"Don't call me stupid ..."

... as the immortal line from Kevin Kline goes in "A fish called Wanda".

Last week the UCT rag magazine had an article which insulted and basically called christians 'stupid' which led to a torrent of responses from indignant and insulted christians. What a mess and all because people fail to distinguish respect of people from respect of beliefs and ideas and then within these two domains, the stupid from the clever.

By way of example, a person with an IQ of below 100 is commonly held to be, dare I say it, 'stupid' in the same way that a person that has an IQ over 140 is commonly held to be a 'genius'. But just because someone is below average in IQ does not mean that it is acceptable to insult or be derogatory of them as people.

Illustrating a 'stupid' belief; if I was of the opinion that if I dropped a ball it would remain suspended in mid-air, people could justifiably consider my opinion to be 'stupid' even though I myself may not be 'stupid'. Unlike calling a person 'stupid'; pointing out unsubstantiated ideas and beliefs as being 'stupid' does not hurt the feelings of the beliefs or ideas. If, however, people holding those beliefs or ideas choose to feel insulted that is an emotional problem where people can't distinguish between what they are and what they believe. Unfortunately, this is a reality that needs to be addressed which isn't so easy.

So while we should not shy away from pointing out ideas and beliefs that are 'stupid' it is not the same as pointing out people to be 'stupid' - that is just insulting behavior and shouldn't be tolerated. If you need to point out the opposing person as stupid rather than the argument they are presenting as stupid; you're the one with the problem or as Desmond Tutu so succinctly put it: "Don't raise your voice. Improve your argument."

http://jv.news24.com/Rapport/Suid-Afrika/0,,752-2460_2474006,00.html
or in english:
http://www.women24.com/Women24/ChatWin/Guest_Columnist/Article/0,,1-2-147-151_21738,00.html

signed kkkkkkkk...Ken

Politics, Religion and Wealth

"Also note this: secularism thrives in an environment that is economically strong, where good education is the norm. Faith thrives on economic uncertainty, and grows best in ignorance. Guess which one of those conditions is easiest to generate and maintain? Cultivating a healthy society that can grow and sustain itself, with a well-informed democratic populace, is hard work. Producing an economic rathole inhabited by frightened sheep is easy — elect a few incompetent leaders, throw away resources on futile, bloody projects, and unchain rapacious business interests to exploit short-term personal gains at the cost of sustainability, and you've got a recipe for a fast slide back into the dark ages."

The quote is from Pharyngula but could so easily have been describing our current government and situation.

The article also refers to the following very interesting interview by Bill Moyers

Catholics come out of the dark ages 500 years after everyone else

I've picked up in the media that there is a new list of mortal sins published by the Vatican as follows:

• Environmental pollution
• Genetic manipulation
• Accumulating excessive wealth
• Inflicting poverty
• Drug trafficking and consumption
• Morally debatable experiments
• Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

I have a couple, ok, more than a couple of questions on this:

• Since the Catholic church is one of the largest landowners worldwide, just how much does one actually have to accumulate to commit the sin of "excessive wealth"? Maybe this list is only meant for catholics but not the Catholic Church itself?
• Does this replace the previous list of mortal sins in which case catholicism is going to be a very attractive spiritual home for many, many people?
• Is pride, envy, gluttony, lust anger, greed and sloth acceptable behaviour now? It would sure sort out all the problems with priests getting caught with their habits down, these habits now being deemed acceptable.
• Does the previous list of mortal sins now become known as the immortal sins and do you achieve immortality if you practice them?
• Exactly how do I go about inflicting poverty on someone? If anyone knows, I have a couple of people (mostly politicians) that I think would seriously benefit from coming to be known as "formerly wealthy".
  

Mustard Seed Faith

In the interests of family harmony, I would recommend that nobody related to me read the following post.

Faith, it seems, is the answer to many awkward questions from a Christians point of view. "Does God exist?", "Absolutely, you just have to have faith" answers the believer.

On the face of it, it's at least an answer which is one better than no answer at all but going back to the bible, the book that seems to lead so many to atheism, we find Matthew 17:19-20 which tells the parable of the mustard seed. Basically if you have even a tiny amount of faith being the analogy of the mustard seed then you would be able to perform great miracles being the analogy of a mountain moving. It goes on to say that "nothing will be impossible for you".

Now here's the rub, we don't see even small miracles let alone something truly outstanding like a mountain (analogy) throwing itself into the sea on the command of someone. From this I have to conclude that people have so little faith as to be unmeasurable because miracles, being a suspension of the natural laws, should be able to be measured. How is it possible to have enough faith to believe that there is a God and yet not have enough to perform even small miracles?

Freedom of speech - Not

Zapiro's take on a recent occurrence where a reporter was fired for presenting a point of view that differed to those of the some of the readers of the newspaper.



For an interesting debate see here

Darwins Angel ...

"John Cornwell is convinced that The God Delusion requires a response that is light-heartedly vigorous" and vigorous it is but rigorous it isn't and most of the Christians that I know would be horrified at the concepts that he espouses in their collective names, my opinion of course. I was particularly amused that he, correctly in my opinion, took Richard Dawkins to task for having a very miserly bibliography but then omitted to have a bibliography at all in his riposte. If this is quality of the response to Richard Dawkins, religion really is on the back foot. Read it for yourself as an education in how not to debate.

Theist 1, Atheist 0

I've been thinking lately about why people want to believe in a religion, it can't be entirely because religion is forced on them by indoctrination, social pressure or other means. If religion was forced onto people they would have long ago rebelled en mass I think. An alternative explanation would be that people actually want to believe. Misguided or not, people seem to want it.
So what is so attractive about religion? I don't have a definitive list but to start with under the general title of "Great Marketing":

Life after death! If you simply utter a few words or perform a ceremony then magically you are entitled to the good life after death. This is great marketing because who is to say that life after death isn't great, it 's not like we can really quiz the dead to find out if it (heaven or hell) even exists so it is pretty difficult to negate this. Theists die and go to Heaven, cool. Atheists just die, period. Not so cool.

No Responsibility! If you as a person do something that you feel is morally reprehensible and you're a theist, just offload it to your deity of choice who kindly takes care of it - it's as if you didn't do it. But the fact is that you did and this is just a way of avoiding the fact that you have not lived up to your own expectations. Theists get forgiven, cool. Atheists just have to live with their own inadequacies, Not so cool.

