The main problems with the gospel genealogies

[excreationist]

The following includes some excerpts from a short book I wrote: (that can be read online for free)

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.

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....

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 says:

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?”

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.

 

[dybmh]

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.

Maybe this is a bit overstated? There's more to this than genealogy. Just having the correct lineage, doesn't prove it. But NOT having the correct lineage does disprove it. The lineage is 1 condition of several.

 

[excreationist]

Maybe this is a bit overstated? There's more to this than genealogy. Just having the correct lineage, doesn't prove it. But NOT having the correct lineage does disprove it. The lineage is 1 condition of several.

Yes there are other prophecies:

A virgin will give birth to the Messiah (Isaiah 7:14)
The Messiah would come from Bethlehem in Judea (Micah 5:2, John 7:41-42)
The Messiah would come from Nazareth in Galilee (Matthew 2:23)

Though my book/ebook just focuses on things related to Christmas.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes there are other prophecies:

You've misquoted Isaiah 7:14. It's sloppy ...

 

[excreationist]

You've misquoted Isaiah 7:14. It's sloppy ...

If you click on the verse in the website it says this (it is from the WEB)

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

What is wrong with it?
Here is a section about the Virgin Mary:

An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

Read the book/eBook online

guide4christmas.com

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you click on the verse in the website it says this (it is from the WEB)

What is wrong with it?
Here is a section about the Virgin Mary:

An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

Read the book/eBook online

guide4christmas.com

If you don't know by now, I'll leave it to others to explain it. It's been discussed to death.

Parenthetically, "it is from the WEB" is an almost comic defense."

 

[dybmh]

Yes there are other prophecies:

An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

Read the book/eBook online

guide4christmas.com

Though my book/ebook just focuses on things related to Christmas.

OK. Great. So if I understand, you're saying: "the genealogies are mostly different and contradictory". Which to me indicates they don't tell us anything. They don't prove anything, they don't disprove anything.

Do you agree?

And, my honest opinion is, repeat posting link after link to your own books is in poor taste.

 

[John D. Brey]

What is wrong with it?

Jayhawker Soule is correct in an important sense here since the Hebrew word "almah" עלמה (often translated "virgin" in English Bibles) isn't specifically the Hebrew word for "virgin" (betulah בתולה). There's a good argument that an almah (maiden or young maiden) is always a virgin (if I'm not mistaken it can be shown that that's the case throughout the Tanakh). Nevertheless, it's extremely important to respect the literal translation rather than allowing heavy-handed interpretation to pass for translation. The verse says a "maiden" or "young girl" will conceive. There's no doubt a very good reason (there always is) why the holy spirit moved the writer to use "almah" rather than "betulah."

There's context galore to prove that the "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 is a "virgin." But you've got to do your homework ---as the translators should have done ---- to prove that, and to argue that, rather than misinterpreting the literal text of Isaiah 7:14.

For those who think Isaiah 7:14 isn't referring ---using the word "almah" (a maiden or young maiden) ----to a virgin, there's among other things the question of how a young woman giving birth apart from her being a virgin is a "sign" given directly by the Lord (and thus a significant sign)? What's significant about a young woman giving birth if she's not a virgin?



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you click on the verse in the website it says this (it is from the WEB)

What is wrong with it?
Here is a section about the Virgin Mary:

An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

Read the book/eBook online

guide4christmas.com

That translation relied on the Septuagint which was a Greek translation of various Old Testament books. The word alma was misinterpreted as "virgin" when it only meant young maiden. It is not even a prediction of a virgin birth. The tense is wrong as well. It was written in past tense. It was not a prophecy of the future it was a statement about an event that had already occurred, and it was not about the Messiah.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jayhawker Soule is correct in an important sense here since the Hebrew word "almah" עלמה (often translated "virgin" in English Bibles) isn't specifically the Hebrew word for "virgin" (betulah בתולה). There's a good argument that an almah (maiden or young maiden) is always a virgin (if I'm not mistaken it can be shown that that's the case throughout the Tanakh). Nevertheless, it's extremely important to respect the literal translation rather than allowing interpretation to pass for translation. The verse says a "maiden" or "young girl" will conceive. There's no doubt a very good reason (there always is) why the holy spirit moved the writer to use "almah" rather than "betulah."

There's context galore to prove that the "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 is a "virgin." But you've got to do your homework ---as the translators should have done ---- to prove that, and to argue that, rather than misinterpreting the literal text of Isaiah 7:14.



John

No, one has to quote mine excessively. That is not doing one's homework. Read the entire passage. It is about an event that had already happened. It was not about the far future.

 

[excreationist]

OK. Great. So if I understand, you're saying: "the genealogies are mostly different and contradictory". Which to me indicates they don't tell us anything. They don't prove anything, they don't disprove anything.

Do you agree?

They fulfil the prophecies about the Messiah being a descendent of various people but the other names after David are completely contradictory.

And, my honest opinion is, repeat posting link after link to your own books is in poor taste.

