Johnny Skeptic

As I have said before, ".......sophisticated fundies, James Holding for instance (his web site is at www.tektonics.org), are not in the least bit troubled by the two different genealogies, but Holding et al are definitely troubled when it comes to providing evidence that either Mary's or Joseph's geneaology can reliably be traced back through David. Arguing about the two different genealogies is a waste of time."

There are some articles on the genealogy of Jesus at Holding's web site. He mentioned Glenn Miller's writings on that topic. Miller's web site is at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/. Following are some excerpts from a link at his web site:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html

Matthew and Luke present different genealogies of Jesus--one through David's son Solomon (the royal line) and the other through David's son Nathan (the non-royal line). The royal line is traced in Matthew; the "natural" line in Luke. Matthew's genealogy goes only back to Abraham (to show the Jewish character of the King); Luke's goes back to Adam (to show the universal aspect of the Savior). Matthew's emphasizes Jesus' royalty; Luke, his humanity.

It is generally accepted (but not unanimously) that the genealogy in Matthew belongs to Joseph's family, and the one in Luke applies to Mary's line. (The historical evidence is fairly strong that both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David.)

Both genealogies are 'aware' of the virgin birth: Luke adds the phrase "He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph" (3:23) and Matthew switches verbs from "X begat Y" to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom (feminine pronoun) was born Jesus".

So, how does Joseph 'step into' Mary's lineage? How does he 'pick up' her legal heritage?

Probably through the law of levirate marriage.

The Jewish folk had numerous provisions for cases of inheritance-transfer in extreme cases. One of the more frequent situations that had to be covered (in a land-based, clan-ownership system) was that of childless marriages, or in some cases, of son-less marriages.

One of the more concise statements of how this would apply here, is by J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III. 662:

"Mary's father (Heli?) had two daughters, May and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56). If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance (cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)"

[The main passages in the OT that refer to these various laws are Num 7:1-11; Num 36:1-12; Lev 25:25; Dt 25:5-10. These practices were widespread in the Ancient Near East, and a good discussion of the details in Israel and differences from the ANE can be found in Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Vol 1--Social Institutions. Two famous cases, for good or ill, of these practices are in the story of Ruth (Book of Ruth) and in the story of Tamar (Gen 38:6ff).]

What this 'nets out to' is that Joseph 'married into' Mary's gene-pool...and hence, the virgin birth doesn't stop the lineage "transfer".

In other words, the the physical-gene did NOT come FROM JOSEPH was IRRELEVANT in this case. Legal standing was related to EITHER 'genes' OR to 'marriage'. (Although it should be pointed out that levirate arrangements like this required close kinship already, and hence, quite a number of overlapping genes.).

So, strictly speaking, Jesus got his genes from Mary and his legal standing (in the royal heir line) from Joseph (thru the marriage of M+J).
Now, as a practical matter, I consider the gene-issue to be important, simply because there were NUMEROUS other indications that the Messiah WOULD BE from the 'stock of Jesse' etc--images and phrases that DO put more emphasis on the blood-line that does simply 'legal lineage'--but I am persuaded that these requirements were adequately satisfied from Mary's side.

On the other hand, if the genealogy in Matthew is taken seriously, then Jesus has as an ancestor Jeconiah (Matthew 1:12), of whom the prophet Jeremiah said, "Write this man down as childless, a man who will not prosper in his days, for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30) The genealogy in Luke suffers from the same problem, since it includes Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, both of whom were descendants of Jeconiah.

I personally am not convinced this 'Jeconiah' problem EVEN EXISTS, and here's why:

I don't think the prophecy in Jeremiah is referring to Jeconiah's descendants FOR ALL TIME. The context of the passage seems to limit the scope to just his immediate descendants:

The phrase 'in his lifetime' (lit. "in his days"-yom) focuses the passage on the immediate future; the "for" word connects the 'no man of his descendants' with the 'in his lifetime'--the strong casual relationship between not-prospering-now and his descendants is strong evidence for an immediate future context;
the 'again' word ('od) is not the "big" FOREVER word: ad-olam or le-olam.
Immediately after this passage, Jeremiah relays a promise by Yahweh to raise up 'a righteous branch to David' --a promise of the continuing line of David! Could Jeremiah have been so blind as to not notice such a contradiction (if the preceding passage referred to the 'end of the Davidic line'?!) It looks much more likely that this is a deposing of Jeconiah, and a promise of a better king from the stock of David (maybe even from non-immediate descendants of Jeconiah?).

So, if the prophecy of Jeconiah is NOT to be extended past his immediate descendants, as I have just argued, then Jim's problem evaporates.
EVEN IF the passage IS a longer-range prediction, the line THROUGH Jeconiah only comes to Joseph and not to Mary. The gene-stream stops physically at Joseph through the virgin birth. Therefore, Jeconiah, who is only mentioned in Matthew (the legal line to Joseph) doesn't 'pass on the blood'.

