David Henson

To the simple question of was Joseph the Father of Jesus and the question of geneology; the simple answer to this question is that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David's line, and Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Luke 1:32, 35 / Romans 1:1-4)

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Luke 3:31 / Matthew 1:6-7) Luke follows the ancestry of Mary which shows Jesus' natural descent from David. Matthew shows Jesus' legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father. Both signify that Joseph wasn't Jesus' actual father, only his adoptive father and giving him legal right.

Matthew departs from his style when he comes to Jesus, saying: "Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16) He doesn't say that 'Joseph became father to Jesus' but that he was "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born." Luke says that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Luke 1:32-35) that "Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli." Luke 3:23.

Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit 1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: 'Genus matris non vocatur genus ( "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant")' ('Baba bathra,' 110, a)." Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

Both genealogies show descent from David - through Solomon and through Nathan. (Matthew 1:6 / Luke 3:31) They come together again in two persons; Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah, perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri - he was then the "son of Neri." or Neri's son-in-law. It is also possible that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his "son." ( Compare Matthew 1:12 / Luke 3:27 / 1 Chronicles 3:17-19)

So Acts 2:30; 13:23 / Romans 1:3 / 2 Timothy 2:8 / Revelation 22:16 all of which are used by the skeptic in support of Joseph being the father of Joseph and the seed of David are accurate in that Joseph was through David's line and legal father to Jesus.

Hebrews 2:16 which refers to Jesus as seed of Abraham refers to the covenant God had with Abraham, which was for a "seed" which many nations would bless themselves. (Genesis 22:17-18 / Galatians 3:8) The Jews were all of the seed of Abraham (John 8:39 / Matthew 3:9) but they rejected it when they rejected the Messiah. Even in Genesis 22:17-18 it mentions Abraham's seed as being a blessing to all the nations. A spiritual seed that would surpass the fleshly inheritance of the people of Israel.

Matthew 1:8 and Luke 1:31-35 is given as a contradiction but Mary was from the Davidic line and Joseph was Jesus' legal father, so there is no contradiction.

At Matthew 22:45 and Mark 12:35-37 Jesus quotes David in Psalm 110. Jesus never denied that he was a descendant of David, he only points out something the Pharisees were not aware of. Jesus existed in heaven as God's first born only begotten son before the earth was made and before Abraham. (John 1:1 / 8:58)

--------------------

Explanation Of Difficulties In The Genealogies Of Matthew And Luke

--------------------

The first chapter of Matthew the genealogy of Jesus runs from Abraham forward. In Luke chapter 3 the genealogy goes back to "Adam son of God." Part of Jesus genealogy also appears at 1 Chronicles chapters 1 - 3, running from Adam through Solomon and Zerubbabel. The books of Genesis and Ruth combined give the line from Adam to David.

The latter three lists - Genesis/Ruth, 1 Chronicles and Luke - agree fully from Adam to Arpachshad, with minor differences on certain names such as Kenan, which is "Cainan" at Luke 3:37. The Chronicles and Genesis/Ruth lists agree down to David while another "Cainan" is found in Luke's account between Arpachshad and Shelah. (Luke 3:35-36)

From Solomon to Zerubbabel the Chronicles record and Matthew agree though Matthew omits some names. One needs to address these as well as the differences in Luke's account from David to Jesus.

Genealogy involved private family records in addition to the public records of genealogies which chroniclers, such as Ezra, for example, had access to when they compiled their lists. To the registers that existed in the first century up until 70 C.E. the matter of the descent of the Messiah from Abraham through David was very important.

Matthew and Luke no doubt consulted these genealogical tables.

The question is why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listing of other chroniclers? For one thing it is not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. Ezra, for example, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, left out several names that were listed at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Matthew seems to have copied from the public register - leaving out some names not needed to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. Access of the Hebrew Scriptures would have likely been used as well. (Ruth 4:12, 18-22 and Matthew 1:3-6)

Both the lists made by Matthew and Luke would have been publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The Pharisees as well as the Sadducees - bitter enemies of Christianity didn't challenge these genealogies. They could have done so up until 70 C.E. when the records were destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem.

--------------------

Problems in Matthew's Genealogy?

--------------------

Matthew divides the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus into three sections of 14 generations each. There is a name count of 41 rather than 42. By taking Abraham to David, 14 names, then using David as the starting name for the second 14, with Josiah as the last and finally by heading the third series of 14 names with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and ending with Jesus. Matthew repeats the name David as the last of the first 14 names and as the first of the next 14. Then he repeats the expression "the deportation to Babylon," which he links with Josiah and his sons. (Matthew 1:17)

There is an omission of three kings of David's line between Jehoram and Uzziah (Azariah) because Jehoram married wicked Athaliah of the house of Ahab, the daughter of Jezebel bringing this God condemned strain into the line of the kings of Judah. (1 Kings 21:20-26 / 2 Kings 8:25-27) Matthew named Jehoram as first in this wicked alliance, but left out the next three kings to the fourth generation - Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah.

