Genealogy of Jesus

From Textus Receptus

Revision as of 14:03, 10 April 2010

The genealogy of Jesus is recorded in two passages of the Gospels: Matthew 1:1–17<ref>Template:Niv</ref> and Luke 3:23–28.<ref>Template:Niv</ref> Each traces the ancestry of Jesus back to King David, to show his fulfillment of prophecy regarding the Christ.

Template:Jesus

The two genealogies are remarkably different, however, disagreeing completely on the lineage from Joseph, the putative father of Jesus, back to David. Matthew begins at the patriarch Abraham and traces a descent through David’s son King Solomon, omitting several generations along the way. Luke proceeds upward, through David’s son Nathan, continuing all the way to the first man, Adam.

Both gospels clearly state that Jesus was begotten not by Joseph, but by God, being born to Mary through a virgin birth. Aside from a general implication of her Davidic origin, there is no explicit Biblical record of Mary’s genealogy, but a number of extra-biblical sources, some relatively early, provide her immediate ancestry, as well as an explanation for the divergence between Matthew and Luke.<ref name="cathen">Template:Ws</ref>

The apparent contradiction of the two gospel genealogies has aroused controversy since ancient times. Although many modern scholars see the genealogies as theological craftsmanship rather than historical fact, several explanations have been suggested. There are early claims that Joseph did in fact have two fathers, in a sense, one being a legal father. Others hold that one of the gospels actually records the genealogy of Mary.<ref name="cathen"/> It has been traditional to assume that Luke's genealogy traces through Mary since at least 1490.<ref>Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels By Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall, page 65</ref>

Luke’s genealogy

Luke 3:23–38,<ref>Template:Niv</ref> after telling of the baptism of Jesus and the commencement of his ministry, states, “He was the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, the son of Eli…” and continues on until “…the son of Adam, the son of God.”

Luke emphasizes Jesus’ title son of God, recognized as an essential title of the Messiah in prophecy,<ref name="juel">http://www.bible.net.au</ref> as the genealogy immediately follows a heavenly voice at Jesus’ baptism, saying “You are my son,”<ref>Template:Niv.</ref> and concludes with “son of Adam, son of God.” Thus, like all mankind he is a son of God through Adam, who was made by God, but uniquely he is also begotten by God.

This genealogy descends from the Davidic line through Nathan, who is an otherwise little-known son of King David, mentioned briefly in the Old Testament.<ref>Template:Niv; but also see Template:Niv.</ref> The intervening generations are a series of otherwise unknown names, but the number of generations is chronologically quite plausible.

In the ancestry of David, Luke agrees completely with the Old Testament. Cainan is included between Shelah and Arphaxad, following the Septuagint text (though omitted in the Masoretic text followed by most modern Bibles). In continuing the genealogy all the way to Adam, the progenitor of all mankind, the gospel is seen as emphasizing Christ’s universal mission.

Augustine<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref> notes that the count of generations in Luke is 77, a remarkable number symbolizing the forgiveness of all sins.<ref>Template:Niv; cf. Template:Niv.</ref> This count also agrees with the seventy generations from Enoch<ref>1 Enoch 10:11–12.</ref> set forth in the Book of Enoch, which Luke probably knew.<ref name="bauckham">http://www.bible.net.au</ref> Though Luke never counts the generations as Matthew does, it appears that he too follows the hebdomadic principle of working in sevens. However, Irenaeus, one of the earliest witnesses, counts only 72 generations from Adam.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Since the nature of Luke’s genealogy has made it particularly susceptible to scribal corruption, determining the original text from the manuscript evidence has been especially problematic. The most controversial section, oddly, is in the ancestry of David, which is well established in the Old Testament. Although the reading “son of Aminadab, son of Aram,” in agreement with the Old Testament, is well attested, the Nestle-Aland critical edition, considered the best authority by most modern scholars, accepts the variant “son of Aminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni,”<ref>http://www.bible.net.au Willker details the textual evidence underlying the NA27 reading.</ref> counting the 77 generations from Adam rather than God.<ref>“Faced with a bewildering variety of readings, the Committee adopted what seems to be the least unsatisfactory form of text, a reading that was current in the Alexandrian church at an early period,” explains http://www.bible.net.au</ref> This choice, however, has been widely criticized.<ref>For example, http://www.bible.net.au and http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Luke’s qualification “as was supposed” (ενομιζετο{{#if:|

|[[Category:Articles containing {{#switch:grc
 |ar       = Arabic
 |es       = Spanish
 |de       = German
 |fr       = French
 |ja       = Japanese
 |zh       = Chinese
 |bg       = Bulgarian
 |cs       = Czech
 |da       = Danish
 |nl       = Dutch
 |et       = Estonian
 |fi       = Finnish
 |el       = Greek
 |hu       = Hungarian
 |ga       = Irish
 |grc      = Ancient Greek
 |la|lat   = Latin
 |cy       = Welsh
 |en|eng   = explicitly cited English 
 |#default = {{#ifexist:Category:Articles containing Template:ISO 639 name grc language text
  |Template:ISO 639 name grc
  |non-English
 }}
}} language text]]

