Jump to content

Who is the father of Joseph?


Recommended Posts

I think the first suggestion is the best and more logical explanation for the alleged discrepancy concerning Joseph's father (the second explanation is also plausible but wouldn't be my preferred choice). 

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

 

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

The Jewish levirate law states that when a man dies childless his widow -
 

"shall not marry to another; but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother" (Deuteronomy 25:5).

The child of the second marriage is legally the child of the first (Deuteronomy 25:6).

Heli died childless. His widow became the wife of his brother Jacob, and Joseph was the offspring of the marriage. Naturally the son of Jacob, but legally the son of Heli. It is likely that Matthew gives the natural descendant and Luke the legal.

 

Or

 

* Matthew: arranged in eleven groups of seven individuals, and Matthew has deliberately shuffled the data specifically in order to fit the schema (it's not a strict genealogy for purposes of identifying descent); individuals are selected in Matthew for theological reasons

* Luke: arranged in a simple and pedantic 'son of' genealogy but in reverse so that it ends in Adam, part of an extended theme across three chapters which culminates in the temptation; for Luke the entire point of the exercise is to show that Jesus was the son of God as Adam was, but that Christ succeeded where Adam failed (in Luke, Christ is introduced as the son of God in contrast with Adam, and Christ starts with a victory having been led into a wilderness for temptation and ends with a victory in a garden, whereas Adam started in a garden for temptation, and was driven into a wilderness as a result of failure)

 

Both Matthew and Luke are using genealogical data for a literary purpose, not for a genealogical purpose. Matthew carefully arranges his in a particular order (eleven groups of seven), in order to make his various theological points. Luke similarly uses the genealogical data for his theological purpose, and skips right over Abraham and David without even mentioning Christ as the fulfilment of the Abrahamic and Davidic promises, because he really wants to get to Adam and contrast Christ the son of God who was victorious with Adam the son of God who fell. He also wants to show that Christ, unlike the demi-gods of the myths which his Greek reader Theophilus had worshiped, was solidly real and existed in the world of humans, not the mythical realm of the gods. 

 

Since neither Matthew or Luke is interested in providing a strict genealogical lineage of Christ, neither of them are 'more correct'. They're both arranging the data in a way which is useful to their purpose. Matthew and Luke's genealogies are arranged in two completely different manners for two completely different reasons. Both of them are thematic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
47 minutes ago, SeaJay said:

Since neither Matthew or Luke is interested in providing a strict genealogical lineage of Christ, neither of them are 'more correct'. They're both arranging the data in a way which is useful to their purpose. Matthew and Luke's genealogies are arranged in two completely different manners for two completely different reasons. Both of them are thematic.

 

All the gospel writers were writing to suit their own purposes, which becomes transparent through textual criticism and closer analysis. Matthews usage of Isaiah 7 completely out of it's original context is one of the more popular examples. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But, I can't accept that such a blatant blunder would be made concerning Christ's genealogy. What I mean to say is, the differing genealogies are so obvious, front, and centre, the discrepancy would have been noticed and corrected. The fact is hasn't, tells me it is not meant to be, so another reason (given above) must be forthcoming. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2020 at 3:21 AM, SeaJay said:

I think the first suggestion is the best and more logical explanation for the alleged discrepancy concerning Joseph's father (the second explanation is also plausible but wouldn't be my preferred choice). 

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

 

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

The Jewish levirate law states that when a man dies childless his widow -
 

"shall not marry to another; but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother" (Deuteronomy 25:5).

The child of the second marriage is legally the child of the first (Deuteronomy 25:6).

Heli died childless. His widow became the wife of his brother Jacob, and Joseph was the offspring of the marriage. Naturally the son of Jacob, but legally the son of Heli. It is likely that Matthew gives the natural descendant and Luke the legal.

     We're never told that Jacob and Heli lived together while Heli was married.  We would have to assume a lot for this to work.  We don't even know if people bothered to follow this rule during this time (my guess would be they did not).

 

On 7/6/2020 at 3:21 AM, SeaJay said:

 

Or

 

* Matthew: arranged in eleven groups of seven individuals, and Matthew has deliberately shuffled the data specifically in order to fit the schema (it's not a strict genealogy for purposes of identifying descent); individuals are selected in Matthew for theological reasons

* Luke: arranged in a simple and pedantic 'son of' genealogy but in reverse so that it ends in Adam, part of an extended theme across three chapters which culminates in the temptation; for Luke the entire point of the exercise is to show that Jesus was the son of God as Adam was, but that Christ succeeded where Adam failed (in Luke, Christ is introduced as the son of God in contrast with Adam, and Christ starts with a victory having been led into a wilderness for temptation and ends with a victory in a garden, whereas Adam started in a garden for temptation, and was driven into a wilderness as a result of failure)

 

Both Matthew and Luke are using genealogical data for a literary purpose, not for a genealogical purpose. Matthew carefully arranges his in a particular order (eleven groups of seven), in order to make his various theological points. Luke similarly uses the genealogical data for his theological purpose, and skips right over Abraham and David without even mentioning Christ as the fulfilment of the Abrahamic and Davidic promises, because he really wants to get to Adam and contrast Christ the son of God who was victorious with Adam the son of God who fell. He also wants to show that Christ, unlike the demi-gods of the myths which his Greek reader Theophilus had worshiped, was solidly real and existed in the world of humans, not the mythical realm of the gods. 

 

Since neither Matthew or Luke is interested in providing a strict genealogical lineage of Christ, neither of them are 'more correct'. They're both arranging the data in a way which is useful to their purpose. Matthew and Luke's genealogies are arranged in two completely different manners for two completely different reasons. Both of them are thematic.

      This is the more correct answer.  They're simply writing to their own purposes.  There are reports of heretical copies of Matthew that do not include the nativity and other information.  We don't know much about them but clearly the people who used them thought they were more correct for whatever reason.  This does show that different groups used these texts for their own reasons.  Their creation was for their own reasons.  So why Matthew included a corrupt genealogy (he purposely omits names that were cursed) is known to him but is a bit less of a mystery than Luke's seemingly created from whole cloth version (but perhaps to him and his group it held great meaning that is simply lost to us).

 

          mwc

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeaJay said:

But, I can't accept that such a blatant blunder would be made concerning Christ's genealogy.

Unless you subscribe to the OT laws on childbirth then what difference does it make who the parents of a child are in respect to the legitimacy of that child as an individual?  Moreover, if you believe the LORD is the father of Jesus then what difference would the genealogy of Joseph have on that belief?  Just asking....

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Justus said:

Unless you subscribe to the OT laws on childbirth then what difference does it make who the parents of a child are in respect to the legitimacy of that child as an individual?  Moreover, if you believe the LORD is the father of Jesus then what difference would the genealogy of Joseph have on that belief?  Just asking....

 

I was looking at it from a textual criticism point of view, and wondering if there was an error in the text. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.