B
Here’s a take on the two genealogies of Matthew and Luke from a Jewish perspective – I’m just cutting and pasting the pertinent points:
“From all the genealogies in the Hebrew Scriptures, two observations become apparent. With very rare exceptions, only the male line is traced and only men’s names appear. The descendancy of women is not given and their names are only mentioned in passing. Since biblically it was the father who determined both national and tribal identity, it was reasoned that only his line was necessary.
The question then raised is: Why do we need two genealogies, especially since Yeshua (Jesus) was not the real son of Joseph? A popular and common answer is: Matthew’s Gospel gives the royal line, whereas Luke’s Gospel gives the real line. From this concept, another theory arises. Since seemingly Joseph was the heir apparent to David’s throne, and Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, Jesus could claim the right to David’s throne. On the other hand, Luke’s Gospel gives the real line, showing that Yeshua himself was a descendant of David. Through Miriam, he was a member of the house of David, but he could claim the right to sit on David’s throne through Joseph, the heir apparent. Actually the exact opposite is true.
In his genealogy, Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition and custom. He mentions the names of four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba (who is the one to whom the pronoun “her” in verse six refers). It was contrary to Jewish practice to name women in a genealogy. The Talmud states, “A mother’s family is not to be called a family.” Even the few women Luke does mention were not the most prominent women in the genealogy of Yeshua. He could have mentioned Sarah, but did not. However, Matthew has a reason for naming these four and no others.
First, they were all Gentiles. This is obvious with Tamar, Rahab and Ruth. It was probably true of Bathsheba, since her first husband, Uriah, was a Hittite. Here Matthew hints at something he makes clear later: that while the main purpose of the coming of Jesus was to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the Gentiles would also benefit from his coming. Second, three of these women were guilty of sexual sins. Bathsheba was guilty of adultery, Rahab was guilty of prostitution and Tamar was guilty of incest. Again, Matthew only hints at a point he later clarifies: that the purpose of the Messiah’s coming was to save sinners. While this fits into the format of Old Testament genealogy, it is not Matthew’s main point.
Matthew’s genealogy also breaks with tradition in that he skips names.
According to Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his veins. He was not qualified to sit on David’s throne. He was not the heir apparent. This would also mean that no real son of Joseph would have the right to claim the throne of David. Therefore if Jesus were the real son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David’s throne. Neither could he claim the right to David’s throne by virtue of his adoption by Joseph, since Joseph was not the heir apparent.
The purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, then, is to show why Yeshua could not be king if he were really Joseph’s son. The purpose was not to show the royal line. For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy, presents the Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth which, from Matthew’s viewpoint, is the solution to the Jeconiah problem.
Unlike Matthew, Luke follows strict Jewish procedure and custom in that he omits no names and mentions no women. However, if by Jewish custom one could not mention the name of a woman, but wished to trace her line, how would one do so? He would use the name of her husband. (Possible Old Testament precedents for this practice are Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63.) That would raise a second question: If someone studied a genealogy, how would he know whether the genealogy were that of the husband or that of the wife, since in either case the husband’s name would be used? The answer is not difficult; the problem lies with the English language.
In English it is not good grammar to use a definite article (“the”) before a proper name (“the” Matthew, “the” Luke, “the” Miriam): however, it is quite permissible in Greek grammar. In the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article “the” with one exception: the name of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph’s name that this was not really Joseph’s genealogy, but his wife Miriam’s.
Furthermore, although many translations of Luke 3:23 read: “…being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli…,” because of the missing Greek definite article before the name of Joseph, that same verse could be translated as follows: “Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of Heli…”.1 In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Yeshua was “supposed” or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, he was really the descendant of Heli. Heli was the father of Miriam. The absence of Miriam’s name is quite in keeping with the Jewish practices on genealogies. The Jerusalem Talmud recognized this genealogy to be that of Miriam and not Joseph and refers to Miriam as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:2).
Also in contrast to Matthew, Luke begins his genealogy with his own time and goes back into history all the way to Adam. It comes to the family of David in verses 31-32. However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. So, like Joseph, Miriam was a member of the house of David. But unlike Joseph, she came from David’s son, Nathan, not Solomon. Miriam was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. Since Jesus was Miriam’s son, he too was a member of the house of David, apart from Jeconiah.
In this way Jesus fulfilled the biblical requirement for kingship. Since Luke’s genealogy did not include Jeconiah’s line, he began his Gospel with the virgin birth, and only later, in describing Yeshua’s public ministry, recorded his genealogy.
However, Jesus was not the only member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah.