}}) avoids stating that Jesus was actually a son of Joseph, since his virgin birth is affirmed in the same gospel. There are, however, several interpretations of how this qualification relates to the rest of the genealogy. Some see the remainder as the true genealogy of Joseph, despite the different genealogy given in Matthew. Others see the lineage as a legal ancestry, rather than an ancestry according to blood—Joseph is thus a legal son of Eli, perhaps a son-in-law or adopted son. Still others suggest that Luke is repeating an untrustworthy record without affirming its accuracy. Lastly, many see “as was supposed of Joseph” as a parenthetical note, with Luke actually calling Jesus a son of Eli—meaning, it is then suggested, that Eli (Ηλι{{#if:|

|[[Category:Articles containing {{#switch:grc
 |ar       = Arabic
 |es       = Spanish
 |de       = German
 |fr       = French
 |ja       = Japanese
 |zh       = Chinese
 |bg       = Bulgarian
 |cs       = Czech
 |da       = Danish
 |nl       = Dutch
 |et       = Estonian
 |fi       = Finnish
 |el       = Greek
 |hu       = Hungarian
 |ga       = Irish
 |grc      = Ancient Greek
 |la|lat   = Latin
 |cy       = Welsh
 |en|eng   = explicitly cited English 
 |#default = {{#ifexist:Category:Articles containing Template:ISO 639 name grc language text
  |Template:ISO 639 name grc
  |non-English
 }}
}} language text]]

}}, Heli) is the maternal grandfather of Jesus, and Luke is actually tracing the ancestry of Jesus according to the flesh through Mary.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Elsewhere Luke states (though some scholars express doubt<ref>http://www.bible.net.au describes the relationship, not mentioned in the other Gospels, as “of dubious historicity.” http://www.bible.net.au calls it “artificial and undoubtedly Luke’s creation.”</ref>) that Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, was a cousin (or relative) of Mary and was descended from Aaron, of the tribe of Levi.<ref>Template:Niv.</ref> Some have inferred from this that Mary herself was also a Levite descended from Aaron, and thus kingly and priestly lineages were united in Jesus.<ref>For example, http://www.bible.net.au</ref> Thomas Aquinas, however, argued that the relationship was on the maternal side.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Matthew’s genealogy

Matthew 1:1–17<ref>Template:Niv</ref> begins the Gospel, “A record of the origin of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham begot Isaac…” and continues on until “…and Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.”

Matthew emphasizes, right from the beginning, Jesus’ title Christ—the Greek rendering of the Hebrew title Messiah—meaning anointed, in the sense of an anointed king. Jesus is presented first and foremost as the long-awaited Messiah, who was expected to be a descendant and heir of King David, so the genealogy serves the essential purpose of demonstrating this line of descent. Thus, Matthew begins by calling Jesus son of David, indicating his royal origin, and also son of Abraham, indicating that he was a Jew; both are stock phrases, in which son means descendant, calling to mind the promises God made to David and to Abraham.<ref name="nolland">http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Matthew’s introductory title (βιβλος γενεσεως{{#if:|

|[[Category:Articles containing {{#switch:grc
 |ar       = Arabic
 |es       = Spanish
 |de       = German
 |fr       = French
 |ja       = Japanese
 |zh       = Chinese
 |bg       = Bulgarian
 |cs       = Czech
 |da       = Danish
 |nl       = Dutch
 |et       = Estonian
 |fi       = Finnish
 |el       = Greek
 |hu       = Hungarian
 |ga       = Irish
 |grc      = Ancient Greek
 |la|lat   = Latin
 |cy       = Welsh
 |en|eng   = explicitly cited English 
 |#default = {{#ifexist:Category:Articles containing Template:ISO 639 name grc language text
  |Template:ISO 639 name grc
  |non-English
 }}
}} language text]]

}}, book of generations) has been interpreted various ways, but most likely is simply a title for the genealogy that follows, echoing the Septuagint use of the same phrase for toledot.<ref name="nolland"/>

Matthew’s genealogy is considerably more complex than Luke’s. It is overtly schematic, organized into three tesseradecads (sets of fourteen), each of a distinct character:

• The first is rich in annotations, including four mothers and mentioning the brothers of Judah and the brother Zerah of Pharez.
• The second spans the Davidic royal line, but omits several generations, ending with “Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.”
• The last, which appears to span only thirteen generations, connects Joseph to Zerubbabel through a series of otherwise unknown names, remarkably few for such a long period.

The total of 42 generations is achieved only by omitting several names, so the choice of three sets of fourteen seems deliberate. Fourteen is seven, symbolizing perfection and covenant, doubled, and is also the gematria of David. Numerous other explanations have been proposed as well.<ref name="nolland"/>

The rendering into Greek of Hebrew names in this genealogy is mostly in accord with the Septuagint, but there are a few peculiarities. The form Asaph seems to identify King Asa with the psalmist Asaph. Likewise, some see the form Amos for King Amon as suggesting the prophet Amos, though the Septuagint does have this form. Both may simply be assimilations to more familiar names. More interesting, though, are the unique forms Boes (Boaz, LXX Boos) and Rachab (Rahab, LXX Raab).<ref name="tamar">http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Women

This Rachab is most likely Rahab the harlot, whose story is told in the Old Testament, though some question the identification. Matthew is unique in naming her as the wife of Salmon and mother of Boaz. The Talmud<ref>b. Megillah 14b–15a.</ref> says that Rahab married Joshua. The unusual spelling of her name, paralleled only in Josephus, may result from the unique tradition that Matthew drew from here, which Bauckham suggests is connected to a passage in Chronicles<ref>Template:Niv.</ref> mentioning Salma and Rechab.<ref name="tamar"/>

That women are mentioned at all, when such genealogies are typically so focused on the male line, is remarkable. Four women are included early in the genealogy—Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and “the wife of Uriah” (i.e., Bathsheba)—and a fifth, Mary, concludes the genealogy as the mother of Jesus. Why Matthew chose to include these particular women, while passing over others such as the matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah, has been much discussed.

There is assumed to be a common thread among these four women, to which Matthew wishes to draw attention. Some point out their Gentile origin: Rahab was a Canaanite, Bathsheba was married to a Hittite, Ruth was from Moab and sometimes seen as a Moabite, and Tamar’s origin is unclear—thus Matthew prepares the reader for the inclusion of the Gentiles in Christ’s mission, contrasting their faith with the faithlessness of the Jews. Others point out their sinfulness: Tamar and Rahab were prostitutes, Bathsheba was an adulteress, and Ruth is sometimes seen as seducing Boaz—thus Matthew emphasizes God’s grace in response to sin. Still others point out their unusual, even scandalous, unions—preparing the reader for what will be said about Mary. None of these explanations, however, adequately befits all four women.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref> Nolland<ref name="nolland"/> suggests simply that these were all the known women attached to David’s genealogy in the Book of Ruth.<ref>Template:Niv.</ref>

The conclusion of the genealogy proper is also unusual: having traced the ancestry of Joseph, Matthew identifies him not as the father of Jesus, but as the husband of Mary. The Greek text is explicit in making Jesus born to Mary, rather than to Joseph. This careful wording is to affirm the virgin birth, which Matthew proceeds to discuss, stating that Jesus was begotten not by Joseph but by God.

Omissions

Three consecutive kings of Judah are omitted from the genealogy: Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah. The next generation, Uzziah (also called Azariah), has a Greek name Ozias very similar to that of the first omitted name, Ochozias. Some therefore suggest that the omission arose from a scribal error, homoioteleuton between these two names, after which the groups of fourteen were discovered. Others see it as “a deliberately taken opportunity,” encouraged by the similarity of names. Not only were these three kings especially wicked, violently destroyed by the will of God,<ref>Template:Niv.</ref> they were the cursed line of Ahab through his daughter Athaliah to the third and fourth generation.<ref>Template:Niv; cf. Template:Niv, Template:Niv.</ref> Thus Matthew felt justified in omitting them, with an eye toward forming his second tesseradecad.<ref name="nolland1997">http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Another omitted king is Jehoiakim, the father of Jeconiah, also known as Jehoiachin. In Greek the names are even more similar, both being sometimes called Joachim. When Matthew says, “Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile,” he appears to conflate the two, because Jehoiakim, not Jeconiah, had brothers, but the exile was in the time of Jeconiah. While some see this as a mistake, others argue that the omission was once again deliberate, ensuring that the kings after David spanned exactly fourteen generations.<ref name="nolland1997"/>

The final tesseradecad seems to contain only thirteen generations. Since it is unlikely that Matthew simply miscounted, a number of explanations have been proposed. A name may have been counted both at the end of one tesseradecad and the beginning of the next—either David or Jeconiah. Or if Josiah’s son was intended as Jehoiakim, then Jeconiah could be counted separately after the exile.<ref name="nolland"/> Another possibility is that Mary is counted as a generation, proceeding laterally by her marriage to Joseph. Though such a reckoning is otherwise unknown, it may have seemed necessary in light of the virgin birth.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref> Some have even proposed that Matthew’s original text had one Joseph as the father of Mary, who then married another man of the same name.<ref name="blair">http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

If only thirteen generations span the time from Jeconiah, born about 616 BC, to Jesus, born about 2 BC, as Matthew says, the average generation would be nearly fifty years—rather unlikely, though not impossible. It is generally assumed that, as Matthew has previously taken certain liberties, he continues to do so in this section, omitting several generations. Precedent for such abridged genealogies is found in the Old Testament.<ref>For example, Ezra’s, Template:Niv (cf. Template:Niv).</ref> The lack here of papponymic naming patterns, which were common throughout this period, may indicate that Matthew has telescoped this segment by collapsing such repetitions.<ref name="albright">http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Virgin birth

|{{#if:|, | and }}[[{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{3}}}|{{{3}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{4}}}|{{{4}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{5}}}|{{{5}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{6}}}|{{{6}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{7}}}|{{{7}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{8}}}|{{{8}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{9}}}|{{{9}}}]]}}{{#if:

The Gospels declare that Jesus was begotten not by Joseph, but by the power of the Holy Spirit while Mary was still a virgin, in fulfillment of prophecy. Thus, in mainstream Christianity, Jesus is regarded as being literally the “only begotten son”<ref>Template:Niv.</ref> of God, while Joseph is regarded as his adoptive father.

