Happy St. Anna and St James Day!
- Thread starter AllenW
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I believe if you research it, there are a number of marriages in both the genealogies presented in the Gospels that are supposedly Levrite marriages. A quick glance at the generations shown from one to the other seems to indicate something's not quite right with the lines matching, etc. (I don't recall all the details off the top of my head), but the Levrite marriages supposedly account for the discrepancies.
With respect to the two genealogies, it's always been supposed that one is Mary's and one is Joseph's, but some recent theories have come to light (one that I particularly like) that suggest that the two lines are actually both Joseph's; one his paternal and the other his maternal. Women are not usually referenced in genealogical lines so when you get to Joseph, the person one up from him on his maternal line would be his maternal grandfather, i.e. his mother is not referenced.
Royal lines are patrilineal; they come from the father's line, your "Jewishness" is matrilineal; it comes from your mother and her mother' and her mother's mother, etc.
With respect to the two genealogies, it's always been supposed that one is Mary's and one is Joseph's, but some recent theories have come to light (one that I particularly like) that suggest that the two lines are actually both Joseph's; one his paternal and the other his maternal. Women are not usually referenced in genealogical lines so when you get to Joseph, the person one up from him on his maternal line would be his maternal grandfather, i.e. his mother is not referenced.
Royal lines are patrilineal; they come from the father's line, your "Jewishness" is matrilineal; it comes from your mother and her mother' and her mother's mother, etc.
Here's an incredibly quick "cut and paste" from some notes I have regarding both lines being Joseph's......sorry, I don't seem to be able to find the source I got it from - I'll try checking later.
"An extremely simple explanation is readily available, and it involves no strange customs or textual twists at all. Both genealogies are clearly through Joseph. I believe that one traces the lineage back through Joseph's father, and that the other traces back through Joseph's mother. However, the maternal genealogy drops the name of Joseph's mother, and instead skips back to her father. Which is which? I believe that the genealogy in Luke is through Joseph's father. I believe the one in Matthew is through Joseph's maternal grandfather.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew's Genealogy
[/TD]
[TD]Luke's Genealogy
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]JACOB (maternal grandfather)
[/TD]
[TD]MATTHAT (paternal grandfather)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD](mother--unlisted)
[/TD]
[TD]HELI (father)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]JOSEPH
[/TD]
[TD]Mary
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]JESUS
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
That Matthew should skip Joseph's mother in the genealogical listing is not peculiar since it is readily apparent that Matthew skips a number of people in his genealogy. For instance, in Matt 1:8 he writes: "Joram the father of Uzziah". But when his statement is compared with 1 Chr 3:10-12, the reader sees that three people have been left out of Matthew's genealogy: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. Why did Matthew leave names out? So he could get the structural symmetry he desired. In Matt 1:17 he records:
Thus there were fourteen generations
in all from Abraham to David,
fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon,
and fourteen from the exile to Christ.
Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that Matthew might leave out the name of Joseph's mother so he could get the structural format he desired. Furthermore, this genealogy does list four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba, which lends, I think, some support to the idea that this might be a woman's genealogy.
I believe this explanation for the two genealogies has the advantage of simplicity, and that this explanation also has the textual support which the other common theories lack."
"An extremely simple explanation is readily available, and it involves no strange customs or textual twists at all. Both genealogies are clearly through Joseph. I believe that one traces the lineage back through Joseph's father, and that the other traces back through Joseph's mother. However, the maternal genealogy drops the name of Joseph's mother, and instead skips back to her father. Which is which? I believe that the genealogy in Luke is through Joseph's father. I believe the one in Matthew is through Joseph's maternal grandfather.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Matthew's Genealogy
[/TD]
[TD]Luke's Genealogy
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]JACOB (maternal grandfather)
[/TD]
[TD]MATTHAT (paternal grandfather)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD](mother--unlisted)
[/TD]
[TD]HELI (father)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]JOSEPH
[/TD]
[TD]Mary
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]JESUS
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
That Matthew should skip Joseph's mother in the genealogical listing is not peculiar since it is readily apparent that Matthew skips a number of people in his genealogy. For instance, in Matt 1:8 he writes: "Joram the father of Uzziah". But when his statement is compared with 1 Chr 3:10-12, the reader sees that three people have been left out of Matthew's genealogy: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. Why did Matthew leave names out? So he could get the structural symmetry he desired. In Matt 1:17 he records:
Thus there were fourteen generations
in all from Abraham to David,
fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon,
and fourteen from the exile to Christ.
Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that Matthew might leave out the name of Joseph's mother so he could get the structural format he desired. Furthermore, this genealogy does list four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba, which lends, I think, some support to the idea that this might be a woman's genealogy.
I believe this explanation for the two genealogies has the advantage of simplicity, and that this explanation also has the textual support which the other common theories lack."