Which Christmas Story: Matthew or Luke?

[ChetSinger]

The claim for Jewish tradition was based on Numbers 27

Num 27:8 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.
Num 27:9 And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren.
Num 27:10 And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren.​

Verse 8 above was used to show that the name of the father in law would pass to the son in law, so that "Joseph the son in law of Heli" would be called "Joseph the son of Heli".

But if that is so then look at v9. If Heli had no daughter, but had a brother Helium, then would genealogies refer to Helium as the son of his brother Heli?

And what if Heli had no daughter or brother but had an Uncle Sam. Look at verse 10. Do we now refer to Uncle Sam as Sam the son of his nephew Heli? Really?

Irrelevant, because Heli had daughters.

 

[redleghunter]

So now we determine history by popular vote? History is not determined by popular vote. True scholarship use reasoning and debate to sort things out.

What about those scholars that call for a much later date? Why does your source simply ignore them? If we simply ignore those that differ with us, that proves nothing. If I was to go into a Rand Paul event and take a poll, I might find that 90% would vote for Rand Paul. Does that mean Paul has a huge lead in the Republican race? No, it just means the poll was selective.

Your source does list people who date Luke between 80 and 90 AD. And yet the summary says the range of dates averaged is 64.1 to 68.4. How does that make any sense?

You miss the point. You threw out a date range by certain scholars. I provided a number of scholars who are actually theologians. Based on their scholarship the date range can be compared.

Yes averaged. If you get a 100 on one test and a 0 on another your average will be 50.

And it is not just a 'source' but a list of sources if you drill down. You can check the listed sources to get the details on why certain theologians placed their date for Luke and the other Gospels.

No one is ignoring those who hold to a later dating of the gospels. They are just bucking up against 1900 years of scholarship and have no evidence in which to make their claims. If there was some archaeological discovery or manuscript that confirms a later writings of the Gospels, then let's see it. None exists. All we have are the opinions of 19th century and beyond textual critics with no evidence other than 'they are scholars.'

 

[redleghunter]

How can that be? Jesus supposedly taught that the Pharisidic tradition and the law were the same thing.

Matt 23:2-3: The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
​

And when Paul explains how loyal he used to be to the law previously, he uses the word Pharisee. Apparently saying that made it clear to everyone that he was following the Mosaic law.

Phil 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;​

Paul, and many other Christians, snubbed the teaching of Matthew and the law.

Phl 3:5Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Phl 3:6Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Phl 3:7But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Phl 3:8Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
Phl 3:9And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

​

Take a look at the texts you just provided. You answered your own questions.

 

[redleghunter]

So? If Luke wanted to say "Jesus, the son of Mary the daughter of Heli" he could have said it anyway.

Or he could have stayed politically correct and said "Jesus the step son of Joseph who married the daughter of Heli who was the son of..."

But it hardly makes sense to say "Joseph the son of Heli" when he knows that others say it was "Joseph the son of Jacob" without explanation.

And how can the idea that Jesus was the stepson of Joseph who was the son in law of Heli, a descendent of David, make Jesus descendant of David? If that is what he is saying, isn't he using slight of hand to end up with Jesus as the descendant of David?

You do realize you are asking some 21st century questions for a first century document. This might help in the future as you explore Scriptures:

Question: "What is good biblical exegesis?"

Answer: Exegesis means “exposition or explanation.” Biblical exegesis involves the examination of a particular text of scripture in order to properly interpret it. Exegesis is a part of the process of hermeneutics, the science of interpretation. A person who practices exegesis is called an exegete.

Good biblical exegesis is actually commanded in scripture. “Study [be diligent] to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). According to this verse, we must handle the Word of God properly, through diligent study. If we don’t, we have reason to be ashamed.

There are some basic principles of good exegesis which serious students of the Bible will follow:

1. The Grammatical Principle. The Bible was written in human language, and language has a certain structure and follows certain rules. Therefore, we must interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with the basic rules of language.

Usually, the exegete starts his examination of a passage by defining the words in it. Definitions are basic to understanding the passage as a whole, and it is important that the words be defined according to their original intent and not according to modern usage. To ensure accuracy, the exegete uses a precise English translation and Greek and Hebrew dictionaries.