I am sure that I will find a few more as time goes by which I will blog as I go.

Not that I agree with everything Stephen Weinberg says but ...

Physicist and Nobel prizewinner Stephen Weinberg describes religion as an insult to human dignity. "Without it," he says, "you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
Stephen Weinberg

Blinded by Faith

This, believe it or not, (I assume that the Star newspaper hasn't made the story up) is the true story of several people who by staring into the sun have seriously affected their eyesight. Duh!

The reason that they were staring at the sun is that a local teenager has been making claims of seeing the virgin mary by looking directly into the sun. Quite how she knows it is the virgin mary baffles me but then who am I to tell her that it isn't the virgin mary - I having never actually met the virgin mary.

My problem is this, the church is big on the faith thing. Healing, moving mountains, walking on water etc, etc all of which strain the bounds of credulity. Knowing this, the church simply takes the line that if you don't accept it you just don't have enough faith, you sinner. Well now we have a really good example of people putting their faith where their mouth is - and now they're almost blind.

I challenged a friend of mine to explain why he, as the church representative in our discussion, could possibly think that teaching people to suspend one's natural scepticism of extraordinary events could not eventually lead to situations as above. His reply was that the church teaches that one should 'test everything' which is a fine argument but I suspect that if people actually practiced that, there wouldn't be anywhere near the number of religious people in this world.

If one had to 'test everything' it would lead to the church/mosque/etc having to produce actual evidence of all sorts of things, like does god actually exist, let alone minor issues like water mysteriously turning into wine.

Another soapbox rant, I'll have to go and get my camelhair underwear out and indulge in a little self flaggelation. :-)

Happy atheists, one and all

I've finally worked it out ... we are all atheists. There might be some exceptions of which I can't think, but basically pretty much everyone is an atheist for the following reasons. First of all, I am assuming that the definition of an atheist is one who does not believe in the existence of God/s. So when someone says that they believe in one God or say, a group of Gods, they are effectively saying that they don't believe in any God/s not in that group so it would be fair to say that they are atheistic towards the God/s not in the acceptable group.

:-)

I therefore propose the following definitions:
Atheist - One who does not believe in the existence of any Gods
atheist - One who does not believe in the existence of some God/s
Theist - One who believes in the existence of all Gods

Of course, my tongue is in my cheek!

Jesus' Father Controversy

WARNING - THE FOLLOWING IS VERY BORING

While reading "The God Delusion" by Dawkins he points to the incompatability of the genealogies of Jesus as described in Matthew and Luke as evidence of the fallability of scripture. I couldn't believe that I had absolutely missed this but sure enough they are completely different. This led to an investigation as to why they could possibly be different and there are a few theories floating around which I wanted to follow up on and this became something of a quest which I couldn't let go of even though it was so incredibly boring and to a large extent - pointless. Hopefully, this will be the end of it. I have blogged quoted text from 7 people who have something to say about the topic and if you really have absolutely nothing to do, go ahead and read them. I put them up only as a way of somehow bringing some sort of closure to this since I am now heartily sick of it.

My conclusion (as is that of author #5) is that as things stand the two accounts cannot be reconciled. It would require new evidence of some sort in order to throw some new light on it.

Genealogy Quote #7

A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:

1:1 The opening verse of Matthew’s Gospel introduces its main character and describes his identity in very Jewish terms. The first phrase, “a record of the genealogy” (biblos geneseōs), would more literally be translated “a book of the genesis” (or origin). This phrase has therefore been taken to refer to the entire Gospel or to all of 1:1–4:16, but genesis is not a natural description of the contents of the whole book or of the events of Jesus’ adult life. The NIV understandably limits this heading to the genealogy that follows, but genesis reappears in 1:18 with reference to Jesus’ conception. In the LXX comparable phrases regularly refer both to genealogies and to the narrative material that follows them, but they do not generally refer to entire biblical books (see Gen 5:1a as the introduction to 5:1–9:29). The best interpretation of the opening words of Matthew thus views them as a heading for all of chaps. 1–2. They therefore carry the sense of an account of the origin.

Key Matthean titles for Jesus also appear here in the opening verse. “Christ” is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Meshiach (Messiah), meaning Anointed One. There was a great diversity of Jewish messianic expectation in the first century and previous eras, but one common thread involved liberation of Israel from its enemies.² “Son of David” points to the Messiah’s necessary lineage and royal role (see 2 Sam 7:11b–16). The classic intertestamental illustration of the messianic Son of David appears in Pss Sol 17:21–18:7—a righteous warrior-king who establishes God’s rule in Israel.³ “Son of Abraham” traces Jesus’ lineage back to the founding father of the nation of Israel, thus ensuring his Jewish pedigree from the earliest stage of his people’s history. But echoes are probably also to be heard here of God’s promises to Abraham that his offspring would bless all the peoples of the earth (Gen 12:1–3). “Son of Abraham” also carried messianic overtones as well in at least some intertestamental Jewish circles (e.g., T. Levi 8:15).

Already in this title verse, key themes of chaps. 1–2 are presented in a nutshell. Matthew’s names for Jesus present him as the fulfillment of the hopes and prophecies of Israel but also as one who will extend God’s blessings to Gentiles. His birth marks a new epoch in human history.

2. Genealogy (1:2–17)

The first main portion of the account of Jesus’ origin presents his genealogy in order to validate Matthew’s claims that Jesus is the son of Abraham and of David. The genealogy divides into three sections, as v. 17 makes clear. The times of Abraham, of David, and of the Babylonian exile mark the beginnings of these three periods. The genealogy culminates in the arrival of the Christ (vv. 16–17). Thus all three titles of v. 1 reappear as central elements in the genealogy. The Babylonian exile appears centrally as well, perhaps because Jesus is seen as the climax of the restoration of the nation of Israel from exile.

