Who Was Jesus' Grandfather?
Uncle Rich
most common explanation for the apparent contradiction between the
two NT passages listed below:
Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus."
vs.
Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of
Heli."
The Matthew passage seems to indicate that "Jacob" was Joseph's
father, but the Luke passage indicates that "Heli" was Joseph's
father. Am I reading these two verses correctly? I checked some
other translations, and there are some variations in the spelling
of "Heli", but none of them have any footnotes that I saw which
explains the apparent discrepancy. The only thing I can think of is
that the "Jacob" referenced in the Matthew passage is not Joseph's
immediate father, but rather a distant relative. Thanks for your
comments.
-Richard
John P. Kesler
KESLER
The most common "explanation" offered by inerrantists is that Luke's
genealogy is traced through Mary while Matthew's is through Joseph. It's a
totally unmerited argument, since Luke 3 doesn't even mention Mary's name
and specifically calls Joseph the son of Heli, but this is the type of
"reasoning" one must do to preserve the inerrancy doctrine. As for your
possibility that Jacob is a "distant relative" rather than Joseph's actual
father, I think the clear indication is that Jacob was Joseph's actual
father. This interpretation is more consistent with the rest of the
genealogy, for example when Abraham is called the "father" of Isaac and
Jacob, the "father" of "Judah and his brothers" (1:2). Actual fathers, not
"distant relative[s]" are in view. One final thing is that Matthew's gospel
presents Jesus as a very Jewish Messiah, so it would be natural for Matthew
to give Jesus' father Joseph the same dad (Jacob) that the Joseph of the Old
Testament had.
John Kesler
kes...@charter.net
Uncle Rich
From: "John P. Kesler" <kes...@charter.net>
Newsgroups: alt.bible.errancy
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: Who Was Jesus' Grandfather?
John, thanks for your comments. I posted this same question at the
"JesusMysteries" yahoo group, and here is part of an interesting reply
I received from Bernard Muller which describes a theory which explains
how Jesus can have two separate lineages from David.
Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/message/6966
--- begin quoted material ---
When the two gospels got to be known side by side, I think that created
disputes, as likely reflected in:
1Tim1:4 "nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause
disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith."
Early Fathers tried to supply explanation for the different genealogies. The
favored one in ancient times was by Africanus (early 3rd century).
Here it is in Eusebius "History of the Church", I, 7:
1 Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of Christ
differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with one another.
Since
as a consequence every believer, in ignorance of the truth, has been zealous
to
invent some explanation which shall harmonize the two passages, permit us to
subjoin the account of the matter which has come down to us, and which is
given
by Africanus, who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to
Aristides,
where he discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies. After refuting the
opinions of others as forced and deceptive, he give the account which he had
received from tradition in these words:
2 "For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in Israel either
according to nature or according to law;-according to nature by the
succession
of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up a
child to the name of a brother dying childless; for because a clear hope of
resurrection was not yet given they had a representation of the future
promise
by a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the one deceased
might be perpetuated;-
3 whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table
succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though
born
of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both of
those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name.
4 Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the
other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were
so
involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the
childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly
considered
to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one
time
to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these
accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable
intricacy
indeed, yet quite accurately.
5 But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain the
interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from David
through
Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begat Jacob the
father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of
David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son Eli was
the
father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Eli,the son of Melchi.
6 Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it
is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his
descent
from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan; first how it is that
these
two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers,
Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be
grandfathers of Joseph.
7 Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begat
children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow,
whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying
another.
8 By Estha then (for this was the woman's name according to tradition)
Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob. And when Matthan was
dead,
Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but
of
another family, married her as before said, and begat a son Eli.
9 Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different
families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his
brother Eli had died childless, took the latter's wife and begat by her a
son
Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also
it
is written: `Jacob begat Joseph.' But according to law he was the son of
Eli,
for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.
10 Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void, which
the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: `Jacob begat Joseph.'
But
Luke, on the other hand, says: `Who was the son, as was supposed' (for this
he
also adds), `of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Melchi'; for he could not
more clearly express the generation according to law. And the expression `he
begat' he has omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the
genealogy back to Adam the son of God. This interpretation is neither
incapable
of proof nor is it an idle conjecture.
11 For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the
desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case
truly,
have banded down the following account: Some Idumean robbers, having
attacked
Ascalon, a city of Palestine, carried away from a temple of Apollo which
stood
near the walls, in addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a certain
temple
slave named Herod. And since the priest was not able to pay the ransom for
his
son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and afterward
was
befriended by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews.
12 And having, been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and having
restored to him the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother
Aristobulus,
he had the good fortune to be named procurator of Palestine. But Antipater
having been slain by those who were envious of his great good fortune was
succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a decree of the senate,
made
King of the Jews under Antony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and the
other
tetrarchs. These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks.
13 But as there had been kept in the archives up to that time the
genealogies
of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to
proselytes,
such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were
mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch
as
the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and
since
he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned
all
the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if
no
one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to
the
patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called
Georae.