Where Matthew indicates that Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel (Matthew 1:12) it coincides with other references (Ezra 3:2 / Nehemiah 12:1 / Hagai 1:14 / Luke 3:27) but at 1 Chronicles 3:19 Zerubbabel is listed as the son of Pedaiah. This is because Zarubbabel was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage or possibly after Zerubbabel's father Pedaiah died Zerubbabel was brought up by Shealtiel as his son and so legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.

--------------------

Problems With Lukes Genealogy?

--------------------

Available manuscript copies of Luke list a second "Cainan" between Arpachshad (Arphaxad) and Shelah. (Luke 3:35 Compare Genesis 10:24 / 11:12 / 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24) Most scholars take it to be a copyist's error. "Cainan" is not found in this position in the Hebrew genealogical listings in the Hebrew or Samaritan texts, nor in any of the Targums or versions except the Septuagint. It doesn't seem to be in earlier copies of the Septuagint because Josephus - who almost always uses the Septuagint - lists Seles (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxades (Arpachshad) - (Jewish Antiquities, I, 146 [vi, 4]) Africanus, Irenaeus, Jerome and Eusebius all rejected "Cainan" in Luke's account as an interpolation.

--------------------

Bible Lists Of Jesus' Genealogy

--------------------

Genesis And Ruth - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jered, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram (Abraham), Isaac, Jacob (Israel), Judan (and Tamar), Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz (and Ruth), Obed, Jesse, David.

1 Chronicles chapters 1, 2, 3. - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon (Salma, 1 Chronicles 2:11), Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah (Uzziah), Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Amon, Josiah, Jehoiakim, Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), Shealtiel (Pedaiah) (See Footnote # 1), Zerubbabel (see Footnote # 2).

Matthew Chapter 1 - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah (and Tamur), Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon (and Salmon Rahab), Boaz (and Ruth), Obed, Jesse, David (and Bath-sheba), Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah (Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekia, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Jusus (foster son).

Luke chapter 3 - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Cainan, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Arni (Ram?), Amminadab, Nahshon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Nathan (See Footnote # 3), Mattatha, Menna, Melea, Eliakim, Jonam, Joseph, Judas, Symeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Jesus, Er, Elmadam, Cosam, Addi, Melchi, Neri, Shealtiel (See Footnote # 4), Zerubbabel, Rhesa, Joanan, Joda, Josech, Semein, Mattathias, Maath, Naggai, Esli, Nahum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Jannai, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli (father of Mary), Joseph (Heli's son-in-law), Jesus (Mary's son).

Footnote # 1. Zerubbabel evidently was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage; or he was brought up by Shealtiel after his father Pedaiahs death and became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel (1 Chronicles 3:17-19 / Ezra 3:2 / Luke 3:27).

Footnote # 2. The lines meet in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, afterward diverging. This divergence could have been through two different descendants of Zerubbabel, or Rhesa or Abiud could have been a son-in-law.

Footnote # 3. At Nathan, Luke begins reckoning the genealogy through Jesus maternal line, while Matthew continues with the paternal line.

Footnote #4. Shealtiel the son of Jeconiah possibly was the son-in-law of Neri. (1 Chronicles 3:17 / Luke 3:27).

James Brown

What Today's Americans Need to Know about Christmas, by Tom Flynn.

show_no_mercy

Tracing bloodline through a woman and inheriting kingship by adoption are nowhere found in the Jewish Bible.

We should contrast the rabbinic position to the view of the earlier Biblical and post-Biblical period. Patrilineal descent was the primary way of determining the status of children in this period. (my emphasis) The Biblical traditions and their early rabbinic commentaries take it for granted that the paternal line was decisive in the tracing of descent, tribal identity, or priestly status. A glance at the Biblical genealogies makes this clear. (my emphasis) In inter-tribal marriage paternal descent was likewise decisive (Nu. 1.2, l'mishpehotam l'veit avotam); the line of the father was recognized while the line of the mother was not (mishpahat av keruyah mishpahah, mishpahat em enah keruyah mishpahah, B. B. 109b; Yeb. 54b; Yad Hil. Nahalot 1.6, etc.).

We should also recognize that later rabbinic tradition did not shift to the matrilineal line when conditions did not demand it. Therefore, the rabbinic tradition remained patrilineal in the descent of the priesthood; it was and remains the male kohen who determines the status of his children. The child is a kohen even if the father married a Levite or an Israelite. Thus lineage was and continues to be determined by the male alone whenever the marriage is otherwise proper (M. Kid. 3.12; Kid. 29a; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 245.1).

http://data.ccarnet.org/cgi-bin/resp...e=38&year=carr

If anything, tracing bloodlines through the mother is due to the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism, and the need to relax some statues - like strict patrilineal descent due to the destruction of the 2nd Temple. Thus both birth narratives in Matt and Luke were probably written in the 2nd century, when the only Judaism they knew about was Rabbinic Judaism.

What's worse, there's very little evidence that David himself even exsited. How can Jesus be in the lineage of a non-existant person?

Mary having royal blood is first mentioned in the Protevagelium of James. Again, this points to a 2nd century creation of this particular dogma by Christians who were ignorant of 2nd temple Judaism. It's nowhere implied in Luke that he's listing Mary's bloodline. Who is Mary's father in Luke? It doesn't say. It says that Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph, and Joseph was the son of Heli. Mary's parents are not mentioned in the geneaology.

Please list some instances in the Hebrew bible where inheritence is passed on by adoption.

Even if there were some precedent for inheritence by adoption in the Hebrew bible, Joseph couldn't pass on a kingship that his family tree was denied. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Mat. 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30).


David, if he even existed, didn't write Psalm 110. Psalm 110 was more than likely written by a Hasmonean, since the Hasmoneans were the first time in the history of Israel and Judah that the office of high priest and king were one and the same. Psalm 110 was probably written to celebrate the Hasmonean dynasty.

Also, Psalm 110 is not found in the DSS library, even though the Qumran group venerated Melchitsedek. This might point to Psalm 110 being penned sometime after the sectarian split.

And if David did write Psalm 100, it's a Psalm to David.

PhilosopherJay

Hi David,

Since neither of the texts give a source for their genealogies, we may assume that they are both fictitious. If they were based on a reputable source, let us say a list kept by a high priest in Jerusalem, this would have been noted in the text. The lack of a cited source indicates that the writer did not have one.

Considering that very few people today can trace their family histories back more than five or six generations (150-200 years, it would be surprising if more than a handful of people alive in the First century C.E. could trace their ancestry back 200 years, let alone over a thousand.

We should keep in mind that birth record keeping was sporadic at best and old records were routinely destroyed due to storage space problems, fires and wars. Also, the number of illegitimate births and births of children who died in childhood probably outnumbered legitimate births that made it to adulthood five or ten to one. We should also note that names were constantly being changed and people adopted into families both as children and adults. This would make it virtually impossible for anybody to trace their birth beyond the four or five previous generations that could pass down the information orally.

Under these circumstances, we can suppose that the standard procedure for developing a genealogy would be to take the known parents or grandparents and connect them to a selected mythological genealogy by inventing several names between the real parents/grandparents and the last mythological figure in the mythological genealogy. If the parents/grandparents were unknown, it would be just as easy to invent them and trace them to the selected mythological figure. This appears to be the case here.

We know that the Bible stories give fictional genealogies, Abraham was not related to Isaac and Isaac was not related to Jacob. They all had different family gods and they all lived in different places and followed different tribal customs.

The real question about these genealogies is their relationship to each other, not their relationship to history. Because of the similarities and contradictions, it is clear that one genealogy was a rewrite of the other (Luke of Matthew). Why was the genealogy of Jesus text rewritten is an interesting question.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

James Brown

Using genealogies to "prove" that Jesus was the Messiah is a red herring. The very notion of the Messiah is an ad-hoc argument to reconcile two mutually contradictory notions:

1. Jehovah's promise that the throne of David will be occupied forever.
2. The destruction of Israel by foreign invaders.

It was only after Israel ceased to exist did the idea of the Messiah percolate to the surface. Without it, then the first idea of a perpetual throne of David has to be wrong, and that would mean that Jehovah was wrong, and that absolutely could not be. So they retro-actively inserted Messianic hopes and dreams into the text, promising a future glory when one of David's descendants majestically lowers himself into a chair, something that Jesus certainly did not do, nor has any other Israeli done. Nor could they, since it's impossible to know at this late date who is a descendant of David.

Just because the Messianic Jews are fooling themselves doesn't mean we have to as well.

semiopen

As has been pointed out, Jesus could not claim descent from David through Mary. That is passed down by the male.

In modern times, descent from David is hard to prove

http://www.davidicdynasty.org/

I was pleased to see my family name in this list, although not ben akhar ben (son after son). If it turns out that I'm the Messiah, all the girls that refused to sleep with me will be really pissed.

James Brown

Have you gone to Egypt and back? Because that's one of the prophecies you have to fulfill.

Cege

I read claims that Jesus was adopted by Joseph, but what is the evidence of that? was adoption automatic because Joseph married Mary? or was there no formal adoption, because Joseph didn't publicly acknowledge that he wasn't the biological father?