Jesus And The Number 14!

[micksherlock]

Many people are aware that there exists a contradiction between “Luke’s” genealogy of Jesus and “Matthew’s”. Whilst “Matthew” records "42" generations from Jesus back to Abraham, (see "Matthew" 1:2-16 Vs “Luke” 3:23-38), “Luke” says there were 57 and many of these ancestors were different people. ("Luke" 3:23-38). Before getting to the contradiction which forms the basis of this Post, we should also be aware that “Luke’s” genealogy of Jesus is also in contradiction with 1 Chronicles 3:16-19 and "Matthew's" is also in contradiction with 1 Chronicles 3:9-15 (which lists 18 generations from David to Babylonian Exile, not 14 as "Matthew" errantly claimed).

 

At “Matthew” 1:17, the pseudonymous author asserts:

 

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 the Christ.

 

Now, if we were to take him/her at their word, that every 14 generations, some big event takes place which alters the course of the nation of Israel, we might be led to believe that there is some divine plan behind this nation’s history, but why every 14 generations? What is, or was, significant about the number 14?

 

It could be that the number 14 numerologically represents the doubling of the “holy” 7, which frequently occurs throughout both the OT and NT, not to mention more ancient “Pagan” religions and philosophies and forms the basis of the septenary (7 primary planets), from which we derive our days of the week.

 

In the words of Aristotle:

 

Since the number 7 neither generates nor is generated by any of the numbers in the decade, for this reason they also said that it was Athene. For the number 2 generates 4, 3 generates 9 and 6, 4 generates 8, and 5 generates 10, and 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 are generated, but 7 neither generates any number nor is generated from any; and so too Athene was motherless and ever virgin. (1)

 

Or, it could be something more relevant to Hebrew and the “history” of Israel. Looking to the Hebrew language, we may find a probable answer to this riddle. Hebrew is an alpha-numeric language, meaning that the letters double as numbers, each letter carrying a specific numeric equivalent or value.

 

 

 

1= 1 א ALEPH

2= 2 ב BETH

3= 3 ג GIMEL

4= 4 ד DALET

5= 5 ה HE

6= 6 ו VAV

7= 7 ז ZAYIN

8= 8 ח HET

9= 9 ט TET

10= 10 י YOD

11= 20 כ KAF

12= 30 ל LAMED

13= 40 מ MEM

14= 50 נ NUN

15= 60 ס SAMEKH

16= 70 ע AYIN

17= 80 פ PE

18= 90 צ TSADI

19= 100 ק QOF

20= 200 ר RESH

21= 300 ש SHIN

22= 400 ת TAV

(2)

 

Further, if we take two other factors into consideration, we may get a clearer picture of the intentions of the pseudonymous author of “Matthew.”

 

(1) Hebrew did not use vowels in its manuscripts, so to give you an example, the name for one of their tribal gods, Yahweh, who henotheisticially became the sole god, into which the others were incorporated, appears in the Hebrew texts as, YHWH, with the vowels (AEIOU) omitted.

 

(2) The second being that the messiah was supposed to be descended from the House of David. (see; Isaiah 9:5-7, Psalms 89:3-4, 132:11 Jeremiah 23:5-6) The name David, in the Hebrew texts appears without vowels as ‘DVD’ or Dalet, Vav, Dalet. If you consult the chart I have supplied above and add together the value of David’s name, you will see that Dalet has a value of 4 and Vav, 6, giving a total of 14.

 

The pseudonymous author of “Matthew,” who seems to have been the most traditional out of the other 2 synoptic authors and the more Gnostic/Hellenistic “John”, in some regards, may have been attempting to allude to the fact that Jesus was the thrice great (see Hermes Trismegistus for a comparison, re: thrice great and numerological significance of 3) David, the divinely appointed messiah (3) from the House of David (14), so he made Jesus’ birth come after 3 lots of 14 generations.

With regards to this possibility, nay probability, Professor of New Testament Studies, Bart D Ehrman, said:

 

Also, in ancient Hebrew no vowels were used. So the name David was spelled D-V-D. In Hebrew, the letter D (daleth) is the number 4 and the V (waw) is 6. If you add up the letters of David’s name, it equals 14. That may be why Matthew wanted there to be three groups of precisely fourteen generations in the genealogy of the son of David, the Messiah, Jesus.

Unfortunately, to make the numbers work he had to leave out some names. I might also point out that if Matthew was right in his fourteen-fourteen-fourteen schema, there would be forty-two names between Abraham and Jesus.(3)

 

 

 

Here is where we get to the error made by “Matthew”. Remember, in chapter 1 verse 17 he asserted, 3 generations of 14, now I will leave you with his own version of the genealogy of Jesus and see if you can spot the mistake:

 

 

1. Abraham begat

2. Isaac;

3. Jacob;

4. Judas

5. Phares and Zara

6. Esrom;

7. Aram;

8. Aminadab

9. Naasson

10. Salmon;

11. Booz

12. Obed

13. Jesse;

14. David the king

 

1. Solomon

2. Roboam

3. Abia

4. Asa;

5. Josaphat

6. Joram

7. Ozias;

8. Joatham

9. Achaz

10. Ezekias;

11. Manasses;

12. Amon

13. Josias

14. Jechonias

 

1. Salathiel

2. Zorobabel

3. Abiud

4. Eliakim

5. Azor

6. Sadoc

7. Achim

8. Eliud

9. Eleazar

10. Matthan

11. Jacob

12. Joseph

13. Jesus

Matthew 1:2-16

 

 

1. Jonathon Barnes & Gavin Lawrence. The Complete Works of Aristotle. Vol. 2. Fragments. Princeton University Press, (1984), Pg. 71.

 

2. http://www.smontagu....rewNumbers.html

 

3. Bart D Ehrman. Jesus Interrupted. Harper Collins (2005) Pg. 38

 

This is the work of Michael Sherlock....(Me)!

[norton65ca]

the genealogy claims Joseph is Jesus father and he is descended from David. If this is so, then he emphatically isn't God's son is he? One can't have it both ways.

[Ouroboros]

the genealogy claims Joseph is Jesus father and he is descended from David. If this is so, then he emphatically isn't God's son is he? One can't have it both ways.

And why would the genetic heritage of Joseph matter if Jesus was born of a virgin? Jesus wouldn't be the bloodline and really just another bastard son. The ideas "Joseph's genealogy" and "Jesus' virgin birth" are at conflict with each other. But then, if the argument is that the proper bloodline follows the mothers, not the fathers, then why doesn't is say so and why doesn't it list the mothers instead of the fathers?

[♦ ficino ♦]

When I was a fundy I was taught that Luke's geneaology establishes Jesus as son of God and Matthew's as Davidic king, so that Jesus doesn't need to be Joseph's biological son as long he's his legal son -- kingship being a legal title.

[mcdaddy]

When I was a fundy I was taught that Luke's geneaology establishes Jesus as son of God and Matthew's as Davidic king, so that Jesus doesn't need to be Joseph's biological son as long he's his legal son -- kingship being a legal title.

 

Heard this too. I think it makes some sense...but I'm no Jewish scholar. I've heard it argued from both sides.

[micksherlock]

When I was a fundy I was taught that Luke's geneaology establishes Jesus as son of God and Matthew's as Davidic king, so that Jesus doesn't need to be Joseph's biological son as long he's his legal son -- kingship being a legal title.

 

I have heard this too and I address it in my book. Basically, Matthew was trying to promote an image of Jesus, as the prophesized messiah, which is why if Jesus so much as sneezed or farted, Matthew would quote a prophecy from the OT to demonstrate that Jesus was the prophesized messiah. Here is the problem with Matthew's position.

 

A commonly quoted passage from the OT, Psalms 132:11, dictates that, the prophesized ruler/messiah, will come from the "Seed/Body" of David, describing a physical link between the chosen one and David, rendering the whole adoption argument void. Even if it did not, Jews have never considered any of the Psalms to be messianic prophecies. Unfortunately, Paul, if he in fact authored the epistle to the Romans, reaffirms the "seed criterion," saying; concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David (Greek: Sperma of David)according to the flesh..(see Romans 1:3). Further, the author of Revelations, reaffirms this criteria, saying: I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. (see Revelations 22:16). I bolded bright and morning star, because, as a side note, this is translated in the latin texts as Lux Ferrer, which, rendered in English is, Lucifer! This also occurs in 2 Peter 1:19). Anyway, there are many other passages and verses relevent to this discussion, yet unfortunately I have no more time. Sorry. In my book I go through all of these issues comprehensively.

[mcdaddy]

I'll have you know, pitiful heathen, my Lard ne'er once expelled that pungent odour you so blithely call a "fart"- the Holy Ghost expunged all metabolic uncleanliness from his body miraculously.

[micksherlock]

I'll have you know, pitiful heathen, my Lard ne'er once expelled that pungent odour you so blithely call a "fart"- the Holy Ghost expunged all metabolic uncleanliness from his body miraculously.

 

Ooops! I didit again!

[♦ ficino ♦]

When I was a fundy I was taught that Luke's geneaology establishes Jesus as son of God and Matthew's as Davidic king, so that Jesus doesn't need to be Joseph's biological son as long he's his legal son -- kingship being a legal title.

