Everyone has heard of Jesus and most people probably know his dad: Joseph.
Famous guys.
I mean, Karen and Richard Carpenter were a pretty famous couple, but these guys were the original carpenters. Extremely famous guys. And when I say famous I mean extraordinarily famously famous guys.
I mean, you may think that Elvis was famous, but he was just another fried banana sandwich compared to these guys.
But curiously not many people know who Joseph’s father was, Jesus’ paternal grandfather. Ever wonder why?
Part of the reason might be because the Bible can’t seem to make up its mind about who the guy was.
The author of Matthew says his name is “Jacob” (Matthew 1:16).
The author of Luke however disagrees. He says Joseph’s father was “Heli” (Luke 3:23).
As a matter of fact, although there’s some occassional agreement, there’s mostly disagreement between the two Gospels about Jesus’ genealogy going all the way back to Abraham.
Apologetics attempt to explain away these apparent contradictions by claiming that the Gospel of Luke’s genealogy really goes through Jesus’ mother instead of Joseph. The obvious problem with this approach is that the Gospel of Luke clearly says:
(Luke 3:23 NRSV) Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of *Joseph* son of Heli, …
Nothing about Mary in there at all and no, Joseph was not the “son-in-law” of Heli, and Mary’s ancestry doesn’t coincidently intertwine with Joseph’s going all the way back to Abraham, occasionally matching some people along the way and no, back in those days they didn’t give a flying flip who the mother’s ancestry was.
The author of Luke simply came up with or recorded a genealogy that contradicted the one in the Gospel of Matthew.
And the author of Luke also contradicts another author in the Bible. The author of Matthew only traces Jesus back to Abraham, but the author of Luke traces Jesus all the way back to Adam.
Unfortunately his genealogy disagrees with an author of Genesis on the way back to Adam. Luke’s genealogy inserts an extra generation (Cainan):
(Note: Arphaxad is Arpachshad)
(Luke 3:35-36 NRSV) …
son of Shelah, son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad, …
(Gen 11:12 NRSV) When Arpachshad had lived thirty-five years, he became the father of Shelah;
The gospels don’t exactly agree on what timeframe (decade) Jeezass was born… or the circumstances under which savior boy was born…
The gospels also don’t agree on how he was resurrected… choices… choices… haha.. i call B.S.!
Uhm, can we all say “myth” together?
OK, here goes, 1-2-3 – myth!
Actually, Jews have always followed the matrilineal line for being Jewish. You are only a Jew through your mother’s line, not your father’s. This is why my mother’s family (grandfather’s, both Jewish) is no longer Jewish.
Regards.
In the old and new testaments including Luke, they list the geneologies through the father, not the mother.
Reply to Mlo: No, Jewish descent was not always traced through the mother. The rule establishing one’s religion through the mother didn’t start until the Roman period and wasn’t widely practiced until the 2nd century CE. It became the rule in Orthodox Judaism.
I found this on a site:
as far as the geneologies of Matthew and Luke, the answer to your
questions is answered in Eusebius pamphilii’s fourth century work
called the “Church History” in book 1 chapter VII you find the
answers as to why the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are different
and why the jewish custom of brothers marrying the widows and their
first male child is considered to be the dead brothers child and he inherits
all from his dead father including the ancestry. the Desposyni kept detailed
records of their geneologies. hope this helps to answer your questions.
***
Any comments?
That’s a very convenient explanation, but if such a thing was true we are expected to believe that two different ancestral lines were identical all the way from Abraham to David where they conincidently split off and rejoined again at Joseph?
Far more likely is that the authors simply made up or listed from oral traditions different geneologies. Of course they both wanted the line of Jesus to go back through David to Abraham, but they contradicted each other on how they got from David to Joseph.
The authors of Matthew and Luke also created almost completely different birth stories for Jesus.
hey christians. if you’re going to debate about pointless issues, could you please do it IN LOVE? you’re making the rest of us look bad. last i checked, jesus said to love one another, not argue over petty arguments. i’m open to debate and listen to others’ opinions, but i am unwilling to talk to people who are rude. so if any of the people on here are christians, think again about why you’re arguing. i came to this site for information and i’m leaving simply because the arguments are immature. be adults. seriously.
Any arguement to make Luke’s genealogy that of Mary’s requires inventing data that does not exist. It only works if you uncritically accept it as true. My bible clearly says that Joseph was clearly the father of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke. To argue otherwise is to say that what the bible says is not what it actually means. It is therefore misleading at best, but most likely, just downright wrong. Therefore, what use is it to anyone? And I thought god was not the author of confusion! (1Cor. 14:33).
In fact, the messianic line should come through Solomon, not Nathan as Luke states (Did Nathan ever adopt any of Solomon’s Sons?) (2 Sam. 7:12-16, 1 Chron. 22:9-10). The message given by God in 2 Sam. 7:12-16 was given to Nathan. It was not about Nathan, as he Did not build a temple to god. Solomon did that (1 Chron. 22:9-10) This may be what confused Luke – hardly inspired though! Then again, perhaps I am giving him too much credit and he just made it all up. Incidentally, when was the throne of David established for ever? Israel has had no king of Davidic descent since Zedekiah’s reign ended in 586 BC (The bible unearthed p20). Later authors of the bible tried to patch this over by claiming that sin was the reason that God revoked this clear and unconditional promise. So, either God made no such promise in the first place (a consequence of being a human invention) or he is untrustworthy and makes and breaks promises as it suits him. If I was still a Christian, I would be wondering if he was going to keep his promises concerning salvation or not. HOW DID I EVER BELIEVE THIS RUBBISH?
Capella, I applaud the effort you put into your interpretations, but nothing you say will probably ever sway the “faithful” into believing that Jesus was NOT the son of the Cosmic Muffin (coined from a freind of mine). I agree with you as a non-believer, but there are other issues that need to be tackled than Bible interpretation from an athiest view. Sorry, as this would suggest that this blog is pointless…on the contrary…yes, I see now…maybe, maybe you…no, you absolutely want to deconstruct the Bible. YESSS!!!
Both genealogies are correct!! All that a person has to do is suspend your entire logical thinking and throw all of your commom sense out the window.
After doing these two things,raise your hands up in the air and yell,”Praise the Lord”.
This will automatically make everything correct and true……now wasn’t that easy.
I don’t read much about it but, what really turned me into an atheist is the uninterrupted history dating back before the bible claims of the flood. This is reliable information. We have writing invented 3000bc so from then we can trace kingdoms & civilizations, uninterrupted by a flood that was said to have happen 2300bc. According to the bible was is clearly about 2300bc when it happened. This is impossible! Any christians want to invent an answer to that or should you consider coming to our side. We’re really not evil.
I agree with Beth
If the word of God is the Bible, it would make sense that we would naturally be born with the ability to read and write, same as perhaps seeing and hearing. Writing would not have to have been invented.
Were Jesus related to King David and Abraham?
If the story of Immaculate Conception is true, why does Mathew 1-16 make such a fuss about the genealogy of Abraham through to Joseph? Technically Jesus and Joseph were not related by blood. Would it not make more sense if Abraham were related to Mary?
Matthew verses 1-16
(geneology from abraham to jesus)
A lot of fuss, proving seemingly nothing?
Isn’t the blood relation the whole point?
Why is Joseph important at all?
Why does the Bible spend so much time on figures such as Ruth, Boas, King Solomon, King David, etc. if their blood line would be cut short so supernaturally and deliberately. What does it prove?
Excellent point. For a Christian that is willing to believe in a virgin birth, that Joseph didn’t impregnate Mary, then Joeseph’s bloodline is irrelevant.
For the rest of us, it’s obvious that a man, most likely Joeseph, impregnated Mary with Jesus and the contradicting geneologies listed in Matthew and Luke, like all the rest of the details of Jesus’ birth were fabricated.
This looks to be a fascinating site and I hope to be able to visit often.
I haven’t had time to explore this resource fully but is it worth raising the question as to whether this particular Jesus ever existed in the first place?
Take care and keep up the excellent work.
Andrew.
You may all say whatever you wish one day you will all bow before God that my friends is a promise enjoy this life while you can because for you this is the best it will be.