Matthew immediately follows the genealogy of Jesus with:

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.<ref>Template:Niv.</ref>

Likewise, Luke tells of the Annunciation:

“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.”<ref>Template:Niv.</ref>

The question then arises, why do both gospels seem to trace the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, when they deny that he is his biological father? Augustine considers it a sufficient answer that Joseph was the father of Jesus by adoption, his legal father, through whom he could rightfully claim descent from David.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Tertullian, on the other hand, argues that Jesus must have descended from David by blood through his mother Mary.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref> He sees Biblical support in Paul’s statement that Jesus was “born of a descendant of David according to the flesh”.<ref>Template:Niv.</ref> Affirmations of Mary’s Davidic ancestry are found early and often,<ref>http://www.bible.net.au http://www.bible.net.au</ref> and some see a strong implication in these sources that at least one evangelist actually records Jesus’ maternal ancestry.

The Ebionites, a sect who denied the virgin birth, used a gospel which, according to Epiphanius, was a recension of Matthew that omitted the genealogy and infancy narrative.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Extra-biblical accounts

The Bible says nothing explicitly about the ancestry of Mary, nor does it address the apparent inconsistency between the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. There are, however, several early sources offering further details.

Patristic

The apocryphal Protevangelium of James (probably of the second century) tells of the miraculous birth of Mary to her parents, Joachim and Anne. It further relates that Joseph, before his marriage to Mary, was an elderly widower with children of his own. Joachim and Anne, who were eventually accepted into the canon of saints, are named in a number of other early sources<ref>Besides the apocryphal nativity narratives, the earliest seems to be http://www.bible.net.au</ref> as Mary’s parents, but this apocryphal text, which was later condemned, was so widely influential that it is not clear whether the names rest on any other independent tradition.

Africanus, writing in the third century, is the first to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the two gospel genealogies. Citing the records of the desposyni, he details a levirate marriage:

Matthan and Melchi, having taken the same woman to wife in succession, begat children who were uterine brothers, as the law did not prevent a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another. By Estha, then—for such is her name according to tradition—Matthan first, the descendant of Solomon, begets Jacob; and on Matthan’s death, Melchi, who traces his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, having married her, as has been already said, had a son Eli. Thus, then, we shall find Jacob and Eli uterine brothers, though of different families. And of these, the one Jacob having taken the wife of his brother Eli, who died childless, begat by her the third, Joseph—his son by nature and by account. Whence also it is written, “And Jacob begat Joseph.” But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob his brother raised up seed to him.<ref name="africanus">http://www.bible.net.au</ref><ref>Johnson, however, gives a text with much the same passage, to which, he suggests, Africanus may have been responding: http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

A Jewish tradition relating Mary to Luke’s genealogy is recorded in the Doctrina Jacobi (written in 634), in which a Tiberian rabbi mocks the Christian veneration of Mary by recounting her genealogy according to the tradition of the Jews of Tiberias.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au (PO 40.67–68). Translated in part by http://www.bible.net.au</ref> A century later, John of Damascus and others report the same information, only inserting an extra generation, Barpanther (Aramaic for son of Panther, thus indicating a misunderstood Aramaic source).<ref>http://www.bible.net.au http://www.bible.net.au (PG 97.916). http://www.bible.net.au (PG 120.189). The last apparently draws from a lost work of Cyril of Alexandria, perhaps via Hippolytus of Thebes.</ref> A certain prince Andronicus later found the same polemic in a book belonging to a rabbi named Elijah:<ref name="andronicus">http://www.bible.net.au (PG 113.859–860). The author of this dialogue is now believed to be a nephew of Michael VIII living about 1310.</ref>

Why do Christians extol Mary so highly, calling her nobler than the Cherubim, incomparably greater than the Seraphim, raised above the heavens, purer than the very rays of the sun? For she was a woman, of the race of David, born to Anne her mother and Joachim her father, who was son of Panther. Panther and Melchi were brothers, sons of Levi, of the stock of Nathan, whose father was David of the tribe of Judah.<ref>Translation from http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Each of these texts then goes on to describe, just as in Africanus (but omitting the name of Estha), how Melchi was related to Joseph through a levirate marriage.

Template:Chart/start Template:Chart Template:Chart Template:Chart Template:Chart Template:Chart Template:Chart Template:Chart Template:Chart Template:Chart Template:Chart Template:Chart Template:Chart Template:Chart Template:Chart Template:Chart/end

Oddly, Melchi is thus always described as the father of Eli, while Luke reads “Eli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi.” Bede assumed that Africanus was mistaken and corrected Melchi to Matthat.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref> Since papponymics were common in this period,<ref name="sivertsen">http://www.bible.net.au</ref> however, it would not be surprising if Matthat were also named Melchi after his grandfather.

Controversy has surrounded the name Panther mentioned above, because of a charge by Celsus (writing about 178) that Jesus was actually an illegitimate son of a soldier named Panther.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref> Epiphanius, in refutation of Celsus, writes that Joseph and Cleopas were sons of “Jacob, surnamed Panther.”<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref> A connection is often seen to the Ben Pandera mentioned in the Talmud.

A distinct tradition is found in the Cave of Treasures, probably composed in Syriac about the third century. The genealogy of Jesus from Adam down to Mary is given much as in Matthew, with the omissions filled in and, remarkably, the mother of each generation provided. Mary is made a cousin of Joseph, as her father Jonachir was a son of Matthan and twin brother of Jacob. Mary’s mother is identified as Anne (Ḥana), daughter of Paqud.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au See the commentary in http://www.bible.net.au An older English translation is given by http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Fascination with the life and family of Anne led to the spread of numerous medieval legends about her and inspired the artistic motif of the Holy Kinship. A number of medieval sources offer conflicting accounts of the parents of Anne:

• Byzantine sources record a tradition showing precisely how Mary was related to Elizabeth.<ref>The earliest are of the eighth century: http://www.bible.net.au (PG 97.1325); and http://www.bible.net.au (PG 120.189).</ref> Andronicus quotes this passage from the same book:<ref name="andronicus"/>

  There were three sisters of Bethlehem, daughters of Matthan the priest, and Mary his wife, under the reign of Cleopatra and Sosipatrus, before the reign of Herod, the son of Antipater: the eldest was Mary, the second was Sobe, the youngest’s name was Anne. The eldest being married in Bethlehem, had for daughter Salome the midwife; Sobe the second likewise married in Bethlehem, and was the mother of Elizabeth; last of all the third married in Galilee, and brought forth Mary the mother of Christ.<ref>Translation from http://www.bible.net.au http://www.bible.net.au (PG 145.760), also records this passage, citing Hippolytus of Portus—actually Hippolytus of Thebes, according to http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

• The Cave of Treasures, as noted above, names Anne’s father as Paqud son of Eleazar.
• The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew names her father as Issachar of the tribe of Judah.<ref>Pseudo-Matthew 1:2.</ref> Later elaborations name her mother as Susanna.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref>
• By the fifteenth century, another account was current naming her parents as Stollanus and Emerentia.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref>
• Anne Catherine Emmerich, a nineteenth-century mystic, claimed to have visions revealing the ancestry of Mary in some detail—combining several medieval versions, she names Anne’s parents as Eliud and Ismeria.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Islam

|{{#if:|, | and }}[[{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{3}}}|{{{3}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{4}}}|{{{4}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{5}}}|{{{5}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{6}}}|{{{6}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{7}}}|{{{7}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{8}}}|{{{8}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{9}}}|{{{9}}}]]}}{{#if:

The Qurʼan upholds the virgin birth of Jesus (ʻĪsā)<ref>Template:Cite quran.</ref> and thus considers his genealogy only through Mary (Maryam), without mentioning Joseph.

Mary is very highly regarded in the Qurʼan, the nineteenth sura being named for her. She is called a daughter of ʻImrān,<ref>Template:Cite quran;Template:Cite quran.</ref> whose family is the subject of the third sura. The same Mary (Maryam) is also called a sister of Aaron (Hārūn) in one place,<ref>Template:Cite quran.</ref> and although this is often seen as an anachronistic conflation with the Old Testament Miriam (having the same name), who was sister to Aaron (Hārūn) and daughter to Amram (ʻImrān), the phrase is probably not to be understood literally.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Explanations for divergence

The two Biblical genealogies seem to disagree not only on on the name of Joseph’s father, but on the entire lineage back to David.

This apparent contradiction has been a source of great difficulty.<ref>A famous example is the anti-Christian polemic of the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate, Against the Galileans.</ref> Augustine, for example, took great care on several occasions to refute every purported inconsistency in the gospel genealogies, not only because the Manichaeans in his day were using these inconsistencies as fodder for attacking Christianity,<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref> but also because he himself had seen them in his youth as cause for doubting the veracity of the Gospels.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Several theories have been advanced to explain the divergence of the two gospel genealogies, most notably:

1. That Joseph had two fathers—one natural and one legal—as a result of a levirate marriage involving uterine brothers.
2. That the legal line of inheritance is traced throughout one of the genealogies.
3. That Luke’s genealogy is actually through Mary rather than her husband Joseph.
4. That Matthew’s genealogy is actually through Mary rather than her husband Joseph.
5. That one or both of the genealogies are incorrect.

Levirate marriage

The earliest tradition that explains this divergence records a complex scenario involving the Jewish law of levirate marriage, whereby, upon the death of a childless man, his brother would marry the widow in order to produce a son for the deceased man. Such a son would then have two fathers, one natural and one legal.

Africanus, in his third-century Epistle to Aristides,<ref name="africanus"/> reports a tradition of the desposyni that Joseph was born from just such a levirate marriage involving uterine brothers (see above).

According to Africanus, Joseph’s natural father was Jacob son of Matthan, as given in Matthew, while his legal father was Eli son of Melchi (sic), as given in Luke. Joseph’s grandmother Estha first married Matthan and bore Jacob, then married Melchi and bore Eli. When Eli died without issue, his half-brother Jacob married the widow and begot Joseph.

To many,Template:Who the whole scenario seems rather contrived, as the only explanation for how, under Jewish law, a man could have two completely different ancestries. It has been questioned, for example, whether levirate marriages actually occurred among uterine brothers<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref>—they are expressly excluded in the Mishnah.<ref>Template:Ws</ref>

Nevertheless, the patristic tradition eagerly embraced this explanation, and it remained widely accepted until the Reformation.Template:Citation needed

Legal inheritance

An explanation now widely favored is that Matthew traces not a genealogy in the modern biological sense, but a record of legal inheritance, equally valid in his view, showing the succession of Jesus in the royal line.

