Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Joseph's two genealogies
#1
The standard response to the obvious conflicts between Matthew 1 and Luke 3 is that Luke is giving Mary's genealogy.

Why, then, does Luke specifically say Joseph?  If we have a corrupt text, what else has been corrupted?
#2
Joseph is a legal son of Eli

rom folia 120a-120b (in the same hand) after the superscription in the "Bryennios Codex" (H) in which the Didache is preserved (MS dated by Leontos the copyist to 1054 CE)

Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom the Christ was born, is descended from a Levitic family, as the divine evangelists indicated. But Matthew traces Joseph's descent from David through Solomon, while Luke (says) through Nathan. Solomon and Nathan were both sons of David. Now the evangelists were silent about the ancestry of the holy virginsince it was not customary for the Hebrews nor for the divine scripture to give genealogies for women and there was a law prohibiting one family from contracting marriage (with a person) from another. Insofar as Joseph was descended from a Davidic family, he contracted to marry the holy virgin who was from his own ancestry. So they were content to indicate the ancestry of Joseph. Now there was a law that when a childless husband died, his own brother was to go to impregnate the wife and raise up an offspring for the one who had died. Thus the resultant child was, on the one hand, by nature (an offspring) of the second one, who had generated it, but by law, (offspring) of the one who died. Now, from the seed of Nathan, son of David, Levi generated Melchi. But from the seed of Solomon, Matthan generated Jacob. But when Matthan died, Melchi the son of Levi, from the family of Nathan, impregnated the mother of Jacob and generated from her Eli. This resulted in half-brothers with a common mother, Jacob and Eli. But Jacob was from the family of Solomon, while Eli was from the family of Nathan. Then when Eli, from the family of Nathan, died childless, and Jacob his (half-)brother took his (Eli's) wife he generated Joseph and raised up an offspring for his (dead) brother. So Joseph is by nature a son of the Jacob who descended from Solomon, but by law (he is son) of Eli (who descended) from Nathan.
#3
Jew4Judaism Wrote:The standard response to the obvious conflicts between Matthew 1 and Luke 3 is that Luke is giving Mary's genealogy.

Why, then, does Luke specifically say Joseph?  If we have a corrupt text, what else has been corrupted?
“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin”
#4
J4J, Here is a literal word-for-word translation of the Greek text of Luke 3:23 "And Himself was - Jesus about years 30 beginning, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, of Heli "  The first thing to notice is that it does not say anyone was the son of Heli. The word "son" is simply not there.  One way to read this is that Jesus was supposed by many to be the son of Joseph, but Jesus was of Heli, his first male human ancestor.  An analogy of this concept would be saying, "John is, assumedly a member of the Rotary club, a member of the Baptist Church, a sub-division of Christianity."  This, admittedly a strange construct for English, of course does not mean that the Rotary club is a Baptist organization, but someone might erroneously read that meaning into it.

Another possibility is that it is indeed saying that Joseph, the presumed father of Jesus is "of Heli" in the sense of being his son-in-law.  Perhaps both meanings are intended.

In either case, it is simply does not say that Joseph is the son of Heli.  By contrast, Matthew 1 specifically says that Jacob begat, or fathered, Joseph, the husband of Mary, and that Jacob was a descendant of Solomon, son of David, while Heli was the descendant of Nathan, son of David.  If a person is a believer in the divine origin of the New Testament, as I am, then he will look for how to harmonize the two lists, and the most obvious thing to come to mind is that Luke 3 must be giving Jesus human ancestry starting with Mary's father.  This is also supported by the emphasis of Luke on Jesus as the Son of Man. If a person is an unbeliever in the New Testament, he might claim that Matthew and Luke are contradictory claims of Joseph's parentage.  Neither claim can be proven from the text.  I wish it were more clear and said something such as, "Heli was the father of Mary."  But then, I don't know the reasons for everything.  I believe in the New Testament for other reasons.
#5
Tanachreader Wrote:Now the evangelists were silent about the ancestry of the holy virginsince it was not customary for the Hebrews nor for the divine scripture to give genealogies for women
"And Bethuel begat Rebekah: these eight Milcah did bear to Nahor, Abraham's brother." - Genesis 22:23

On occasion Scripture refers to grandchildren as children.  But there is no precedent for calling a son-in-law a son.  There is no sense in which Joseph can be called "of Heli".
Azriel Wrote:Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin
Luke mentions Shealtiel, who was the son of Jeconiah.  He avoids the problem by simply omitting his name.  (Matthew also omitted names to get his groups of 14 generations, as is evident from Kings and Chronicles.)

The problem of Jeconiah's curse was dealt with on another thread earlier this year.  But then there is no reason for disqualifying Solomon's line.  G-d's promise to Solomon thus remains in effect, thereby disqualifying Mary in this understanding of Luke.
#6
Azriel Wrote:...since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin”
Azriel,
Zedekiah sat upon the throne of David for eleven years after Coniah's curse.  That curse did not stop that line of Solomon from sitting at all.  As far as the text goes, only Jehoiakim/Coniah's line is cursed.  Solomon's line can not be cursed off because of David's sake, otherwise it sure might have been(1Kings11).  He only got the rod of men and was never taken off like Saul.

Fletch
#7
"Luke mentions Shealtiel, who was the son of Jeconiah."

No, he does not.  It is a different Shealtiel, of Neri.  If a person wants to disbelieve, then that person can claim all kinds of thin, one who became ruler of Egypt, and the other a carpenter who married Mary.  Why should anyone conclude that the two Shealtiels were the same when their ancestry is given as being different?
#8
Fletch Wrote:
Azriel Wrote:...since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin”
Azriel,
Zedekiah sat upon the throne of David for eleven years after Coniah's curse.  That curse did not stop that line of Solomon from sitting at all.  As far as the text goes, only Jehoiakim/Coniah's line is cursed.  Solomon's line can not be cursed off because of David's sake, otherwise it sure might have been(1Kings11).  He only got the rod of men and was never taken off like Saul.

Fletch
Must I mention; The curse has been broken! If I said the opposite , you would say I am wrong as well!Mary from Nathan, Joseph from Jeconiah , both parents have Davids bloodline, yet in other posts anti missionaries say because of this scripture Yeshua is not the correct because of Mary being the descendant of Jeconiah confusing the gospel's account. So what you say is ; both are qualified.? I agree!But the  genelogy that is the most important;is the True Father of Yeshua ; The G-d of Israel!Toda raba for stating both genelogies are correct!
#9
Hi ThomasDGW,

Coniah's curse was to men of his seed.

QUESTION:  Do adopted children count for the seed?

Thanks,
Fletch

#10
Sorry, I apparently had trouble with the mouse and erased a chunk of my post.  I meant to say that besides two Shealtiels we know there are two Josephs who are both the sons of Jacob.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)