Butters

I have seen the claim that one of the genealogies of Jesus is traced through Mary. Since neither one make this claim in the text. On what basis can this claim be made?

MortalWombat

On the basis that otherwise there would be a contradiction, and many people feel uncomfortable with those things in a supposedly divinely inspired book.

Butters

DING!DING!DING!

WE HAVE A WINNER!

diana

Lessee.

I've been over the mountain and through the woods and fjording the stream with this argument several times now. I believe the most popular "reasonable explanation" is that

1. a copyist's error omitted the reference to Mary in Luke, and
2. Jewish law required that women without brothers be given a portion of their father's inheritance. (Numbers 27)

I guess the reasoning continues in that Mary would naturally be "identified" through her husband (or betrothed) for geneological purposes, which would explain why Joseph's name is used instead of hers.

This is the best attempt at reasonable explanation I've yet encountered for this problem, and it's paper-thin. It requires to me take on faith too many "maybes" that are inconsistent with the proposition that the book is inspired.

d

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

Hawkingfan

The funny thing about this is that Joseph had absolutely nothing to do with Jesus' birth so his family tree is pointless. The only human parent Jesus had would have been Mary and she was from the tribe of Levi, not Judah which was required of the Messiah.

Butters

Thanks Diana,
The first thing that comes to mind is,
I don't see how Luke could have mentioned Mary, since he DOES mention Joseph.
And
I see that daughters are allowed a portion of an inheritance, I see no reason that a genealogy would be traced through a woman. Are there any examples of this being done in Israel at this time?

diana

Good morning, Butters!

I don't know of any examples of geneology being traced through a woman, but I may simply be missing some pertinent info. That would certainly help their case, though. (The cases I'm aware of of women being mentioned in the line-up is when paired with their husbands.)

The problem with whose family tree it really is (since Joseph, not Mary, is mentioned) might be covered with the idea that Mary would be identified with Joseph's name, being betrothed. I'm not certain about apologist's position here, though. Maybe one or more of them will pop in and explain.

I agree with the geneology being traced through a woman problem. I addressed this in a post on the <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000724&p=3" target="_blank">The Mother of NT Contradictions</a> thread.

I began my objections to this line of reasoning in my post to Aphelion (almost halfway down), then expanded in a later post (near the bottom). No answer from the theist camp.

d

Layman

I recently purchased a commentary on Luke with an Appendix devoteed to this issue: Luke 1:1-9:50, by Darrell L. Bock

Bock notes that there are six different explanations for the disparity.

1. The genealogies are simply literay and theological constructs emphasizing different characteristics of Christ. They are not literal. Matthew emphasizes Jesus' relationship to David and Abraham and therefore his role as King. Luke emphasizes Jesus' relationship to all men by emphasizing his relationship to Adam.

2. Matthew gives Josephus' version and Luke gives Mary's version. There are a number of problems with this and their solutions have varying degrees of plausibility.

The other four versions all have to do with accepting that it is a geneology of Josephus, but with varying explanations.

3. Matthew emphasizes Jesus' natural line whereas Luke provides the royal line and "that the difference in the lists was caused by the principle of levirate marriage." It gets pretty complex but does solve the problem.

4. Luke emphasizes the physical descent of Jesus whereas Matthew focuses on the royal line. This is the same as three but reversed.

5. Matthat and Matthan are not the same person. If true, Matthew gives the physical line and Luke gives the legal line and 'physical' line through Heli's sister.

6. Mary is an heiress of Eli, since she had no brothers. Eli adopted Joseph as son upon marriage, as in other cases where a father had no physical son. Luke's geneology therefore reflects the adoption line, whereas Matthew gives Josephus' physical line.

Butters

Well, I don't know if there was No answer, but trying to figure out what the heck Amos is going on about gives me a headache, so I've had to stop reading his posts, or at least trying to make sense of them.

I'm gone for now, have a good day!

diana

Layman,

Thanks for the brief enumeration of explanations. I've heard most of them. Of course, I think they're all a stretch, since they don't take care of all the problems we find with the genealogies.

Josephus? Do you mean Joseph?

The one that makes the most sense to me is number 1, actually--which is odd, as I was raised inerrantist. But it still doesn't explain away the Jeconiah problem.

I'm afraid I need more details on number 3. But you did say it was complex. Can you give me some scriptural references for the Levirite marriage rules, and I'll do the research.

Thanks.

Butters...I just wanted you to read my objections to that line of reasoning without needing to bog down this thread with quoted posts from another, three weeks old.

Concerning Amos, you're learning.

d