On what grounds then could Jesus claim the throne of David? He was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. He alone received divine appointment to that throne: “The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.”
(from “jewsforjesus.org”)
From the above, as well as the myriad theories and explanations out there, the sort of ‘hidden’ meanings and symbolism (as described by PennEd in an above post), the discrepancies in the actual lines, etc., etc. I think something starts to become more and more apparent with respect to these two lines.
Namely, that neither genealogy is meant as an actual legitimate line of descent for Jesus. They are both simply written into their respective narratives for their pure symbolism and these ‘hidden’ meanings. Unless a given person was of royal descent, genealogies (or, actually, pedigrees/lines of descent would be the better term(s)) were simply not kept. Going back to one’s great-grandparents was likely more than sufficient to prove one’s heritage/Jewishness/hereditary claims to property, etc.
In this respect, it really doesn’t matter who one assigns a particular line to; both to Joseph, or one Joseph the other Mary – it’s really irrelevant since neither is either Joseph’s or Mary’s actual line of descent; they’re symbolic only.
The Bible itself does not even record the name of Mary’s parents. There is only one place I’m aware of that specifically gives their names; the Protoevangelium of James, and even there her father’s name is given as ‘Joachim’, not ‘Heli/Eli’ (or ‘Jacob’ depending on which line you use). It seems unlikely given Jewish tradition and the name discrepancy that either would be Mary’s line. An often overlooked solution is that one line is Joseph’s paternal, the other his maternal (though in keeping with tradition, her name is not mentioned, just her husband’s).
If one belonged to a particular family ‘group’, it’s quite possible one would know that one is a descendant of David (or any other notable person), though the actual line to get there would have been long forgotten with the passing of several generations. Thus, Joseph, or even Mary for that matter, could have been a legitimate descendant of David. Matthew and Luke just help the reader to ‘fill in the blanks’ as it were. Kings lists/pedigrees however, are a completely different matter and were typically recorded - it was also they way time (years) was kept (regnal dating), so to keep such lists served many purposes.
The symbolism and many meanings derived from the two lines is poignant and interesting, but I personally do not believe that either one was intended to be the factual line of either individual.
“From all the genealogies in the Hebrew Scriptures, two observations become apparent. With very rare exceptions, only the male line is traced and only men’s names appear. The descendancy of women is not given and their names are only mentioned in passing. Since biblically it was the father who determined both national and tribal identity, it was reasoned that only his line was necessary.
The question then raised is: Why do we need two genealogies, especially since Yeshua (Jesus) was not the real son of Joseph? A popular and common answer is: Matthew’s Gospel gives the royal line, whereas Luke’s Gospel gives the real line. From this concept, another theory arises. Since seemingly Joseph was the heir apparent to David’s throne, and Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, Jesus could claim the right to David’s throne. On the other hand, Luke’s Gospel gives the real line, showing that Yeshua himself was a descendant of David. Through Miriam, he was a member of the house of David, but he could claim the right to sit on David’s throne through Joseph, the heir apparent. Actually the exact opposite is true.
In his genealogy, Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition and custom. He mentions the names of four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba (who is the one to whom the pronoun “her” in verse six refers). It was contrary to Jewish practice to name women in a genealogy. The Talmud states, “A mother’s family is not to be called a family.” Even the few women Luke does mention were not the most prominent women in the genealogy of Yeshua. He could have mentioned Sarah, but did not. However, Matthew has a reason for naming these four and no others.
First, they were all Gentiles. This is obvious with Tamar, Rahab and Ruth. It was probably true of Bathsheba, since her first husband, Uriah, was a Hittite. Here Matthew hints at something he makes clear later: that while the main purpose of the coming of Jesus was to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the Gentiles would also benefit from his coming. Second, three of these women were guilty of sexual sins. Bathsheba was guilty of adultery, Rahab was guilty of prostitution and Tamar was guilty of incest. Again, Matthew only hints at a point he later clarifies: that the purpose of the Messiah’s coming was to save sinners. While this fits into the format of Old Testament genealogy, it is not Matthew’s main point.
Matthew’s genealogy also breaks with tradition in that he skips names.
According to Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his veins. He was not qualified to sit on David’s throne. He was not the heir apparent. This would also mean that no real son of Joseph would have the right to claim the throne of David. Therefore if Jesus were the real son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David’s throne. Neither could he claim the right to David’s throne by virtue of his adoption by Joseph, since Joseph was not the heir apparent.
The purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, then, is to show why Yeshua could not be king if he were really Joseph’s son. The purpose was not to show the royal line. For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy, presents the Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth which, from Matthew’s viewpoint, is the solution to the Jeconiah problem.