David, however, is the central figure throughout the genealogy. When one adds up the numerical values of the Hebrew consonants in his name (DVD), one arrives at the number fourteen (4+6+4). This gematria, as ancient Hebrew numerical equivalents to words are termed, probably accounts for the centrality of the number fourteen in Matthew’s genealogy. Each of the three sections contains fourteen generations (v. 17), and David’s name itself is the fourteenth entry. The actual number of generations in the three parts to the genealogy are thirteen, fourteen, and thirteen, respectively; but ancient counting often alternated between inclusive and exclusive reckoning. Such variation was thus well within standard literary convention of the day (for a good rabbinic parallel, see m. ˓Abot 5:1–6). When one compares the genealogy with Luke’s account (Luke 3:23–37) and with various Old Testament narratives, it is clear that Matthew has omitted several names to achieve this literary symmetry. But the verb consistently translated in the NIV “was the father of” (more literally begat) could also mean was the ancestor of. Other differences from Luke are more difficult to explain. Two major proposals concern the divergence of names in the two genealogies: (1) Luke presents Mary’s genealogy, while Matthew relates Joseph’s; (2) Luke has Jesus’ actual human ancestry through Joseph, while Matthew gives his legal ancestry by which he was the legitimate successor to the throne of David. Knowing which of these solutions is more likely probably is impossible unless new evidence turns up.⁴

²Abraham was the father of Isaac,

Isaac the father of Jacob,

Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,

³Judah the father of Perez and Zerah,

whose mother was Tamar,

Perez the father of Hezron,

Hezron the father of Ram,

⁴Ram the father of Amminadab,

Amminadab the father of Nahshon,

Nahshon the father of Salmon,

⁵Salmon the father of Boaz,

whose mother was Rahab,

Boaz the father of Obed,

whose mother was Ruth,

Obed the father of Jesse,

⁶and Jesse the father of King David.

David was the father of Solomon,

whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,

⁷Solomon the father of Rehoboam,

Rehoboam the father of Abijah,

Abijah the father of Asa,

⁸Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,

Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,

Jehoram the father of Uzziah,

⁹Uzziah the father of Jotham,

Jotham the father of Ahaz,

Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,

¹⁰Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,

Manasseh the father of Amon,

Amon the father of Josiah,

¹¹and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.

¹²After the exile to Babylon:

Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,

Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,

¹³Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,

Abiud the father of Eliakim,

Eliakim the father of Azor,

¹⁴Azor the father of Zadok,

Zadok the father of Akim,

Akim the father of Eliud,

¹⁵Eliud the father of Eleazar,

Eleazar the father of Matthan,

Matthan the father of Jacob,

¹⁶and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary,

of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

¹⁷Thus 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.

1:2–17 Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah figure prominently in Gen 12–50. The other male names in vv. 2–6a correspond to 1 Chr 2:3–15. Solomon through Josiah (vv. 6b–11) all appear in 1 Chr 3:10–14 (recalling that Azariah is the same individual as Uzziah—cf., e.g., 2 Kgs 15:1–2 with 2 Chr 26:3—and that there are omissions in Matthew’s list). In vv. 12–16 Jeconiah is a variant form of Jehoiachin, who with Shealtiel and Zerubbabel appear in 1 Chr 3:17–19. But there Zerubbabel is a nephew of Shealtiel, which may suggest that the latter died childless and that the line of succession passed to his brother’s family. In Ezra 3:2, Zerubbabel is legally considered a son of Shealtiel. The rest of the names from Abiud to Jacob are unparalleled, but ancient Jews tried scrupulously to preserve their genealogies; so it is not implausible that Matthew had access to sources that have since been lost.

Deviations from the otherwise repetitive pattern of “X the father of Y” throughout these verses begin with the addition of “and his brothers” to the reference to Judah in v. 2. Obviously, it was natural to speak of all twelve of the sons of Jacob as founding fathers of the tribes of Israel. In v. 3 Zerah appears along with his twin brother Perez, a natural pairing (Gen 38:27–30). In v. 11 Jeconiah also appears with “his brothers,” again a reference to the nation of Israel as a whole at the time of its deportation. Otherwise the most notable break in pattern in Matthew’s genealogy involves the introduction of five women, both unnecessary and unusual in Jewish genealogies. These include Tamar (v. 3; cf. Gen 38), Rahab⁵ (v. 5; cf. Josh 2), Ruth (v. 5; cf. Ruth 3), Bathsheba (v. 6; cf. 2 Sam 11)— referred to only as “Uriah’s wife,” perhaps to remind the reader of David’s adulterous and murderous behavior—and Mary (v. 16).

Why are the first four of these women included? Suggestions have included viewing them as examples of sinners Jesus came to save, representative Gentiles to whom the Christian mission would be extended, or women who had illicit marriages and/or illegitimate children. The only factor that clearly applies to all four is that suspicions of illegitimacy surrounded their sexual activity and childbearing.⁶ This suspicion of illegitimacy fits perfectly with that which surrounded Mary, which Matthew immediately takes pains to refute (vv. 18–25). In fact, the grammar of v. 16 makes clear that Joseph was not the human father of Jesus because the pronoun “whom” is feminine and therefore can refer only to Mary as a human parent of the Christ child.

Within the Gospels, Jewish polemic hinted (John 8:48) and in the early centuries of the Christian era explicitly charged that Jesus was an illegitimate child. Matthew here strenuously denies the charge, but he also points out that key members of the messianic genealogy were haunted by similar suspicions (justified in at least the two cases of Tamar and Bathsheba and probably unjustified in the case of Ruth). Such suspicions, nevertheless, did not impugn the spiritual character of the individuals involved. In fact, Jesus comes to save precisely such people. Already here in the genealogy, Jesus is presented as the one who will ignore human labels of legitimacy and illegitimacy to offer his gospel of salvation to all, including the most despised and outcast of society. A question for the church to ask itself in any age is how well it is visibly representing this commitment to reach out to the oppressed and marginalized of society with the good news of salvation in Christ.⁷

At the same time, Matthew inherently honors the five women of his genealogy simply by his inclusion of them. So it is not enough merely to minister to the oppressed; we must find ways of exalting them and affirming their immense value in God’s eyes.

