Learner
Veteran Member
Hi ex, not sure why you think the "intention" of the authors (beyond simple plain reasoning on their part) was to "display and allow" in the scriptures 22-26 years as the average age in Luke's genealogies. Defeating the object, so to speak, to remain there, and not be omitted. A theist could also suggest the blame for such errors could have been implemented from deliberate sabotage by anti-Gospel groups, which has been attempted by the gnostics for example. However... these issues you highlight, based rather upon, (and rightly) a little lack of information, not being quite clear as to why these genealogies don't seem to be a problem for the authors. By this I would say, they had good reason NOT to omit or "correct" the error as you put it, in either of the the genealogies, because they weren't errors, just a misunderstanding from our reading of the texts.The gospel genealogies thread link I mentioned would be good place for this discussion. Also there are 4 major issues with the genealogies - but most places just focus on the conflicting fathers of Joseph. (and can claim one is talking about Mary's father) - and some talk about the conflicting son of King David - but the other two major problems are the father of Shealtiel and the son of Zerubbabel.For those interested....70 years per generation might be normal in early Genesis, but not later...
e.g. in Luke's genealogies the average generation is 22-26 years.The main problems with the gospel genealogies
Here is an excerpt from a book I wrote: https://guide4christmas.com/genealogies/ There are a few prophecies the genealogies fulfil (Messiah would be a descendent of Abraham, King David, and governor Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel) and besides that the genealogies are mostly different and...iidb.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus
(You got my attention, I'll discuss further on the Genealogy thread )
Last edited: