jesus himself was being, so it was supposed, son of Joseph, of Heli'. 'Was' and 'being' cannot be in apposition.

These two middle clauses being separated from the rest of the text, we are left with: "And Jesus himself was ... of Heli, of Matthat ... of Adam, of God".

In full, then: "And Jesus himself was [beginning (his ministry) about thirty years (old), being son, so it was supposed, of Joseph] of Heli, of Matthat ... of Adam, of God".

Or better, "And Jesus himself, beginning (his ministry) about thirty years (old), being son, so it was supposed, of Joseph, was of Heli, of Matthat ... of Adam, of God".

After 'Joseph', Luke hasn't used 'son' throughout the rest of the list. This confirms that the above rendering of Luke 3:23 is valid, since Heli did not beget Joseph, according to Matthew, and God did not beget Adam.

Conclusion: the Greek does support the hypothesis that Luke gives Mary's ancestry.

[ProfessorDavey]

Some notes on the Greek of Luke 3:23, in summary of an extract from this pdf:

The entire sentence itranslated literally from the Greek reads, "And himself was Jesus beginning about years (old) thirty being son as was supposed of Joseph of Heli".

"And himself was Jesus beginning about thirty years"

"beginning about thirty years". This is an independent clause. Putting the verbs 'was' and 'beginning' together (was beginning) does not make sense in the context. 'Was' refers to something else (see below).

'beginning' needs an object; most translators insert something like 'his ministry'.

"being son, as was supposed, of Joseph". The word 'as' is a literal translation, and implies that Jesus was the son of Joseph. This is inconsistent with the rest of the narrative, which tells us that he was not. Thus we should render it, "being son, so it was supposed, of Joseph".

"being son, so it was supposed, of Joseph". This clause is also independent from "And Jesus was". It's also independent from "of Heli, of Matthat etc", since 'son of Joseph' is indefinite, whereas 'Heli' and all the subsequent names are definite.

These two middle clauses being separated from the rest of the text, we are left with: "And Jesus himself was ... of Heli, of Matthat ... of Adam, of God".

In full, then: "And Jesus was [beginning (his ministry) about thirty years (old), being son, so it was supposed, of Joseph] of Heli, of Matthat ... of Adam, of God".

Or better, "And Jesus himself, beginning (his ministry) about thirty years (old), being son, so it was supposed, of Joseph, was of Heli, of Matthat ... of Adam, of God".

After 'Joseph', Luke hasn't used 'son' throughout the rest of the list. This confirms that the above rendering of Luke 3:23 is valid, since Heli did not beget Joseph, according to Matthew, and God did not beget Adam.

Conclusion: the Greek does support the hypothesis that Luke gives Mary's ancestry.

Conclusion: No it doesn't - if Luke is giving Mary's ancestry there would be no need to even mention Joseph. And Joseph of Heli isn't distinct from the rest of the lineage which also (in the original) never says 'son of' but merely 'of'. This is the lineage - in other words via Joseph.

And realistically any document that has as its title 'In Defense of the Objective Authority of the Sacred Text' is going to be suspect in the objectivity of its findings. It is yet more special pleading to try to pretend that Luke doesn't contradict Matthew - he does, they don't agree, they contradict each other. Any rational and objective person can see that. Accept it Spud and move on - the gospels regularly contradict each other - they cannot all be right (therefore they cannot all be infallible), yet, of course, they can all be wrong.

[Spud]

And Joseph of Heli isn't distinct from the rest of the lineage which also (in the original) never says 'son of' but merely 'of'.

I think it is, because if not then you get the two verbs 'to be' conflicting. I did edit the post to reflect this, as I realised that my original point about definiteness was wrong.

[jeremyp]

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.

But not everybody lived in Jerusalem. Those people who lived in other parts of the country would have kept their records with them surely.