Source : Quinton Howitt quinton@vineyardbi.org

Genealogy Quote #6

3:23 Unlike Matthew, who placed his genealogy at the very beginning of his Gospel (1:1–17), Luke placed his genealogy between the accounts of Jesus’ baptism and temptation. There is OT precedent for this in Moses’ genealogy (Exod 6:14–25), which is not recorded at the beginning of his life but just before he started his ministry.³²

The genealogy contains seventy-seven ancestors. ³³ The exact arrangement of generations, in contrast to Matt 1:1–17, is uncertain. The intended pattern may be: Jesus to exile (3 x 7 generations); exile to David (3 x 7 generations); David to Abraham (2 x 7 generations); Abraham to Adam, son of God (3 x 7 generations). ³⁴

With this genealogy of Jesus we encounter a classic problem involving the differences between the Matthean and Lukan genealogies. There are several minor differences in form ³⁵ and in content. For example, Matthew’s genealogy stopped at Abraham, whereas Luke’s went back to “Adam, the Son of God”; Matthew added occasional descriptions (cf. 1:3, 5–6, 11–12, 16–17); Luke listed sixty names not found in Matthew. ³⁶

The key issue, however, involves the differences in names between David and Jesus in the two genealogies. Thirty-eight names are different, and most important is the difference in the name of the alleged grandfather of Jesus. According to Matt 1:16 it was Jacob, but according to Luke 3:23 it was Heli. Numerous attempts have been made to explain this. Most scholars think that at present the two lists resist any and all attempts at harmonization. ³⁷ Others seeking to harmonize the two accounts have offered various explanations. ³⁸

The existence of such extensive genealogies in Jesus’ day is well established. The rabbi Hillel was able to trace his genealogy back to David, and Josephus (Life 1.3) also gave his own extensive genealogy. Yet at the present time with the material available, no truly satisfying solution has been brought forward to resolve this difficulty.³⁹

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old. If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod (1:5; Matt 2:1–19) who died in 4 B.C., and if Jesus was born ca. 6 B.C. and began his ministry ca. 28 (see comments on 3:1), Jesus would indeed have been in his early thirties. There does not seem to be here any reference or allusion to David’s age when he began his reign (“thirty years old,” 2 Sam 5:4), and there is even less likely an allusion to Gen 41:46 or Num 4:3. Luke may simply not have been able to be more specific about Jesus’ age.

He began his ministry. Compare Luke 23:5; Acts 1:22; 10:37. Jesus’ ministry began with his anointing by the Spirit.

So it was thought. This assumes that the reader has read Luke 1–2 and knows of the virginal conception. Luke 3:23 was therefore written after Luke 1–2. The best translation seems to be, “Jesus was the son (supposedly) of Joseph, the son of Heli, ” although “Jesus was the son (supposedly of Joseph), of Heli” is possible.

3:24 Matthat. This is the Matthan of Matt 1:15. A major agreement in both genealogies is that Matthat/Matthan was the great-grandfather of Jesus.

3:27 Rhesa. No available records indicate that Zerubbabel had a son by this name.

Neri. Although Matt 1:12 and 1 Chr 3:17–19 name Jeconiah as Zerubbabel’s grandfather, Jer 22:30 may suggest that Jeconiah was childless and that he adopted Neri as son and heir.

3:28–31 The names (up to David) are all different from Matt 1:7–12.

3:32–34 The names in these verses are the same as in Matt 1:2–6 except for Admin [or Ram] and Arni [or Hezron]. The textual variants in Codex Beza, the Itala, and various church fathers probably are due to an attempt to harmonize the Lukan list with that of Matthew.

3:38 The son of Adam. Clearly Luke’s universalistic perspective must be seen here. Jesus is the fulfillment not just of Jewish hopes but of the hopes of all people, both Jew and Gentile. For out of Adam the whole human family has come (cf. Acts 17:26), and Jesus is the son of Adam. Luke (like Paul in Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45–49) obviously thought of Adam as a historical person.

The son of God. For a parallel to this, see Philo, On the Virtues , 204–5. There is a sense in which Adam was a type of Jesus in that he did not have a human father, for the one who gave him life was God himself. Similarly God through his Spirit was the creative power who gave life to his Son, Jesus.

Source : Quinton Howitt quinton@vineyardbi.org

Genealogy Quote #5

At this point there comes, rather surprisingly to the modern reader, a genealogy of Jesus. Ancient writers did not have the device of footnotes, which a modern writer might have utilised at this point. One might have expected a genealogy to have been included in the birth story, but if the first draft of the Gospel began at 3:1, as is suggested by advocates of the Proto-Luke hypothesis, then the inclusion of the genealogy at this point finds a suitable explanation: it occurs after the first mention of the name of Jesus (Streeter, 209). Whether this be the case or not, Luke allowed it to stand here in the final edition of the Gospel, and hence it may have a theological purpose at this point.

1. Various scholars have held that the presence of a genealogy of Jesus in the records is inconsistent with the tradition of the virgin birth; it is then argued that the genealogy represents an earlier stage in Christian thought before the development of the idea of the virgin birth (J. Weiss, 435; M. P. Johnson*, 238, holds that in Lk. 3-24 the tradition of the virgin birth is not taken into account, and the title of Son of God is understood in messianic terms). As we have seen, however, there is no inconsistency in Luke’s mind between the account of the virgin birth and the naming of Joseph as one of the parents of Jesus. From the legal point of view, Joseph was the earthly father of Jesus, and there was no other way of reckoning his descent. There is no evidence that the compilers of the genealogies thought otherwise.

2. J. Jeremias (Jerusalem, 213-221, 275-302) has claimed that genealogical records were kept in the time of Jesus by both priestly and lay families (especially the former), and that such genealogies were not artificial constructions even if errors can be detected in them. The evidence has been re-examined by Johnson who admits that there was a serious concern for purity of descent but contests whether lay families in particular always had genealogical records at their disposal; some records were transmitted orally, and some developed on the basis of midrashic exegesis of biblical texts. These suggestions indicate that we may expect to find symbolical material in the biblical genealogies, but that the attempt to dismiss them out of hand as unhistorical is in no way justified. There is thus a case for raising the question of the historical value of the genealogy of Jesus.