 

I have heard this too and I address it in my book.

 

Cool. Have you described your book on another thread? I'm interested in what you're doing! Have you used Richard Carrier's work?

 

A commonly quoted passage from the OT, Psalms 132:11, dictates that, the prophesized ruler/messiah, will come from the "Seed/Body" of David, describing a physical link between the chosen one and David, rendering the whole adoption argument void. Even if it did not, Jews have never considered any of the Psalms to be messianic prophecies. Unfortunately, Paul, if he in fact authored the epistle to the Romans, reaffirms the "seed criterion," saying; concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David (Greek: Sperma of David)according to the flesh..(see Romans 1:3). Further, the author of Revelations, reaffirms this criteria, saying: I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. (see Revelations 22:16).

I don't have a bible here with me, but isn't Jesus represented by "luke" as descended from David via another line? ("Revelations" is a typo for "Revelation," heh heh).

 

 

bolded bright and morning star, because, as a side note, this is translated in the latin texts as Lux Ferrer, which, rendered in English is, Lucifer! This

is ferrer a typo? That's not a form of ferre. Just checked the Vulgate online and the words "lucifer oriatur" appear in 2 Peter. In Rev. 22 it's "stella splendida matutina."

[micksherlock]

When I was a fundy I was taught that Luke's geneaology establishes Jesus as son of God and Matthew's as Davidic king, so that Jesus doesn't need to be Joseph's biological son as long he's his legal son -- kingship being a legal title.

 

I have heard this too and I address it in my book.

 

Cool. Have you described your book on another thread? I'm interested in what you're doing! Have you used Richard Carrier's work?

 

A commonly quoted passage from the OT, Psalms 132:11, dictates that, the prophesized ruler/messiah, will come from the "Seed/Body" of David, describing a physical link between the chosen one and David, rendering the whole adoption argument void. Even if it did not, Jews have never considered any of the Psalms to be messianic prophecies. Unfortunately, Paul, if he in fact authored the epistle to the Romans, reaffirms the "seed criterion," saying; concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David (Greek: Sperma of David)according to the flesh..(see Romans 1:3). Further, the author of Revelations, reaffirms this criteria, saying: I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. (see Revelations 22:16).

I don't have a bible here with me, but isn't Jesus represented by "luke" as descended from David via another line? ("Revelations" is a typo for "Revelation," heh heh).

 

 

bolded bright and morning star, because, as a side note, this is translated in the latin texts as Lux Ferrer, which, rendered in English is, Lucifer! This

is ferrer a typo? That's not a form of ferre. Just checked the Vulgate online and the words "lucifer oriatur" appear in 2 Peter. In Rev. 22 it's "stella splendida matutina."

 

I am notorius for tyyypos on forum posting. But, I assure you, my book is typo free.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Ah - just trying to help in case you were pasting from your book ms. Cheers!

[JPA]

You have mentioned your book a couple times. I would like to check it out but I cant find you on Amazon. Where can I pick up a copy?

[micksherlock]

You have mentioned your book a couple times. I would like to check it out but I cant find you on Amazon. Where can I pick up a copy?

 

Hey JPA,

 

the first volume is due to be released in Fall. Look up Charles River Press, or go to my homepage, michaelsherlock.org

[micksherlock]

Ah - just trying to help in case you were pasting from your book ms. Cheers!

 

No worries! I type as I speak in real life, pretty much. So here you get unedited, unthoughtout me! I have written a three volume series entitled, I Am Christ. Volume 1 is called, The Crucifixion - Painful Truths, and introduces the idea of the series, plus it runs through the psychological aspects of belief, using ancient mythology to describe the the deconversion process, as well as outlining Gospel errors and other false biblical traditions. Vol. 2 The Resurrection - Awakening, is focussed on the true history of the religion of Christianity, and deals with the history of the church and the true non-Christian origins of Christianity. I think my favorite chapter in VOl 2 is, 'The Nuts and Bolts of the Christian Scam, which compares the rise of Christianity to a textbook scam. Vol. 3; Ascension - Understanding, is about learning the meanings behind the symbolism of the theological motiffs and the tricks employed to keep believers focussed on their beliefs.

 

I hope this helps.

[micksherlock]

Cool. Have you described your book on another thread? I'm interested in what you're doing! Have you used Richard Carrier's work?

 

Although I do touch on the whole mythicist argument in a chapter or two, I do not attempt to prove or disprove the historical Jesus. But I have heard alot of Carrier's argument and am excited to get the book he released in April, showing the mathematical improbability of Jesus as an historical person. Sounds interesting!