[jeremyp]

Afer 'Joseph', Luke hasn't used 'son' throughout the rest of the list. This confirms that the above rendering of Luke 3:23 is valid, since Heli did not beget Joseph, according to Matthew, and God did not beget Adam.

You're assuming that Matthew is correct. Maybe Luke is correct or maybe nobody is.

Conclusion: the Greek does support the hypothesis that Luke gives Mary's ancestry.

No it doesn't. Mary's name is not mentioned. Nowhere does Luke ever even hint that this is Mary's genealogy. You entire argument hinges on the fact that Matthew is different from Luke, but Luke would have no idea that both his and Matthew's document would eventually be put together in the same book. If Luke had wanted this to be Mary's genealogy, he would have said so because he could have no assurance that his readers would also have read Matthew.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think it is, because if not then you get the two verbs 'to be' conflicting. I did edit the post to reflect this, as I realised that my original point about definiteness was wrong.

No - you are twisting what is there to suit your own conclusion. So to look at your 'working'.

These two middle clauses being separated from the rest of the text, we are left with: "And Jesus himself was ... of Heli, of Matthat ... of Adam, of God".

No - inappropriate editing. It should be:

"And Jesus himself was ... of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat ... of Adam, of God" - why have you left Joseph out, when he is described in exactly the same manner in terms of his ancestry as Heli etc etc.

In full, then: "And Jesus was [beginning (his ministry) about thirty years (old), being son, so it was supposed, of Joseph] of Heli, of Matthat ... of Adam, of God".

Inappropriate use of bracket - if you want to take out the non-relevant stuff it is that Jesus was supposed the son of Joseph rather than Joseph being the son of Heli. So it should read:

"And Jesus was [beginning (his ministry) about thirty years (old), being son, so it was supposed] of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat ... of Adam, of God".

Or better, "And Jesus himself, beginning (his ministry) about thirty years (old), being son, so it was supposed, of Joseph, was of Heli, of Matthat ... of Adam, of God".

Nope - why have you suddenly added an additional was, where there wasn't one to try to imply that the relationship between Joseph and Heli is somehow different to the relationship between Heli and Matthat etc - the original text doesn't imply that, it uses exactly the same language to describe Joseph's relationship to Heli as Heli's relation to Matthat etc.

So it should read:

"And Jesus himself, beginning (his ministry) about thirty years (old), being son, so it was supposed, of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat ... of Adam, of God"

[Spud]

Nope - why have you suddenly added an additional was, where there wasn't one to try to imply that the relationship between Joseph and Heli is somehow different to the relationship between Heli and Matthat etc - the original text doesn't imply that, it uses exactly the same language to describe Joseph's relationship to Heli as Heli's relation to Matthat etc.

So it should read:

"And Jesus himself, beginning (his ministry) about thirty years (old), being son, so it was supposed, of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat ... of Adam, of God"

Apologies. What I did was to subconsciously add 'at' to 'beginning' - 'beginning at about thirty years' in order to say that this clause is independent from 'And Jesus himself was...'. If the 'at' is removed, you get 'beginning (his ministry) about thirty years (of age)'. Does that work, without 'at'? It seems best to refer 'and Jesus himself was...' to 'about thirty years (of age)' rather than to 'of Heli' at the end, which is what I tried to do.

[ProfessorDavey]

Apologies. What I did was to subconsciously add 'at' to 'beginning' - 'beginning at about thirty years' in order to say that this clause is independent from 'And Jesus himself was...'. If the 'at' is removed, you get 'beginning (his ministry) about thirty years (of age)'. Does that work, without 'at'? It seems best to refer 'and Jesus himself was...' to 'about thirty years (of age)' rather than to 'of Heli' at the end, which is what I tried to do.

The issue of the age at which Jesus started preaching is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The only relevant issue is the language used to describe the relationship between Joseph and Heli, and the language used to describe the relationship between Heli and Matthat and so on. Specifically whether the language is the same (in which the implication is that they are describing the same relationship) or different (in which case you may suggest the author is implying a different relationship).