3. At the very outset, however, the possibility of a historical record seems unlikely. The genealogy in Lk. differs very extensively from that in Mt. 1:1-17. It is recorded in the opposite direction, beginning from Jesus and working backwards. It is considerably longer. Not only does it carry back the list beyond Abraham to Adam and then to God (giving a total of 78 names), but for the corresponding periods from Abraham to Jesus Luke has 57 names in comparison with only 41 in Mt. Finally, for the period from David to Jesus, the two lists are in almost total disagreement, coming together with certainty only in the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, and even differing in the names given to Joseph’s father. It is not surprising that the scribe of D replaced the list of names in Lk. with that given by Matthew. There is in fact no wholly satisfactory method of bringing the two lists into harmony with each other.

a. The theory of Annius of Viterbo (AD 1490) was that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary (cf. Hauck, 51-58). On this view, Eli (3:23) was really the father of Mary, and v. 23 must be interpreted to mean either that Joseph was the son-in-law of Eli, or that Jesus was supposedly the son of Joseph but in reality the grandson of Eli (Geldenhuys, 151f.). Neither of these interpretations of the verse is at all plausible, and the theory does not fit in with 1:27 where the Davidic descent of Joseph is stressed.

b. The older solution of Africanus (Eusebius, HE 1:7) utilised the ideas of adoptive and physical descent, and employed the device of levirate marriage to harmonise the two genealogies. According to information which he claimed to have received from the descendants of James, the brother of Jesus, Africanus stated that Matthan (Mt. 1:15) married a certain Estha, by whom he had a son, Jacob; when Matthan died, his widow married Malchi (Lk. 3:24) and had a son Eli (Lk. 3:23; note that Africanus did not apparently know of Levi and Matthat who come between Malchi and Eli in Luke’s list). The second of these two half-brothers, Eli, married, but died without issue; his half-brother Jacob took his wife in levirate marriage, so that his physical son, Joseph, was regarded as the legal son of Eli. Africanus admits that this theory is uncorroborated, but worthy of belief. It is not impossible (despite the criticisms made of it by G. Kuhn*, 225-228; E. L. Abel*, 203 n. 9), but it is improbable, especially if we accept the usual text of Lk.

c. The theory which has gained most support in modern times is that advanced by Lord A. Hervey* (cf. Machen, 202-209, 229-232; F. F. Bruce, NBD 458f.): Matthew gives the legal line of descent from David, stating who was the heir to the throne in each case, but Luke gives the actual descendants of David in the branch of the family to which Joseph belonged. The details of this theory vary in different authors. One method of harmonisation between the two lines of descent is to suppose that Jacob in Matthew’s list was childless, and that Joseph, the physical son of Eli in Luke’s list, was reckoned as his heir. Problems arise at the next stage backwards with regard to Matthat (Lk.) and Matthan (Mt.): were these one and the same person? (See Machen, 207-209, for a discussion of the different possibilities.) There are undoubted difficulties with this theory, but they may not be altogether incapable of solution. But solution depends upon conjecture, and there is no way of knowing whether the conjectures correspond to reality.

It is only right, therefore, to admit that the problem caused by the existence of the two genealogies is insoluble with the evidence presently at our disposal. To regard the lists, however, as merely literary constructions (M. P. Johnson*, 230; Schürmann, I, 200) is to go beyond the evidence.

4. Further problems arise within the Lucan genealogy itself.

a. G. Kuhn* noted that in 3:23-26 and 29-31 there are two roughly parallel lists of names:

1.	Ἰησοῦς	Ἰησοῦς
2.	Ἰωσήφ
3.	Ἠλί	Ἐλιεζέρ
4.		Ἰωρίμ
5.	Ματθάτ	Ματθάτ
6.	Λευί	Λευί
7.	Μελχί	Συμεών
8.	Ἰανναί	Ἰούδας
9.	Ἰωσήφ	Ἰωσήφ
10.	Ματταθίας
11.	Ἀμώς
12.	Ναούμ	Ἰωνάμ
13.	Ἑσλί	Ἐλιακίμ
14.	Ναγγαί	Μελεά
15.	Μάαθ	Μεννά
16.	Ματταθίας	Ματταθά

The close correspondence between the names in pairs 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 16, led Kuhn to conclude that the two lists were originally identical, and he suggested various emendations to make them correspond even more closely. He argued that the second list, which omits Ἰωσήφ in the second place, is the more original and gives a genealogy of Mary, the daughter of Ἠλί (or Ἐλιεζέρ). In the first list Joseph was inserted as the son-in-law of Mary’s father. The corresponding list of names in Mt. was preserved in Joseph’s family.

The effect of this analysis is to confirm that some historical material lies at the basis of Luke’s list, but it has been muddled in transmission. However, there are various objections to it. Several of the proposed equations are unconvincing. Moreover, the fact that on the usual view we have repetitions of the same names at different points in the list is not really a difficulty, since there are plenty of examples of repetition of the same or similar names in Jewish families. Further, there is nothing elsewhere to suggest that Mary was a descendant of David. Finally, if the text of Lk. known to Africanus is sound, Ματθάτ and Λευί should be omitted from v. 24, and this seriously disturbs the alleged parallelism (Jeremias, Jerusalem, 297 n. 98).

b. A more serious difficulty is raised by Jeremias (ibid. 296) who observes that the names of the patriarchs Joseph, Judah, Simon and Levi appear among the descendants of David; we have, however, no evidence that the names of the patriarchs were used in Israel as personal names until after the exile. Hence this part of Luke’s list is anachronistic. If, however, we can attach historical value to 1 Ch. 25:2 we have there the name ‘Joseph’ in the time of David, but most scholars would regard the names listed there as belonging to the Chronicler’s own time.

Consequently, we cannot be sure that the genealogy in Lk. is accurate in detail. Since, however, the Jews of the time made use of midrashic techniques in the formulation of genealogies, it may be that Luke has followed the practice of his time, and should be judged by that practice rather than by modern standards.

5. What, then, is the theological purpose of the genealogy? The way in which the corresponding list in Matthew is framed shows that it was designed to show that Jesus was the offspring of David and a fortiori of Abraham. He thus appears as the Davidic Messiah, and also as the heir of the promises made to Abraham. It may be assumed that similar reasoning underlies the genealogy in Lk., although he has not drawn attention to the significance of Abraham and David in so obvious a way.