Next, the exegete examines the syntax, or the grammatical relationships of the words in the passage. He finds parallels, he determines which ideas are primary and which are subordinate, and he discovers actions, subjects, and their modifiers. He may even diagram a verse or two.

2. The Literal Principle. We assume that each word in a passage has a normal, literal meaning, unless there is good reason to view it as a figure of speech. The exegete does not go out of his way to spiritualize or allegorize. Words mean what words mean.

So, if the Bible mentions a “horse,” it means “a horse.” When the Bible speaks of the Promised Land, it means a literal land given to Israel and should not be interpreted as a reference to heaven.

3. The Historical Principle. As time passes, culture changes, points of view change, language changes. We must guard against interpreting scripture according to how our culture views things; we must always place scripture in its historical context.

The diligent Bible student will consider the geography, the customs, the current events, and even the politics of the time when a passage was written. An understanding of ancient Jewish culture can greatly aid an understanding of scripture. To do his research, the exegete will use Bible dictionaries, commentaries, and books on history.

4. The Synthesis Principle. The best interpreter of scripture is scripture itself. We must examine a passage in relation to its immediate context (the verses surrounding it), its wider context (the book it’s found in), and its complete context (the Bible as a whole). The Bible does not contradict itself. Any theological statement in one verse can and should be harmonized with theological statements in other parts of scripture. Good Bible interpretation relates any one passage to the total content of scripture.

5. The Practical Principle. Once we’ve properly examined the passage to understand its meaning, we have the responsibility to apply it to our own lives. To “rightly divide the word of truth” is more than an intellectual exercise; it is a life-changing event.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-exegesis.html

 

[doubtingmerle]

Either that, or he had a father and a mother.

Ah, so Jacob might be the father and Heli might be the mother? If so why does it say Joseph was the son of Heli who was the son of Matthat? Shouldn't it say daughter of Matthat?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Irrelevant, because Heli had daughters.

But surely there must have been somebody with no children. Per the verses referenced, the inheritance would then pass to a brother or uncle. So again, if these verses about inheritance mean the inheritor is then called a son, then does it also follow from these verses that brothers and uncles who were inheritors would be called sons?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Take a look at the texts you just provided. You answered your own questions.

Ah, so you agree with the verses I quoted, where Matthew says we need to follow the law, and Paul says we don't?

 

[ChetSinger]

But surely there must have been somebody with no children. Per the verses referenced, the inheritance would then pass to a brother or uncle. So again, if these verses about inheritance mean the inheritor is then called a son, then does it also follow from these verses that brothers and uncles who were inheritors would be called sons?

Beats me. Why don't you investigate such permutations yourself?

 

[redleghunter]

Ah, so you agree with the verses I quoted, where Matthew says we need to follow the law, and Paul says we don't?

Wrong context. Plus Paul never said we are not to follow the moral law instead he said 'we uphold it!' What Paul clearly outlines in many of his epistles is that one cannot be justified by the Law. Meaning no one can strive following all of the Law and expect to earn salvation. Jesus said, in Matthew 5 that the standard is to be perfect like our Heavenly Father is Perfect. That's the only way the Law will justify us before God...be perfect like He is. Only one person met this standard, Jesus Christ and He became the sacrifice for our sins with His death and provides us with Life through His Resurrection from the dead. That's how this is pieced together as I explain a bit more below.

But the Law remains God's Holy standards. Those that follow Yeshua (Jesus) Son of the Living God, YHWH manifest in the flesh will as Paul said 'uphold or uplift the Law.'

Now back to your question about Jesus and His disciples and the Law:


Jesus was telling His disciples to follow the Law of Moses and not do what the Pharisees and Scribes do as they were hypocrites.

These disciples were Jewish followers of a Rabbi (Jesus) under the old covenant. Then....Look at what happened!

After the above New Covenant as promised:


Ezekiel 36:

22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord God; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.

23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.

24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


John 3:

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.



Jeremiah 31:

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


Matthew 5:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


Luke 22:

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.