14 A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their
own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way
from
the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble
extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on
account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from
Nazara
and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the
aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as
faithfully aspossible.
15 Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer
explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person.
And
let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support,
we
have nothing. better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the
truth." And at the end of the same epistle he adds these words: "Matthan,
who
was descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi,
who
was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were
thus
uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him,
begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus
Joseph
was the son of both."
17 Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary
also
is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the
law of Moses, inter-marriages between different tribes were not permitted.
For
the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the
inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here.
No comment
Regards, Bernard
--- end quoted material ---
Convoluted, but interesting theory.
-Richard
note: posted and emailed
crit
John P. Kesler <kes...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:l5lvcu4ltm2mgtma6...@4ax.com...
Helpu
Baseless conjecture. How about this idea, since whatever we imagine is
acceptable, Jacob thought it would be cool to name his boy, Joseph, since it
would resemble the patriachs.
Korn...@aol.com
In a message dated 5/2/02 9:48:27 AM, 12...@prodigy.net writes:
<< Helpu
Baseless conjecture. How about this idea, since whatever we imagine is
acceptable, Jacob thought it would be cool to name his boy, Joseph, since it
would resemble the patriachs. >>
KORNFORM
Since whatever we imagine is acceptable, according to NeedsHelp, we can
easily imagine there is no God and that Jesus was a figment. This holds
according to NH's reasoning.
Tim Simmons
"Uncle Rich" <uncle...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:dnc2du809kge9o3us...@4ax.com...
snips.........
>
> John, thanks for your comments. I posted this same question at the
>
> "JesusMysteries" yahoo group, and here is part of an interesting reply
>
> I received from Bernard Muller which describes a theory which explains
>
> how Jesus can have two separate lineages from David.
>
>
>
> Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/message/6966
>
>
>
> --- begin quoted material ---
>
>
>
> When the two gospels got to be known side by side, I think that created
> disputes, as likely reflected in:
> 1Tim1:4 "nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause
> disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith."
Tim S:
The gospels are generally considered later than the Pauline epistles. When
1st Timothy was written, there were no gospels floating around. The gospels
aren't even mentioned in writing until the 2nd century CE. So, it would
seem that we have another blind stab at making a point in favor of
Christianity's veracity at the expense of the facts (or perhaps it is merely
ignorance on your part). Are you not aware of the relative dates of the
books of the NT? Isn't it odd that the very people who profess to "know"
the Bible know next to nothing often times?
Uncle:
Tim S:
I truly think I am going to throw up. I am not even going to waste more
time refuting the irrationality of a man 1600 years dead. If the
genealogies are not accurate and complete then why are they in the gospels?
It is silly to ignore the fact that Matthew and Luke were written by two
different people in two different places at two different times expressing
two different beliefs about the "origins" of Jesus.
Disharmony of the Gospels:
Matthew/Luke
J. born during Herod's reign/J. born after Herod is long dead
Wise men/Sheppards
J. lived in Egypt for years/visited temple each year in Jerusalem
I could probably cite 20 more but I'm sick of typing.
Christians cannot accept the truth when it contradicts their pet beliefs.
Tim
Snipped a load of hot air.
SisterSoul
"Uncle Rich" <uncle...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:em2ucu0ap22ku1duk...@4ax.com...
SISTER
Stupid Guess, so please don't flame me.
But, perhaps Heli is a woman.
Just a thought.
SisterSoul
_AnonCoward
Trace the genealogies further back to David's son. Matthew states Jesus was
descended from Solomon (Mt 1:6) whereas Luke states Jesus was descended from
Nathan (Lk 3:31).
Ralf
TEW
father. Great question.
Tim Taylor
>>rich
> > The Matthew passage seems to indicate that "Jacob" was Joseph's
> > father, but the Luke passage indicates that "Heli" was Joseph's
> > father. Am I reading these two verses correctly? I checked some
> > other translations, and there are some variations in the spelling
> > of "Heli", but none of them have any footnotes that I saw which
> > explains the apparent discrepancy. The only thing I can think of is
> > that the "Jacob" referenced in the Matthew passage is not Joseph's
> > immediate father, but rather a distant relative. Thanks for your
> > comments.
>tew
>Jacob was Joseph's birth father. Heli was Joseph's father in law, Mary's
>father.
Tim
Nope. Your speculation contradicts the text. What apologetic source did you
copy this wrong answer from?
Luke 3:23 (RSV)
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son
(as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
It clearly states that Joseph was the SON of Heli, not SON-IN-LAW.
If Luke wanted to say "in-law", there is ample evidence he knew how to say it:
Luke 4:38 (rsv)
And he arose and left the synagogue, and entered Simon's house. Now Simon's
mother-IN-LAW was ill with a high fever, and they besought him for her.
Luke 12:53 (rsv)
they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against
daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her
daughter-in-law and daughter-IN-LAW against her mother-in-law."