Matthew’s immediate goal is therefore not David, but Jeconiah, and in his final tesseradecad, he may freely jump to a maternal grandfather, skip generations, or perhaps even follow an adoptive lineage in order to get there.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref> Attempts have been made to reconstruct Matthew’s route, from the seminal work of Lord Hervey<ref name="hervey">http://www.bible.net.au</ref> to Masson’s recent tour de force,<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref> but all are necessarily highly speculative.

As a starting point, one of Joseph’s two fathers could be by simple adoption, as Augustine suggests, or more likely the special adoption by a father-in-law with no sons, or could be a maternal grandfather<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref>. On the other hand, the resemblance between Matthan and Matthat suggests they are the same man (in which case Jacob and Eli are either identical or full brothers involved in a levirate marriage), and Matthew’s departure from Luke at that point can only be to follow legal line of inheritance, perhaps through a maternal grandfather. Such reasoning could further explain what has happened with Zerubbabel and Shealtiel.<ref name="hervey">http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Maternal ancestry in Luke

A more straightforward explanation is that Luke’s genealogy is of Mary, with Eli being her father, while Matthew’s describes the genealogy of Joseph.<ref name="cathen"/>

Luke’s text says that Jesus was “a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Eli” (in the Greek: υιος ως ενομιζετο ιωσηφ του ηλι{{#if:|

|[[Category:Articles containing {{#switch:grc
 |ar       = Arabic
 |es       = Spanish
 |de       = German
 |fr       = French
 |ja       = Japanese
 |zh       = Chinese
 |bg       = Bulgarian
 |cs       = Czech
 |da       = Danish
 |nl       = Dutch
 |et       = Estonian
 |fi       = Finnish
 |el       = Greek
 |hu       = Hungarian
 |ga       = Irish
 |grc      = Ancient Greek
 |la|lat   = Latin
 |cy       = Welsh
 |en|eng   = explicitly cited English 
 |#default = {{#ifexist:Category:Articles containing Template:ISO 639 name grc language text
  |Template:ISO 639 name grc
  |non-English
 }}
}} language text]]

}}).<ref>Template:Niv.</ref> The qualification has traditionally been understood as acknowledgment of the virgin birth, but some instead see a parenthetical expression: “a son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Eli.”<ref>http://www.bible.net.au offers this interpretation, that Luke calls Jesus a son of Eli, without making the leap to explain why.</ref> In this interpretation, Jesus is called a son of Eli because Eli was his maternal grandfather, his nearest male ancestor.<ref name="cathen"/> A variation on this idea is to explain “Joseph son of Eli” as meaning a son-in-law,<ref name="lightfoot">http://www.bible.net.au</ref> perhaps even an adoptive heir to Eli through his only daughter Mary.<ref name="nolland2005">http://www.bible.net.au considers this harmonization “the most attractive.”</ref> An example of the Old Testament use of such an expression is Jair, who is called “Jair son of Manasseh”<ref>Template:Niv; Template:Niv; Template:Niv.</ref> but was actually son of Manasseh’s granddaughter.<ref>Template:Niv;Template:Niv.</ref> In any case, the argument goes, it is natural for the evangelist, acknowledging the unique case of the virgin birth, to give the maternal genealogy of Jesus, while expressing it a bit awkwardly in the traditional patrilinear style.

Lightfoot<ref name="lightfoot"/> sees confirmation in an obscure passage of the Talmud,<ref>j. Hagigah 77d.</ref> which, as he reads it, refers to “Mary daughter of Eli”; however, both the identity of this Mary and the reading are doubtful.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref> Patristic tradition, on the contrary, consistently identifies Mary’s father as Joachim. It has been suggested that Eli is short for Eliakim,<ref name="cathen"/> which in the Old Testament is an alternate name of King Jehoiakim,<ref>Template:Niv.</ref> for whom Joachim is named.

The theory neatly accounts for the genealogical divergence while accepting the text of the Gospel. It is consistent with the early tradition ascribing a Davidic ancestry to Mary. It is also consistent with Luke’s intimate acquaintance with Mary, in contrast to Matthew’s focus on Joseph’s perspective. On the other hand, there is no explicit indication whatsoever, either in the Gospel or in any early tradition, that the genealogy is Mary’s.

The claim that Luke gives Mary’s genealogy is mentioned in a single extant medieval text, in which pseudo-Hilary cites it as an opinion held by many, though not himself.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au apud http://www.bible.net.au</ref> This claim was revived by Annius of Viterbo in 1498<ref>http://www.bible.net.au In this notorious forgery, Joachim is identified as Eli in a passage ascribed to Philo.</ref> and quickly grew in popularity. It has gained acceptance by countless scholars (though by no means all<ref>Raymond E. Brown called it a "pious deduction"; and Joachim Gnilka "the desperation of embarrassment". Cited in Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: The Christbook, Matthew 1-12 (Eerdmans, 2004), page 21-22. See also Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ (Eerdmans, 2003), page 273.</ref>), and remains the most frequently cited harmonization of the Gospel genealogies.

Maternal ancestry in Matthew

A minority view holds that while Luke gives the genealogy of Joseph, Matthew gives the genealogy of Mary. A few ancient authorities seem to offer this interpretation.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au http://www.bible.net.au But already the possibility is excluded by http://www.bible.net.au</ref> Although the Greek text as it stands is plainly against it, it has been proposed that in the original text Matthew had one Joseph as Mary’s father and another as her husband. This neatly explains not only why Matthew’s genealogy differs from Luke’s, but also why Matthew counts fourteen generations rather than thirteen. Blair sees the various extant versions as the predictable result of copyists repeatedly attempting to correct an apparent mistake.<ref name="blair"/> Others argue that here the Aramaic original of Matthew used the word gowra (which could mean father), which, in the absence of vowel markings, was read by the Greek translator as gura (husband).<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref> In any case, an early understanding that Matthew traced Mary’s genelaogy would explain why the contradiction between Matthew and Luke apparently escaped notice until the third century.

Fabrication or error

A common explanation for the inconsistency of the two genealogies is that at least one of them, and possibly both, are incorrect, perhaps even fabricated.

Of the two, Matthew is considered the more suspect, since here a more active editor has produced a genealogy that is more flattering yet less plausible. Gundry regards the series of unknown names connecting Joseph’s grandfather to Zerubbabel as an outright fabrication, produced by collecting and then modifying various names from 1 Chronicles.<ref name="gundry">http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Nor is Luke above suspicion. Sivertsen, while accepting that Matthew’s version may derive from temple records, sees Luke’s as artificially pieced together out of oral traditions. The pre-exilic series Levi, Simeon, Judah, Joseph consists of the names of tribal patriarchs, far more common after the exile than before, while the name Mattathias and its variants begin at least three suspiciously similar segments.<ref name="sivertsen"/> Kuhn likewise suggests that the two series Jesus–Mattathias (77–63) and Jesus–Mattatha (49–37) are duplicates.<ref>As summarized in http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel

|{{#if:|, | and }}[[{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{3}}}|{{{3}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{4}}}|{{{4}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{5}}}|{{{5}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{6}}}|{{{6}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{7}}}|{{{7}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{8}}}|{{{8}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{9}}}|{{{9}}}]]}}{{#if:

The genealogies in Luke and Matthew appear to briefly converge at Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, though they differ both above Shealtiel and below Zerubbabel. This is also the point where Matthew departs from the Old Testament record.

In the Old Testament, Zerubbabel was a hero who led the Jews back from Babylon about 520 BC, governed Judah, and rebuilt the temple. Several times he is called a son of Shealtiel.<ref>Template:Niv; Template:Niv; Template:Niv.</ref> He appears once in the genealogies in the Book of Chronicles,<ref>Template:Niv.</ref> where his descendants are traced for several generations, but the passage has a number of difficulties.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref> While the Septuagint text here gives his father as Shealtiel, the Masoretic text instead substitutes Shealtiel’s brother Pedaiah—both sons of King Jeconiah, according to the passage. Some, accepting the Masoretic reading, suppose that Pedaiah begot a son for Shealtiel through a levirate marriage, but most scholars now accept the Septuagint reading as original, in agreement with Matthew and all other accounts.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

The appearance of Zerubbabel and Shealtiel in Luke may be no more than a coincidence of names (Zerubbabel, at least, is a very common Babylonian name<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref>). Shealtiel is given a completely different ancestry, and Zerubbabel a different son. Furthermore, interpolation between known dates would put the birth of Luke’s Shealtiel at the very time when the celebrated Zerubbabel led the Jews back from Babylon. Thus, it is likely that Luke’s Shealtiel and Zerubbabel were distinct from, and perhaps even named after, Matthew’s.<ref name="cathen"/>

If they are the same, as many insist, then the question arises of how Shealtiel, like Joseph, could have two fathers. Yet another complex levirate marriage has often been invoked.<ref name="cathen"/> Bauckham, however, argues for the authenticity of Luke alone. In this view, the genealogy in Chronicles is a late addition grafting Zerubbabel onto the lineage of his predecessors, and Matthew has simply followed the royal succession. In fact, Bauckham says, Zerubbabel’s legitimacy hinged on descending from David through Nathan rather than through the prophetically cursed ruling line.<ref name="bauckham"/>

The name Rhesa, given in Luke as the son of Zerubbabel, is usually seen as the Aramaic word rēʾšāʾ, meaning head or prince. It might well befit a son of Zerubbabel, but some see the name as a misplaced title of Zerubbabel himself.<ref name="bauckham"/> If so, the next generation in Luke, Joanan, might be Hananiah in Chronicles. Subsequent names in Luke, as well as Matthew’s next name Abiud, cannot be identified in Chronicles on more than a speculative basis.

Fulfillment of prophecy

|{{#if:|, | and }}Messianic prophecy in Christianity}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{3}}}|{{{3}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{4}}}|{{{4}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{5}}}|{{{5}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{6}}}|{{{6}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{7}}}|{{{7}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{8}}}|{{{8}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{9}}}|{{{9}}}]]}}{{#if:

By the time of Jesus, it was already commonly understood that several prophecies in the Old Testament promised a Messiah descended from King David.<ref name="juel"/><ref>See Template:Niv; Template:Niv.</ref> Thus, in tracing the Davidic ancestry of Jesus, the Gospels aim to show that these messianic prophecies are fulfilled in him.

