Thursday, April 05, 2007

Genealogy Quote #4

The following are excerpts from a Bible discussion forum where a Christian made the standard claim that the Luke 3 genealogy is the genealogy of Mary.
Since the text of Luke 3 says nothing of the sort, apologetics are required to make the square peg of assertion fit into the round hole of actual text.

Christian wrote:
….to track the lineage of the "Seed" you must track the Female.
There are other cases like Ruth, and Ester.
Joseph is not the son of Heli.

Please provide the comprehensive genealogy of any women as outlined in the Bible.
The author of Luke admits in Luke 1:1-4 that he is passing along second hand reports.
As others have noted, there is nothing in the Luke genealogy which says anything about Mary.
Joseph is listed as the son of Heli, and not listed as his son-in-law.
The allegedly inspired author of Luke claims he is writing to confirm the "certainty" of things for his reader, yet manages to misrepresent Joseph by recording him as the son of Heli instead of his son-in-law.
I haven't seen one mainstream Bible which states Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, nor have I seen any footnote saying that although the text states Joseph was the son of Heli, it really means son-in-law.
If you desire to engage in special pleading that the genealogy in Luke 3 has been mistranslated(i.e. doesn't mean what it says), then you should provide at least one mainstream Bible as evidence for this assertion, otherwise it's simply an unsupported claim.
The biological rights to the throne were also to be passed through Solomon, who isn't listed anywhere in the Luke genealogy.
Luke sends the genealogy through Nathan instead.
You need to provide scriptural support that God changed his mind and decided to pass the throne through Nathan instead of Solomon as he promised.

He is the son-in-law. The word "son" is not even in that verse of Luke in the original.
I have mentioned this before.

Why have all the mainstream Bibles mistranslated the "original"?
[Note: The "original" being referred to here states:
Luke 3:23-25(Darby)
And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli(Heli), of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi, of Janna, of Joseph, of Mattathias, of Amos, of Naoum, of Esli, of Naggai,

The phrase "Joseph of Heli" doesn't mean son-in-law of Heli any more than "Heli of Matthat" means Heli was the son-in-law of Matthat. Every mainstream Bible translates "of Heli" to be "son of Heli".
For example, this is verbatim(word for word) from Young's Literal Translation:
Luke 3:23-24
And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph,
the [son] of Eli, the [son] of Matthat, the [son] of Levi, the [son] of Melchi, the [son] of Janna, the [son] of Joseph,

From the KJV:
Luke 3:23-24
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

And when you where married into a family; you became their son or daughter as well. this is why the word son was used in translation of Luke.

You haven't provided any scriptural support for the claim Joseph was the son-in law of Heli.
All you've done is to simply assert he was.

The lineage of women in the Bible is so rare; that when it does happen; it is of importance.

The genealogy in Luke says nothing about Mary.
You've inserted her into the equation and have mentally rewritten the text to suit your whims.

The fact that Heli was Mary's parent gives strong indication that the Luke account is of Mary's side.

It's a "fact" that Heli was Mary's father?
The text says no such thing anywhere in the New Testament.
You haven't provided any scriptural support that Mary was descended from David or why God changed his mind and decided that women would pass tribal identity and rights to the throne.
Tribal identity was passed through males, not females(Num 1:18). If you want to claim that female genealogy was the determining factor, then you need to provide the scriptural precedent for such a claim.
In other words, provide the genealogy of any woman in the Bible which was used in place of a male genealogy to determine tribal identity, title, and rights to a throne.
As an aside, Jesus never sat on the throne of David or carried out the functions that a promised king was to do.

One wishing to discuss the birth rights and lineages must go back and study the Old Testament.
When looking up the lineage of a woman, does take more time then it does for the lineage of a man.
This is also why the lineage mentioned in Luke is so important.

Provide from the Bible the comprehensive genealogy of a woman where her line is used to pass on a title of king. Also provide scriptural support that Mary was descended from David.