The first link is a webpage focused on the genealogies section. The second link is the source of the John section. The third link is the source of the prophecies I quoted. The fourth link is for the Virgin Mary section. Also the book is free to view online or download the ebook..... (also as far as I know I've never sold a physical copy)

 

[dybmh]

They fulfil the prophecies about the Messiah being a descendent of various people but the other names after David are completely contradictory.

OK. Thank you.

The first link is a webpage focused on the genealogies section. The second link is the source of the John section. The third link is the source of the prophecies I quoted. The fourth link is for the Virgin Mary section. Also the book is free to view online or download the ebook..... (also as far as I know I've never sold a physical copy)

It's not the cost. Free or not, it just seems a bit like marketing and self promotion to me. If you wrote the book, just copy-paste the needed info into the thread. Empahsis on needed. No one will want to see walls of text. But that's just what seems right to me.

 

[excreationist]

By prophecies I also mean things that Christians believe are prophecies. I also point out that "The only books in the New Testament that clearly say that Jesus was born of a virgin, are Matthew and Luke"

 

[John D. Brey]

No, one has to quote mine excessively. That is not doing one's homework. Read the entire passage. It is about an event that had already happened. It was not about the far future.

It's not likely to be an event that already happened if it's about a virgin getting pregnant and conceiving a son as a sign from the Lord.

So a lot rests on how a young girl getting pregnant and conceiving a child is a "sign." And I challenge you to find a place anywhere in the Tanakh where an unmarried young maiden is said to become pregnant without the text giving the father or stating how she got pregnant, outside of Genesis chapter 17, where it's speaking of Sarah getting miraculously pregnant immediately after Abraham has just symbolically cut, bled, and removed, the only organ he could have used to seal the deal.


John

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That translation relied on the Septuagint which was a Greek translation of various Old Testament books. The word alma was misinterpreted as "virgin" when it only meant young maiden. It is not even a prediction of a virgin birth. The tense is wrong as well. It was written in past tense. It was not a prophecy of the future it was a statement about an event that had already occurred, and it was not about the Messiah.

Kudos ...

So, for example, Joseph Blenkinsopp offers the following in The Anchor Yale Bible: Isaiah 1-39:

Wherefore, the Lord God himself will give you a sign: See, the young woman is pregnant and about to give birth to a son; she will give him the name Immanuel.​

 

[excreationist]

It's not the cost. Free or not, it just seems a bit like marketing and self promotion to me. If you wrote the book, just copy-paste the needed info into the thread. Empahsis on needed. No one will want to see walls of text. But that's just what seems right to me.

Ok I deleted the links except for two. I thought my quotes were relevant or at least interesting.

 

[dybmh]

As far as the virgin Mary section goes, people might be interested in reading the other sections:
Mention of the virgin birth
Did Mary ever lose her virginity?
Mary in Islam

If I didn't share the link then either people would be unable to see those sections which I thought are interesting or I'd have to quote a few paragraphs.

My vote? Take a look at the response. It was about a sloppy misquote. So, I think it makes sense to quote those paragraphs, IF they explain why you chose the quote you used. If not, then quoting and linking won't help.

But, if that issue is explained, and entire paragraphs are needed, I don't think anyone will fault you for posting those.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not likely to be an event that already happened if it's about a virgin getting pregnant and conceiving a son as a sign from the Lord.

So a lot rests on how a young girl getting pregnant and conceiving a child is a "sign." And I challenge you to find a place anywhere in the Tanakh where an unmarried young maiden is said to become pregnant without the text giving the father or stating how she got pregnant, outside of Genesis chapter 17, where it's speaking of Sarah getting miraculously pregnant immediately after Abraham has just symbolically cut, bled, and removed, the only organ he could have used to seal the deal.


John

Not if you read the translation from the Masoretic text. It is one of the reasons that Jews, who should understand the Old Testament best, do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. The author of Matthew was rather obviously twisting scripture to support his myth.

And where is Jesus ever called "Manny"? If one only calls him that because of the prophecy it is a failed prophecy.

 

[excreationist]

My vote? Take a look at the response. It was about a sloppy misquote. So, I think it makes sense to quote those paragraphs, IF they explain why you chose the quote you used. If not, then quoting and linking won't help.

But, if that issue is explained, and entire paragraphs are needed, I don't think anyone will fault you for posting those.

BTW I was just rereading my virgin Mary section is thought this was important to note:
"Like Luke, the Quran says that Mary was visited by the angel, Gabriel, and that Mary was a virgin."

Though of course Isaiah 7:14 wouldn't have originally have said "virgin".

 

[dybmh]

That translation relied on the Septuagint which was a Greek translation of various Old Testament books.

From what I'm seeing, and I haven't spent much time on this, it looks like there isn't a comparable word for the hebrew almah in Greek that is used in the LXX. They use parthenos for both betulah and almah as if there is no difference. So it's not really the LXX, it's the translators of the LXX who are choosing to make it a virgin.

Everyone in greek was either a woman, a virgin, or a little girl.

Kata Biblon Wiki Lexicon - παρθένος - virgin (n.)

Publicly editable dictionary of the Greek New Testament and Septuagint • παρθενος • PARQENOS • parthenos

lexicon.katabiblon.com