The prophecy of Nathan<ref>Template:Niv.</ref>—understood as foretelling a son of God who would inherit the throne of his ancestor David and reign forever—is quoted in Hebrews<ref>Template:Niv.</ref> and strongly alluded to in Luke’s account of the Annunciation.<ref>Template:Niv.</ref> Likewise, the Psalms<ref>Template:Niv; Template:Niv.</ref> record God’s promise to establish the seed of David on his throne forever, while Isaiah<ref>Template:Niv.</ref> and Jeremiah<ref>Template:Niv.</ref> speak of the coming reign of a righteous king of the house of David.

David’s ancestors are also understood as progenitors of the Messiah in several prophecies.<ref name="juel"/> Isaiah’s description of the branch or root of Jesse<ref>Template:Niv.</ref> is cited twice by Paul as a promise of the Christ.<ref>Template:Niv; Template:Niv.</ref> Even Genesis is seen as promising the Messiah’s descent from Judah<ref>Template:Niv, alluded to in Template:Niv.</ref> and from Abraham<ref>Template:Niv, cited in Template:Niv.</ref>. In the earliest messianic prophecy of all, immediately after the sin of Adam and Eve, God promises that the serpent’s head will be crushed by “the seed of the woman”<ref>Template:Niv.</ref>—in the simplest sense, this refers to Eve, the first woman, but Christian exegesis sees a reference to Mary.

More controversial are the prophecies on the Messiah’s relation, or lack thereof, to certain of David’s descendants:

• God promised to establish the throne of King Solomon over Israel forever<ref>Template:Niv.</ref>, but the promise was contingent upon obeying God’s commandments.<ref>Template:Niv; Template:Niv; Template:Niv.</ref> Solomon’s failure to do so is explicitly cited as a reason for the subsequent division of his kingdom.<ref>Template:Niv.</ref> Thus, although the Messiah still could descend from Solomon, there was no guarantee.
• Against King Jehoiakim, Jeremiah prophesied, “He shall have no one to sit on the throne of David,”<ref>Template:Niv.</ref> and against his son King Jeconiah, “Write this man childless, a man who will not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed will prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah.”<ref>Template:Niv.</ref> Some see this prophecy as permanently disqualifying Jeconiah from the ancestry of the Messiah (though not necessarily of Joseph).<ref>For example, http://www.bible.net.au</ref> More likely, the curse was limited to Jeconiah’s lifetime, and even then, rabbinical tradition has it that Jeconiah repented in exile and the curse was lifted.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref>
• To Zerubbabel, God declares through Haggai, “I will make you like my signet ring,” in clear reversal of the prophecy against his grandfather Jeconiah, “though you were a signet ring on my right hand, yet I would pull you off.”<ref>Template:Niv (cf. Template:Niv).</ref> Zerubbabel ruled as governor, though not as king, and has been regarded by many as a suitable and likely progenitor of the Messiah.

The promise to Solomon, if applicable, argues against Luke, while Jeconiah’s curse, if applicable, argues against Matthew. Yet evidently neither evangelist found his respective genealogy incompatible with these prophecies.

Matthew also presents the virgin birth of Jesus as fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, which he quotes.<ref>Template:Niv, citing Template:Niv.</ref>

Desposyni

|{{#if:|, | and }}[[{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{3}}}|{{{3}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{4}}}|{{{4}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{5}}}|{{{5}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{6}}}|{{{6}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{7}}}|{{{7}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{8}}}|{{{8}}}]]}}{{#if:
|{{#if:|, |, and }}[[{{{9}}}|{{{9}}}]]}}{{#if:

Desposyni (Greek δεσπόσυνοι, desposynoi, “those of the master”) is a term used uniquely by Africanus<ref name="africanus"/> to refer to the relatives of Jesus. The Gospels mention four brothers of Jesus—James, Joses, Simon, and Jude<ref>Template:Niv; Template:Niv.</ref>—along with sisters, named by Epiphanius<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref> as Mary and Salome. These and their descendants were prominent in the early Church down to the second century.<ref name="bauckham2">http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

Since ancient times, it has been debated precisely how these siblings were related to Jesus, or rather to Joseph and Mary, with her perpetual virginity at issue. There are three principal views on who these siblings were, named for their respective proponents:<ref name="bauckham2"/>

• The Helvidian view—subsequent children of Joseph and Mary.
• The Epiphanian view—children of Joseph by a previous marriage.
• The Hieronymian view—first cousins of Jesus, and that Joseph was himself a virgin.<ref>http://www.bible.net.au</ref>

There is no suggestion in ancient sources that Jesus himself had any physical children, but the theory that a bloodline of Jesus survived down through the ages has been popularized in recent decades, most notably in the widely debunked<ref name="CBS">http://www.bible.net.au</ref> book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.

See also

• Genealogies of Genesis
• Tree of Jesse — Christ’s ancestry in art
• Timeline of the Bible

Notes

External links

Template:Wikisource1913CatholicEnc Template:Commons category

• Information on the Michelangelo frescoes
• Multiple translations
• Anne Catherine Emmerich, Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary
• Bible Study Manual on Genealogy of Jesus
• Genealogy of Jesus at Complete-Bible-Genealogy.com
• Dueling Genealogies Why there are two different genealogies for Jesus.
• New Light on the Genealogies of Jesus