>TEW
>Great question.
Tim
Unfortunately the same can not be said for your answer.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
TEW
"Tim Taylor" <bdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:61mbdu86e5s3e5mam...@4ax.com...
>
> >>rich
> > > The Matthew passage seems to indicate that "Jacob" was Joseph's
> > > father, but the Luke passage indicates that "Heli" was Joseph's
> > > father. Am I reading these two verses correctly? I checked some
> > > other translations, and there are some variations in the spelling
> > > of "Heli", but none of them have any footnotes that I saw which
> > > explains the apparent discrepancy. The only thing I can think of is
> > > that the "Jacob" referenced in the Matthew passage is not Joseph's
> > > immediate father, but rather a distant relative. Thanks for your
> > > comments.
>
> >tew
> >Jacob was Joseph's birth father. Heli was Joseph's father in law, Mary's
> >father.
>
> Tim
> Nope. Your speculation contradicts the text. What apologetic source did
you
> copy this wrong answer from?
tew
yep. My speculation is indeed probably fact. Here are some sources that
agree with it, timmy baby.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/abdiscr/abdiscr13.html
http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/genealogy/joseph.html
http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/genealogy/joseph.html
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/Genealogies_of_Christ.htm
> Luke 3:23 (RSV)
> Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being
the son
> (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
>
> It clearly states that Joseph was the SON of Heli, not SON-IN-LAW.
>
> If Luke wanted to say "in-law", there is ample evidence he knew how to say
it:
>
> Luke 4:38 (rsv)
> And he arose and left the synagogue, and entered Simon's house. Now
Simon's
> mother-IN-LAW was ill with a high fever, and they besought him for her.
>
> Luke 12:53 (rsv)
> they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother
against
> daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her
> daughter-in-law and daughter-IN-LAW against her mother-in-law."
>
> >TEW
> >Great question.
>
> Tim
> Unfortunately the same can not be said for your answer.
tew
timmy timmy you no not that's right you know no not
crit
Helpu
Luke is quite clear that Joseph is not the father but that it was only
supposed that he was the father. The mention of Joseph as the supposed
father is parenthetical. Jesus is the son or grandson of Heli because Heli
is the father or grandfather of Mary. Prove that it aint so and if you cant
prove it them you have no basis for claiming contradiction.
TEW
> Unfortunately the same can not be said for your answer.
Tim:
I really think my answer is correct. Why the hostility? What follows is
just 4 sources that agree. Tim tim tim timmy tim tim, get a mind.
http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/genealogy/joseph.html
Joseph in Christ's genealogy
Matthew and Luke showed that Joseph was a legal parent, but not a genetic
parent to Jesus. Jesus was miraculously conceived in Mary, through the Holy
Spirit. By virtue of being Mary's husband, Joseph was considered the father
of Jesus. Since Jesus was born into Joseph's family, he was a legal heir.
Through Joseph, Jesus obtained a rightful claim to the throne of David.
Although Jesus was a legal descendant to Joseph, he was not a physical
descendant. Luke's genealogy directly addressed this issue by stating Jesus
was "supposedly the son of Joseph" (Luke 3:23). Clearly, people had assumed
that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus, when in fact he was not
(Matthew 13:55).
Who was Joseph's Father?
At first glance, Matthew and Luke appear to be in disagreement as to who
Joseph's father was. Matthew states he was the son of Jacob, while Luke
states he was the son of Heli. Fortunately, an unlikely source has aided
scholars in unraveling this mystery.
The Jerusalem Talmud indicates that Mary was the daughter of Heli
(Haggigah, Book 77, 4). Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. Luke could
rightfully call Joseph the "son of Heli" because this was in compliance with
use of the word "son" at that time. Moreover, designating a son-in-law as a
son had scriptural precedent. Refer to Son in Jewish Genealogies under
Principles of Interpretation for more on this topic.
Thus, Joseph was the son of Jacob, and the son-in-law of Heli.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/Genealogies_of_Christ.htm
The Genealogies of Christ
by James Akin
Since the gospels were first written, people have been puzzled by the two
genealogies they give for Christ. The genealogy in Matthew 1 offers a
different lineage than the one in Luke 3. This isn't surprising since
neither genealogy attempts to give a full family tree for Jesus, containing
all his lines of ancestry. Each records only one line of ancestry.
Even so, people are often perplexed by some of the differences between the
two. The most obvious difference is that Matthew's genealogy begins with
Abraham moves forward to Christ. Luke's genealogy, on the other hand, begins
with Christ and traces the line backward to Adam.
If we compensate for these factors and only look at the period where the two
genealogies overlap, there are still differences. The most notable is that
both genealogies trace Jesus' lineage back to David, but through different
sons. Matthew has Christ descending from David through Solomon, while Luke
has him descending from David through a different son, Nathan.
This is not itself a puzzlement since David had more than one son, and a
later individual can be descended from more than one of them. The question
arises when the two lines meet up again.
The Solomon line runs parallel to the Nathan line until the time of
Shealtiel, when they intersect. In Matthew, Shealtiel is described as the
son of Jechoniah, and in Luke his father is said to be Neri. The question
arises: How can he have two fathers?
After Shealtiel, both genealogies state Christ was descended from Shealtiel'
s son, Zerubbabel, who was governor of Israel after the Babylonian Exile.
But then they diverge again. Matthew traces Christ's lineage through
Zerubbabel's son Abiud, while Luke traces it through a different son, Rhesa.
Again, there is no puzzlement since Zerubbabel simply had more than one son,
and Christ was descended from both. The question again arises when the two
lines converge, which they do on Jesus' foster father, Joseph.
In Matthew, Joseph is said to be the son of Jacob, of the Abiud line, while
in Luke Joseph is said to be the son of Heli, of the Rhesa line. So the
question is: How can Joseph be said to have two fathers?
Some have tried to deal with the issue by saying that Luke's genealogy
really doesn't give Jesus' lineage through Joseph at all, but through Mary.
It is true that Mary was a descendant of David (cf. Rom. 1:3), but neither
of the lines given in the gospels is her line. The text does not support
that idea. Luke states that Joseph was the son of Heli, not that Mary was
the daughter of Heli, and in any event, this does not account for the
question of Shealtiel's two fathers.
To explain that issue, one needs to know something about how ancient Jewish
genealogies work. There are a number of differences that can account for
this.
Ancient Jewish genealogies often skipped generations, in part because there
were no terms for "grandson" and "grandfather." Any male one was descended
from was one's "father," regardless of how many generations back he was.
Similarly, any male descended from you was your "son," no matter how many
generations down the line he was. This is why the Hebrews were called "the
sons of Israel" hundreds of years after the original Israel (Jacob) died.
Potentially, this could explain why Shealtiel is said to have more than one
father. In biblical genealogies, as soon as one moves more than one
generation back, a person does have more than one father.
Adoption, whether of a child or an adult, was also common and could affect
which genealogical line one was ascribed to. For example, the faithful spy
Caleb was biologically the son of a non-Jew named Jephunneh (Num. 32:12),
but he was adopted into the tribe of Judah and ascribed to the line of
Hezron (1 Chron. 2:18).
Adoption could take place even posthumously. The most striking example of
that is what is known as the levirite marriage (from the Latin, levir =
brother-in-law). If a man died childless, it was the duty of his brother to
marry the widow and father a son on behalf of his brother. This son would
then be posthumously "adopted" by the dead man and reckoned as his son in
the family genealogy.
Adoption is the most probable explanation of Shealtiel's two fathers.
Jeremiah had prophesied that Jechoniah's (biological) descendants would
never sit on the throne of Judah (Jer. 22:30). Thus the legal succession
passed to the line of Nathan and Shealtiel, though biologically the son of
Neri, was reckoned as Jechoniah's son for purposes of the kingly line.
It appears that Shealtiel also died childless and his brother Pedaiah
fulfilled the obligations of a brother and fathered Zerubbabel (1 Chron.
3:17-19 with Ezra 3:2, etc.).
This solves the first case of in the genealogy of a man seeming to have two
fathers. The second occurs with Jesus' foster father, Joseph.
In this case we have more direct information. The second century historian
Julius Africanus, a native of Israel, records information given by Christ's
remaining family in his day. According to their family genealogy, Joseph's
grandfather Matthan (mentioned in Matthew) married a woman named Estha, who
bore him a son named Jacob. After Matthan died, Estha married his close
relative Melchi (mentioned in Luke) and bore him a son named Heli. Jacob and
Heli were thus half-brothers.
Unfortunatley, Heli died childless, and so Jacob married his widow and
fathered Joseph, who was biologically the son of Jacob but legally the son
of Heli (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:6:7).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07204b.htm
Heli the Father of Joseph
Heli (Gr. HELEI--Luke 3:23) is evidently the same name as the preceding. In
Luke he is said to be the father of Joseph, while in Matt., I, 16, Jacob was
Joseph's father. The most probable explanation of this seeming contradiction
is afforded by having recourse to the levirate law among the Jews, which
prescribes that when a man dies childless his widow "shall not marry to
another; but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother"
(Deut., xxv, 5). The child, therefore, of the second marriage is legally the
child of the first (Deut., xxv, 6). Heli having died childless, his widow
became the wife of his brother Jacob, and Joseph was the offspring of the
marriage, by nature the son of Jacob, but legally the son of Heli. It is
likely that Matt. gives the natural, and Luke the legal descent. (Cf. Maas,
"The Gosp. acc. to S. Matt.", i, 16.) Lord A. Hervey, Bishop of Bath and
Wells, who wrote a learned work on the "Genealogies of Our Lord Jesus
Christ", thinks that Mary was the daughter of Jacob, and Joseph was the son
of Jacob's brother, Heli. Mary and Joseph were therefore first cousins, and
both of the house of David. Jacob, the elder, having died without male
issue, transmitted his rights and privileges to the male issue of his
brother Heli, Joseph, who according to genealogical usage was his
descendant.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/abdiscr/abdiscr13.html
FATHER, OR FATHER-IN-LAW?
by
Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born
Jesus, who is called Christ."
Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being
(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."
According to 1 Corinthians 14:33 "God is not the author of confusion...."
However, these verses appear to be at odds over the lineage of Christ.
Surely two men cannot be the father of Joseph. What is going on here? The
answer to this supposed contradiction is relatively simple, but requires
some explanation. Most scholars today agree that the first seventeen verses
in the first chapter of Matthew give the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke
gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of
Mary. This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew
1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56
is told wholly from Mary's point of view.
A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies?
The answer is again quite simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in
mentioning only the names of males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is
designated by her husband's name. R.A. Torrey stated: "Joseph's name is
introduced into this place in place of Mary's, he being Mary's husband. Heli
was Joseph's father-in-law; and so Joseph was called 'the son of Heli.'
While Joseph was son-in-law of Heli, he was, according to the flesh,
actually the son of Jacob" (1907, p. 102). The term "son" as commonly used
in such tables had three different meanings according to James Coffman: "1.
son by actual birth; 2. son-in-law, and; 3. son by creation, as in the case
of Adam" (1984, p. 2). This rationale is clearly supported by this line of
evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke's genealogy,
with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article "the"
(e.g. "the" Heli, "the" Matthat). Although not obvious in our English
translations, this would stand out to anyone reading the Greek, who then
would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though
Joseph's name was used. Godet stated: "The omission of the article puts the
name (Joseph) outside of the genealogical series" (as quoted in Robertson,
1922, p. 261).
Additionally, the writers of the Jewish Talmud included a passage that
provided further evidence for the genealogy of Christ. This ancient text
recognized the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the
daughter of Heli-Hagigah 2:4 (Haley, 1951, p. 326). Anyone who would make
Joseph the son of Heli also would make him the husband of his own sister!
These two separate genealogies of Jesus Christ were, in fact, absolutely
necessary in the establishment of Christ as the Messiah. The Messianic
title, "Son of David," that we so frequently apply to Christ required dual
proof: (1) that He was entitled to throne, as Matthew's genealogy indicated;
and (2) that He literally descended from David, as Luke's genealogy
demonstrates. The verses in Matthew clearly establish Christ as the legal
heir to the throne by tracing His ancestry down through the royal line of
the kings of Israel, with Luke's account demonstrating that He was a
descendant of David.
REFERENCES
Coffman, James Burton (1984), Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Abilene,
TX: ACU Press).
Haley, John W. (1951), Examination of Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible
(Nashville, TN: B.C. Goodpasture).
Robertson, A.T. (1922), A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and
Brothers).
Torrey, R.A. (1907), Difficulties in the Bible (Westwood, N.J.: Revell).
"Tim Taylor" <bdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:61mbdu86e5s3e5mam...@4ax.com...
>
crit
Viv
>"Uncle Rich" <uncle...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:em2ucu0ap22ku1duk...@4ax.com...
RICHARD
>> Sorry if this question has been dealt with here before. What is the
>> most common explanation for the apparent contradiction between the
>> two NT passages listed below:
>>
>> Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
>> was born Jesus."
>>
>> vs.
>>
>> Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
>> being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of
>> Heli."
>>
>> The Matthew passage seems to indicate that "Jacob" was Joseph's
>> father, but the Luke passage indicates that "Heli" was Joseph's
>> father. Am I reading these two verses correctly? I checked some
>> other translations, and there are some variations in the spelling
>> of "Heli", but none of them have any footnotes that I saw which
>> explains the apparent discrepancy. The only thing I can think of is
>> that the "Jacob" referenced in the Matthew passage is not Joseph's
>> immediate father, but rather a distant relative. Thanks for your
>> comments.
>>
TEW
>Jacob was Joseph's birth father. Heli was Joseph's father in law, Mary's
>father. Great question.
VIV
You'd better tell the Pope that the Holy See has had it wrong for an
embarrassing length of time, then. He'll probably be relieved to drop the
feast for St. Joachim - at his age you can't eat too much rich food anyway.
Vivienne Smythe
--
"Words were indeed insubstantial. They were as soft as water, but they were
also as powerful as water and now they were rushing over the audience,
eroding the levees of veracity and carrying away the past."
Terry Pratchett's Granny Weatherwax sees the need for www.urbanlegends.com
TEW
> Unfortunately the same can not be said for your answer.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/Genealogies_of_Christ.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07204b.htm
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/abdiscr/abdiscr13.html
FATHER, OR FATHER-IN-LAW?
by
Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born
Jesus, who is called Christ."
Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being
(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."
According to 1 Corinthians 14:33 "God is not the author of confusion...."
