Stacey Melissa

This deserves it's own thread, I think. It wasn't getting much attention buried deep in the wandering first thread I posted it in.
----------------------------------------

Wanna talk about the lineage of Jesus? I do. I love talking about it, because there are three versions in the Bible - Matthew, Luke, and 1 Chronicles - all contradictory. I especially enjoy comparing Matthew and 1 Chronicles. The author of Matthew, in chapter 1, lists the fourteen generations between Abraham and David, and then the fourteen more between David and the deportation to Babylon, and finally the fourteen between the deportation and Jesus. Just one problem. 1 Chronicles 3 lists seventeen generations between David and the deportation. The author of Matthew left out Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, who were listed in verses 11 and 12 of the Chronicles passage. This is presumably so that the author of Matthew could keep his pattern of fourteens going (see Matt 1:17), but the fact remains that at least one of the two accounts must be factually incorrect.

I recall one apologetics site (maybe it was Tekton, but I can’t find it now) mentions something about the word used for “son” can sometimes skip generations, so a “son” could actually be a grandson or great-grandson, for example. Problem is, Matthew doesn’t allow for generation skipping like that, as its author specifically says there were exactly 14 generations, and lists those generations. Chronicles doesn’t give a number, but you can count them, and you’ll see that there must be no less than 17, because that’s how many are explicitly listed. There could be even more than 17, if we take into account the “son” translation ambiguity. We do have a reasonable explanation for why the author of Matthew probably only listed 14, and said there were 14. That was as some sort of memory-aiding device (repeating 14’s) that was used to aid oral transmission* of the story. That’s all fine and well, but at least one account or the other (Matthew or Chronicles) must be factually false.

There’s two reasons why that’s one of my favorite Bible contradictions. One is that it is airtight. There isn’t even a tortured explanation possible for this contradiction, as is the case with so many other contradictions. The other reason is that the lineage of Jesus is essential to his messiahship. One criteria for messiahship was Davidic decent. As if the lack of sperm from Joseph wasn’t already damning enough to the purported Davidic decent, it seems the author of Matthew didn’t even really take seriously the task of accurately relaying the lineage to his readers.
------------------------------------------

Stumpjumper (formerly singletrack1) responded with an explanation involving the numerological translation of "David" being 14. I put that apologetic attempt to bed in a subsequent post.

Anyone else care to try apologizing for this contradiction? Or can I continue to call it "airtight"?

Tigers!

How can a shorter version of an event be factually incorrect than a longer version if the shorter version is contained within the larger?
If the larger version is more detailed than the smaller than doesn't make it factually incorrect, it's just more comprehensive.

So why is either version factually incorrect?

Tigers!

PS: Differences in versions or accounts != contradiction.

Stacey Melissa

The author of Matthew explicitly states that there were 14 generations, while 1 Chronicles lists more.

It is either not true that there were 14 generations, or 1 Chronicles is listing 3 generations that shouldn't be there.

Chris Weimer

Not always, but it does here. Who is the son of Schealtiel - Zerubbabel or Padiah?

Stacey Melissa

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=14

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=14

You tell me. The first equation is contained within the second. Are they both true?

Charles Wilson

When Herod butchered the Sanhedrin and installed appointed Priests instead of the hereditary line, Nicholas of Damascus, aide to Herod and Roman Political Control Officer, manufactured a genaeology for Herod that would have allowed Herod to assume the High Priesthood based on hereditary features, if he so desired. Herod did not use the list but I have wondered if one of the two competing gospel lists was the list Nicholas authored.

Charles

Vorkosigan

Charles, which one would Herod fit better in?

Vorkosigan

Charles Wilson

I wish I knew!. My ability to fashion an argument and sound smart runs out of gas here. I've put this out on another group and got zilch!

We know this: Herod got rid of the Hasmonaean line when he made the HP appointed. His wife was Hasmonaean although it is unclear if there is any love/hate in any direction from this (Unless Mark 6 is meaningful here and I just ran out of tea leaves.)

My SPECULATION here is that some of the Jesus group had links to this line. Josephus speaks of the "Leaders of the Sedition" demanding a return of a HP with greater "Piety and Purity". The "Banquet Story", where you are to sit at the lower end of the seating chart until the higher ups move you to be "Honored among your Friends", points to a hierarchy of Herod's: "Friends", "Honored Friends", "Guards of the Realm" and "Kin." You had to be higher than Scribes and Pharisees to get into the "Realm of Heaven". All of this points to a simmering political problem stretching over decades. May we say that the list provided by Nicholas "must" cover this problem, even if wouldn't satisfy the riff-raff?

So: Nicholas manufactures a list showing Herod has a hereditary right to become HP. Even if it was appropriated by the gospel writers crowd, it may have been changed to be seen as promoting a "divine" Jesus in a "divine" order. This may point to the 14/14/14 solution but I'm just guessing. I would imagine that some skoller somewhere might look at the list and its entries at the important points just before the end of the list for an obvious name that would show a "massaged" entry.

Any takers?

Charles

Nuwanda

Okay, challenge taken, here's my best crack at your favorite contradiction

You may not be familiar with the story of Elijah the prophet of Israel when he pronounced a curse on the house of Ahab for his and his wife Jezebel’s wickedness while holding the throne. The curse is first pronounced in 1 Kings 21:23 and repeated when Jehu was anointed king of Israel in 2 Kings 9:6-10. The curse went like this: “The whole house of Ahab shall perish; and I will cut off from Ahab all the males in Israel, both bond and free.” In your challenge you site 3 missing names in the Matthew genealogy; there are actually 4 missing: Athaliah was the first generation of Ahab’s line, Ahaziah was the second, Joash the third, and Amaziah the fourth. All four are missing and for good reason. You may recall the scripture that says God will punish sin to the 4th generation (Exodus 20:4-6). The 4 names are missing, I believe, because it was in line with God’s curse on the house of Ahab. To include them in the list would perpetuate Ahab’s name, not remove it.

It is also possible, and this is speculation, that in the official temple records their names were removed or marked in some way that called them out as having no official status in the royal Davidic line. Europe use to do this. A Bar-Sinister may be marked across the arms of a dishonored branch of a family. Matthew no doubt had access to the temple records and recorded the lineage as they had it. If this is true, it shows incredible reliability of Matthew’s account, quite the contrary of what you wished to prove.

Your “puzzle” also brings up some incredible counter evidence for the validity of scripture. You are probably of the opinion that the text has been edited by kings and translators over the centuries to flush out contradictions and polished it up to make prophesies work out better. This parallel you quote shoots that theory a death blow. Don’t you think if the texts were tampered with they would have covered up this apparent contradiction? Don’t you think the Jews of the 1st century would have stopped the Jesus movement on account of Jesus’ false blood line? At the very least don’t you think Matthew would avoid a blatant contradiction if preaching Jesus as the Messiah was his aim? Your argument just doesn’t add up.