cybermonk
Visitor
Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 2
Local time: 8:35 AM
Location: Singapore
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:31 am Post subject: Matthew - Luke contradiction |
  |
|
Luke speaks of the ancestors of Jesus from Joseph to Adam in Luke 3:23-38. Matthew also speaks of the ancestors of Jesus from Abraham till his (step?)dad Joseph in Matthew 1:2-16. Both Luke and Matthew has detailed lists from Adam to King David and Abraham to King David respectively.
But after that; the list of ancestors from King David (son of Jesse) till Jesus Christ given by Luke is not same as the Matthew's list from King David to Jesus Christ.
Luke's list from David to Jesus has 43 names: David, Nathan, Mattathah, Menan, Melea, Eliakim, Jonan, Joseph, Judah, Simeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Jose, Er, Elmodam, Cosam , Addi, Melchi, Neri, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Rhesa, Joannas, Judah, Joseph, Semei, Mattathiah, Maath, Naggai, Esli, Nahum, Amos, Mattathiah, Joseph, Janna, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli, Joseph and Jesus.
Matthew's list from David to Jesus has only 28 names: David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah , Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph and Jesus.
Moreover, only 6 ancestors appear in both of these lists: David, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Eliakim, Joseph, Jesus. Shealtiel & Zerubbabel coincidentally appear in order in both of the lists. However Eliakim is way off by many generations when the two lists are compared
From what I understand Christians interpret this by saying that Luke's list belongs to Mary, and Matthew's List belongs to Joseph.
They argue that there exists a lot of circumstantial evidence from the Bible itself.
Arguments supporting the idea that Matthew's list belongs to Joseph's ancestors and Luke's list belongs to Mary's ancestors:
- Luke's birth narrative is through the eyes of Mary, while Matthew's is through the eyes of Joseph. Thus, Luke could have received his material through Mary (or someone close), thus it is quite possible that he received her genealogy.
- Luke 3:23 reads, "Jesus...being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, etc." Luke certainly draws attention to the fact that Jesus was not truly Joseph's son, so why would he then go to all the trouble in listing Joseph's genealogy?
- After considering the Greek of Luke 3:23, Robert Gromacki believes it should be translated as follows:
| Quote: | | "being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli, of Matthat, etc." |
Gromaki states: "Since women did not appear in direct genealogical listings, Joseph stood in Mary's place, but Luke was careful to note that there was no physical connection between Joseph and either Jesus or Heli." - Luke's genealogy also lists Adam as "the son of God." This would indicate that one would have no grounds for insisting that the term "son" meant only the direct, biological offspring. Thus, one could think of Jesus as the "son of Heli."
- Whatever one makes of such reasoning, it is certainly possible that the above mentioned explanations might be true, thus a contradiction has not been proved. Hence we must believe in it.
- The Hebrew Bible places David's reign from around 1005 BCE until around 965 BCE. This makes the average age of procreation (i.e. the age at which one ancestor gave birth to another) of male ancestors of Joseph in the Matthew's list around 34 to 35 years (1005 divided by 28). And the average age of procreation of male ancestors of Mary in the Luke's list around 22 to 23 years. Those values do not look abnormal, and hence aids the conjecture that Matthew's list belongs to Joseph and that Luke's list belongs to Mary.
Arguments against the idea that Matthew's list belongs to Joseph's ancestors and Luke's list belongs to Mary's ancestors:
- There is no explicit mention that the genealogy is Mary's.
By the way, The last sentence is a weak argument against the previously mentioned Christian interpretation. But it is an excellent proof of the concept that Bible needs interpretation. Even theologians like Michael J. Smith who authored this agree that Bible has to interpreted(lived by) by paying reference to literary style, culture and history, when they are told about the Matthew - Luke contradiction. If Bible requires interpretation majority of the arguments used by biblical creationists to make a cumulative case against evolution is wrong. If bible requires interpretation.. It could even be conjectured by devout christians that the God of biblical creation chose to "wait" upon like a spectator, for evolution and natural origins of life to make its way till biological complexity was high... and made a hybrid who injected more morality into the species so that they could survive with each other as a species. But such a God wouldn't necessarily want us to worship it. (Just kidding!)
Note: Another possible parable that requires heavy human interpretation is the The Parable of the Shrewd Manager in Luke 16.
_________________
Heroes die once, cowards live longer |
|
Philosophos
Do it
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 9289
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: Where Scum Are
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: Re: Matthew - Luke contradiction |
|
|
| cybermonk wrote: | | From what I understand Christians interpret this by saying that Luke's list belongs to Mary, and Matthew's List belongs to Joseph. |
This doesn't seems sound on another level. Recall that Elizabeth is Mary's "kinsman" or "relative" or possibly "cousin." (Luke 1:36). Elizabeth is said to be a descendent of Aaron:
| Luk 1:5 wrote: | | In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. |
And where does Aaron come from?
| Num 26:59-60 wrote: | | The name of Amram's wife was Jochebed the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt. And she bore to Amram Aaron and Moses and Miriam their sister. And to Aaron were born Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar |
.
Since Mary and Elizabeth are related, this implies that Mary must be decended from one of Levi's descendants.
Now, let's look at Luke's geneology again:
| Luk 3:33-34 wrote: | | ...the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor... |
Ah. The son of Judah. And how is Judah related to Levi?
| Gen 35:23 wrote: | | The sons of Leah: Reuben (Jacob's firstborn), Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. |
It seems that Mary's lineage can be traced back to Levi, given her relation to Elizabeth. The geneology in Luke goes back to Judah, however. So, Luke's geneology cannot possibly be for Mary.
_________________
The whores and politicians will shout 'save us'...
...and I'll whisper 'no'. |
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