REFERENCES
"Tim Taylor" <bdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:61mbdu86e5s3e5mam...@4ax.com...
>
TEW
> > > The Matthew passage seems to indicate that "Jacob" was Joseph's
> > > father, but the Luke passage indicates that "Heli" was Joseph's
> > > father. Am I reading these two verses correctly? I checked some
> > > other translations, and there are some variations in the spelling
> > > of "Heli", but none of them have any footnotes that I saw which
> > > explains the apparent discrepancy. The only thing I can think of is
> > > that the "Jacob" referenced in the Matthew passage is not Joseph's
> > > immediate father, but rather a distant relative. Thanks for your
> > > comments.
>
> >tew
> >Jacob was Joseph's birth father. Heli was Joseph's father in law, Mary's
> >father.
>
> Tim
> Nope. Your speculation contradicts the text. What apologetic source did
you
> copy this wrong answer from?
tew
yep. My speculation is indeed probably fact. Here are some sources that
agree with it, timmy baby.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/abdiscr/abdiscr13.html
http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/genealogy/joseph.html
http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/genealogy/joseph.html
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/Genealogies_of_Christ.htm
> Luke 3:23 (RSV)
> Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being
the son
> (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
>
> It clearly states that Joseph was the SON of Heli, not SON-IN-LAW.
>
> If Luke wanted to say "in-law", there is ample evidence he knew how to say
it:
>
> Luke 4:38 (rsv)
> And he arose and left the synagogue, and entered Simon's house. Now
Simon's
> mother-IN-LAW was ill with a high fever, and they besought him for her.
>
> Luke 12:53 (rsv)
> they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother
against
> daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her
> daughter-in-law and daughter-IN-LAW against her mother-in-law."
>
> >TEW
> >Great question.
>
> Tim
> Unfortunately the same can not be said for your answer.
tew
timmy timmy you no not that's right you know no not
>
Tim Taylor
> Unfortunately the same can not be said for your answer.
>tew
>I really think my answer is correct.
Tim
I asked you what apologetic source you copied from. You answered me
beautifully.
There is not one scholarly source among your "sources."
>TEW
> Why the hostility?
Tim
There is no hostility. You are about the 1000 Christian poster to come here and
quickly realize he is overmatched intellectually. Your first post is proof.
>TEW
>What follows is just 4 sources that agree.
Tim
Oh goody. We only need post 4 websites written by non-scholars who agree with
us and that settles it. Great. Here you go:
http://www.2think.org/hii/matt_err.shtml
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html
http://members.aol.com/darrwin2/iss169.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/genealogy.html
>TEW
>Tim tim tim timmy tim tim, get a mind.
Tim
For intellectual prowess, should I use as an example someone who cuts and
pastes
from apologist websites?
How about someone who just gullibly accepts what he reads concerning Jewish
documents without actually reading them?
Please, oh please, continue to substitute insults for logical argumentation.
Now, let's look at your "sources."
>TEW
>http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/genealogy/joseph.html
>Joseph in Christ's genealogy
>Matthew and Luke showed that Joseph was a legal parent, but not a genetic
>parent to Jesus. Jesus was miraculously conceived in Mary, through the Holy
>Spirit. By virtue of being Mary's husband, Joseph was considered the father
>of Jesus. Since Jesus was born into Joseph's family, he was a legal heir.
>Through Joseph, Jesus obtained a rightful claim to the throne of David.
>Although Jesus was a legal descendant to Joseph, he was not a physical
>descendant. Luke's genealogy directly addressed this issue by stating Jesus
>was "supposedly the son of Joseph" (Luke 3:23). Clearly, people had assumed
>that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus, when in fact he was not
>(Matthew 13:55).
Tim
Thank you for including this irrelevant material. None of this addresses the
contradiction. In logic, it's called a red herring.
>TEW
>Who was Joseph's Father?
>At first glance, Matthew and Luke appear to be in disagreement as to who
>Joseph's father was. Matthew states he was the son of Jacob, while Luke
>states he was the son of Heli. Fortunately, an unlikely source has aided
>scholars in unraveling this mystery.
>TEW
>The Jerusalem Talmud indicates that Mary was the daughter of Heli
>(Haggigah, Book 77, 4). Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. Luke could
>rightfully call Joseph the "son of Heli" because this was in compliance with
>use of the word "son" at that time. M
Tim
Oh thank you, thank you, thank you! Well, let's look at the Jerusalem Talmud,
shall we?
The Talmud of the Land of Israel
Volume 20: Hagigah and Moed Qatan
Translated by Jacob Neusner
University of Chcago Press, 1986
ISBN 0-226-57679-5
At the time of publishing, Jacob Neusner was Ungerleider Distinguished Scholar
of Judaic Studies at Brown University.
