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.