In this case the language to describe the relationship between Joseph and Heli (Joseph of Heli) is identical to that between Heli and Matthat (Heli of Matthat) and indeed is identical in all the other relationships thereafter. You have no credible evidence in the linguistics to suggest that Luke is describing anything other than the same relationship between Joseph and Heli as between Heli and Matthat (or any of the other relationships back to Adam and God.

[Spud]

The issue of the age at which Jesus started preaching is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The only relevant issue is the language used to describe the relationship between Joseph and Heli, and the language used to describe the relationship between Heli and Matthat and so on. Specifically whether the language is the same (in which the implication is that they are describing the same relationship) or different (in which case you may suggest the author is implying a different relationship).

In this case the language to describe the relationship between Joseph and Heli (Joseph of Heli) is identical to that between Heli and Matthat (Heli of Matthat) and indeed is identical in all the other relationships thereafter. You have no credible evidence in the linguistics to suggest that Luke is describing anything other than the same relationship between Joseph and Heli as between Heli and Matthat (or any of the other relationships back to Adam and God.

I get that. But some people add Joseph to the parenthesis, so instead of "being son (so it was supposed), of Joseph, of Heli" it reads, "being son (so it was supposed, of Joseph) of Heli" so that it excludes Joseph from the actual line, and it is Jesus who is of Heli, not Joseph. If we know on other grounds that Joseph was not the son of Heli, then this might be a valid translation. It doesn't read very smoothly, though.

[ProfessorDavey]

I get that. But some people add Joseph to the parenthesis ...

But there are no parentheses in the original - so anyone adding these is just doing it to fit an agenda, just as you did.

[ProfessorDavey]

so instead of "being son (so it was supposed), of Joseph, of Heli" it reads, "being son (so it was supposed, of Joseph) of Heli" so that it excludes Joseph from the actual line, and it is Jesus who is of Heli, not Joseph.

But that is just making stuff up, isn't it Spud - there are no brackets in the original and to add ones to try and detach Joseph from Heli in the listing is simply disingenuous in comparison to the original.

[Spud]

But there are no parentheses in the original - so anyone adding these is just doing it to fit an agenda, just as you did.

There is a parenthesis: "as was supposed". It's usually marked by commas - the question is whether we include "of Joseph" in it or not.

[Spud]

to try and detach Joseph from Heli in the listing is simply disingenuous in comparison to the original.

But some people say the lack of the article 'tou' before Joseph means he is not part of the genealogy. I haven't seen anyone explain exactly why yet, though.

[jeremyp]

There is a parenthesis: "as was supposed". It's usually marked by commas - the question is whether we include "of Joseph" in it or not.

There would have been no punctuation at all in the original. Or lower case letters. While we are at it, the idea of dividing the texts into verses is a sixteenth century invention.

[ProfessorDavey]

There would have been no punctuation at all in the original. Or lower case letters.

Spot on.

The original (or rather our earliest extant version) contained no punctuation, whether commas or brackets. The earliest version described the relationship between Joseph and Heli in exactly the same manner as between Heli and Matthat etc etc. Much later translators started to include punctuation to align with the norms of the new languages - but again these versions, even with punctuation, described the relationship between Joseph and Heli in exactly the same manner as between Heli and Matthat etc etc.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support a notion that the author of Luke considered the relationship between Joseph and Heli to be anything other than the same as the relationship between Heli and Matthat etc etc.

[Spud]

There would have been no punctuation at all in the original. Or lower case letters. While we are at it, the idea of dividing the texts into verses is a sixteenth century invention.

But there is a parenthesis, which we mark with punctuation.

Spot on.

The original (or rather our earliest extant version) contained no punctuation, whether commas or brackets. The earliest version described the relationship between Joseph and Heli in exactly the same manner as between Heli and Matthat etc etc. Much later translators started to include punctuation to align with the norms of the new languages - but again these versions, even with punctuation, described the relationship between Joseph and Heli in exactly the same manner as between Heli and Matthat etc etc.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support a notion that the author of Luke considered the relationship between Joseph and Heli to be anything other than the same as the relationship between Heli and Matthat etc etc.