First, to give the overall context of the quote in question, here is what the
translator stated about the tractate of Hagigah:
"Hagigah has a single topic, divided into two parts. The topic is the
participation of common folk in the Temple Cult on the occasion of three
pilgrim festivals. The first aspect of that topic is the three sacrifices that
people bring to the temple: an appearance offering........;a festal
offering(hagigah),which falls under the rules for peace offerings and does
yield meat for the sacrificer;...since the ordinary folk eat part of the meat
of the sacrifices, they have the right to consume food in the in the status of
Holy Things. That fact explains the second aspect of the topic of the tractate,
-
the rules for cleanliness governing the common folk on the occasion of the
festival." - p.3
Tim
I'm going to proceed now to quote the entire passage in which the alleged
reference to Mary appears. Just to verify everyone that I have quoted from the
correct section, this passage is in section 77d of the Hagigah and so it
matches the reference Joe Crea gave earlier. I'm going to place the entire
passage between "==========." Everything you see between the
"========" is directly from the book and none of my comments will appear
between the "=========". I apologize for the length, but I want everyone to see
the context in which the disputed statement occurs. Keep in mind bracketed
comment "L" is the "Mary" comment.
================================
[V.A] He who says Simeon b. Shatah was patriarch finds support in the
following incident about Ashqelon.
[B]
There were two holy men in Ashqelon, who would eat together,
drink together, and study Torah together. One of them died, and
he was not properly mourned.
[C]
But when Bar Maayan, the village tax collector, died, the whole
town took time off to mourn him.
[D]
The surviving holy man began to weep saying, “Woe, for the
enemies of Israel [a euphemism for Israel itself] will have no
merit.”
[E]
[The deceased holy man] appeared to him in a dream, and said to him, “Do
not despise the sons of your Lord. This one did one sin, and the other one did
one good deed, and it went well for [the latter on earth, so while on earth I
was punished for my one sin, he was rewarded for his one good deed].”
[F]
Now what was the culpable act that the holy man had done?
[G]
Heaven forfend! He committed no culpable act in his entire life.
But one time he put on the phylactery of the head before that of
the hand [which was an error].
[H]
Now what was the meritorious deed that Bar Maayan, the village
tax collector, had done?
[I]
Heaven forefend! He never did a meritorious deed in his life. But one time he
made a banquet for the councillors of his town, but they did not come. He said,
“Let the poor come and eat the food, so that it not go to waste.”
[J]
There are those who say that he was traveling along the road with a loaf of
bread under his arm, and it fell. A poor man went and took it, and the tax
collector said nothing to him so as not to embarrass him.
[K]
After a few days the holy man saw his fellow [in a dream] walking among
gardens, orchards, and fountains of water. He saw Bar Maayan the village tax
collector with his tongue hanging out, by a river. He wanted to reach the river
but could not reach it.
[L]
R. Eliezer bar Yos’e said that he saw Miriam, the daughter of 'LYBSLYM
[Jastrow—the leeklike sprouts of onions], hanging the nipples of her breasts.
R. Yost b. Hanina said, “The pin of the gate of Gehenna was fastened to her
ear.”
[M]
I He said to him, “Why are things this way?”
[N]
He said to him, “Because she fasted and told people about it.”
[0]
And some say that she fasted one day and had blood drawn on
two.
[P]
He said to him, “And how long will it be this way for her?”
[Q]
I They said to him, “Until Simeon b. Shatah will come, and we
shall remove it from her ear and set it in his ear!”
[R]
He said to him, “And what is his crime?”
[S]
They said to him, “Because he vowed, ‘If I am made patriarch, I shall kill off
all the witches,’ and lo, he has been made patriarch, but he has not killed off
the witches. Lo, there are eighty witches in a cave of Ashqelon, doing
destruction to the world, so go and tell him.”
[
[T]
He said to them, “I am afraid, for he is the patriarch, and he
will not believe me.”
[U]
He said to him, “If he will believe you, good. Now if he does not believe you,
do this as your sign before him: Put your hand in your eye and remove [your
eye], and hold it in your hand.” He took out his eye and put it in his hand.
They said to put it back, and he put it back.
[V]
He went and reported the incident to him. He wanted to do the
sign for him, but he would not allow him to do so.
[W]
[Simeon] said to him, “I know you are a holy man. Furthermore, I did not say
publicly [that I would uproot witchcraft], but I only thought about it [so I
know that your knowledge comes from Heavenl.” Forthwith Simeon b. Shatah arose.
[X]
Now that day it was raining. Simeon b. Shatah took with him eighty young men
and dressed them in eighty clean cloaks. He took with them eighty new pots,
with covers. He said to them, “When I whistle once, put on your garments. When
I whistle a second time, all of you come out at once. When each one of you
comes out, lift up one of the [witches], and hold her off the ground, because
the witchcraft [of those womenl does not work if their feet are not touching
the ground.”
[Y]
When he went and came to the mouth of the cave, he said, “Hello,
hello! Open up for me I am one of yours.”
[Z]
They said to him, “How did you come on such a rainy day?”
[AA]
He replied, “I ran between the rain drops.”
[BB]
They said to him, “And what did you come here to do?”