[Commentary is notational(off forum) from this point on.]
Joseph is mentioned instead of Mary because at the end of a lineage since the parents are married; "They two have become one" and the male attributes of authority are taken.
In the time of Jesus; It would have been disrespectful not to mention Joseph. Especially since Joseph is the supposed father

This is a rank speculation which the believer offers no Biblical support for.
Where does the author of Luke, or the translators of any mainstream Bibles put an explanation or a footnote in Luke chapter 3 which says the genealogy is really about Mary and not Joseph?

I was asked,
"But where in the Bible does it say Mary's lineage?"
You have to do the lineage research which Luke did. He had the Old Testament just as we do.
Do what he did. He gave the list. To understand it you need to do his research. This is a tedious thing that most people do not want to do.

These are simply assertions about what "Luke" did.
The fact remains that the genealogy doesn't say anything about Joseph being the son-in-law of Heli.
The allegedly inspired Luke wrote a genealogy about Mary, yet managed to omit her name or any note about Mary being the focus and subject of the genealogy!
Many of the names given in the Luke 3 genealogy don't even agree with the Old Testament genealogy section of 1 Chron 3.

Luke 2:4 says that Joseph went from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be enrolled, "because he was of the house and family of David."
As if to exclude all doubt concerning the Davidic descent of Mary, the evangelist states that the child born of Mary without the intervention of man shall be given "the thrown of David his father" and that the Lord God has "raised up a horn of salvation to us in the house of David his servant"

[Note: From this point on I think this Christian is citing an apologetic text as they refer to the Catholic Encyclopedia.]
Yet, the author of Luke doesn't manage to identify Mary as the subject of the genealogy, nor does he seem to be aware of critical events such as the infant death decree or the flight to Egypt.
Removing all doubt would require that Jesus actually sat on the throne of David, which he never did do.

Paul too testifies that "Jesus Christ was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3).
If Mary were not of Davidic descent, her son conceived by the Holy Ghost could not be said to be "of the seed of David".

That depends on what the believer wants the phrase "according to the flesh" to mean, and it also assumes Paul believed and was writing about a supernatural virgin birth story.
Does it for a fact mean a supernatural impregnation, or does it mean according to the ways of earthly flesh, which involved a human male and human female?
The alleged virgin birth of Jesus certainly wasn't a standard definition of "according to the flesh" but would be more accurately be classified as "according to supernatural events".
Belief in the virgin birth story was not universally accepted by Christians.
The "Ebionites" were an early Jewish Christian sect that believed in Jesus as a product of human parentage and not virgin born.
But specifically relating to Paul, where does Paul ever mention Mary or any of the amazing events surrounding the supernatural impregnation and birth?
Where does Paul say that Jesus had no biological father and was born to a virgin?
Gal 4:4
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a
woman, made under the law,

The verse says made of a woman, not of a virgin.
The verse also says made under the law.
If this is valid, then the seduction of Mary by the Holy Spirit violated the law(Deut 22:23-24).
If God's moral standards are important, why would he involve a woman in the transgression of his law?

Hence commentators tell us that in the text :in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a virgin expoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David" (Luke 1:26-27).
The last clause "of the house of David" does not refer to Joseph, but the virgin who is the principal person in the narrative; thus we have a direct inspired testimony to Mary's Davidic descent.

That's quite an assumption considering the way the text is structured.
Luke 1:27
To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was
Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

The descriptive phrase "of the house of David" follows immediately after the name Joseph.
In order to provide solid evidence it was really referring to Mary, the verse would need to be rewritten to say:
"to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph. The virgin's name was Mary, of the house of David."

Mentally altering this text to make it say Mary was of the house of David is rather dishonest, but it illustrates the lengths Christian apologetics will go to in order to validate it's Biblical "facts".

The Gospel of Luke states that Mary was the cousin of Elisabeth(Luke 1:36), who was a Levite, and not of the house of David.
Mary could just as easily have been a Levite and such an assumption doesn't require mentally moving words around in the same way this apologetic reorders the wording of Luke 1:27 in order to portray that Mary was descended from David.
This believer hasn't provided the scriptural precedent for a woman passing along a kingship, something which she could never possess herself.
Tribal identity was determined by the houses of the fathers as set forth in God's law(Num 1:2,18).

While commentators generally agree that the genealogy found at the beginning of the first Gospel is that of Joseph, Annius of Viterbo proposes the opinion, already alluded to by Augustine, tht Luke's genealogy gives the pedigree of Mary.
The text of the Luke 3:23 may be explained so as to make Heli the father of Mary: "Jesus...Being the son (as it was supposed of Joseph) OF Heli. the father of Mary.or again "Jesus ...being as it was supposed the son of Joseph who was the (son-in-law) of Heli"

The text can be rationalized and mentally rewritten to make it say whatever someone wants it to say.
Unfortunately, desiring a verse to say that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli doesn't make it so.
The in-law relationship was expressed in the Gospel of Luke where merited.
Luke 4:38
And rising up out of the synagogue, he entered into the house of Simon. But Simon's
mother-in-law was suffering under a bad fever; and they asked him for her.

Luke 12:52-53
for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided; three shall be divided against two, and two against three: father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; a
mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

The author of Luke had no problem using an in-law specification where it was warranted and he didn't use it in Luke 3.
The son-in-law designation is also used where it's warranted in the Old Testament.
1 Sam 18:18
And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what is my life, or my father's family in Israel, that I should be
son in law to the king?

The God who allegedly imspired the Bible had no problem identifying an in-law relationship if it was called for, yet in something as vital as the Luke 3 genealogy of Jesus, God decides to leave out the specification that Joseph was really the son-in-law of Heli rather than his son as the inspired text actual states.

Rewriting the text of Luke 3:23 and adding the words "son in law" of Heli violates God's warning to those who wish to alter his word.
Prov 30:5-6
Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

In these explanations the name of Mary is not mentioned explicitly, but it is implied.
For Jesus is the son of Heli through Mary.

It's implied because this believer assumes that there can't be any contradictions in the Bible.
Therefore Mary must be the subject of the Luke 3 genealogy.
By simply assuming what they need to establish as fact, an airtight rationalization system is created.
Under this scenario, "God", who allegedly wants all men to be saved and who isn't the author of confusion, inspired the author of Luke to write a genealogy that obfuscates and confuses who the real subject of the genealogy was.
That doesn't sound like a God who's very serious about his word being a tool for clear understanding.
It is however, an excellent vehicle to employ legions of professional apologists who are required to explain to the masses what God really meant.

Though few commentators adhere to this view of Luke's genealogy, the name of Mary's father, Heli agrees with the name given Mary's father in a tradition founded upon the report of the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Gospel which dates from the end of the second century.

Apparently this believer considers non-Biblical reports and Catholic tradition as valid Biblical canon.
This approach uses church tradition and church approved "reports" to validate church doctrines.
Given that approach, which this believer used to declare as a "fact" that Heli was the father of Mary, it can also be declared a fact that Jesus often kissed Mary Magdalene on the mouth and loved her more than all the disciples.

"...the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended... They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us? the Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you as I love her?"
- Gospel of Phillip

I have the "Lost Books of the Bible" This is where the account of Joachim (a variation of Heli) is found.
If you like I will quote the exact text.

If the lost books of the Bible and Catholic traditions represent additional official words from God, then they should be included in the mainstream Bibles and recognized as canon by all Holy Spirit filled Christians.
Apparently none of the mainstream Bibles have managed to translate Luke 3:23 properly as they show Joseph to be the son of Heli and not his son in law.
Even the new 21st century translation KJV has the same "faulty" and misleading translation as the old KJV as it states in Luke 3:23 that: "Joseph, who was the son of Heli,".
Most Bible editions state that they employ expert scholars to provide accurate translations yet none(that I've read) can translate this critical verse correctly and have it stating what you say the author of Luke really meant.

