[Pennypacker11]

I'm studying the infancy narratives since Christmas is approaching and I have some questions from the genealogies:
From Matthew:
1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David

David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[1] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.

12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.[2]

I am not understanding Matthew's math here. If we start with Abraham, there are 14 in the first from Abraham to David:
Abraham, Isaac , Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, King David

Now for the second set which also has 14 (starting with Solomon since David was included in the previous 14):
Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah

Now for the 3rd set in which I only count 13 (I start with Shealtiel since Jeconiah was in the previous set):
Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Akim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus

A few questions:
1) How does Matthew come up with 14 here?
2) A further problem that I noticed after studying the prophets this past semester, is that Jeconiah is not the son of Josiah. What do we do with this?
3) Who is Joseph's father? Jacob (according to Matthew) or Heli (according to Luke 3:23-24)?
4) I also don't understand how Matthew has so many less people than Luke. I don't know the exact numbers but a quick look shows that it is significantly less. I heard somewhere that Matthew may name someone and this person stands for three or four people, but how does that count as a generation?
5) If we start at Abraham (around 1850BC i think?) and go with 42 generations, that means that each generation is around 45 years, how does that work?

[Joel]

3) Who is Joseph's father? Jacob (according to Matthew) or Heli (according to Luke 3:23-24)?

Matthews geneology is of Joseph, Lukes geneology is of Mary--that is why the difference.

[JerryLove]

1. This assertation has no direct support that I am aware of (feel fee to point me at some) and is therefore only conjecture.
2. Joseph is not the father of Jesus, therefore not in his liniage.
3. The liniages (IIRC) would break and re-form, which is not possable.

According to Christian mythology (no connotation intended), the liniage of Yeshua (Jesus, Joshua, etc) is: "Yehovia beget Yeshua".

1. Also fails to fit a reading of the passage (Luke 3):
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli.

Joseph is clearly declared the son of Heli by Luke. Luke's geneology does not mention Mary at all. I think you are violating the "don't turn to outside sources" command of Paul.

[jdironfist]

Joseph is clearly declared the son of Heli by Luke. Luke's geneology does not mention Mary at all. I think you are violating the "don't turn to outside sources" command of Paul.

Luke traces Jesus's genealogy back through the legal descendants while Matthew did through actual father-to-son genealogy. My reasons for this conjecture:

1. At the end of Luke's genealogy (chapter 3), he writes in verse 38 "...the son of Adam, the son of God." Yet God only has one true Son, which is Jesus according to all consistant Christians (not including Mormons-they aren't Christian). Luke must have realized that Adam was the inheritor of God's "estate," or earth.

2. Luke also says that a man named Nathan was David's "son," while Matthew traces through Solomon (there are other examples of that in the genealogies).

Also, Jerry, where does Paul say not to turn to outside sources? I agree that the Bible should be held as ultimate authority, but outside sources can provide corroboration and added details about certain stories mentioned in the Bible.

[shakeybill]

Originally Posted by Pennypacker11

A few questions:
1) How does Matthew come up with 14 here?
2) A further problem that I noticed after studying the prophets this past semester, is that Jeconiah is not the son of Josiah. What do we do with this?
3) Who is Joseph's father? Jacob (according to Matthew) or Heli (according to Luke 3:23-24)?
4) I also don't understand how Matthew has so many less people than Luke. I don't know the exact numbers but a quick look shows that it is significantly less. I heard somewhere that Matthew may name someone and this person stands for three or four people, but how does that count as a generation?
5) If we start at Abraham (around 1850BC i think?) and go with 42 generations, that means that each generation is around 45 years, how does that work?

I did a little research concerning this subject because of an informal young vs. old universe debate I was involved in. These are the best answers I could come up with.

A general principle of Hebrew culture was that 'X was the son of Y' does not have to only mean a one generation difference. It could be refering to a grandfather relationship or even great-grandfather, or greater gap in generations. The people listed in genealogies can be listed for their preeminence or importance as well as literal generational sequence.

As far as your questions:
1. It is a Hebrew style of writing to have equal quantities in consecutive lists. Refer also to the OT genealogies and you'll see similar groups of numbers.
2. Possible explanation per my introductory paragraph.
3. The traditional explanation I've heard for this is that the Matthew genealogy goes thru Joseph's line while the Luke genealogy traces Mary's line. It does not seem likely that they both refer to Joseph's line since it is unlikely such an obvious genealogical error would have been made only 70 years or so after the events. That would be like a contradiction in accounts of who FDR's father was in a current history.
4. Possible explanation per my intro paragraph
5. Ditto

Hope this helps

In Christ, Bill

[JerryLove]

Luke traces Jesus's genealogy back through the legal descendants while Matthew did through actual father-to-son genealogy. My reasons for this conjecture:

So you are claiming that Joesph's legal father was not his bilogical father? Also, how does Matthew attribute Jesus's actual father to be Joseph... it should be Jehovia?

