The Genealogy in Luke

[Bruce Michael]

The argument for Luke's genealogy being that of Mary is very weak.

And when he began his ministry, Jesus himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
Luke 3:23
World English Bible
Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years old, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Mary is not mentioned.
Now here are the three possibilities:

• Joseph was her father

• he was her brother
• Joseph, the son of Eli, was her father and just happened to have the name as the man to whom she was betrothed.

The most reasonable interpretation is that Luke had no intention of tracing Mary's genealogy- he obviously doesn't name her. He traces her husband's line, from David's son Nathan.

Matthew definitely traces the line down from David's son,
Solomon, to Joseph.

And to Jacob was born Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Matthew 1:16

Why is the genealogy of Joseph relevant at all, if Joseph had nothing to do with the generation of Jesus?
We assume that Joseph was not involved in the conception of Jesus. Is not the Holy Spirit capable of using the physical agency of Joseph's seed in the work of conception?

​

-Br.Bruce
-Thanks to the late Gerry Palo

 

[BlaznFattyz]

The genealogy in luke starts at adam and goes to david. and the genealogy in matthew starts at abraham and goes to david. and when the genealogies arrive at david they split with his sons: nathan on mary's side, and solomon on joseph's side. so one genealogy is for mary and the other is for joseph. because of customs, the geneaology of mary was counted under joseph, because he was her husband. and because joseph adopted jesus as his son, he is listed as the legal father, but he is not the biological father, therefore not his descendant, rather his heir. but the biological lineage of jesus is thru mary.

 

[Thomas]

The argument for Luke's genealogy being that of Mary is very weak.

Actually it's very strong.

If you take a look at:
RTF Study Program - Lesson 16: The Genealogies of Jesus Do Not Represent Errors in Scripture
there are various 'solutions' to the 'genealogy problem'.

Why is the genealogy of Joseph relevant at all, if Joseph had nothing to do with the generation of Jesus?

It's very relevant to the Jewish audience — Matthew was signifying that Jesus is in the line of David (Joseph is his guardian), as spoken of by the prophets, and thus, as Matthew states often, the fulfillment of the promises made to Isreal.

A careful reading of both Luke and Matthew show a 'gap' between the lineage and Jesus Himself, thus acknowledging his Divine paternity.

As BlaznFattyz points out, the two genealogies signify two aspects of the Incarnation, in Matthew it is the fulfillment of Scripture, in Luke (disciple of Paul) it is to show the New Adam, a theme St Paul was to develop, as more suited to a gentile audience.

It's a question of hermeneutics.

Thomas

 

[bob x]

The excuse-mongering is very feeble. Both genealogies explicitly state they are for Joseph, both consistently give biological fathers rather than legal fathers where the two are known to differ, both pass through Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel while disagreeing about Shealtiel's parentage, and the two differ radically in the interval of time between the Babylonian captivity and the birth of Jesus (Luke's is more realistic in that regards).

 

[Bruce Michael]

Actually it's very strong.

If you take a look at:
RTF Study Program - Lesson 16: The Genealogies of Jesus Do Not Represent Errors in Scripture
there are various 'solutions' to the 'genealogy problem'.


It's very relevant to the Jewish audience — Matthew was signifying that Jesus is in the line of David (Joseph is his guardian), as spoken of by the prophets, and thus, as Matthew states often, the fulfillment of the promises made to Isreal.

A careful reading of both Luke and Matthew show a 'gap' between the lineage and Jesus Himself, thus acknowledging his Divine paternity.

As BlaznFattyz points out, the two genealogies signify two aspects of the Incarnation, in Matthew it is the fulfillment of Scripture, in Luke (disciple of Paul) it is to show the New Adam, a theme St Paul was to develop, as more suited to a gentile audience.

It's a question of hermeneutics.

Thomas

There's nothing on that webpage that presents a strong argument, Thomas.

In fact it shows the weakness of the theory that the genealogy is of Mary.
From the page:

Modern interpreters of the school known as “historical criticism” say that these two genealogies contradict one another and are, therefore, unfactual on the level of modern historical standards. Thus, renowned historical-critical scholar Father Raymond Brown (now deceased) concludes that both of these genealogies are merely “theological statements,” and not true historical reports, and that “while the two NT genealogies tell us how to evaluate Jesus, they tell us nothing certain about his grandparents or his great-grandparents.”

If this second possible reading is correct, then there is no question of historical error on Luke's part, because, as an historian, he is not necessarily affirming the historical truth of the list.

And pointedly:
But, if Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, why does he tie it to Joseph, as he says “the son of Joseph, who was of Heli (Eli)”? And wasn't Mary the daughter of Joachim, as an extra-biblical tradition holds?

For Jesus, to be in the line, the bloodline, of Joseph, then Joseph would have to be His physical father, not Guardian.


-Br.Bruce

 

[Bruce Michael]

because of customs, the geneaology of mary was counted under joseph, because he was her husband. and because joseph adopted jesus as his son, he is listed as the legal father, but he is not the biological father, therefore not his descendant, rather his heir. but the biological lineage of jesus is thru mary.

Dear BFatty,
Where are further examples of such "customs"?

-Br.Bruce

 

[BlaznFattyz]

But, if Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, why does he tie it to Joseph, as he says “the son of Joseph, who was of Heli (Eli)”? And wasn't Mary the daughter of Joachim, as an extra-biblical tradition holds?

Joseph's father was Jacob, and Heli was his father-in-law. The list in Luke are the ancestors of Mary, not of Joseph. She was betrothed to Joseph and married within her own tribe of Judah through David.

Where are further examples of such "customs"?

The jewish law required that genealogies be traced through the males for important positions: "So Moses and Aaron took these men who had been designated, and assembled the whole community on the first day of the second month. Every man of twenty years or more then declared his name and lineage according to clan and ancestral house." If they couldn't trace their lineage they could be excluded from important positions, see Nehemiah 7:63-65. The jewish customs continued even with Christ at the cross when he gave Mary to be the mother of John, see John 19:27.

 

[bob x]

Joseph's father was Jacob, and Heli was his father-in-law.

No: Luke says nothing about "father-in-law", and whenever there is any discrepancy between "legal" father and "biological" father, Luke is consistently giving the biological father (Obed was legally the son of Mahlon son of Elimelech, but biologically the son of Boaz: see the book of Ruth; Luke of course says Obed is of Boaz), so he must mean that Heli is the biological father.

 

[Pathless]

No: Luke says nothing about "father-in-law", and whenever there is any discrepancy between "legal" father and "biological" father, Luke is consistently giving the biological father (Obed was legally the son of Mahlon son of Elimelech, but biologically the son of Boaz: see the book of Ruth; Luke of course says Obed is of Boaz), so he must mean that Heli is the biological father.

Problem solved:

Or is it??

If Luke is not Darth Vader's son--then WHO???
Perhaps Obi-Wan himself...
or Yoda.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Seeing as how the Gospel narratives seem to be written around OT events and characters, my best guess is that Matthew's Jacob is an homage to that patriarch while Luke's Heli refers to Eli (Heli), Samuel's "adoptive" father. The two authors are working different OT themes into their genealogies.

Chris

 

[Quahom1]

The argument for Luke's genealogy being that of Mary is very weak.

Mary is not mentioned.​

Now here are the three possibilities:

• Joseph was her father

• he was her brother
• Joseph, the son of Eli, was her father and just happened to have the name as the man to whom she was betrothed.

The most reasonable interpretation is that Luke had no intention of tracing Mary's genealogy- he obviously doesn't name her. He traces her husband's line, from David's son Nathan.
​

Matthew definitely traces the line down from David's son,​

Solomon, to Joseph.​

Why is the genealogy of Joseph relevant at all, if Joseph had nothing to do with the generation of Jesus?​

We assume that Joseph was not involved in the conception of Jesus. Is not the Holy Spirit capable of using the physical agency of Joseph's seed in the work of conception?​

-Br.Bruce
-Thanks to the late Gerry Palo

No, there is the strong possibility that the genealogy of Jesus through Mary is just that. It is also probable that both Mary and Joseph's genealogies traced back to David.

And we are talking "supernatural" here, right? So, just because Joseph did not "know" Mary in the usual way, in order for Jesus to come about, does not mean Joseph's DNA was not the pattern by which Jesus' genome sequence was completed. God, afterall is the patent holder for all genetic patterns...is He not?

When it comes to God and His mysteries, we gotta think "outside" the box...

v/r

Q

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

What I find most interesting about the difference in the genealogies is that the apparent discrepancy was never cleaned up even after heavy redaction to both Gospels. That suggests the possibility that there's some deeper reason for leaving the text unaltered because it would have been so easy to redact one or the other to bring them into agreement. I don't buy the Mary theory, though, it's too convoluted.

I'm not sure this applies, but a principle of textual analysis is that the more complex and problematic a text is the more likely it is to be genuine having not been smoothed over by some well meaning scribe somewhere along the line.

Chris