Best to you too Jessica.
What nobody seems to realize is that both geologies are forgetting the Flood story. Jesus at some point would have had to gone through Noah.
The most interesting thing about both genealogies of Jesus Christ is actually that both Luke and Matthew thought there was a need for one. IMHO that was because Jesus was originally supposed to be the Messias and obviously required a direct lineage to David and Abraham. He was supposed to be a King. That all was messed up when Paul did not need the Jewish connection anymore. In order to make the story at least somewhat credible Jesus had to be God’s son, but could not possibly be of human origin as such. Enter the virgin birth, the dubious reference to Isaiah and Malachi. They just forgot to remove Joseph’s conflicting and UNNECESSARY genealogy.
The bible contradicts itself in many places so I wonder why people would even bother questioning it. You either believe it or you don’t, logic isn’t necessary because none of it is based off logic.
In the US there’s a lot of people that are pretty evangelistic about the Bible somehow being a perfect science and moral reference.
They are fanatical about it to the point of trying to get their interpretations of it legislated into our laws and taught as fact in our public schools.
Since many of these people have never read much of the Bible critically, instead being fed candy coated interpretations that are cherry picked, many aren’t aware of the cruelty and inaccuracies and even worse, many are aware.
This the main thrust of this website to point out some of these inconsistencies to somewhat counter-balance in a small way, mainly to unbelievers but also to agnostics and believers that are open minded.
If we truly believe that Jesus is the son of Thyself then what’s the point in discussing his mortal genealogy. Does is really make any change to the fact that Jesus taught us to love everyone, and to forgive everyone. I think there are lots of more serious and humanitarian issues that we can discuss than to argue about lord Jesus’s genealogy. There are so many people dying around the world of hunger, and war, so many conflicts arouse in the name of religion, so many militants are killing innocent people in the name of holy wars!! My friends please spare a thought on these issues…. Can we change the past? No. However, if only we pay attention to our present then at least we can secure a safe, beautiful earth in future….
This is very interesting. Another good point on contradiction between the two gospels.
I don’t believe that Jesus was actually anything special at all and I think its perfectly valid to point out blatant problems in the Bible. These inconsistencies such as the one in this article point to the fact that the Bible is severely flawed in many ways, not a good example of divine inspiration as many claim.
If you read the actual words of Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament, not all of them teach to love one another. He didn’t allow a disciple to bury his dead father. He referred to a woman begging him as a “dog.” He told people that they would be rewarded for abandoning their families. When he got to Jerusalem he told his disciples to go buy swords, obviously not to love people with.
I don’t see him in general as a very good role model or teacher. In many ways his examples are at the root of all these problems in the world: abandonment of families, hatred, prejudice, sexism, war, religious conflict, etc…
Its pretty obvious the gospel writers are just tyring to make something up to impress people. If Luke or Matthew really knew anything about Jesus surely they would not make so many basic mistakes such as the classic mentioned above. Nearly every major story in the BIble has one of the four gospels contradicting it.
Lets not forget that Jesus is actually the Jewish version of Horus.
Wait, what about the part about Joseph being a 90 year old widower with 5 grown children, and most likely many grandchildren, who was chosen by the elders to be a guardian for Mary since she was already pregnant. It was written that he initially declined their request to be her guardian because of the stigma around relations with an unwed pregnant mother (child). This may explain why there “wasn’t any room at the Inn so they had to sleep in a manger”. Maybe no one would let them in because they were such an odd couple, 90 year old man with a pregnant 12 year old. I guess this supports the argument that Mary held the sacred bloodline that was worthy of a guardian. I’m sure she wasn’t the first pregnant teenager they had to deal with. What was the custom in the early Jewish culture when dealing with these matters?
People. All of your arguments are from a naive simplistic biblical perspective. The bible is merely a condensation of myths, legends and fables, written, rewritten and manipulated over time by Men with political and/or religious agendas. The actual inconvenient truths have long been removed and replaced with visits from angels and unbelievable divine visits, to cover up the actual truth. Start thinking about the Bible and humanity from this perspective and things begin to make since.
Sorry to ramble but so much to say…