Unlike Matthew, Luke follows strict Jewish procedure and custom in that he omits no names and mentions no women. However, if by Jewish custom one could not mention the name of a woman, but wished to trace her line, how would one do so? He would use the name of her husband. (Possible Old Testament precedents for this practice are Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63.) That would raise a second question: If someone studied a genealogy, how would he know whether the genealogy were that of the husband or that of the wife, since in either case the husband’s name would be used? The answer is not difficult; the problem lies with the English language.
In English it is not good grammar to use a definite article (“the”) before a proper name (“the” Matthew, “the” Luke, “the” Miriam): however, it is quite permissible in Greek grammar. In the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article “the” with one exception: the name of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph’s name that this was not really Joseph’s genealogy, but his wife Miriam’s.
Furthermore, although many translations of Luke 3:23 read: “…being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli…,” because of the missing Greek definite article before the name of Joseph, that same verse could be translated as follows: “Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of Heli…”.1 In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Yeshua was “supposed” or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, he was really the descendant of Heli. Heli was the father of Miriam. The absence of Miriam’s name is quite in keeping with the Jewish practices on genealogies. The Jerusalem Talmud recognized this genealogy to be that of Miriam and not Joseph and refers to Miriam as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:2).
Also in contrast to Matthew, Luke begins his genealogy with his own time and goes back into history all the way to Adam. It comes to the family of David in verses 31-32. However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. So, like Joseph, Miriam was a member of the house of David. But unlike Joseph, she came from David’s son, Nathan, not Solomon. Miriam was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. Since Jesus was Miriam’s son, he too was a member of the house of David, apart from Jeconiah.
In this way Jesus fulfilled the biblical requirement for kingship. Since Luke’s genealogy did not include Jeconiah’s line, he began his Gospel with the virgin birth, and only later, in describing Yeshua’s public ministry, recorded his genealogy.
However, Jesus was not the only member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah.
On what grounds then could Jesus claim the throne of David? He was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. He alone received divine appointment to that throne: “The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.”
(from “jewsforjesus.org”)
From the above, as well as the myriad theories and explanations out there, the sort of ‘hidden’ meanings and symbolism (as described by PennEd in an above post), the discrepancies in the actual lines, etc., etc. I think something starts to become more and more apparent with respect to these two lines.
Namely, that neither genealogy is meant as an actual legitimate line of descent for Jesus. They are both simply written into their respective narratives for their pure symbolism and these ‘hidden’ meanings. Unless a given person was of royal descent, genealogies (or, actually, pedigrees/lines of descent would be the better term(s)) were simply not kept. Going back to one’s great-grandparents was likely more than sufficient to prove one’s heritage/Jewishness/hereditary claims to property, etc.
In this respect, it really doesn’t matter who one assigns a particular line to; both to Joseph, or one Joseph the other Mary – it’s really irrelevant since neither is either Joseph’s or Mary’s actual line of descent; they’re symbolic only.
The Bible itself does not even record the name of Mary’s parents. There is only one place I’m aware of that specifically gives their names; the Protoevangelium of James, and even there her father’s name is given as ‘Joachim’, not ‘Heli/Eli’ (or ‘Jacob’ depending on which line you use). It seems unlikely given Jewish tradition and the name discrepancy that either would be Mary’s line. An often overlooked solution is that one line is Joseph’s paternal, the other his maternal (though in keeping with tradition, her name is not mentioned, just her husband’s).
If one belonged to a particular family ‘group’, it’s quite possible one would know that one is a descendant of David (or any other notable person), though the actual line to get there would have been long forgotten with the passing of several generations. Thus, Joseph, or even Mary for that matter, could have been a legitimate descendant of David. Matthew and Luke just help the reader to ‘fill in the blanks’ as it were. Kings lists/pedigrees however, are a completely different matter and were typically recorded - it was also they way time (years) was kept (regnal dating), so to keep such lists served many purposes.
The symbolism and many meanings derived from the two lines is poignant and interesting, but I personally do not believe that either one was intended to be the factual line of either individual.
I agree the genealogy isn't in direct order, King David is a good example of that, David had 8 sons before Nathan and none were mentioned in the genealogy. More than likely each of the listed generations have a purpose of learning and knowing of things.
But I do believe both generations had the same David DNA as well as being symbolic too, so saying generations and genealogies can have equal value, one being a symbolic meaning as you mentioned these generations mentioned are not in direct order some generations are skipped, but at the same time both lineage shared the same DNA, I assume as little as it may be, we all share some DNA from the first man God created.