That this is so is clear from the structure of the genealogy. If the present text of Lk. is to be trusted, there are 77 names in the list from Jesus to Adam. These fall into 11 groups of 7, namely (in reverse order):

	Adam	—	Enoch
	Methuselah	—	Shelah
	Eber	—	Abraham
	Isaac	—	Admin
	Aminadab	—	David
	Nathan	—	Joseph
	Judah	—	Joshua
	Er	—	Salathiel
	Zerubbabel	—	Mattathias
	Maat	—	Joseph
	Jannai	—	Jesus

When the names are grouped in this way, it will be observed that the significant names fall at the beginning or end of the groups. The arrangement can hardly be accidental. Luke, however, gives no hints of the presence of this arrangement.

Further, the fact that there are 11 groups suggests that the genealogy may reflect a division of world history into 11 ‘weeks’, to be followed by the 12th ‘week’ of the messianic era (cf. 4 Ez. 14:11; SB IV:2, 986f.; Rengstorf, 61). But it is clear that this scheme was not in Luke’s mind, since he presents the names in reverse order, and actually has 78 names (when that of God is included). It follows that Luke did not invent the genealogy, but took it over from a source (cf. Schürmann, I, 203; the possibility of a pre-Lucan significance is overlooked by Johnson, 231-233, when he rejects the idea).

We have, therefore, still to find the significance of the genealogy for Luke. Some have thought that the carrying back of the genealogy to God is a way of indicating that Jesus is the Son of God, so that the genealogy is anchored to 3:22 and 4:3, 9 (M. D. Johnson*, 235-239). But it is most unlikely that Luke thought of the divine sonship of Jesus in such a way. To regard all the names from Joseph to Adam as one gigantic parenthesis (B. Weiss, 301) misses the point of the genealogy, and to regard divine sonship as mediated to Jesus through his ancestors conflicts with the birth story. Hence the point of the genealogy is rather to show that Jesus has his place in the human race created by God. The fact that the genealogy is carried back to Adam, as the son of God, may perhaps point a contrast between this disobedient son of God and the obedient Son of God, Jesus. Hence the thought of Jesus as the Second Adam may be present (J. Weiss, 435; J. Jeremias, TDNT I, 141; Ellis, 93; the only real objection (out of those raised by M. D. Johnson*, 233-235) is that this thought does not play any part in Lucan theology elsewhere). At the same time, we may be sure that the carrying back of the genealogy to Adam is meant to stress the universal significance of Jesus for the whole of the human race, and not merely for the seed of Abraham.

An entirely different note is struck by Johnson, 240-252, when he comments on the way in which the lineage of Jesus passes through David’s son, Nathan, instead of through the royal line. He draws attention to the equating of this Nathan with the prophet Nathan in a number of sources, most of them late, and claims that the intention is to present Jesus as a prophetic figure, in line with Luke’s general emphasis on the prophetic function of Jesus (so, earlier, E. Nestle* and H. Sahlin*, 89). But while there is evidence that the offices of prophet and Messiah were being linked in the first century (E. L. Abel*), there is no evidence that Luke knew of this equation of Nathan, the son of David, with the prophet of the same name, and nothing in the context directs the reader’s eye to the significance of this particular name. Another possibility is that the genealogy deliberately bypasses the kingly line passing through Solomon to Jehoiakim, of whom it was prophesied that no descendant of his would sit on the throne of David (Je. 36:30; cf. 22:30; H. Sahlin*, 90f.). H. Sahlin*, 89, also suggests that the number of priestly names in the genealogy may indicate a desire to show that Jesus was a priestly Messiah.^*

(23) When he began his ministry Jesus was the ‘right’ age for his work, just as he could lay claim to the ‘right’ descent. The opening καὶ αὐτός … Ἰησοῦς is probably meant as a solemn description: ‘And he, namely Jesus’; the αὐτός is unemphatic, indeed unnecessary (1:17 and note), but Luke uses it to draw attention to Jesus (Schürmann, Paschamahlbericht, 100). ἀρχόμενος refers to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, a theme stressed by Luke (Acts 1:22; 10:37). The implication is that the ministry lasted for some time, certainly more than one year. The age of thirty (gen. of age) corresponds with that of David when he began to reign (2 Sa. 5:4; cf. Joseph, Gn. 41:46; the sons of Kohath, Nu. 4:3; Ezekiel, Ezk. 1:1), and hence may suggest that David is here seen as a type of Jesus. The use of ὡσεί (1:56 note; 9:14, 28; 22:41, 59; 23:44) suggests that in this case Luke is conscious of giving a round number. Zahn, 205f., took it as an exact number, and was thereby forced to give an impossible dating for the 15th year of Tiberius. Rabbinic tradition gave Jesus an age of 33-34 years (Sanh. 106b, in SB II, 155).

The phrase ὢν ὑιός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο (or ὤν, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, ὑιός A Θ pm lat; TR; Diglot) may mean that Luke was uncertain of the accuracy of the genealogy as a whole (Eusebius, QE 3:2; M. D. Johnson*, 230f.), or, more probably, that in reality Joseph was not the physical father of Jesus. ὡς ἐνομίζετο may have been added by Luke to his source in order to avoid possible misunderstanding in relation to chs. 1-2. νομίζω is Lucan (2:44*; Acts, 7x; rest of NT, 6x). H. Sahlin’s* suggestion (76f.) that the phrase is a later interpolation is unwarranted.

The omission of the article before Ἰωσήφ led Godet, I, 198-201, (cf. Geldenhuys, 153f.) to the view that the whole phrase ὡς … Ἰωσήφ was a parenthesis, so that Jesus was presented as the son of Eli (understood as his maternal grandfather). In fact, however, the τοῦ is, in each occurrence in the genealogy, not the article with the following noun; it stands in apposition with the preceding noun, so that the structure is: ‘Jesus was the son … of Joseph (who was) the (son) of Eli (who was) the (son) of …’

Ἠλί is Hebrew ‘ēlı̂ (cf. 1 Sa. 1:3; 1 Ki. 2:27; et al.). The identification of the Miriam, daughter of Eli, in j. Hag. 2:77d, 50 (SB II, 155) with Mary, the mother of Jesus, so that Eli would be her father and the father-in-law of Joseph (cf. G. Kuhn*, 209 n.) is very conjectural, and is rejected by P. Billerbeck.