Now the issue about Shealtiel and Zerubbabel I find intriguing. The argument Jim makes here is that THEY are descendants of the 'bad Jeconiah' and THEY show up in BOTH the legal AND the physical lineage's of Jesus. And, if the prophecy in Jeremiah is taken to mean a long-range restriction (which I do NOT believe is the case, see above), then we clearly have a problem in the Lukan, physical/gene-stream lineage of Jesus.

But let me ask an impertinent question here. Why do we believe the S+Z (Shealtiel and Zerubbabel) of the two lineage's are THE SAME PEOPLE? Think about it:

They have different parents
They have different children.
They are descended from different sons of David.
Their chronological placements on a time line could differ by as much as a CENTURY! (depending on how the omissions in Matthew are accounted for, and on what the average age of child-bearing was.)
THE ONLY THING THEY HAVE IN COMMON ARE THEIR NAMES!
This can hardly be a strong argument for their identity:

Zerubbabel was a common name from the early Persian period (539-331bc.), as shown by cuneiform inscriptions from Babylonia (see ZPEB , V. 1057)
The genealogies themselves have numerous names that repeat WITHIN the genealogy (e.g. Joseph, Mattathias, Judah) without being the same individuals; These names could also be common names.
The names in the genealogies are standard, common, everyday names. We have NUMEROUS people named Levi, Amos, Nahum, etc. in the OT accounts. There is just NO REASON to associate the S+Z of Luke with the S+Z of Matthew. (And even the pattern of S-followed-by-Z doesn't carry much weight--families often honored prominent people this way.)
What this means is that the S+Z of Matthew are the S+Z of Jeremiah, and that the S+Z of Luke (whose genes DO reach to Jesus) are a different set, descended from Nathan and not through Solomon-thru-Jeconiah.

So, as I said at the beginning, I don't even see a problem here at all.
A final oft-noted problem is that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke contradict each other and the Hebrew scriptures.

The difficulties in the genealogies are numerous, but the only thing that 'outnumbers' them are the possible 'solutions'! Before we get into the detail issues that Jim will raise below, let me simply state that EVERY POTENTIAL PROBLEM has MANY, MANY proposed solutions--some smooth, some weird, some tortured. But we really do NOT have enough data to really 'catch these guys' at historical error...But let's look at some candidates, shall we?

Was Jesus' grandfather on Joseph's side Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Eli (Luke 3:23)?

The answer is "YES"! In the levirate situation described above he would have TWO 'grandfathers'.

Was Shealtiel's father Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:17, Matthew 1:12) or Neri (Luke 3:27)?

The answer is "YES"!: There were TWO Shealtiels (above)...one with Jeconiah as father; one with Neri.

Matthew 1:11 omits Jehoiakim (who in Jeremiah 36:29-30 suffers a curse similar to that of his son, Jeconiah) between Josiah and Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:15) and Matthew 1:4 omits Admin between Ram and Amminadab (Luke 3:33).

Two issues here: the one of omissions in Matthew and the one on the 'curse' of Jehoiakim.

First the curse of Jehoiakim. Let's look at the passage.

"Also tell Jehoiakim king of Judah, 'This is what the LORD says: You burned that scroll and said, "Why did you write on it that the king of Babylon would certainly come and destroy this land and cut off both men and animals from it?" Therefore, this is what the LORD says about Jehoiakim king of Judah: He will have no one to sit on the throne of David; his body will be thrown out and exposed to the heat by day and the frost by night. I will punish him and his children and his attendants for their wickedness; I will bring on them and those living in Jerusalem and the people of Judah every disaster I pronounced against them, because they have not listened.' "
Notice: the curse is specifically related to his 'children'. In fulfillment, his kid Jehoichin had a 'reign' of only three months! (2 kgs 24:8). I might consider this a 'bouncing' on the throne, but certainly not 'sitting on it'!
But the bigger issue that is raised in this objection is that of the omissions in the genealogies.

Let's look at the differences between the two genealogies:

Matt uses 41 names; Luke uses 71!

Matt has a VERY specific structure (3 sets of 14 names); Luke's is a simple list

Matt has four women (most foreigners); Luke has none

Matt's order descends; Luke ascends.

Matt starts with Abraham; Luke ends at Adam.

The main difference between the two is that Matt's has a rhetorical/pedagogical structure to it. In other words, it was designed for memory-retention (common practice in his day -- cf. Keener, Bible Background Commentary--NT loc. cit.). The omissions are simply to make the list easier to learn and/or memorize.