[CC]
He said to them, “To learn and to teach.”
[DD]
When he came in, one of them said something and produced bread. One of them
said something and produced meat. One of them said something and produced
cooked food. One of them said something and produced wine. They said to him,
“And what can you do?”
[EE]
He said to them, “I can whistle twice and produce eighty handsome young men,
dressed in clean clothes, who will have pleasure with you and give you pleasure
too.”
[FF]
They said to him, “We want them! We want them!”
[GG]
He whistled once, and they put on their clean clothes. He whistled a second
time, and they all came out at once. He signaled to them, “Each one of you pick
a partner and lift her up off the ground.”
[HH]
At that point what the witches [78a] could do would not work.
He said to the one who produced bread, “Bring forth bread,”
but she produced none. He said “Take her and crucify her.”
[II]
“Bring forth cooked food,” but she could not produce, and he
said, “Take her and crucify her.”
[JJ]
“Bring forth wine,” and she could not do it, and he said, “Take
her and crucify her.”]
[KK]
And so did he do to all of them.
[LL]
This is [the background of] that which we have learned: Eighty
women did Simeon b. Shatah hang in Ashqelon. They do not
judge two capital cases on the same day [M. San. 6:6], but the times required
it.
====================================
Tim
What the translator calls "Unit V" consists entirely of the story I just
posted.
Here is what the translator has to say about Unit V:
"The next units, III, IV, and V, systematically talk about the body of the
abstainer, heave-offering, and Holy Things, not merely the clothing of those
clean for the purposes of abstention from uncleanliness, eating heave offering,
and eating Holy Things. In all cases we wish to know whether the same strict
rule that applies to clothing applies to the person himself"
I'm fairly certain that the name "Jastrow" in comment [L] above isn't the name
of Mary's father, but the name of a Hebrew scholar who translated the name of
Mary's father as meaning "the leeklike sprouts of onions."
Perhaps Joe Crea can shed some light on what the letters "LYBSLYM" mean, or if
they translate to "Heli" or "Eli."
It ought to be evident to anyone who has read the above that the quote in
question isn't about Mary. I'm not a Rabbi, but it appears the Miriam above
fasted to become clean for the temple sacrifice, then became unclean by
"drawing blood on day 2." Her punishment for doing so was to have the pin of
the gate of Gehenna stuck in her ear. Gehenna of course is the place where the
damned go when they die.
All this of course takes place in the larger context of a story that seems to
be written to support the claims that Simeon was patriarch.
My conclusion is that Lightfoot heard about this quote second hand, made a
claim about it, and the rest they say, is history.
TEW, since I have better things to do than make you look like a fool, I'm going
to stop here until you either
(1) admit your first "source" is wrong or
(2) explain how the Talmud passage deals with the Virgin.
Once you do that I'll move on to your other sources.
Why don't you show us what a "mind" you have and do that for us? I look forward
to being shown the superiority of your intellect.
Tim Taylor
>>>tew
>>>Jacob was Joseph's birth father. Heli was Joseph's father in law, Mary's
>>>father.
>> Tim
>>Nope. Your speculation contradicts the text. What apologetic source did
>> you copy this wrong answer from?
>
> tew
> yep. My speculation is indeed probably fact. Here are some sources that
> agree with it, timmy baby.
Tim
Well Tew "baby", just read my response to your first "website" then get back to
us and tell us how your foot tastes.
I love it when someone like Tew is blatantly wrong about an ancient text (the
Talmud), then has the gall to throw in ad hominem.
<snip>
>>Tim
>> Luke 3:23 (RSV)
>>Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being
>>the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
> > It clearly states that Joseph was the SON of Heli, not SON-IN-LAW.
> > If Luke wanted to say "in-law", there is ample evidence he knew how to say
>> it:
> >
> > Luke 4:38 (rsv)
> > And he arose and left the synagogue, and entered Simon's house. Now
> Simon's
> > mother-IN-LAW was ill with a high fever, and they besought him for her.
> >
> > Luke 12:53 (rsv)
> > they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother
> against
> > daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her
> > daughter-in-law and daughter-IN-LAW against her mother-in-law."
Tim
Well TEW, I guess if your apologist websites skipped over this obvious point,
there is no reason to expect you to address it either, is there?
> > >TEW
> > >Great question.
> >
> > Tim
> > Unfortunately the same can not be said for your answer.
>
> tew
> timmy timmy you no not that's right you know no not
Tim
Ignorance combined with ad hominem. Wonderful.
Just admit you were wrong about the Talmud and I'll pick your next website to
pieces.
crit
Viv <wy...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:r4efdug9rlkkkuf39...@4ax.com...
Helpu
Just a reminder, this is about biblical errancy not papal errancy. I am, by
the way a papal errantist, in case u didnt know.
Steve Yohansonson
Which Joseph... read Matt, Mark, Luke, John... there are two Josephs
walking around in this time - both having deals with the Jesus Clan.