(24) Ματθάτ (3:29**) represents Hebrew mattāṯ. The name is similar to Ματταθά (3:31; 2 Esd. 10:33) and to Ματταθίας (3:25, 26). It also resembles Ματθάν (mattān; cf. 2 Ch. 23:17; Je. 45:1), which occupies the corresponding place in Matthew’s list as the name of Joseph’s grandfather (Mt. 1:15**); see the discussion above. It is not clear whether Λευί (3:29; 5:27, 29*; Hebrew lēwı̂) is an indeclinable form (BD 53¹) or a genitive form from Λευίς (BD 55^1c). This and the preceding name were omitted from the text of Luke known to Africanus (see above) and possibly also from Irenaeus, whose list contained only 72 names (AH 3:32:3); but the omission may have been due to the apparent dittography with v. 29 (Schürmann, I, 203 n. 119). Μελχί (malḵı̂, possibly an abbreviation for malḵiyyâ, G. Kuhn*, 211) also occurs at 3:28**. Ἰανναί** is found here only, and Ἰωσήφ recurs at 3:30.

(25) Ματταθίας (3:26**), i.e. mattiṯyâ, was a common name (2 Esd. 10:43; 18:4; 1 Ch. 9:31; 16:5; 1 Mac. 2:1, 14; et al.; Ep. Arist. 47; Jos., passim). Ἀμώς may represent ’āmôn, the name of the king (2 Ki. 21:18). ’āmôṣ, the father of Isaiah (2 Ki. 19:2) or ‘āmôs, the prophet. In Mt. 1:10 ** it is the name of the king. G. Kuhn’s* suggestion (211) that in Lk. the name is a corruption of Simeon (s̆im‘ôn) is unconvincing. For Ναούμ** (naḥûm) cf. Na. 1:1. Ἑσλί** is otherwise unattested; the nearest equivalent is ’^aṣalyāhû (2 Ki. 22:3; Ἐσσελίας, LXX). For Ναγγαί** cf. Νάγαι (nōgah), 1 Ch. 3:7.

(26) Μαάθ is the equivalent of maḥaṯ (1 Ch. 6:35 (1Ch 6:20); 2 Ch. 29:12; 31:13); in view of this OT usage G. Kuhn’s conjecture that the word is a transliteration of mē’ēṯ, ‘from’, used to indicate a genealogical relationship, is unnecessary and unconvincing. For Ματταθίας, see 3:25. Σεμεΐν** is s̆im‘ı̂ (Ex. 6:17; et al.) or s̆^ema‘yâ (1 Ch. 5:4). Ἰωσήχ** is otherwise unattested. Ἰωδά** may equal y^ehûḏâ (1 Esd. 5:56 (58)) or yôyāḏā‘ (2 Esd. 22:10f.); the name is similar to Ἀβιούδ in Mt. 1:13 (hôḏaywāhû, 1 Ch. 3:24 LXX^A, Ὠδουιά).

(27) Ἰωανάν** is at first sight equivalent to yôḥānān (BD 53²; 2 Esd. 10:6; 2 Ch. 23:1; et al.). But the Hebrew name has the same meaning as ḥ^ananyâ (Ἀνανιά, 1 Ch. 3:19), the divine name being used as prefix and suffix respectively (cf. 2 Ch. 21:7/22:1). The name could then be that of one of Zerubbabel’s sons. In between this name and Zerubbabel, however, stands Ῥησά**. This could be a proper name (riṣyā’, i.e. Ῥασειά, 1 Ch. 7:39; cf. SB II, 156), but, since no son of Zerubbabel with this name is otherwise known, many scholars argue that the word is a transcription of Aramaic rē’s̆â, ‘prince’, which originally stood in apposition to the name of Zerubbabel. If this conjecture is correct, then Luke was using at this point an originally Aramaic list which was not dependent on the LXX; it would also follow that the list was originally in reverse order, so that the title would follow the name of its bearer.

Ζοροβαβέλ (z^erubbāḇel) also occurs in Mt. 1:12f.** as the name of the leader of the Jewish exiles on their return to Jerusalem. His father’s name is given here as Σαλαθιήλ (Mt. 1:12**; i.e. s̆^e’altı̂’ēl), in agreement with 1 Ch. 3:19 LXX; Ezr. 3:2; Ne. 12:1; Hg. 1:1. In 1 Ch. 3:19 MT, however, his father is called Pedaiah. Since Shealtiel and Pedaiah were brothers (1 Ch. 3:17f.), levirate marriage may well explain the anomaly (Machen, 206; cf. W. Rudolph, Chronikbucher, Tübingen, 1955, 29).

A further problem arises with Shealtiel’s father, named here as Νηρί** (i.e. nēr), but in the OT as Jeconiah, the king of Israel (1 Ch. 3:17; cf. Mt. 1:12). Taking Je. 22:30 to imply that Jeconiah was childless, Plummer, 104, argued that he adopted as his heir the son of Neri who was descended through Nathan from David. Other scholars follow Eusebius QE 3:2 (cited by M. D. Johnson*, 243f.) in claiming that because of the curse on Jeconiah the line of the Messiah was deliberately traced so as to by-pass him. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 295f., suggests that the author of Chronicles caused the discrepancy by attempting to depict the restorer of the temple after the exile as the grandson of the last reigning king. Any of these conjectures may be correct.

(28) The list now proceeds through a set of names unknown in the OT back to David via his son Nathan. G. Kuhn*, 214f., argues that the first few names are a corruption of the names in 1 Ch. 3:17f. (cf. Schürmann, I, 201 n. 95), but this is improbable, especially since it is unlikely that the genealogy was based on 1 Ch. (Zahn, 218; Jeremias, Jerusalem, 295).

For Μελχί see v. 24. Ἀδδί** (with several variant spellings) is found in the LXX for ‘iḏḏô (1 Ch. 6:21). Κωσάμ** is not attested in the LXX. For Ἐλμαδάμ** cf. Ἐλμωδάμ (Gn. 10:26 LXX for ’almōḏaḏ). Ἤρ** (‘ēr) is not uncommon (Gn. 38:3; 1 Ch. 2:3; 4:21).

(29) On the list of names commencing with Ἰησοῦς see the introductory comments on the theory that this is a parallel list to vs. 23ff.