At the end of Luke's genealogy (chapter 3), he writes in verse 38 "...the son of Adam, the son of God." Yet God only has one true Son, which is Jesus according to all consistant Christians

God made Adam directy... seems like a son to me.

Luke also says that a man named Nathan was David's "son," while Matthew traces through Solomon (there are other examples of that in the genealogies).

Which could just as easily support "error" as anything else. Please prove your case. TO begin with, please explain how a biological line of Jesus can include Joseph?

Also, Jerry, where does Paul say not to turn to outside sources? I agree that the Bible should be held as ultimate authority, but outside sources can provide corroboration and added details about certain stories mentioned in the Bible.

Something about the Bible being it's own interpretation (2 Paul somewhere), I'll see if I can find it.

A general principle of Hebrew culture was that 'X was the son of Y' does not have to only mean a one generation difference. It could be refering to a grandfather relationship or even great-grandfather, or greater gap in generations. The people listed in genealogies can be listed for their preeminence or importance as well as literal generational sequence.

The the Geneology is silly, and both could have said "Jesus, son of David, son of Adam".

The traditional explanation I've heard for this is that the Matthew genealogy goes thru Joseph's line while the Luke genealogy traces Mary's line.

Then Joseph should not be in Luke's geneology.

[jdironfist]

Originally Posted by Previously, I

Luke traces Jesus's genealogy back through the legal descendants while Matthew did through actual father-to-son genealogy. My reasons for this conjecture:

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So you are claiming that Joesph's legal father was not his bilogical father? Also, how does Matthew attribute Jesus's actual father to be Joseph... it should be Jehovia?

Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. My point about legal versus biological has to do with the Old Testament laws of inheritance, which I can't seem to find right now. But, in certain cases, when a man had no sons, then he would leave his estate to someone else, who would become his legal heir. There were also other cases in which a certain son could be represented as the legal heir. Make sense?

Originally Posted by Previously, I

At the end of Luke's genealogy (chapter 3), he writes in verse 38 "...the son of Adam, the son of God." Yet God only has one true Son, which is Jesus according to all consistant Christians

Originally Posted by JerryLove

God made Adam directy... seems like a son to me.

Legally. Not sexually. God used outside materials to create Adam. It would be as if I had taken a bunch of Legos (Adam), stuck them together, gave the new creation a room to live in (the Earth), and said that the creation is my son. It's silly to assume that I reproduced that. It was the "inheritor" of my room though.

Originally Posted by Previously, I

Luke also says that a man named Nathan was David's "son," while Matthew traces through Solomon (there are other examples of that in the genealogies).

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Which could just as easily support "error" as anything else. Please prove your case. TO begin with, please explain how a biological line of Jesus can include Joseph?

I can't prove my case in the way that you're looking for, but I can answer how a genealogy can include Joseph. The biological line (Matthew) never says that Joseph is the father of Christ. It says that he was the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus. Joseph was Jesus's adopted father, and that's where Matthew traced the lineage through. In Luke, it says that Jesus was the son, or so it was though, of Joseph, so it never claims that Jospeh was the father. Neither genealogy makes that claim.

Originally Posted by Previously, I

Also, Jerry, where does Paul say not to turn to outside sources? I agree that the Bible should be held as ultimate authority, but outside sources can provide corroboration and added details about certain stories mentioned in the Bible.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Something about the Bible being it's own interpretation (2 Paul somewhere), I'll see if I can find it.

Actually, there's no "2 Paul," but Paul also says in 2 Corinthians 13:1 "Every matter must be established by two or three witnesses." I think that that should include the Bible, because if no witnesses exist outside of the Bible, then it's less believable that it's true.

[JerryLove]

Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. My point about legal versus biological has to do with the Old Testament laws of inheritance, which I can't seem to find right now. But, in certain cases, when a man had no sons, then he would leave his estate to someone else, who would become his legal heir. There were also other cases in which a certain son could be represented as the legal heir. Make sense?

The statement makes sense on its own, but still doesn't explain Jospeh in what is claimed to be Mary's geneology, nor how Joseph is claimed in Jesus's biological geneology.

Legally. Not sexually. God used outside materials to create Adam. It would be as if I had taken a bunch of Legos (Adam), stuck them together, gave the new creation a room to live in (the Earth), and said that the creation is my son. It's silly to assume that I reproduced that. It was the "inheritor" of my room though.

