Imaginary Genealogies?

[JohnClay]

I was under the impression that at least one of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke were at least partly invented...
The Genealogies of Jesus
Then I came across this in a Bible commentary:
Titus Chapter 3
"But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies..."

ii. “The Jewish Rabbis spent their time building up imaginary genealogies for the characters of the Old Testament…. (Barclay)

Though I don't believe the Bible is 100% true I consider myself to be an extremely liberal Christian.
What do people think about that comment in the commentary?

 

[SkyWriting]

I was under the impression that at least one of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke were at least partly invented...
The Genealogies of Jesus
Then I came across this in a Bible commentary:
Titus Chapter 3
"But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies..."

Though I don't believe the Bible is 100% true I consider myself to be an extremely liberal Christian.
What do people think about that comment in the commentary?

I understand that one of the genealogies covers Mary, and the other Joseph.
It's hard to say if any such list is complete. It's possible that some have
been fabricated I would imagine.

 

[JohnClay]

I understand that one of the genealogies covers Mary, and the other Joseph.
It's hard to say if any such list is complete. It's possible that some have
been fabricated I would imagine.

Yes that is perhaps the most popular explanation these days...
see "Why are the genealogies different?"
The Genealogies of Jesus
Apparently this idea was from John of Damascus, who lived from 675 - 749 AD. An earlier explanation was that "Matthew talked about Joseph's natural father while Luke talked about Joseph's legal father". There is also the problem of Shealtiel's fathers...

 

[HTacianas]

I was under the impression that at least one of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke were at least partly invented...
The Genealogies of Jesus
Then I came across this in a Bible commentary:
Titus Chapter 3
"But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies..."

Though I don't believe the Bible is 100% true I consider myself to be an extremely liberal Christian.
What do people think about that comment in the commentary?

I don't know where that note is from, but genealogies among the Jews of the time were important enough that it caused bickering among them in determining their pecking order. That is most likely what Paul was trying to quell. It's similar to some highbrow Americans who try to establish their order at the winetastings by claiming to be descended from George Washington.

The genealogies of Matthew and Luke present a whole other problem. Mainly that they disagree with each other.

St. Jerome, commenting on the gospel of the Hebrews, said that there was a now lost gospel written in Hebrew that was similar to but shorter than the gospel of Matthew. Being shorter, he considered it to have been "mutilated", but also commented that the genealogy had been removed, or some similar comment.

My own personal opinion is that there was an earlier gospel of Matthew that did not contain the genealogy, but that the genealogy was added later to end one of the genealogical arguments Paul had warned against. Again, that's my own personal opinion.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes that is perhaps the most popular explanation these days...
see "Why are the genealogies different?"
The Genealogies of Jesus
Apparently this idea was from John of Damascus, who lived from 675 - 749 AD. An earlier explanation was that "Matthew talked about Joseph's natural father while Luke talked about Joseph's legal father". There is also the problem of Shealtiel's fathers...

Scripture was written by men. I expect problems.

 

[Jonaitis]

I was under the impression that at least one of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke were at least partly invented...
The Genealogies of Jesus
Then I came across this in a Bible commentary:
Titus Chapter 3
"But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies..."

Though I don't believe the Bible is 100% true I consider myself to be an extremely liberal Christian.
What do people think about that comment in the commentary?

It was said by some early Christian author, don't remember who, that these two genealogies are different because one covers a biological line and the other through a levirate marriage, that is the practice of a widow marrying her deceased husband's brother in their name. I'm not entirely sure how that theory plays out here.

I am trying to remember the other views I've heard.

 

[JohnClay]

Why Are Jesus' Genealogies in Matthew and Luke… | Zondervan Academic
Some possibilities:
- One of the genealogies is actually Mary's.
- One genealogy is a royal or legal genealogy, and the other is a physical genealogy.
- Joseph had two fathers.
More:
Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia