The main problems with the gospel genealogies

[excreationist]

Here is an excerpt from a book I wrote:

The Genealogies of Jesus

Are the genealogies accurate?

guide4christmas.com

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 contradictory. I mean they don't even agree which son of David Joseph was descended from or who was the father of Shealtiel or the son of Zerubbabel or the father of Joseph.


The prophecies:

The Messiah would be a descendent of Abraham (Genesis 12:3, 22:18, Acts 3:25-26)
The Messiah would be a descendent of King David (2 Samuel 7:12-16, Psalm 89:3-4, Isaiah 9:7)
The Messiah would be a descendent of the governor Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel (Haggai 2:23)

More:

Joseph and King David
In Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:27, Joseph is said to be a descendent of King David. This is shown in the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. While they agree about the ancestors of David, they almost entirely disagree about the ancestors of Joseph after David. The exception to this is that both mention Zerubbabel, a governor who rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem, and his father Shealtiel. They disagree on who Shealtiel's father was, though they agree that he is a descendent of David.

Why are the genealogies different?
The earliest tradition that explained the differences in the genealogies involved the concept of levirate marriage. This idea was mentioned in the 3rd century AD by Sextus Julius Africanus in "Epistle to Aristides". In that version, Matthew talked about Joseph's natural father while Luke talked about Joseph's legal father.

Centuries later, John of Damascus, who lived from 675 - 749 AD, was unhappy with that explanation and argued that the genealogy in Luke was actually showing that Mary was descended from David. Though the Bible doesn't suggest that Mary is a descendent of David, Luke says that her relative, Elizabeth, is a descendent of Moses' brother, Aaron (who isn't an ancestor of David). Despite this, the idea that Mary was a descendent of David is the most popular explanation today amongst Christians.

Another possibility is that at least one of the genealogies isn't accurate and may even have been deliberately invented.

 

[excreationist]

From King David (about 1000 BC) to governor Zerubbabel (about 520 BC) there are 480 years.

In Matthew there are 16 generations (30 yrs/generation)
In Luke there are 22 generations (22 yrs/generation)

From governor Zerubbabel (520 BC) to Jesus (4 BC) there are about 516 years.

In Matthew there are 11 generations (47 yrs/generation)
In Luke there are 20 generations (26 yrs/generation)

Maybe there are some problems with the calculations but it's odd that the average generation lengths differ so much even though they both involve David to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel to Joseph. This suggests that at least one genealogy was mostly invented because I would expect both to have similar average generation times.

 

[Elixir]

Let’s face it. Even with the greatest capacity to record things ever in the history of humans, not many of us can trace our lines back more than a few generations. A lifeguard at the pool told me proudly the other day “I’m descended directly from Edward the Third!” I didn’t have the heart to tell her virtually everyone in England can make that claim. But few claim detailed knowledge of their own ancestry beyond such timeframes. Yet the Bible fables run over thousands of years, with elaborate stories about specific great great x100s of generations of ancestors, in an era before writing … ya sure.
Biblical geneologies are what are politely called in modern English “a likely story”, aka “made up stuff”.

 

[excreationist]

Let’s face it. Even with the greatest capacity to record things ever in the history of humans, not many of us can trace our lines back more than a few generations. A lifeguard at the pool told me proudly the other day “I’m descended directly from Edward the Third!” I didn’t have the heart to tell her virtually everyone in England can make that claim. But few claim detailed knowledge of their own ancestry beyond such timeframes. Yet the Bible fables run over thousands of years, with elaborate stories about specific great great x100s of generations of ancestors, in an era before writing … ya sure.
Biblical geneologies are what are politely called in modern English “a likely story”, aka “made up stuff”.

So there's about 27 generations in Matthew and 42 in Luke. Luke also goes back to Adam but it basically copies the OT.

In my book I also mention a more extreme similar thing about memorizing things - the song of Zacharias when John the Baptist was born:
Luke 1:67-79

His father, Zacharias, was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying,
"Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel,
for he has visited and redeemed his people;
and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David
(as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets who have been from of old),
salvation from our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us;
to show mercy towards our fathers,
to remember his holy covenant,
the oath which he spoke to Abraham, our father,
to grant to us that we, being delivered out of the hand of our enemies,
should serve him without fear,
In holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life.
And you, child, will be called a prophet of the Most High,
for you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways,
to give knowledge of salvation to his people by the remission of their sins,
because of the tender mercy of our God,
whereby the dawn from on high will visit us,
to shine on those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death;
to guide our feet into the way of peace."

I assume it would have been said by him once while genealogies can be repeated multiple times (like learning the presidents, etc). Note that I think Mary and Joseph weren't present at that time when Zacharias spoke that.

A possible but perhaps not widespread explanation is that the writers of the gospels got their information (about Zacharias' song, etc) directly from the Holy Spirit.

 

[Elixir]

A possible but perhaps not widespread explanation is that the writers of the gospels got their information (about Zacharias' song, etc) directly from the Holy Spirit.

I think you misspelled “magical”.

 

[excreationist]

To restate what I've said, the two genealogies "prove" that Jesus was the prophesized Messiah because it shows that he fulfilled the prophecies regarding being a descendant of Abraham, King David and Zerubbabel/Shealtiel.

But in John they're also aware of the prophecies but the crowd doesn't think that Jesus fulfilled them....

An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

Read the book/eBook online

guide4christmas.com

John and Bethlehem
In John 7:41-42, people in a crowd say that Jesus isn't the Messiah because he comes from Galilee rather than Bethlehem. Those people also said that Jesus wasn't a descendent of King David. No one is said to correct them, nor does the author of John.

Some Christians argue that John knew that Jesus was from Bethlehem and that he was descended from King David and this could be an example of deliberate irony.

John 7:41-42

Others said, “He is the Messiah.”
Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? Doesn’t Scripture say that the Messiah will come from the family line of David? Doesn’t it say that he will come from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?”

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think it is about prophecy as much as legitimacy. As I noted in another thread, that Matthew opens up with this... and this is what opens the New Testament... is important because it implies that they are seeking authority and legitimacy. And in seeking that, it implies that they aren't being taken seriously and they are a radical cult. In connecting Jesus with Abraham, they are trying instill in Jesus a mainstream legitimacy among the Jewish.

Seeing the Jewish are still around, it didn't work too well... but it worked well enough as a political ploy, that Christianity became popular methods of population control.

 

[excreationist]

I don't think it is about prophecy as much as legitimacy.

But I think the legitimacy comes from fulfilling prophecies about the Messiah. Note that both genealogies fulfil the prophecy about Shealtiel/Zerubbabel.

 

[Gospel]

Either both genealogies are booty pebbles or one of them was a deliberate lie to force a narrative.

 

[excreationist]

This creationist article brings up another issue:

Jesus genealogies

The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are different. In-depth study of Scripture and Jewish methods explains why. Both genealogies explain important facets of the Gospel message.

creation.com

1 Chronicles 3 gives the family tree of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, and none of their descendants have the names that are in either Luke’s or Matthew’s genealogies. The simplest explanation is to say that the genealogies in 1 Chronicles, while accurate, are not exhaustive, and didn’t include the descendants named in the Matthew and Luke genealogies.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think it is about prophecy as much as legitimacy.

But I think the legitimacy comes from fulfilling prophecies about the Messiah.

Is there an echo in here? Why did you snip the rest of the post which goes into the politicality of the geneology to begin with? After all, the narrative wasn't "Jesus was mainstream, keep following the Tanakh"... this was saying "Jesus is part of the blood line, join our splinter cult."

 

[excreationist]

I don't think it is about prophecy as much as legitimacy.

But I think the legitimacy comes from fulfilling prophecies about the Messiah.

Is there an echo in here? Why did you snip the rest of the post which goes into the politicality of the geneology to begin with? After all, the narrative wasn't "Jesus was mainstream, keep following the Tanakh"... this was saying "Jesus is part of the blood line, join our splinter cult."

I think your response to my opening post that it mainly just shows that Jesus was a Jew involves ignoring much bigger points. I'm saying both genealogies fulfil prophecies involving four ancestors but what I snipped of yours only talks about Abraham. On the topic of snipping, you snipped my second sentence where I mentioned Shealtiel/Zerubbabel. Shealtiel/Zerubbabel are the only things the genealogies have in common after King David (and that Joseph was Jesus' father).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think it is about prophecy as much as legitimacy.

But I think the legitimacy comes from fulfilling prophecies about the Messiah.

Is there an echo in here? Why did you snip the rest of the post which goes into the politicality of the geneology to begin with? After all, the narrative wasn't "Jesus was mainstream, keep following the Tanakh"... this was saying "Jesus is part of the blood line, join our splinter cult."

I think your response to my opening post that it mainly just shows that Jesus was a Jew involves ignoring much bigger points.

What bigger points? The whole point is that Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles, raised the dead, resurrected.

And Matthew starts off with a plea regarding genealogies?! The genealogy is irrelevant compared to the fact they use it at all. That in light of all the magic performed by Jesus, the people selling him to the masses went with the Founding Fathers. They were linking him to Abraham to indicate they aren't some random cult, but have legitimacy. The beginning of a religious book starting off with a desperate and generally unsuccessful political plea.

 

[bilby]

The beginning of a religious book starting off with a desperate and generally unsuccessful political plea.

Sure, but bear in mind, their audience almost universally believed that a messiah would rock up sometime soon. The only question was "Is it this guy, or someone else?"

The world and his dog were reporting miracles, wonders, and strange goings on.

Advertisers don't generally stress the similarities between their product and the competitors; They're looking for a way to impress the audience with the differences (real or imagined).

Coles make a big deal about all their beef being raised without added hormones; They do this to engender doubt about the purity of Woolworths beef. Despite the fact that no beef sold in Australia was raised with added hormones.

Stressing that Jesus fits the genealogical criteria for the messiah is a great way to cast doubts on the genealogies of competing claimants, even when their genealogical claims are just as good, or even better.

A lot of the issues we can see with the NT are due to its being written for a prescientific audience, who take as given many things we want to see hard evidence for.

The target audience is distinctly not a twenty-first century educated person.

Though, of course, it would be odd for God not to anticipate and eliminate that future problem, if He cared about humanity

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The beginning of a religious book starting off with a desperate and generally unsuccessful political plea.

Sure, but bear in mind, their audience almost universally believed that a messiah would rock up sometime soon.

When looked at in a big picture soft of way, Matthew 1 doesn't appear to be written for the converted... it is written for the general Jewish population that isn't biting on Jesus at the time.

...

That could go any number of ways.

Stressing that Jesus fits the genealogical criteria for the messiah is a great way to cast doubts on the genealogies of competing claimants, even when their genealogical claims are just as good, or even better.

They aren't trying to cast doubts on other claims, they are trying to legitimize their claim. It didn't work, and Christianity would end up needing to exist parallel to Judaism.

A lot of the issues we can see with the NT are due to its being written for a prescientific audience, who take as given many things we want to see hard evidence for.

This is the thing, I'm not looking at the legitimacy of the claims, rather the propaganda side of their claims. What are they claiming, when are they claiming, and how are they claiming. That interests me a lot more because it provides a insight into what they are thinking when both writer and compiling their "new" Testament.

Matthew isn't the first Gospel, they only put it in the front because he had better spelling (). So this provides an interesting reflection on the geneology being included at this point of the whole Jesus thing. Why is it being included now... and why do the binders of the NT feel it necessary to put it in the front? Jesus isn't catching like wildfire. His supporters are not doing particularly well. The Jewish aren't convinced. They are a cult. And what do cults do sometimes? Insist they aren't a cult. And Matthew 1 to me is that proclamation.

Matthew 1 is Jesus 2.0, they didn't realize that baseless claims of miracles wouldn't work, so they need to provide a new reason for people to take their claims seriously. The genealogy (and virgin birth) was (were) what we could consider an upgrade to the religious claims.

 

[James Brown]

Matthew was big on the "he fulfilled prophecy" angle, even the prophecies that no one knew were prophecies beforehand.

 

[excreationist]

Matthew was big on the "he fulfilled prophecy" angle, even the prophecies that no one knew were prophecies beforehand.

Yeah....
Matthew 2:23
"and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene."

What prophecy is Matthew 2:23 referring to regarding Jesus being a Nazarene? | GotQuestions.org

What prophecy is Matthew 2:23 referring to regarding Jesus being a Nazarene? Is Matthew 2:23 an example of an error in the Bible?

www.gotquestions.org

Matthew is obviously not quoting a prophecy directly, as there is no Old Testament passage with the wording he uses

 

[Thomas II]

Matthew was big on the "he fulfilled prophecy" angle, even the prophecies that no one knew were prophecies beforehand.

Yeah....
Matthew 2:23
"and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene."

What prophecy is Matthew 2:23 referring to regarding Jesus being a Nazarene? | GotQuestions.org

What prophecy is Matthew 2:23 referring to regarding Jesus being a Nazarene? Is Matthew 2:23 an example of an error in the Bible?

www.gotquestions.org

Matthew is obviously not quoting a prophecy directly, as there is no Old Testament passage with the wording he uses

 

[Swammerdami]

Matthew was big on the "he fulfilled prophecy" angle, even the prophecies that no one knew were prophecies beforehand.

Yeah....
Matthew 2:23
"and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene."

What prophecy is Matthew 2:23 referring to regarding Jesus being a Nazarene? | GotQuestions.org

What prophecy is Matthew 2:23 referring to regarding Jesus being a Nazarene? Is Matthew 2:23 an example of an error in the Bible?

www.gotquestions.org

Matthew is obviously not quoting a prophecy directly, as there is no Old Testament passage with the wording he uses

The Old Testament mentions "Nazarite(s)" about 14 times, notably in Judges 13: "[Samson] shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death." The two main requirements to be a Nazarite (or Nazirite) were never to get a haircut and never to drink wine. Douay-Rheims translation sometimes has "consecrated" or "sanctified" where KJV has "Nazarite." KJV has "separated from" twice where Douay-Rheims has "Nazarite." The word occurs nowhere in the New Testament.

"Nazareth" or "Nazarene" occurs nowhere in the Old Testament but 30 times in the Gospels, Nazareth always to denote a city. Besides Matthew 2:23, "Nazarene" occurs only in Acts 24:5 where a Roman governor Felix hears charges against Paul, that he is pestilent, seditious and a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes."

So -- are "Nazarite" and "of Nazareth" somehow synonyms, as Matthew's mention seems to imply? This was discussed in another IIDB thread back in 2021 or so. Dozens of paragraphs, all by a certain Carrier cultist, twisty little passages, all leading absolutely nowhere.

Adding further confusion, "ha-Notzri" (with various spwllings) is sometimes seen as a surname for Jesus, though never in the Bible.

 

[Politesse]

Don't forget the popular conspiracy theory that Nazareth the town didn't exist, so either ναζωραιος cannot be in reference to it or the Bible wasn't written until Christianization.