Yes, if we go with the standard location of the parenthesis - "being son (as was supposed) of Joseph" - it has the appearance of being Joseph's line. But we also know that it is calling Jesus the son of Heli et al and not just their supposed descendant, since it says by implication that Jesus is descended from David and Abraham.

We also know from Matthew that Jacob begat Joseph, and also from the Talmud that Mary was daughter of Heli (though I wouldn't jump to assert that as reliable evidence).

Lastly we can posit that Luke would substitute Joseph's name for Mary's since there are no examples of a genealogy beginning or ending with a woman.

So we have grounds to believe that Luke gives Mary's line. This is confirmed, some say, by the grammar: between Jesus and Joseph there's no definite article, which indicates that 'as was supposed' applies to Joseph but not to Heli, Matthat et al. which all have the article (tou). This may be refuted - there is some information on the Greek use of the definite article with proper names here.

[jeremyp]

But there is a parenthesis, which we mark with punctuation.

Parentheses are punctuation. There wouldn't have been any of those in the original text.

Yes, if we go with the standard location of the parenthesis - "being son (as was supposed) of Joseph" - it has the appearance of being Joseph's line. But we also know that it is calling Jesus the son of Heli et al and not just their supposed descendant, since it says by implication that Jesus is descended from David and Abraham.

We also know from Matthew that Jacob begat Joseph, and also that from the Talmud that Mary was daughter of Heli (though I wouldn't jump to assert that as reliable evidence).

Lastly we can posit that Luke would substitute Joseph's name for Mary's since there are no examples of a genealogy beginning or ending with a woman.

So we have grounds to believe that Luke gives Mary's line. This is confirmed, some say, by the grammar: between Jesus and Joseph there's no definite article, which indicates that 'as was supposed' applies to Joseph but not to Heli, Matthat et al. which all have the article (tou). This may be refuted - there is some information on the Greek use of the definite article with proper names here.

This is all just wish fulfilment. You don't want there to be a contradiction, so you twist things to beyond breaking point to make it so.

You have no evidence that there were any parentheses

You have no evidence that Luke would not mention Mary if he wanted to.

Your "as was supposed" argument is nonsense. Nobody would have supposed that Jesus was the son of his own grandfather, so of course it only applies to Joseph.

[ProfessorDavey]

But there is a parenthesis, which we mark with punctuation.

Not in the original text there wasn't.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, if we go with the standard location of the parenthesis - "being son (as was supposed) of Joseph" - it has the appearance of being Joseph's line.

Nope, it is much more definitive than 'it has the appearance of being Joseph's line', it clearly is Joseph's line as the description of the relationship between Joseph and Heli is identical to the the description of the relationship between Heli and Matthat, etc.

And in the original (which has no punctuation) it clearly is Joseph's line as the description of the relationship between Joseph and Heli is identical to the the description of the relationship between Heli and Matthat, etc.

Any other interpretation is baseless, has no credible evidence to support it, and is clearly special pleading from people who are not being objective but have an agenda that they wish to try to prove - albeit fail to do so spectacularly.

[Spud]

Not in the original text there wasn't.

A parenthesis is words, whether they are punctuated or not:

a word or phrase inserted as an explanation or afterthought into a passage which is grammatically complete without it, in writing usually marked off by brackets, dashes, or commas.

[Spud]

You have no evidence that Luke would not mention Mary if he wanted to.

If writing a family tree of a woman was unprecedented he might not have wanted to mention her.

[Spud]

Your "as was supposed" argument is nonsense. Nobody would have supposed that Jesus was the son of his own grandfather, so of course it only applies to Joseph.

Jesus is elsewhere called the son of David, so 'son of Heli' could mean biological grandson.