Matthew and Luke, genealogy of Christ
Joseph Crea Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net
Wed, 1 Apr 1998 22:55:40 +0000 (00891492940, 19980401225538.AAA3023@LOCALNAME)
Hello, Michael (or should I say Terry?)!
At 12:55 AM 3/31/98 -0000, J. Michael McGill wrote:
>TERRY
>Hi Michael
>
>You ask why the two different accounts here is your answer. In the first
>chapter of Matthew we find the genealogy of Jesus running from Abraham
>forward. At Luke chapter 3 is a genealogy back to "Adam, son of God."
>Jesus'
>genealogy is the only one given in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Part of
>his genealogy appears at 1 Chronicles chapters 1 to 3, running from Adam
>through Solomon and Zerubbabel. The books of Genesis and Ruth combined
>give
>the line from Adam to David.
>The latter three lists (Genesis/Ruth, 1 Chronicles, and Luke) agree fully
>from Adam to Arpachshad, with minor differences as to certain names, such
>as
>Kenan, which is "Cainan" at Luke 3:37.
>
> The question arises: Why does Matthew leave out some names that are
>contained in the listings of the other chroniclers? First of all, to prove
>one's genealogy it was not necessary to name every link in the line of
>descent. For example, Ezra, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra
>7:1-5,
>omitted several names contained in the listing of the priestly line at 1
>Chronicles 6:1-15. Obviously it was not essential to name all these
>ancestors to satisfy the Jews as to his priestly lineage. Similarly with
>Matthew: He doubtless used the public register and copied from it, if not
>every name, the ones necessary to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham
>and David. He also had access to the Hebrew Scriptures, which he could
>consult alongside the official public records.
CREA
What public records can Terry be referring to? I am unacquainted with
any sources which assert or otherwise testify to the existence of any
"official public records" containing genealogical material from which either
Matthew or Luke could have derived their genealogies (other than the listing
in 1 Chronicles chapters 1 through 5). A quick glance at my copy of
Whiston's __Josephus__ fails to turn up any mention of public genealogical
records.
TERRY
> The lists made by both Matthew and Luke were comprised of names publicly
>recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The scribes and Pharisees
as >well as the Sadducees were bitter enemies of Christianity, and they
would have >used any possible argument to discredit Jesus, but it is
noteworthy that they >never challenged these genealogies. If either
Matthew's or Luke's genealogy of >Jesus had been in error, what an
opportunity it would have been for these >opponents to prove it then and
there! For until 70 C.E. they evidently had >ready access to the public
genealogical registers and the Scriptures.
CREA
An equally simple answer to why these purported "public records" weren't
used by the Jewish opponents to the early Christians is that there weren't
any "public records" in the first place. As for the dating, no manuscripts
of Matthew or Luke are available which predate the fall of Jerusalem -- in
fact the
it is commonly held (per the __Oxford Companion to the Bible__) that
Matthew's gospel wasn't written/composed until sometime around 85 or 90 CE,
and Luke's gospel is widely held to have been written around 80 to 85 CE.
TERRY
>The same is true regarding the first-century pagan enemies of
>Christianity,
>many of whom were, like those Jews, learned men who would readily have
>pointed to any evidence that these lists of Matthew and Luke were
>unauthentic and contradictory. But there is no record that the early pagan
>enemies attacked Christians on this point.
CREA
Once again, there is no evidence of the purported existence of those
crucial "public records", upon which Terry's entire argument, up to this
point, has hinged. And since the two gospels which contain any significant
genealogical assertions whatsoever can, almost beyond doubt, be dated to
after the fall of Jerusalem, the question arises as to WHERE these learned
pagans would have found copies (if they ever existed) of the Jewish
genealogical "public records". After all, Terry himself, implies that ready
access to such fabled documents was possible only before the destruction of
Jerusalem.
And, as for those "first-century pagan enemies", they seem to have been a
singularly silent lot, since there doesn't appear to be any anti-christian
polemic which can be reliably dated from before the second century.
TERRY
Also, both Matthew and Luke achieved their objective, and that was all
they
needed to do. To prove that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David, it
was not necessary to make a new genealogy. All they had to do was copy
from
the public tables that the nation fully accepted regarding the lineage of
David and of the priesthood and all other matters requiring proof of one's
descent.
CREA
You keep on harping on the vital confirmation provided by those "public
records", but have not shown that they even existed, let alone that they
were available to Matthew and Luke in the decades after the fall of
Jerusalem. Luke himself, in his introduction to Theophilus, claims only to
be passing on what "we have been TOLD by those who saw these things from the
beginning and who proclaimed the message" (Luke 1:2). He makes no claim to
have examined any Jewish records of any sort (public or private). So again
I ask you that, if there is any evidence of such gnealogical "public
records", you produce such sources, evidence and testimony.
TERRY
>Problems in Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus. Matthew divides the genealogy
>from
>Abraham to Jesus into three sections of 14 generations each. (Mt 1:17)
>This
>division may have been made as a memory aid. However, in counting the
>names
>we find that they total 41, rather than 42. One suggestion as to how they
>may be counted is as follows: By taking Abraham to David, 14 names, then
>using David as the starting name for the second 14, with Josiah as the
>last;
>finally, by heading the third series of 14 names with Jeconiah
>(Jehoiachin)
>and ending with Jesus. Notice that Matthew repeats the name David as the
>last of the first 14 names and as the first of the next 14. Then he
>repeats
>the expression "the deportation to Babylon," which he links with Josiah
>and
>his sons.-Mt 1:17.
>Again Matthew may have copied his list exactly from the public register
>that
>he used, or he may have purposely left out some links with a view to
>aiding memory.
CREA
And may I suggest that Matthew was exploiting the fact that the
numerical value of the name "David" happens to be 14?
TERRY
> However, a suggestion as to the omission here of three kings of
>David's line between Jehoram and Uzziah (Azariah) is that Jehoram married
>wicked Athaliah of the house of Ahab, the daughter of Jezebel, thereby
>bringing this God-condemned strain into the line of the kings of Judah.
>(1Ki
>21:20-26; 2Ki 8:25-27) Naming Jehoram as first in the wicked alliance,
>Matthew omits the names of the next three kings to the fourth generation,
>Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah, the fruits of the alliance
>Matthew indicates that Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel (Mt 1:12), and
>this coincides with other references. (Ezr 3:2; Ne 12:1; Hag 1:14; Lu
>3:27)
>However, at 1 Chronicles 3:19 Zerubbabel is referred to as the son of
>Pedaiah. Evidently Zerubbabel was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal
>son of Shealtiel by reason of brother-in-law marriage; or possibly, after
>Zerubbabel's father Pedaiah died, Zerubbabel was brought up by Shealtiel
>as
>his son and therefore became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.
CREA
Sheer speculation. And regardless of whether Zerubbabel wa the son of
Shealtiel or Pedaiah, he is still a direct descendent of Johoiaichin (vide
verse 17) and thus he (and likewise his descendents) are debarred from the
throne of David according to Jeremiah 22:30.
TERRY
--snip--
> Why do the genealogies of Jesus Christ as given by Matthew and by Luke differ?
>The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as
>compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced
>the line through David's son Nathan,
CREA
But the descendants of Nathan were not to inherit the Throne of David --
that privilege was bestowed upon Solomon and his seed according to 1
Chronicles 22:1-10.
TERRY
> instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently
follows >the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus' natural descent from
David, while >Matthew shows Jesus' legal right to
>the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was
>legally Jesus' father.
CREA
But, as shown above, if Matthew's genealogy is correct then Jesus, as a
descendant of Jehoiaichin, is of a line cursed by God himself never to sit
on David's Thone.
TERRY
> But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to
His >grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the
mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his
father, not >of his mother. Actually each genealogy (Matthew's table and
Luke's) shows >descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt
1:6; Lu 3:31) In >examining the lists of Matthew and Luke, we find that
after diverging at >Solomon and Nathan, they come together again in two
persons, Shealtiel and >Zerubbabel. This can be explained in the following
way: Shealtiel was the son >of Jeconiah; perhaps by marriage to the
daughter of Neri he became Neri's >son-in-law, thus being called the "son of
Neri." It is possible as well that >Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was
counted as his "son" for that reason >also. Zerubbabel, who was likely the
actual son of Pedaiah, was legally >reckoned as the son of Shealtiel, as
stated earlier.
CREA
And again, both Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, by your own account, are
direct descendents of Jeconiah/Coniah/Jehoiachin, and thus their descendents
are banned from being the Messiah (if defined as one who will sit on the
Throne of David).
With Mettaa,
Joseph Crea
<Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net>