I use outside materials to make children too... and it really sounds like legalism to me.

One would argue that God is immaterial (indeed, that it was God who created all material), so the distinction seems even more false. God does not, inherently, have semen to contribute to a sexual encounter.

I can't prove my case in the way that you're looking for, but I can answer how a genealogy can include Joseph. The biological line (Matthew) never says that Joseph is the father of Christ. It says that he was the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus. Joseph was Jesus's adopted father, and that's where Matthew traced the lineage through.

OK, I'll accept that Matthew is a liniage of Joseph without claiming Joseph's siring of Jesus (though I must wonder what the point of listing it was then. Is Joseph's geneology of any signifigance at all?)

In Luke, it says that Jesus was the son, or so it was though, of Joseph, so it never claims that Jospeh was the father. Neither genealogy makes that claim.

I agree, you are correct, neither claims Joseph to be the actual father... but we are back to the problem of them being inconsistant. A reading of Luke seems pretty clear that it is Joseph's geneology.

Actually, there's no "2 Paul," but Paul also says in 2 Corinthians 13:1 "Every matter must be established by two or three witnesses." I think that that should include the Bible, because if no witnesses exist outside of the Bible, then it's less believable that it's true.

Sorry, I'm remembering from a dissertation on a Christian radio programs (A dangerous thing since the guy talking was, frankly, an idiot). I don't recall that it's an important enough sub-point for me to put in a special effort to find (and I cannot remember rough wording for a fast search to verify that it is correct).

[jdironfist]

Originally Posted by Previously, I

Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. My point about legal versus biological has to do with the Old Testament laws of inheritance, which I can't seem to find right now. But, in certain cases, when a man had no sons, then he would leave his estate to someone else, who would become his legal heir. There were also other cases in which a certain son could be represented as the legal heir. Make sense?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The statement makes sense on its own, but still doesn't explain Jospeh in what is claimed to be Mary's geneology, nor how Joseph is claimed in Jesus's biological geneology.

I'm not claiming either of the genealogies to be Mary's, although that was a theory for some time. My claim was that the genealogy in Matthew was of Joseph's blood/biological lineage and that Luke was his legal lineage.

Originally Posted by Previously, I

Legally. Not sexually. God used outside materials to create Adam. It would be as if I had taken a bunch of Legos (Adam), stuck them together, gave the new creation a room to live in (the Earth), and said that the creation is my son. It's silly to assume that I reproduced that. It was the "inheritor" of my room though.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I use outside materials to make children too... and it really sounds like legalism to me.

One would argue that God is immaterial (indeed, that it was God who created all material), so the distinction seems even more false. God does not, inherently, have semen to contribute to a sexual encounter.

My point there was that since Adam isn't in God's blood (biological) line, it furthers my conjecture that Luke's genealogy must be a legal one. It also seemes to be very clear to you as well that Adam could be defined as God's "son," I just think that I didn't make my point clear. My bad. Also, why would what I'm suggesting sound like legalism? My understanding was that legalism was a belief that works save man instead of grace or something like that.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

OK, I'll accept that Matthew is a liniage of Joseph without claiming Joseph's siring of Jesus (though I must wonder what the point of listing it was then. Is Joseph's geneology of any signifigance at all?)

Joseph's genealogy is important because he's Jesus's "step-father" in a sense. Jesus is also Joseph's son legally, although not physically, in that he was raised by Joseph and would have been the inheritor of all of Joseph's land, money, etc. had he not died. I'm not sure about why the gospel writers chose to include the genealogy of Joseph; Mary's would be more appropriate in my eyes, but Joseph's genealogy would have probably been more important then because women were mostly property and thought of as lower than men then.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I agree, you are correct, neither claims Joseph to be the actual father... but we are back to the problem of them being inconsistant. A reading of Luke seems pretty clear that it is Joseph's geneology.

Okay, good, we've got some common ground to work with. I've offered a plausible explanation of the apparent inconsistancies, as has shakeybill (they sometimes skip generations in ancient genealogies), and I see no reason to see the gospel writers as trying to mask the truth. If you examine Luke carefully, you would find that Luke referenced 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands. He made no mistakes. Why would he see necessity to lie when it comes to the genealogy of Jesus, which is far more important than referencing landmarks?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Sorry, I'm remembering from a dissertation on a Christian radio programs (A dangerous thing since the guy talking was, frankly, an idiot). I don't recall that it's an important enough sub-point for me to put in a special effort to find (and I cannot remember rough wording for a fast search to verify that it is correct).

Not a problem. It probably isn't very important, anyway, as you said.