Now, we WILL all be judged by God's Holy Law. It is His Holiness expressed to us. So we either present our 'credentials' on law keeping at the Throne of Justice or we present the Credentials of our Advocate Jesus Christ.

We should choose wisely.

 

[redleghunter]

Ah, so Jacob might be the father and Heli might be the mother? If so why does it say Joseph was the son of Heli who was the son of Matthat? Shouldn't it say daughter of Matthat?

I believe a good summary and reference of most of the points mentioned here can be found here:

The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=932

An interesting chart from the site:

 

[doubtingmerle]

Beats me. Why don't you investigate such permutations yourself?

Me? Why should I do your investigation for you?

I am told here that the verse about the inheritance going to the son in law means the son in law would be called a son in a genealogy. The very next verse talks about the inheritance passing to a brother. Are you going to be consistent in interpretation or not? If you apply one rule to the verse about the son in law, do you apply the same rule to similar circumstance for the brother? If not, is this not special pleading, where one makes up whatever rule he wants for some verses if it helps, but ignores that interpretation for similar verses?

 

[ChetSinger]

Me? Why should I do your investigation for you?

Huh? You posed a question to me, which you're repeating below:

I am told here that the verse about the inheritance going to the son in law means the son in law would be called a son in a genealogy. The very next verse talks about the inheritance passing to a brother. Are you going to be consistent in interpretation or not? If you apply one rule to the verse about the son in law, do you apply the same rule to similar circumstance for the brother? If not, is this not special pleading, where one makes up whatever rule he wants for some verses if it helps, but ignores that interpretation for similar verses?

I have no interest in investigating such permutations because they're irrelevant to my study of Luke which concerns only sons and sons-in-law.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Huh? You posed a question to me, which you're repeating below:


I have no interest in investigating such permutations because they're irrelevant to my study of Luke which concerns only sons and sons-in-law.

But you used a rule on one verse. Do you use the same rule on the very next verse or don't you?

What would you say to the person who says you are just making up rules as you go and applying them where they help, and ignoring them when they don't?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I believe a good summary and reference of most of the points mentioned here can be found here:

Yes, I understand that is what you say. You said that before.

I was responding to somebody who had a different view from you, that one line was Joseph's father and one was of Joseph's mother.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No one is ignoring those who hold to a later dating of the gospels. They are just bucking up against 1900 years of scholarship and have no evidence in which to make their claims.

Huh? You are not ignoring them, you are just ignoring them? Have you even read their evidence?

Read what people say that argue for a later date. They have a convincing case.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, I understand that is what you say. You said that before.

I was responding to somebody who had a different view from you, that one line was Joseph's father and one was of Joseph's mother.

Well then please accept my apologies for stumbling over a conversation.

 

[redleghunter]

Huh? You are not ignoring them, you are just ignoring them? Have you even read their evidence?

Read what people say that argue for a later date. They have a convincing case.

The reasons I see offered for later dates is for liberal scholars to arrive at their preconceived conclusions. There are some very precise descriptions of the fall of Jerusalem in the Gospels which some want to discredit as prophecy. The assertion is, the gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem. That seems to be the case with some for a later date. The second assertion is, if the gospels are written later than the generation in which Christ lived on earth, then the gospel accounts are not eyewitness accounts and subject to hearsay and therefore forgeries. The third is that people added the miracles later on to add a supernatural aspect to the gospels which we 'all' know there are no such thing as miracles.

That about sums up liberal scholars and their 'evidence' for the writing of the gospels later in the 1st Century. They need it later in the 1st century because they have to try to 'prove' the events in the gospels were forgeries by pious fools after all the apostles died. They have produced one of the greatest conspiracy theories of all time.

The 19th century skeptics also asserted that an author like Luke had the political landscape and geography all wrong. The Gospel of Luke was written off as a pious fraud of some pseudo writer in the 2nd century.

However, they were debunked by the 20th century work of Sir William Ramsay.


One of the greatest archaeologists is the late Sir William Ramsay. He studied under the famous liberal German historical schools in the mid-nineteenth century. Known for its scholarship, this school taught that the New Testament was not a historical document. With this premise, Ramsay investigated biblical claims as he searched through Asia Minor. What he discovered caused him to reverse his initial view. He wrote:

I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts], for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.{6}​

Luke's accuracy is demonstrated by the fact that he names key historical figures in the correct time sequence as well as correct titles to government officials in various areas: Thessalonica, politarchs; Ephesus, temple wardens; Cyprus, procouncil; and Malta, the first man of the island.

In Luke's announcement of Jesus' public ministry (Luke 3:1), he mentions, "Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene." Scholars questioned Luke's credibility since the only Lysanius known for centuries was a ruler of Chalcis who ruled from 40–36 B.C. However an inscription dating to be in the time of Tiberius, who ruled from 14–37 A.D., was found recording a temple dedication which names Lysanius as the "tetrarch of Abila" near Damascus. This matches well with Luke's account.

In Acts 18:12-17, Paul was brought before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaea. Once again archaeology confirms this account. At Delphi an inscription of a letter from Emperor Claudius was discovered. In it he states, "Lucius Junios Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia . . ."{7} Historians date the inscription to 52 A.D. which corresponds to the time of the apostle's stay in 51.

In Acts 19:22 and Romans 16:23, Erastus, a coworker of Paul, is named the Corinthian city treasurer. Archaeologists excavating a Corinthian theatre in 1928 discovered an inscription. It reads, "Erastus in return for his aedilship laid the pavement at his own expense." The pavement was laid in 50 A.D. The designation of treasurer describes the work of a Corinthian aedile.

In Acts 28:7, Luke gives Plubius, the chief man on the island of Malta, the title, "first man of the island." Scholars questioned this strange title and deemed it unhistorical. Inscriptions have recently been discovered on the island that indeed gives Plubius the title of "first man."

"In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without error."{8} A. N. Sherwin-White states, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."{9}

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arch-nt.html

References:

1. William Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1982), 8.
2. John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Books, 1991), 227.
3. Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Books, 1999), 47.
4. A. N. Sherwing-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 189

You can read Ramsay's full account "The bearing of recent discovery on the trustworthiness of the New Testament"

here: https://archive.org/stream/bearingofrecentd00ramsuoft/bearingofrecentd00ramsuoft_djvu.txt

Excerpts from Ramsay's book:

 

[ChetSinger]

But you used a rule on one verse. Do you use the same rule on the very next verse or don't you?

What would you say to the person who says you are just making up rules as you go and applying them where they help, and ignoring them when they don't?

I'm not going to be drawn into an irrelevancy. The arguments I've heard for this solution (it's the most common harmonization hypothesis, and of course I didn't invent it myself) are sufficient for me. If they're not for you, that's OK by me.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'm not going to be drawn into an irrelevancy. The arguments I've heard for this solution (it's the most common harmonization hypothesis, and of course I didn't invent it myself) are sufficient for me. If they're not for you, that's OK by me.

Irrelevancy!

How is it irrelevant if one uses an argument to says sons in law were called sons, but the exact same argument could be used in the next verse to prove brothers are called sons? If the argument leads to invalid conclusions, then we need to ask if the argument is valid. I don't understand how one can use an argument, and then say it is irrelevant that his argument leads to illogical conclusions.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Again, the argument is being made that when Luke said Joseph was the son of Heli, he really knew that Mary was the daughter of Heli (and Joseph was the son of Jacob) but he wrote it that way anyway. Why could not Luke have simply written it clearly, "Jesus the son of Mary the daughter of Heli"?

And I am told he could not do that because that would violate tradition. Who cares? Write it anyway. If he is trying to claim a genealogy is true, then why didn't he just write it?

Luke said a lot of things that the Jews didn't like. The Jews didn't agree with Jesus being the son of the highest or that he was born of a virgin. But Luke wrote it anyway. If he knew he was writing the genealogy of Mary, and was trying to claim validity to Jesus because of Mary's genealogy, then why didn't he just say what he meant?

Nowhere has anybody found one instance where somebody uses the form "A the son of B" to indicate that A was married to the daughter of B without explanation. And yet somehow we are told, that in this instance, tradition demanded that he had to use this obscure form "A the son of B" to say "A the son in law of B". I don't agree.