| Heli (bible) |
Website Links For Genealogy |
Information AboutHeli (bible) |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT GENEALOGY OF JESUS | |
| jesus | |
| bible genealogy | |
|
The genealogy of Jesus through his legal father and from there on to Abraham . These lists are identical between Abraham and David, but they differ radically from that point onward. Many scholars today accept that one or both Gospels are not presenting literal history in their genealogies, though scholars are divided on which is more likely to be accurate, if either is accurate at all. Other scholars believe that the genealogy presented in Luke is that through his mother Mary. Matthew starts with Solomon and procedes through the kings of Judah up to and including Jeconiah . A few of the Judean kings are left out though, for instance; Uzziah is given as the son of Joram thus skipping four generations. Thus Jesus is established as legal heir to the throne of Israel . At Jeconiah the line of kings was terminated due to Israel being conquered by Babylon ians. The names continue with Jeconiah's son and his grandson Zerubbabel , who is a notable figure in the Book Of Ezra . The names between Zerubbabel and Joseph do not appear anywhere in the Old Testament or other texts, with a couple of exceptions. THE GENEALOGY Genealogy according to Matthew:
's ''Jesse-David-Solomon''. David is generally seen as the man on the left with Solomon the child behind him.]] Genealogy according to Luke:
VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE GENEALOGIES , father of King David ]] The genealogy of Luke and Matthew diverge at David. While Matthew continues through Solomon and the subsequent kings, Luke links to Nathan, David's less well known son, and goes on to list 40 before Joseph, almost none of which match Matthew or appear in any historical documents. Zerubbabel and Shealtiel are listed in both the genealogy in Luke and that in Matthew, but in Luke Shealtiel is not listed as the son of Jechoniah but rather of Neri - this is further complicated as 1 Chronicles 3:19 states that the father of Zerubbabel was Pedaiah, a brother of Shealtiel. Both lines also end at quite different names, with Luke ending at Heli, and Matthew at Jacob. Several theories have been proposed to explain the discrepancy. The oldest one, ascribed to Julius Africanus , uses the concept of Levirate Marriage , and suggests that Matthan (grandfather of Joseph according to Matthew), and Matthat (grandfather of Joseph according to Luke), were brothers, married to the same woman one after another - this would mean that Matthan's son (Jacob) could be Joseph's biological father, and Matthat's son (Heli), was his legal father. More modern advocates of Biblical Inerrancy produce the suggestion that Luke's genealogy is of Mary , with Heli being her father, while Matthew's describes the genealogy of Joseph, but this would mean that "son" of Heli" actually means "son-in-law" of Heli. Heli can be a different name of Joachim , mentioned in the apocryphal Gospel Of James Most scholarly explanation generally give one of four possibilities. The first is that Matthew records the passing on of kingship, while Luke records biological parentage, though this fails to explain why kings that were not father to the next have been excluded from Matthew's list. An alternative, is that Luke gives the actual genealogy while Matthew presents a "ceremonial" one, for example, Neri being Shealtiel's natural father, but Jeconiah being the prior leader of the Jewish people. Scholars more willing to criticise factual accuracy are inclined to suggest that at least one, and possibly both, of the genealogies is simply fabricated, thus explaining the divergence. Among the most radical theories explaining the discrepancy is the one that suggests that the Gospel writers have given accounts of the childhoods of two distinct people, whose only common features were that they were both named Jesus and both their families lived in Nazareth at one time or another, and neither of which are necessarily the Jesus involved in the remainder of the New Testament. The birth narratives in Matthew and in Luke are sufficiently different to allow this, and, furthermore, the events surrounding '', a terribly common name in the era; likewise, ''Zerubbabel'', meaning ''born in Babylon'' was a common name at the time of return from the Babylonian Exile , and it is entirely plausible that there are two different ''Zerubbabel''s. '' {Link without Title} . BREVITY Amongst others, Brown has remarked that Matthew's genealogy seems to be moving much too quickly - it gives 28 generations between David and Joseph, giving an approximate average length of generation of 35 years, extremely long for an ancient genealogy. Herezon is mentioned in Genesis 46:12 in connection with that is present in a number of other parts of the Bible . However these other lists have Jehoram's son being Ahaziah while Uzziah is a quite different monarch who lives several generations later. This means that Matthew's genealogy skips Ahaziah, Athaliah , Jehoash , and Amaziah . Those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible contend that the genealogy was never meant to be complete and the author of Matthew deliberately dropped those who were not needed from the list, while many others see a political motive behind excising these individuals from the genealogy. One theory is that they were excised owing to their wickedness, or because they were murdered, but the even more unpleasant Manasseh and Amon are left in the list. Gundry supports the popular theory that these monarchs were left out because they were all descendants of Ahab , through his daughter Athaliah , both targets of a large degree of scorn in Jewish perception. Gundry also believes their removal was because the author was trying to contrive a division of the genealogy into three even divisions of fourteen names, hence contriving Jesus to seem to be the natural conclusion to the history. Albright and Mann have a different theory, proposing that the author, or a later scribe, made a common scribal transcription error, known as Homoioteleuton , confusing Achaziah and Uzziah due to the similarity of their names. Under this proposal, the three divisions of fourteen names were not originally present, only discovered after the scribal error, with Matthew 1:17, which discusses this division, being a later addition to the text. Luke's genealogy is considerably longer than is Matthew's, presenting a far more plausible number of names. That Luke goes through David's much less acclaimed son Nathan and does not include the kings of Israel in Jesus' lineage is also seen as adding to Luke's credibility. However while names in Matthew's genealogy match the historical period in which they are meant to have lived, the names on Luke's list seem to lack historical accuracy - Luke's names reflect names and spelling of the first century AD, rather than the periods in which the people actually lived. DUPLICATION, TELESCOPING, AND COPYING Zadok is generally placed as having lived some 150 years after the start of Zerubbabel's period. This is a long period of time for just Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, and Azor to cover, and so many scholars feel an accurate list would be longer than Matthew's, more like Luke's genealogy which has far more names for the period. That this part of the genealogy in Matthew lacks Papponymic s has lead Albright and Mann to speculate that the original names covering this this period became telescoped together, owing to repetitive re-occurrences of names; whereas Luke's genealogy contains several repeated groups of closely similar names, suggesting that Luke inadvertently, or deliberately, duplicated them. The names between Zerubbabel and Zadok - Abiud, Eliakim, and Azor - are not known in any records dating from before the Gospel of Matthew, immediately leading many scholars, including Gundry, to believe that the author of Matthew simply made them up. In the eyes of such scholars, once the list moves away from the accepted genealogy of Jewish leaders it is fabricated until it reaches the known territory of Joseph's grandfather. The names listed are names that were frequent in the period of history, and so Gundry sees the author as having drawn the names from random parts of 1 Chronicles , disguising them to not make the copying obvious: According to Gundry
WOMEN By mentioning four women - Tamar, Ruth, Rahab, and Bathsheba - Matthew's genealogy is unusual compared to those of the time, where women were not generally included at all; for example, the genealogy of Luke does not mention them. Albright and Mann support the popular theory that these four women are mentioned to highlight the important roles women have played in the past, to imply that the other woman mentioned in the genealogy - Mary - is the equal of these. Feminist scholars such as Levine hold the idea that the presence of women in the genealogy serves to undermine the Patriarchal message of a long list of males, while Brown feels that the presence of women is to deliberately show that God's action is not always in keeping with the moral politics of the time. Tamar was an adulteress, while Rahab was a harlot, Ruth was rejected as a wife, and Bathsheba was married when David had relations with her. Greater, more notable and virtuous women are not mentioned, leading Jerome to suggest that Matthew had included these women to illustrate how pressingly moral reform was needed, while Gundry sees them as an attempt to justify Jesus' undignified origin by showing that great leaders of the past had also been born to women of a dubious nature. Rahab was a Canaanite , as most likely was Tamar, Ruth was a Moabite and Bathsheba was married to a Hittite and conceivably was one herself. According to John Chrysostom , the first to remark on their foreignness, their inclusion was a device to imply that Jesus was to be a saviour not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentile s. TERMINOLOGY The phrase "book of the genealogy" or ''biblos geneseos'' has several possible meanings; most scholars agree that the most logical explanation is that this is simply Toledot , although a small minority translate it more widely as "the book of coming" and thus consider it to refer to the entire Gospel. Brown stretches the grammar considerably to make it read "the book of the genesis brought about by Jesus", implying that it discusses the recreation of the world by Jesus. In modern times the term '' Christ '' is considered to apply exclusively to Jesus, but in Matthew's day it had a more general meaning, and Matthew is not specific as to whether he is describing Jesus as ''the'' Christ or merely ''a'' Christ. The form Matthew uses indicates that the word ''Christ'' is being used as a title, rather than an adjective or ordinary noun, which is unusual since this usage was only adopted some time after the death of Christ, implying a much later date for the Gospel. Elsewhere Matthew uses "the Christ". According to Brown some have theorized that David's name precedes that of Abraham since the author of Matthew is trying to emphasize Jesus' Davidic ancestry. Gundry states that the structure of this passage attempts to portray Jesus as the culmination of the Old Testament genealogies. SPELLING The author of Matthew has a tendency to use spellings of names that correspond to the spellings in the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text , suggesting that the Septuagint formed the source for the genealogy. However, Rahab's name is spelt as ''Rachab'', a departure from the Septuagint, though the spelling ''Rachab'' also appears in the works of Josephus , leading to speculation that this is a symptom of a change in pronunciation during this period. Additionally, Rahab's position is also pecular, as