the lineage of Jesus

[herev]

Since coming to this forum, I have seen many YEC's place high empahses on the lineage of Jesus as recounted in Matthew and Luke. According to their theory as I understand it, since the lists of ancestors in these two books give specific names to his ancestors, there can only be a certain number of years between Adam and Jesus--and thus proves (or at least affirms) the historicity of the creation accounts.
However, as I have studied them, the two accounts do not agree with one another and neither of them agrees with the lineage as listed in Chronicles. The answer that I see floating around (and I have no idea where this came from) is that the ancestry list in Luke is actually that of Mary--it is her background. And the one in Matthew is that of Joseph.
However, as I read and understand these texts, both claim to be the line of Joseph that is given:
Matthew 1:1
1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
and Maatthew 1:16-17:
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.[b]

Luke 3:23:
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli,

I just can't find ANYWHERE is says Luke's list is the ancestry of Mary--where did this come from?

 

[Maccie]

I've heard that, too Herev. I looked in my Bible Dictioinary and it just says "several commentators" have said Luke's genealogy is through Mary. Actually, the Dictionary doesn't think much of the theory, which might explain why it didn't say who the commentators were!

 

[Remus]

I see these genealogies as indicating that Jesus was of the house of David as was foretold. They can assist in a quick calculation that can be backed up with the OT genealogies that supports a young earth. However, I don’t see them as a YEC theory or really having anything directly to do with the creation issue. I can go into it more, but I’ll just do the copy/paste thing and see where this goes. This is from Matthew Henry’s Commentary:

2. His pedigree, v. 23, etc. Matthew had given us somewhat of this. He goes no higher than Abraham, but Luke brings it as high as Adam. Matthew designed to show that Christ was the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are blessed, and that he was heir to the throne of David; and therefore he begins with Abraham, and brings the genealogy down to Jacob, who was the father of Joseph, and heir-male of the house of David: but Luke, designing to show that Christ was the seed of the woman, that should break the serpent’s head, traces his pedigree upward as high as Adam, and begins it with Ei, or Heli, who was the father, not of Joseph, but of the virgin Mary. And some suggest that the supply which our translators all along insert here is not right, and that it should not be read which, that is, which Joseph was the son of Heli, but which Jesus; he was the son of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat, etc., and he, that is, Jesus, was the son of Seth, of Adam, of God, v. 38. ...

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1105034036-6052.html

 

[gluadys]

I see these genealogies as indicating that Jesus was of the house of David as was foretold. They can assist in a quick calculation that can be backed up with the OT genealogies that supports a young earth. However, I don’t see them as a YEC theory or really having anything directly to do with the creation issue. I can go into it more, but I’ll just do the copy/paste thing and see where this goes. This is from Matthew Henry’s Commentary:

...And some suggest that the supply which our translators all along insert here is not right,...

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1105034036-6052.html

Unfortunately Matthew Henry does not name any of those "some" nor indicate the grounds for their suggesting the translators are wrong to say that Joseph's father (not Mary's) was Heli.

So we are still in the dark as to where this tradition came from and what support it has.

 

[TwinCrier]

The wording highlighted in red doesn't mean that Joseph was Jacob's son but son-in-law, but since it seems that Mary had no brothers, any sons-in-law would be considered as sons. Joseph isn't called "the husband of Mary" in the Matthew account because it was his true lineage. Remeber, this was a patriarchal sociaty and in Jewish custom, the heritage is passed down through the male only, except when no male heir is present, then there is an exception as described in Num 27:8 where Zelophehad had no sons. This is important because the Messiah was to come from the tribe of Judah. There is a short article decsribing some unique details here: http://www.yfiles.com/loophole.html I don't vouch for anything else on the site as I just now found this in a search.

 

[Remus]

Unfortunately Matthew Henry does not name any of those "some" nor indicate the grounds for their suggesting the translators are wrong to say that Joseph's father (not Mary's) was Heli.

So we are still in the dark as to where this tradition came from and what support it has.

Perhaps he is expecting people to look at the greek to see what he's talking about and decide for themselves.

 

[herev]

The only reference that I am aware of to Mary's parents comes from the Protoevangelium of James, naming Mary's father as Joachim, which could be a derivitive of Heli. But this book is a apocryphal book that dates from the late 2nd c.
I know of no biblical support for such a claim, but I do find it interesting that this would be used by creationists--I'm not sure why, but I do

it seems like it is intensely rooted in reading into the text, since it goes against what it actually says--in other words, it's not the plain reading of the text.
Oh well

 

[TwinCrier]

It's pretty plain to me.
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

 

[Remus]

it seems like it is intensely rooted in reading into the text, since it goes against what it actually says--in other words, it's not the plain reading of the text.
Oh well

*shrugs*
Luke 3:23 is unclear. I like to go to the original language in situations like this. I invite you to do the same and see what this verse was translated from to determine what it is saying. Looking at the greek, the verse goes something like this:
'Jeses ... the supposed son of Joseph of Heli of Matthat of etc...'

Where do the commas go? If we put parenthetical commas around "the supposed son of Joseph", then it's clear that it's saying "Jesus ... of Heli".

 

[herev]

It's pretty plain to me.
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Thanks TC, I'm sure you figured it all out for yourself just by reading the text--with no outside influence. Surely you read it and intuitively knew that Heli was Mary's father and that the Greek had been mistranslated to say that Joseph was the son of Heli and should have been said the son-in-law--yup, that's pretty plain, yes it is--right there under your nose.
Amazing how one can stretch the meaning of "plain reading of scripture" when they want to.
Have a nice day, ma'am.

 

[herev]

you make a good point, the original is the best bet, but as it is only an educated guess that places the commas where you suggest, it is at most, still a matter of interpretation. Thanks for your input in all of this. I have learned a thing or two.

God bless

*shrugs*
Luke 3:23 is unclear. I like to go to the original language in situations like this. I invite you to do the same and see what this verse was translated from to determine what it is saying. Looking at the greek, the verse goes something like this:
'Jeses ... the supposed son of Joseph of Heli of Matthat of etc...'

Where do the commas go? If we put parenthetical commas around "the supposed son of Joseph", then it's clear that it's saying "Jesus ... of Heli".

 

[Remus]

you make a good point, the original is the best bet, but as it is only an educated guess that places the commas where you suggest, it is at most, still a matter of interpretation.

I don't disagree.

Thanks for your input in all of this. I have learned a thing or two.

God bless

My pleasure.

 

[TwinCrier]

Thanks TC, I'm sure you figured it all out for yourself just by reading the text--with no outside influence. Surely you read it and intuitively knew that Heli was Mary's father and that the Greek had been mistranslated to say that Joseph was the son of Heli and should have been said the son-in-law--yup, that's pretty plain, yes it is--right there under your nose.
Amazing how one can stretch the meaning of "plain reading of scripture" when they want to.
Have a nice day, ma'am.

Actually I had an inside influence.

 

[Vance]

Actually I had an inside influence.

So, your saying the Holy Spirit guided you to that particular exegesis and not any human source?

 

[TwinCrier]

Oh good, that wasn't over your head.

 

[Vance]

Oh good, that wasn't over your head.

No, that was a serious question. Do you seriously say that the exegesis mentioned in this thread regarding Heli was not something that you read or heard, but was given directly by the Spirit? Personally, I am not inclined to believe you, given your proclivities shown on these forums. Not because of the Spirit's inability or unwillingness to provide inspiration, of course.

 

[herev]

Actually I had an inside influence.

as long as we both agree that you did not take the PLAIN reading of scripture, more power to ya

 

[Bradford]

*** MODERATOR HAT ON ***

I'm seeing the first signs of sparks in this thread... Let's all calm down before they turn into flames.

Thank you.

*** MODERATOR HAT OFF***