Grumpy

For example, no matter how plainly Luke 3:23 says Joseph was the son of Heli, you will encounter those who blithely assert that Heli was, in fact, Mary's father. All to escape the glaring contradiction with Matthew 1:16, which just as plainly says that Joseph's father was Jacob.

FunkyRes

We have documentation in the Talmud saying that Mary the daughter of Heli was damned to hell for her blasphemy.

So the Jews, it seems, accepted both a concept of Hell and that Mary was the daughter of Heli.

Peter Kirby

FunkyRes writes: We have documentation in the Talmud saying that Mary the daughter of Heli was damned to hell for her blasphemy.

You learn something new everyday. Christian apologist Mark McFall has looked into this a bit, and this is what he has to say:

Good work, Mark!

best,
Peter Kirby

FunkyRes

Interesting.
This still, even if above quote is accurate, does not mean that Luke's does not describe the lineage of Mary, as there are (from what I can find) very rarely if ever women mentioned in a genealogy from that culture.

FunkyRes

Here is added support for the Luke/Mary thing-

<a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/abdiscr/abdiscr13.html" target="_blank">http://www.apologeticspress.org/abdiscr/abdiscr13.html</a>

Michael Ledo

There is no Talmud statement about Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Michael Ledo

Joey Had Two Daddies (From Bible Bloopers)

“If, indeed the Bible does contain demonstrable errors, it would show that at least those parts could not have come from a perfect, all-knowing God.” –Josh McDowell


The most obvious contradiction in the Bible is the genealogy of Jesus. Even the early church fathers had to deal with it. In Matthew, Joseph’s father is Jacob. In Luke he was Heli. I am offering the conservative church a sane sensible way out of this dilemma. Joseph was raised by a pair a male homosexuals. The name Heli comes from the Greek word for sun, helios, implying that Joey’s Dad was a flamer.
 
As simple as this explanation is, the church never adopted it. Rather they chose something less believable. They decided that one of the genealogies should belong to Mary. Luke won out as the genealogy that belonged to Mary because in Luke 3:23 it uses the phrase “as was supposed.” Never mind that the rest of the verse states “the son of Joseph.” Very clever, except they forgot one thing.
 
There seems to be a prophecy that the messiah would be descended from Salathiel and Zerubbabel (probably somewhere from Zechariah or Haggai). They are included in the midst of both genealogies. In other words Salathiel had two fathers also. Neri, in Luke and Jechonias for those who prefer Matthew. (The gay explanation is starting to look better).
 
1 Chronicles 3:17 claims Jechoniah to be Salathiel’s father. The Old Testament doesn’t know Luke’s Neri. Zerubbabel’s sons listed in 1 Chr. 3:19 are “Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister: And Hashubah and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushab-hesed five” (Grumpy, Sleepy, and Dopey). Luke claims Zerubbabel’s son to be “Rhesa,” Matthew prefers “Abiud.” Apparently they were both illegitimate since Chronicles never mentions them. Zerubbabel lived about 500 B.C., meaning about 500 years passed between him and the birth of Jesus. During this time Luke lists 20 generations, Matthew 11. Under Matthew’s plan the average age a man would have to be in siring the son for the next generation would be 45, Luke’s is 25. Forty-five does seem a little high, but let us abandon reason, after all it is the Bible.

The problem of the genealogy was addressed by Eusebius. He claimed Heli and Jacob were half brothers with the same Mother (Estha). Heli died childless, and Jacob married Heli’s widow and begat Joseph. Heli was Joseph’s legal father, Jacob his blood line father. Unfortunately Eusebius never tells us who is Salathiel’s real half father, or whatever. This explanation allegedly came from Africanus. Since Herod the Great burnt the official temple registers of all the families, it is impossible to say what is really the truth, although some people will try.

Peter Kirby

My quote of McFall is accurate. I think that McFall's quote of the Talmud is accurate, but if you disagree you can take it up with him.

I think that you are letting your pet theory influence your reading of the biblical narrative. Luke does not mention Mary in his geneaology. And if you are right that it is rare for a woman to be in a geneaology, and if in fact it would Mary's geneaology means nothing for Jesus, then it does not seem likely that Luke is tracing Mary's geneaology.

To prove that Luke does not mention MAry in his geneaology, read it for yourself (Darby):

Luke 3
23 And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli,
24 of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi, of Janna, of Joseph,
25 of Mattathias, of Amos, of Naoum, of Esli, of Naggai,
26 of Maath, of Mattathias, of Semei, of Joseph, of Juda,
27 of Joannes, of Resa, of Zorobabel, of Salathiel, of Neri,
28 of Melchi, of Addi, of Cosam, of Elmodam, of Er,
29 of Joses, of Eliezer, of Joreim, of Matthat, of Levi,
30 of Simeon, of Juda, of Joseph, of Jonan, of Eliakim,
31 of Meleas, of Menan, of Mattatha, of Nathan, of David,
32 of Jesse, of Obed, of Booz, of Salmon, of Naasson,
33 of Aminadab, of Aram, of Esrom, of Phares, of Juda,
34 of Jacob, of Isaac, of Abraham, of Terah, of Nachor,
35 of Seruch, of Ragau, of Phalek, of Eber, of Sala,
36 of Cainan, of Arphaxad, of Sem, of Noe, of Lamech,
37 of Methusala, of Enoch, of Jared, of Maleleel, of Cainan,
38 of Enos, of Seth, of Adam, of God.

best,
Peter Kirby

Grumpy

Michael Ledo highlights a good point about the two genealogies. The one in Matthew lists 27 generations between David & Jesus, Luke has 42 (unlike Matthew, he doesn't mention each name twice).

Whether Heli fathered Mary or Joseph, the fact is that his lineage (through David's son Nathan) was afflicted with accelerated reproduction. Or else the line of Solomon was plagued with sluggish reproduction, as reported in Matthew.

Isn't it more plausible to read one or both of the genealogies as being fictitious?

FunkyRes

It's possible one or both was, but that is not demanded by any of the evidence given.

Skipping generations was not an uncommon practice when giving a genealogy.

In fact, I believe it can be demonstrated through other genealogies in the OT that one (or both) skipped some generations. I'm not positive (haven't looked myself) but I believe that has been demonstrated.