Matthew has a fondness for 'threes'. He has three temptations, illustrations of righteousness, miracles of healing, "fear not"s, questions, prayers in Gethsemane, among others. And the "14" in the "3x14" structure of the genealogy is typically attributed to the rabbinic usage of gematria--usage of letters for numbers. In this case, the name "David" in Hebrew has a number-count of 14 (fitting for a section on the Son of David).

His word choice for 'begat' simply means 'progenitor' and allows considerable gaps to exist WITHOUT it being an inaccuracy. (E.g. my great-great-great-grandfather 'begat' me, in Matt's word-choice.)

What this means is that 'omissions' in Matthew are NOT 'problems' at all.

Finally, Matthew 1:13 says that Abiud is the son of Zerubbabel, Luke 3:27 says that Rhesa is the son of Zerubbabel, but 1 Chronicles 3:19-20 lists neither as sons of Zerubbabel.

I have already made my arguments above that these are NOT the same Z's.

However, it is important to note one thing here. In this section, Matthew moves into the use of extra-biblical sources of information for the rest of his genealogies. D.A. Carson ("Matthew" in Expositor's Bible Commentary, p.63) summarizes this data succinctly and bears quotation at length:

After Zerubbabel, Matthew relies on extrabiblical sources of which we know nothing. But there is good evidence that records were kept at least till the end of the first century. Josephus (Life 6[1]) refers to the "public registers" from which he extracts his genealogical information (cf. also Jos. Contra Apion I, 28-56 [6-10]). According to Genesis R 98:8, Rabbi Hillel was proved to be a descendant of David because a genealogical scroll was found in Jerusalem. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3.19-20) cites Hegesippus to the effect that Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81-96) ordered all descendants of David slain. Nevertheless two of them when summoned, though admitting their Davidic descent, showed their calloused hands to prove they were but poor farmers. So they were let go. But the account shows that genealogical information was still available.

While no twentieth-century Jew could prove he was from the tribe of Judah, let alone from the house of David, that does not appear to have been a problem in the first century, when lineage was important in gaining access to temple worship.

The point of this extended quotation is simply this: we do not have adequate grounds to dispute (from a historical method perspective) the post-Z genealogies. (There is no reason to suppose that the biblical OT genealogies in the post-Z case are exhaustive, either.)
Just for completeness, here is the FootNote 5, referenced above.

[5] There are two common attempts made to resolve these contradictions. The most common among evangelical Christians is to claim that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, not Joseph. This fails to explain the repeated convergence followed by divergence as you trace the ancestry backward.

The points of convergence in the geneo's were two: once at S+Z and once at Joseph. I have already argued above that the S+Z is NOT A CONVERGENCE, and that the 'convergence' at Joseph is NOT 'genetic' but BY MARRIAGE.

It also fails to explain why the Luke genealogy contains almost twice as many ancestors as Matthew's in the same time period.

The phenomena of the different size/structure of the lists were explained above as due to a simple pedagogical/rhetorical technique of Matthew (common in his day). Not a problem.

Yet another problem is that this explanation conflicts with the Catholic tradition which says that Mary's parents were Joachim and Anna.

This I can't really defend--I simply don't know enough about what this Catholic 'tradition' might involve. I DO know that 'traditions' come in all 'flavors' of 'negotiability' though! In any event, my focus is restricted to general biblical issues.

A second explanation, favored by Catholics, is that each case of divergence is the result of Levirate marriage. That is, the discrepant fathers are brothers of each other, and when one died the other married his brother's wife (see Deuteronomy 25:5). This explanation also fails to explain the difference in number of ancestors.

The levirate marriage approach is entirely possible, of course, but I personally don't see the need, with the exception of the last one perhaps. Levirate marriage was common enough to allow this. But, more to the point, this is not really related AT ALL to the issue of name-counts in the two lineage's--due to the issues discussed above. So, this objection is simply irrelevant.

Glenn's Concluding Postscript:

I do not want to give ANYONE the impression that there are NO difficulties in these genealogies. They are chock-full of issues, 'surprises', perplexing items.

But, at the same time, we have so many proposed explanations for each of these, that we are simply not in a position to criticize (much less DECIDE AGAINST!) the historicity of these accounts. Indeed, we have solid answers for the more difficult and perplexing ones, which gives us a qualified optimism about those that are still somewhat obscure.

Johnny: Readers, it is obvious that Miller is not in the least bit deterred by the apparently two different genealogies of Jesus.
However, Miller DOES have a problem reasonably proving that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Consider the following excerpts from a link at his web site:

“Modern Jewish sources seem to be split between clan and place, with the more traditional/conservative groups siding with the more historical 'place.'’�

Johnny: That is reason enough for people to at the very least be neutral on this issue.

“And, we should note that there were Rabbinic traditions that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, and that these traditions appear long after the Christian 'use' of Micah 5.2 was 'in place'--a testament to their antiquity and ‘stubbornness.’�

Johnny: Tradition is irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

"Now, all the grammatical point does is 'neutralize' the objection, but it doesn't prove that the city is referred to. After all, if the phrase DID mean 'house of Lehem' then IT TOO would require a masculine referent. The presence of a masculine reference alone cannot decide the matter: both options (place-name, clan-name) would take the same form. The website is wrong about the grammatical argument, but could still be right about the conclusion..."

“So, with BOTH a possibility, how would we assess the likelihood of ONE over the OTHER?"

“Well, the normal way one would approach this is by counting and classifying. One would simply go through the Hebrew Bible and find all the occurrences of beit-lehem, and make three lists: (1) texts in which is was clearly (or highly likely) a reference to a city/town; (2) texts in which it was clearly (or highly likely) a reference to a patriarchal-type line of somebody named Lehem; and (3) texts in which it could be either (with context being the determinative factor).�

Johnny: But even if all of Miller’s comments about grammar are correct, that does not put him any closer to reasonably proving that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

“So, I have to conclude that the linguistic/grammatical and the textual/historic data still supports the traditional view (which is also held by the historic Jewish sages, as well).�

Johnny: Same as before. In addition, ALL modern non-Christian Jewish scholars maintain that Jesus WAS NOT the only begotten Son of God, so obviously, Miller is conveniently quite selective which Jewish theology he wishes to endorse.

smokester

originally posted by diana
me
Thanks. This is the best breakdown of the geneologies I have seen yet. Now, if I could figure out...

Chili

Did you ever see my explantion on this Johnny wherein the differences compliment each other and in fact cannot be any other way?

I would volunteer to post it here but it would be a derail and that is a waste of everything.

Johnny Skeptic

It doesn't matter. You made your post just before I edited my previous post. Here is what I added to my previous post after I said "Readers, it is obvious that Miller is not in the least bit deterred by the apparently two different genealogies of Jesus.":

JoeWallack

JW:
Now let's give Lee another "DiffiCulty" to deal with in "Matthew's" Genealogy:

All ASV -

Matthew:
1:3 "...Hezron begat Ram; 1:4 and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon"

Per the Jewish Bible Hezron went to Egypt:

Genesis:
46:8 "And these are the names of the children of Israel, who came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons: Reuben, Jacob`s first-born. And the sons of Reuben: Hanoch, and Pallu, and Hezron, and Carmi. And the sons of Simeon: Jemuel, and Jamin, and Ohad, and Jachin, and Zohar, and Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman. And the sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. And the sons of Judah: Er, and Onan, and Shelah, and Perez, and Zerah; but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. And the sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul."

Per the Jewish Bible Amminadab was part of the Exodus from Egypt:

Numbers:
1:1 "And Jehovah spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tent of meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying, Numbers 1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers` houses, according to the number of the names, every male, by their polls; Numbers 1:3 from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel, thou and Aaron shall number them by their hosts. Numbers 1:4 And with you there shall be a man of every tribe; every one head of his fathers` house. Numbers 1:5 And these are the names of the men that shall stand with you. Of Reuben: Elizur the son of Shedeur. Numbers 1:6 Of Simeon: Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai. Numbers 1:7 Of Judah: Nahshon the son of Amminadab."

Per the Jewish Bible the Stay in Egypt was 430 years:

Exodus:
12:40 "Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years."

So "Matthew" has 4 generations (Hezron, Ram, Amminadab and Nahshon) in his Genealogy for a time period that according to the Jewish Bible was well over 430 years.

In addition to the Specific problem here there is also the General problem that "Matthew" did not Critically check his Sources for Errors.

Lee, do you Believe there are any Errors In The Christian Bible?



Joseph

SCRIPTURES, n.
The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

lee_merrill

I agree, that would indicate gaps! For I think they also could do this adding up...

No, I don't believe there are, in the original manuscripts.

You had asked if I was an apologist, and perhaps I owe you a serious answer! If by that you mean someone who does public debates and writes books and conducts seminars, like Greg Koukl and Ravi Zacharias, no, I am not any such person.

I'm just an ordinary mortal, who likes (liked! I don't read much nowadays) to read books, and discuss on the Internet...

Regards,
Lee

lee_merrill

That was post number 666 for me! Head for the hills!!! :devil:

Blessings,
Lee

JoeWallack

That would be just like Satan wouldn't it. Forced to Reveal His Number but Acting like it's a joke to hide His True Identity. Who were you talking to at the time?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: What difference does it make what Mary's or Joseph's genealogy were?

lee_merrill

Aunt Harriet in Denver.

Cousin Lucius in Diablo?!

Well, there was the claim that the Messiah was to be descended from David, so they would be (and we should be) interested in his qualifications in this regard.

Blessings,
Lee