|
|
The following genealogy is taken from Luke 3:23-38. We will be looking at some of the problems associated with this genealogy and some of the responses from the Fundamentalist camp to what they term "the alleged discrepancies" in Luke's genealogy.
Luke 3Please read v. 1 carefully and see what it says: "And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli." Did you note the "as was supposed" portion of that verse? Luke is writing his genealogy based on what was believed, or supposed, about Jesus, i.e., that he was the son of Joseph.
23 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as o teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,
26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29 the son of Jesus, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
30 the son of Symeon, the son of Judas, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,
32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,
33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,
36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shon of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
It is claimed by Fundamentalists that Luke's genealogy is based on Mary, but is Mary mentioned, even once, in this genealogy? No, she isn't. Why is that? Because the genealogy, quite simply, isn't based on her, it's based on the man who was believed to be his father, Joseph. In short, the genealogy is based on the belief, back then, that Joseph was Jesus' father. It was probably just one of the oral traditions that was propagated by believers in the first century.
Please note as well that there are no parentheses in the Greek text. This is added by the translators, for better or worse. That doesn't mean the saying isn't parenthetical in nature, but that the oldest texts, and probably the originals, do not contain the parenthesis we usually see in our Bibles.
To make it mean that it's based on Mary is disingenuous because the construction and context do not support such a reading. If I said "this is the genealogy of Johnny, the son (as was supposed) of Harold," no one would question the fact that Johnny was believed to be Harold's son and that Harold is also the object of the genealogy.
So why do Fundamentalists object that the "as was supposed" means that it is not based on Joseph? Because, quite simply, it would mean that Matthew and Luke's genealogies contradict each other and we can't have that, now can we? No, because if we did, then that would mean that the Bible is not inspired by an omniscient God and there are errors in it. Can you say "circular reasoning?"
The way to head that off, some Fundamentalists think, is to affirm, without any contextual grounds whatsoever, that the genealogy is Mary's. How does this particular defense work? Fundamentalists assume that a divinely inspired Luke would not contradict Matthew, another inspired author, ergo, the reason Joseph has a father named Heli instead of Jacob is because it must have been Mary's father, Jospeh's father-in-law.
This is blatant question begging, because Fundamentalists are assuming as proof that which they need to prove, i.e., divine inspiration. In other words, they assume inspiration and then posit the explanation, any explanation, that is deemed appropriate in supporting the original assumption. Circular reasoning is the order of the day.
Another serious error
Luke also makes another error in his version of the genealogy which is quite serious. In a report found in 2Sam 12:7 and 1Chron. 28:4-10, the messianic line of descent was to be through none other than Solomon. But Luke has Jesus descending from Nathan (v. 31), which disqualifies Jesus as being Israel's Messiah. Nathan was not involved in any way in the promise to David to establish his throne forever. Nathan was never a king in Judah. Matthew avoids this error, but unfortunately has Jechoniah in Jesus' line and this creates another problem, as we have seen in Matthew's genealogy .
The proof is in the pudding
Coming back to the reading of v. 23 of this chapter, the beginning of the genealogy, I offer the Greek text, followed by an English transliteration and then a literal translation from the IGNT (Scrivner's Interlinear Greek New Testament in the Online Bible v.8.0):
Notice that Luke starts his genealogy by stating that Jesus began his ministry when he was beginning to be thirty and was believed, or supposed, to have been the son of Joseph, of Heli... yada yada yada. This clearly established the genealogy as being through Joseph, since Luke tells us that Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli and so on. In other words, this genealogy is based on Joseph, despite the desperate wranglings of fundamentalists.
23 And himself was Jesus about years old thirty beginning
to be being as was supposed son of Joseph of Heli
24 of Matthat of Levi of Melchi of Jaanai of Joseph
25 of Mattathiah of Amos of Nahum of Esli of Naggai
As stated above, some maintain that Heli (v. 23) was not Joseph's father but was actually Mary's father, meaning that this was not Joseph's genealogy but Mary's. Unfortunately, neither the context nor the language will bear this out. Mary's name isn't even mentioned in the genealogy and we have no indication whatsoever, anywhere in the NT, that this Heli was Mary's father. Christians using this argument are grasping at straws.