Ἐλιεζέρ** corresponds to ’^elı̂‘ezer (Gn. 15:2; Ex. 18:4). Ἰωρίμ** may be the same as Ἰωρείμ (2 Esd. 10:18). For Ματθάτ and Λευί see v. 24. See the introductory comments on the use of patriarchal names at this point.

(30) For Συμεών see 2:25, and for Ἰούδα see 1:39. For Ἰωνάμ** cf. Ἰωνάν (y^ehôḥānān, 1 Ch. 26:3), and for Ἐλιακίμ (Mt. 1:13**) see 2 Ki. 18:18; et al. (’elyāqı̂m).

(31) Μελεά** is otherwise unattested. The same is true of Μεννά** (but see SB II, 156, for a possible equivalent). It is omitted by A, and may be a dittography of the previous name (Schlatter, 218; Jeremias, Jerusalem, 296 n. 97), but omission would disturb the numerical scheme. For Ματταθά** (mattaṯâ) see 3:24 note. Ναθάμ** v. 1. Ναθάν, as in LXX) is nāṯān, a son of David (2 Sa. 5:14; 1 Ch. 3:5; 14:4; cf. Zc. 12:12. So the line reaches Δαυίδ (ḏāwiḏ), the king.

(32) From David to Abraham the genealogy is parallel to Mt. 1:2-6 with but slight differences. Matthew follows 1 Ch. 2:1-15, but Luke uses other sources, and possibly uses the MT rather than the LXX (G. Kuhn*, 217f.). See Ru. 4:18-22.

Ἰεσσαί is the same form as in LXX for yis̆ay (Mt. 1:5f.; Acts 13:22; Rom. 15:12**; Ru. 4:22; 1 Ch. 2:12f.). Ἰωβήδ (Mt. 1:5**, i.e. ‘ôḇēḏ) is a v. 1. in 1 Ch. 2:12, where the better text has Ὠβήδ. In Lk. the variants Ἰωβήλ, Ὠβήδ and Ὠβήλ are attested; confusion of final δ and λ would be easy. It is surprising that Mt. agrees with Lk. here against the LXX. Βόος** is bō‘az (Ru. 4:21; 1 Ch. 2:11f.); Mt. 1:5 has Βόες. Σαλά (3:35**) is for sìalmā’ / sìalmôn. This form of the name is used for the patriarch s̆elaḥ in Gn. 10:24; 11:13-15; 1 Ch. 1:18, 24; but for the present name the LXX has Σαλμάν (Ru. 4:20f.) or Σαλμών (1 Ch. 2:11; Mt. 1:4f.). Both of these forms appear as textual variants in Lk., but Σαλά has the best attestation. Metzger, 136, observes that it may be based on a Syriac tradition, since the corresponding form is found in Ru. 4:20f. sy^p. Ναασσών is naḥs̆ôn (Mt. 1:4**; Ex. 6:23; Nu. 1:7; Ru. 4:20; 1 Ch. 2:10f.).

(33) The text of the next three names is very uncertain, and UBS prints what Metzger, 136, can describe only as ‘the least unsatisfactory form of text’. Ἀμιναδάβ (‘ammı̂nāḏāḇ) is found in Mt. 1:4**; Ex. 6:23; Nu. 1:7; 1 Ch. 2:10; Ru. 4:19f. It is omitted by B sy^s; G. Kuhn*, 217 n. 2 and Jeremias, Jerusalem, 293, explain it as a scribal addition by someone who did not realise that the following name was an abbreviation for this one, but Kuhn’s suggestion that ‘ḏmyn and mynḏb were confused seems unlikely. The form, Ἀδμίν** is unattested in the LXX. Ἀρνί**, also unattested in the LXX, must correspond to Ἀράμ, i.e. rām (Mt. 1:3f.; 1 Ch. 2:9f.; Ἀρράν, Ru. 4:19). The variation in Lk. is due to textual corruption at some point. For Ἑσρώμ cf. Mt. 1:3**. The forms Ἑσρώμ and Ἑσρών for ḥeṣrôn are found in Ru. 4:18f.; 1 Ch. 2:5, 9. Φάρες, i.e. pereṣ, is found in Mt. 1:3**; Gn. 38:29; Ru. 4:18; 1 Ch. 2:4f. For Ἰούδα cf. v. 30; Mt. 1:2f.

(34-38) Ἰακώβ (ya‘^aqōḇ), Ἰσαάκ (yiṣḥāq) and Ἀβραάμ (’aḇrāhām) complete the parallelism with Mt. 1:2. The rest of the genealogy has no parallel in Mt., and gives a list of names found in Gn. 11:10-26; cf. 5:1-32; 1 Ch. 1:1-26. Θάρα** (teraḥ), Ναχώρ** (nāḥôr), Σερούχ** (sì^erûḡ), Ῥαγαύ** (r^e‘û), Φάλεκ** (peleḡ), Ἔβερ (‘ēber), Σαλά (3:32; s̆elaḥ), Καϊνάμ (3:37**), Ἀρφαξάδ** (’arpaḵsìāḏ) and Σήμ** (s̆ēm) are found in Gn. 11:10-26 (1 Ch. 1:17, 24-26) with the same spellings. The name Καϊνάμ is found only in the LXX, with no equivalent in the MT (it is omitted by p^{75 vid} D); its presence shows that for this part of the genealogy Luke was using the LXX. The final set of names, Νώε (17:26f.; nōaḥ), Λάμεχ** (lemeḵ), Μαθουσαλά** (m^eṯûs̆elaḥ), Ἑνώχ (Heb. 11:5; Jude 1:14**; ḥ^anôḵ), Ἰάρετ** (yereḏ), Μαλελεήλ** (mah^a lal’ēl), Καϊνάμ (3:36; qênān), Ἐνώς** (’^enôs̆), Σήθ** (s̆eṯ) and Ἀδάμ* (’āḏām) are derived from Gn. 5:1-32 (cf. 1 Ch. 1:1-4) with minor spelling differences; contrast Jos. Ant. 1:78f., where they are turned into declinable forms. On the significance of τοῦ θεοῦ (cf. Gn. 5:1) see introductory comments.

Source : Quinton Howitt quinton@vineyardbi.org