all other traditions place her as the wife of Joshua not of Salmon, and consequently place her in a different historic time period. The author of Matthew adds a "φ" to Asa's name. Gundry believes this is an attempt to make a connection with Psalm 78, which contains messianic prophecies, Asaph being the name to which Psalm 78 is attributed. However, most other scholars feel this is more likely a typographic error than a scheme, and most modern translators of the Bible "correct" Matthew in this verse. Whether it were the author of Matthew, or a later copyist, that would have made the error, is uncertain. Amon has a similar feature. Matthew actually has ''Amos'', rather than Amon, which Grundy has argued might have been an attempt to link to the minor Prophet Amos , who made messianic predictions, but once again, other scholars feel this is most likely simply a typo. FORTY-TWO The dividing of Matthew's genealogy into three groups of fourteen helps for the memorization of the list. The number 14 is itself important; not only is it twice 7 , a holy number at the time, 14 is also the Gematria of ''David''. The division also makes it seem as though Jesus should be an important event simply by virtue of being at the end of the last set of 14, though this is somewhat artificial, and we could equally divide the names into, for example, 3 sets of 15, the last set being incomplete for a few more generations. Calculations based on this division into 14s led Joachim Of Fiore to predict the Second Coming would occur in the thirteenth century, though either his calculations were clearly wrong, or the Second Coming wasn't a terribly significant event. However, there is a significant complications with this division - there are only 41 names listed (including Jesus), not 42 (14x3), either leaving one of the divisions a member short, or implying that Jesus would have a son who, rather than Jesus, is to be the Messiah. A number of explanations have been advanced to account for this numerical feature. One is that David's name should appear twice just since he is mentioned twice in the genealogy, and so appears both in the 14 prior to the period of Kings, and the 14 covering it. However, this logic also implies that as the exile in Babylon is mentioned twice, so the king involved - Jeconiah - should appear twice, resulting in 43 names in the list. Other theories that have been advanced include that Mary counts as one of the 14, though discounting all the other women, or that Jeconiah legally counts as two separate people, one as king the other as dethroned civilian. However, the explanation that scholars today find most probable is that the problem lies in confusion of Jeconiah and an individual of a similar name. Almost all other sources report that a king named Jehoiakim lay between Josiah and Jeconiah, and since the second Theophory in the name ''Jeconiah'' (the ''..iah'') is transposed to the middle of his name in the Book Of Kings , as ''Jehoiachin'', it is plausible that the author of Matthew or a later scribe confused ''Jehoiakim'' for ''Jehoiachin''. This would also explain why the text identifies Josiah as Jeconiah's father rather than grandfather, and why Jeconiah, usually regarded as an only-child, is listed as having a number of brothers, a description elsewhere considered more appropriate for Jehoiakim. VIRGIN BIRTH See Also: Virgin Birth Matthew 1:16 breaks with the pattern preceding it; it is at pains to distance Joseph from Jesus' actual parentage point out that Joseph did not beget Jesus, but was simply the husband of the woman who did. In the original Greek, the word translated as ''whom'' is unambiguously feminine. The shift to the Passive Voice also symbolizes the Virgin Birth. Matthew 1:16 has attracted considerable scholarly attention because unusually the ancient sources show several different versions of it. For example, the Codex Koridethi has: :Jacob was the father of Joseph, :to whom the betrothed virgin :Mary bore Jesus, called the Christ While the Old Syriac Sinaiticus has :Jacob was the father of Joseph, :to whom the virgin Mary was :betrothed, was the father of Jesus The first version represents the same pattern as that used in most modern translations - unlike the prior genealogy, its convoluted wording, shifting to the Passive Voice , is at pains to distance Joseph from the parentage of Jesus, to support a Virgin Birth . The other version states clearly that Joseph was actually the father of Jesus, and while it does appear to state Mary is a virgin, the word now translated ''virgin'' actually corresponds to the greek word ''parthenekos'' which translates literally more as ''maid''. Some scholars see these latter versions as evidence against the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, while others postulate that the original text only had words of the form "and Joseph was the father of Jesus", following the pattern of the prior verses, which later scribes altered to clarify that this didn't amount to biological parentage. Raymond Brown has proposed that these variants are not so much concerned with arguing for or against the Virgin Birth, but for the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity Of Mary , which became prominent at the time the variants were created; both appear to be attempts to avoid making Joseph a ''husband'' to Mary, and hence to supress the suggestion of sexual activity between them. Perhaps the most obvious issue of all surrounding this aspect of the genealogy is that if Joseph is no more than a step father to Jesus, the question arises as to why Matthew devoted the prior verses to his genealogy. At the time legal kinship was generally considered more important than biological descent, and thus by demonstrating that Joseph was a member of the House of David, even an adopted son would be legally considered part of the same dynasty. REFERENCES
EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|