When Luke writes "the son (as was supposed) of Joseph," he goes on to state without a break, "of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi" and so son. The word "of" in the English translations is indicative of a genitive case in the Greek, which amounts to saying in English: " The son (as was supposed) of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat and so on. Here are a few versions to compare with:
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, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, (KJV)Any version you care to verify will have the same basic translation, clearly giving the reader the impression that this was Joseph's genealogy. I have never personally come across a translation that didn't. Now I ask you: Why would all these translators give this rendering if this isn't what the Greek meant? And if so, then why do Fundamentalists quibble over the Greek text this way? Simple: They won't admit an error in the NT.23 And Jesus himself, when he began to tea23 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, (ASV)
23 Now Jesus himself was about thrity years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of heli, (NIV)
23 And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli, (Darby)
23 And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years: being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat, (Douay Rhymes)
23 And Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, (J.P. Green Sr. Literal Translation)
23 And, Jesus himself, was, when he began, about thirty years of age, being the son, as was supposed-of Joseph, of Heli: (Rothham)
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, (Revised Webster)
23 And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, 24 the son of Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, (Young's Lietral Tranlsation)
23 And Jesus at this time was about thirty years old, beime was about thirty years old, being the son (as it seemed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 The son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, (Bible in Basic English)
23 And He--Jesus--when He began His ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (it was supposed) of Joseph, son of Heli, 24 son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph, (Weymouth NT)
23 Jésus avait environ trente ans lorsqu'il commença son ministère, étant, comme on le croyait, fils de Joseph, fils d'Héli, 24 fils de Matthat, fils de Lévi, fils de Melchi, fils de Jannaï, fils de Joseph, (Louis Segond, French)
23 Et Jésus lui-même commençait d'avoir environ trente ans, étant, comme on l'estimait, fils de Joseph: d'Héli, (French Darby)
Clearly, the evidence in this context says this genealogy is based on Joseph and not on Mary. It cannot be, by any stretch of the imagination, the genealogy of Jesus through his mother, because genealogies were always based the father and that Mary is not even given a mention in this genealogy.
Sometimes, Christian apologists counter that Joseph's father was called by two names and just as Peter was known as Cephas, so was Joseph's father, Jacob, known as Heli. Well, we are directly told that Peter is also called Cephas. We have evidence for this in the NT (John 1:42). However, we have no such evidence for Jacob being called Heli. Their assertion is baseless.
And just what difference would it make anyway? It would still be the same person we find in Matthew's genealogy, Joseph's father, only with a different name. The genealogy would still show no connection between Jesus and David because it would still be based on Joseph, who was not Jesus' father. The problem is not resolved in this way and it makes me wonder about the intelligence level of some of these apologists.
Another explanation is that Jacob, Joseph's father in Matthew's genealogy, never had any children with his wife. When he died, one of his brothers, in this case Heli, would have had to marry Jacob's wife and father a child with her. This way, Jacob could be said to have had descendants and still be Jospeh's father. This would explain, some Fundamentalists say, why the genealogies are so different. This is known as the "leverite marriage" defense; one which is used by Glenn Miller, another darling of the apologetic crowd.
So What? You still have the same problem: Joseph, whether fathered by Jacob or Heli, was still not Jesus' father. And it would still mean we have cursed kings in Jesus' lineage and an ancestor, Nathan, who was never king in Judah and through whom Messiah would never come.
As well, Luke names Shealtiel (Salathiel) in his genealogy. This man was the son of Neri, according to Luke, but is this right? No. Shealtiel (Salathiel) was the son of Jeconiah, AKA Coniah, AKA Jehoiachin, who was cursed of God and told that none of his seed would prosper on the throne of David. (Jer 22:30)
Both genealogies, then, have Jesus descending from a cursed king, Jeconiah, so the defense offered in favour of Luke's genealogy being based on Mary doesn't change anything, does it? Jesus is still prevented from sitting on David's throne even if it can be established that this genea it can be established that this genealogy is based on Mary.
The simplest explanation is that the authors of these two genealogies were following two different oral traditions and were in error. There is an old axiom that Fundamentalists should bear in mind, ie., Ockham's razor: "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily."
The conclusion is simple: There are genuine contradictions concerning Jesus' ancestry, ergo, the Bible cannot be "the inspired and inerrant Word of God" and Jesus cannot be Israel's Messiah. If God is omniscient and omnipotent and has inspired the Bible, then how can there be such errors? There is only one answer to that question: The Bible is the word of men, not the "Word of God," and it is not without errors or contradictions. End of story.
Here are some questions you may want to ponder:
