aporia

Hi everyone,

This post is about a possible way to explain why there are different genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. I'm no Biblical scholar, so this may be wrong for some obvious reason; or it may be an old, well-worn hypothesis. (I'm pretty sure it's at least one of those two!) But here goes:

I think that the genealogies of Matthew and Luke disagree because they represent two independently grown traditions about Jesus' ancestry. They came into conflict, caused quarrels, and the leaders were called in to arbitrate. But the leaders had no investment in the quarrel, so they said believe whatever genealogy you want. Then, since they didn't think it was that important, and to avoid upsetting the adherents of one genealogy, the creators of the orthodox canon passed Matthew and Luke down to us without modifying the genealogies to agree with each other.

So here's my support for this conjecture:

In the letters to Timothy and Titus, some important Christian leader or leaders (probably not Paul as I have read) tells his subordinates to avoid quarreling about genealogies (1 Tim 1:4, Titus 3:9). Presumably this is in response to quarrels which are sufficiently widespread to merit a rebuke in two different letters. The genealogy on all of their minds, that of Jesus, seems like the likely subject of these quarrels. So we can infer that there were multiple contradictory genealogies of Jesus flying around in the emerging "orthodox" Christian community. We can also see that early Christian leaders were concerned about these disputes and anxious to keep them from causing a rift in the community. The author(s) of Timothy and Titus say that these disputes are "useless and worthless".

This attitude seems to be at odds with the natural attitude of the Jewish community of Jesus' time. To Jews of this time, these disputes would have been highly relevant and important. The messiah must be a descendant of David, and the genealogy that proves it had better be right. If I made a genealogy and someone starts spreading a contradictory one, of course we're going to fight about it -- the identity of Jesus is at stake! Hence the quarrels.

According to EarlyChristianWritings.com, the writers of Timothy and Titus used an contemplative, philosophically-minded language and literary style in these books (unlike Paul's more bombastic polemical style). Perhaps they were Gentile converts or very Hellenized Greeks, caring much more for the new wine of Christianity than the old wine of Judaism and its messianic prophecies. Maybe to stop the infighting, they just said "believe whatever you want about Jesus' genealogy, it doesn't really matter anyway". So when it came time to finalize the orthodox canon, rather than upset the adherents to the rival genealogies of Matthew and Luke, they decided to include them both.

Any questions, comments, corrections? Where should I go to read more about this issue?

Roland

This, though by necessity highly speculative, seems a fairly reasonable explanation as to why they would leave both in.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Aporia,

I do not think the traditions are independent because of their binary mirror structure -- one goes up and the other goes down. Also, that the geneologies are so extraordinarily long is hardly coincidental. One really did not need a geneology going back all the way to Abraham. A geneology tracing Jesus to a recent Jewish King, or to King David was all that was needed. Tracing him to Abraham is way unnecessary, and tracing him from God and Adam goes beyond that excess.

Luke is quite aware of Matthew's geneology and is playing off it. It is typical of him to try and show that he has more knowledge than Matthew. Luke's geneology is designed to top Matthew's. The differences are to create the illusion of independent sources.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spamandham

Who could possibly have known these genealogies? What were the 'traditions' based on?

It seems to me, that listing a genealogy was a mechanism used to provide support to your own authority - "see! Jesus and I share the same heritage, so trust me and hand over your tithes."

Toto

Note that there is some support for the idea that the "Pastoral letters" (to Timothy and Titus) were written by the author of Luke-Acts, and were intended to be part three of a set.