The author of Luke doesn't refer his reader to any other documents in order to avoid the potential confusion about whose genealogy is really represented in Luke 3.
The author of Luke states in Luke 1:1-4 that he is writing his history to confirm with certainty the things his reader may have been taught.
If a reader had been taught based on the Gospel of Matthew, that Joseph was the son of Jacob, Luke's failure to identify Joseph as really being the son in law of Heli, rather than his son would serve to confuse rather than clarify the facts.
There isn't anything in the Luke 3 genealogy that would indicate Joseph was really the son in law of Heli instead of his son, which is why this believer needed to go outside of the Bible, specifically to the Catholic church, to find support for this speculation.
In light of the scriptural evidence in Luke which demonstrates he could use an in-law designation when it was warranted, the obfuscation becomes even more glaring.
If this believer is inclined to quote writings outside the Bible as also representing the word of God, then perhaps they should promote a new version of the Bible that includes all the proper and valid words of God.

I was told to list Bible references to women in lineage. So I will.
I was also told to ref. lineages which has women in it and also leads to the throne. So I will.

The request was for more than simply references to women in a lineage.
The request was for a comprehensive genealogy of a woman and specifically a woman who passed a kingship.

The list ONLY consist of Gen - 1 Cor.
Gen. 24:15,24,28,47.

The type of examples provided is why the request was specifically made for a comprehensive genealogy that establishes pedigree through several generations.
An example of a comprehensive genealogy/pedigree format is illustrated in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.
Another example can be found in 1 Chron 3:1-24.

These are the examples what were provided as a comprehensive genealogies:

Gen 24:15
And it came to pass, before he had done speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder.

The relationship Nabor-Bethuel-Rebekah isn't a comprehensive genealogy, nor does it illustrate a woman passing rights to a throne.

Gen 24:24
And she said unto him, I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, which she bare unto Nahor.

This is a repeat of the same…Nabor-Bethuel-Rebekah already given in Gen 24:15.
It doesn't add any additional information regarding pedigree.

Gen 24:47
And I asked her, and said, Whose daughter art thou? And she said, the daughter of Bethuel, Nahor's son, whom Milcah bare unto him: and I put the earring upon her face, and the bracelets upon her hands.

Repeats the same information as before.

Gen. 28.:9
Gen. 29:32-35
Gen. 30:21

None of the above represent comprehensive genealogies or are examples of a woman passing rights to the throne.


Ruth was a Moabitess.
What tribal identity did she pass on to Obed?
Was Obed in the tribe of Judah?
Where did his tribal identity come from, Ruth or Boaz?
(i.e.)Did the father or mother pass on tribal identity regarding the child Obed?
Ruth's name in Matthew 1 is incidental and is not presented as a progenitor of tribal identity or rights to the throne.

2 Sam.3:2-5

Where is the comprehensive genealogy of these women?
Is this believer suggesting that the woman Bathsheba passed the title of king to Solomon?
If so, where is this stated?

1 Cr.1:50
1 Cr.2:3-4
1 Cr.2:16-17
1 Cr.2:19,21,25,26,29,
1 Cr.2:34 (No mention of male. There was none. The lineage went through the daughter.)

Nor is there any mention of a throne or title being passed.
The child Attai was the son of Jarha, the man who sired him.
The list then continues with the male offspring.

1 Cr.3:9
These are really just a few. I can expound if you like.

Listing more of the same, none of which are comprehensive genealogies of women and which show no transfer of kingship through a woman, wouldn't be of any use as they don't address the issue.
This believer didn't expound on the other key point, which was where God told Moses to determine pedigree by the house of the mother rather than the father.
Where are women the determining factor of tribal identity in the following instructions of God:
Num 1:2,18
Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the
house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;
And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families,
by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.

While fundamentalist Christianity advertises the Bible as the absolute and authoritative Word of God, the Luke 3 genealogy and the Christian claim that it really represents the genealogy of Mary illustrates the type of rationalizations that believers are required to manufacture in order to keep the illusion of fundamentalist dogma alive and well.
Given the rationalizations presented by this believer, fundamentalist Christianity is in no position to claim the Bible as the absolute word of anything, and certainly not the word of an allegedly infallible deity that wanted to make "his" word clear for all humanity.

Source : Brad

No comments: