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

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.

Commentary:
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.

Christian:
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.

Commentary:
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,]

Christian:
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.

Commentary:
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.

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

Commentary:
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.

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

Commentary:
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.

Christian:
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.

Commentary:
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.]
Christian:
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

Commentary:
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?

Christian:
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.

Commentary:
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.

Christian:
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"

Commentary:
[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.

Christian:
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".

Commentary:
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?

Christian:
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.

Commentary:
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).

Christian:
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"

Commentary:
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.

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

Commentary:
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.

Christian:
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.

Commentary:
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

Christian:
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.

Commentary:
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.

Christian:
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.

Commentary:
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.

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

Commentary:
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.

MAHALATH
Gen. 28.:9
LEAH
Gen. 29:32-35
DIANAH
Gen. 30:21
THE WIFE OF ESAU
Gen.36:10-14
AHOLIBAMAH
Gen.36:25
MEHETABEL
Gen.36:39

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

RUTH
Ruth.4:13-22 (IN DIRECT MENTION 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.

DAVID'S WIVES IN LINEAGE
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?

WOMEN IN MAIN LINEAGE (ESAU)
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.

TAMAR
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

Genealogy Quote #3

The following are key excerpts from a series of posts made on a Bible discussion forum by a fundamentalist Christian who has repeatedly claimed that there can be no doubt that the Bible is the infallible word of God and that Jesus is Lord and Messiah.
However, based on the statements this Christian makes, it turns out that there is enough wiggle room in the infallible word of God to claim just about anything, while pretending it represents some type of ultimate authority.

The issue under discussion centers on the two contradictory genealogies of Jesus presented in the Bible.
The two versions of the genealogy are found in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.
Jesus had no biological father, and this presents some problems if he is to be a valid Messiah paternally descended from David and Solomon, as Old Testament prophecy stipulates.
This Christian is operating under the assumption that the genealogy in Luke 3 is really the bloodline of Mary.

Christian:
I still haven't seen how Jesus is disqualified.
Mary was "of the House of David" therefore so was Jesus.

Commentary:
This is quite an assumption coming from someone who claims there can be no doubt that the Bible is the infallible word of Almighty God.
The Luke 3 genealogy never mentions Mary anywhere in it or in the surrounding text.
There is no scriptural support for the claim that Mary was "of the House of David".
There is no genealogy of Mary, or of any woman, identified anywhere in the Bible.
Kingships and titles are passed exclusively through males and tribal affiliation is assigned by paternal genealogy(Num 1:18), not through maternal genealogy.

Num 1:1-2,18
And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,
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.

Even if the Luke 3 genealogy could somehow be twisted into a genealogy of Mary, the Messiah must also descend from David's son Solomon.

1 Chron 28:5-7
And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.
And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.
Moreover I will establish his(Solomon's) kingdom for ever, if he be constant to do my commandments and my judgments, as at this day.

The Luke 3 genealogy passes through Nathan and not Solomon, rendering it an invalid vehicle to produce a valid king Messiah.

Christian:
How else can you have 'seed of David' and 'virgin birth' at the same time?

Commentary:
This represents the essence of fundamentalist Christian thinking.
Since the Bible must be the infallible word of God, there can't be any contradictions.
Mary must have descended from David because there is no other way to biologically connect Jesus to David as required by scripture(Psa 132:11-12) to be a valid Messiah.
Regardless of what the actual scripture says, Mary must be descended from David and the Luke 3 genealogy must be about her because it's the only way to solve the problem.
Unfortunately, this conclusion has no scriptural support and ignores God's stipulations regarding bloodlines, kingships, and the Davidic line.

Christian:
In the Matthew 1 genealogy, Joseph, the adopted father of Jesus was of the house of Solomon, therefore technically so was Jesus even if his mother's mother wasn't.

Commentary:
Technically, no such thing is true.
Adoption doesn't connect Jesus to David and Solomon by blood, which is required by scripture.

Psa 132:11-12
The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.
If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.

The Matthew 1 genealogy also contains a cursed(Jer 22:29-30) king(Jeconiah) and none of the descendants of this cursed king could ever sit on the throne of David.
Joseph himself was disqualfied from sitting on the throne.

Christian:
I see the fact that Jesus' relationship to Joseph made Him his and therefore Solomon's legal heir and at the same time fulfills the promises that since King Jeconiah was cursed, Joseph's 'blood' line could never be king, as powerful poetic irony.
Anyway, I see no "pitfalls" at all.
We find that Jesus was descended from David naturally through Nathan(Luke 3)and legally through Solomon(Matt 1).
In fact, the deeper we go into this “pitfall” the more we see the pure beauty and perfection of the Bible.

Commentary:
Well of course this Christian sees no pitfalls at all.
However, the so-called "beauty and perfection" claimed here doesn't rest on the Bible, it rests on the unsupported, contrived assertions this believer has offered in order to make the problem go away.
They can't support the assertion that the genealogy of Mary is given in Luke 3.
As noted earlier, Mary's name doesn't appear anywhere in the entire chapter.
The actual scripture of Luke 3 records Joseph as the son of Heli, and not the son-in-law of Heli.

Luke 3:23
...Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

The apologetic tactic used here attempts to assert that although Luke records Joseph as the "son" of Heli, it really means "son-in-law" of Heli, which would make Heli Mary's father and the genealogy can then be claimed to represent her bloodline instead of her husband Joseph..
Rewriting the text of the Bible in Luke 3 is the cornerstone of this rationalization.

This believer has also managed to concoct their own bastardized requirements for a kingship, complete with a new set of regulations that allow them to circumvent God's rules and promises.
This believer wants adoption to count if it can pass a kingship to Jesus but doesn't want adoption to count if it passes a curse that would invalidate Jesus to be a king.
All that's needed is to claim that certain verses don't really mean what they say.
Any holy book can be made "perfect" and any Bible problem reconciled when a believer rewrites the text according to their personal specifications.

Christian:
We have the original text as penned which passed the scrutiny of those living at the time, who knew the facts and understood that the 2 genealogies represented one for Mary, the other Joseph.
I can't tell you what to believe and vise-versa (thank God) but personally I have no problem picking the later, the most logical. I see no pitfalls.

Commentary:
In other words, because the Matthew 1 and Luke 3 genealogies of Jesus appear in the Bible, they cannot possibly contradict each other. The texts in the Bible have all passed "scrutiny".
The councils of clerics that voted the writings attributed to "Matthew" and "Luke" into the Bible were not even alive when the actual events were supposed to have occurred.
When a group of church clerics gets together, why is it automatically assumed that they have no personal agenda or that they are not being lobbied or pressured by outside influences to vote a particular writing as canon?
Under conditions of political pressure and lobbying, why should anyone assume that the scrutiny of church clerics was immune from bias? The writings in the Book of Mormon also passed the "scrutiny" of it's church leaders.
Does that make the Book of Mormon the word of God too?
The author of Luke even admits at the beginning of his Gospel that he was not an eyewitness to events but obtained his information from others(Luke 1:1-4).
The author of Luke states that he had a perfect understanding of events yet manages to contradict the author of Matthew in several areas, including the genealogy of Jesus.
The author of Luke says nothing about a believer needing to read Matthew to obtain more accurate information about the genealogy of Jesus or about the events of that time.

Christian:
The "biological" father of Jesus, the Holy Spirit i.e. God, supplied the 'divine right.'
This was the plan from the beginning and is plain to see now with 20/20 hindsight.
It was both conceived and fulfilled (so far) 'immaculately' but, you ain't seen nothing yet!

Commentary:
God told his people in his scriptural word that the expected king Messiah was to be the paternal biological offspring of David and Solomon.
Yet, this promise can now be bypassed by claiming that since the Christian "Holy Spirit" did it, God's prior promises and stipulations can be ignored.
Even though Jesus wasn't the paternal biological descendant of David and Solomon and in fact never sat on the throne of David, it's all been "fulfilled" anyway.
This is "so plain to see" with the 20/20 hindsight of Christianity.
Christians like this have no problem modifying God's word, just like they do when they insert Mary into the Luke 3 genealogy, in order to make the Bible accommodate their whims and preferences.
Apparently they have little regard for God's clear warning to people who rewrite his word.

Prov 30:5-6
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

This once again drives home the point I often make about the Bible and believers.
The Bible and God's so-called word can and will mean anything a believer wants it to mean.

Christian:
Where is the Jewish Messiah? Where is their King for that matter?

Commentary:
After Israel was carried off into exile, the scriptures state that the Jews would have no king for "many days".

Hosea 3:4-5
For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:
Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.

The Jews have no current king and haven't had one for centuries. They expect one will arrive in the future.

Christian:
Right where the Messiah should be, at the right hand of God!
At least until He(Jesus) returns to fulfill the rest of prophecy and to claim what has always rightfully belonged to Him, the Throne of David which will from then, never end. Amen.

Commentary:
Jesus wasn't qualified to be a king Messiah.
He hasn't the qualifications of bloodline nor did he perform the required functions.
Jesus never sat on the throne of David.
The throne of David is an earthly throne, not an imaginary one in the clouds.

The Christian claim that Jesus will return to fulfill all the things he failed to fulfill the first time is not supported by God's word.
There is nothing in the Old Testament which states that a king Messiah would come once, be killed, and require a second visit to accomplish all the things he was supposed to do the first time.

A valid king Messiah will accomplish his task during his lifetime and won't need a "second coming" to fulfill his mission to the Jewish people.

Jer 23:5-6
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord Our Righteousness.

Jesus did none of these required things "in his days" as the prophecy requires.

Christian:
Jesus' fulfillment of the promises is what's important, not the question of why the genealogies were included.

Commentary:
So now the genealogies aren't really important after all.
If the Bible is really God's word infallible word, then scriptural contradictions of this magnitude shouldn't appear at all.
Since Jesus didn't fulfill the requirements of a valid king Messiah or fulfill the function, he is of little importance if God's word in the Old Testament is to be taken seriously.

Source : Brad

Genealogy Quote #2

A favorite point of attack on the Bible for those who deny its divine origin and inerrancy is the two varying genealogies of Jesus Christ. Not only is this a favorite point of attack by unbelievers, but it is also a point that often puzzles earnest students of the Bible. It is perfectly clear that the two genealogies differ widely from one another, and yet each is given as the genealogy of Christ. How can they by any possibility both be true?

There is a very simple answer to this apparently difficult question.

1. The genealogy given in Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, his father in the eyes of the law. The genealogy given in Luke is the genealogy of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and is the human genealogy of Jesus Christ in actual fact. The gospel of Matthew was written for Jews. All through it Joseph is prominent, Mary is scarcely mentioned. In Luke, on the other hand, Mary is the chief personage in the whole account of the Saviour’s conception and birth. Joseph is brought in only incidentally and because he was Mary’s husband. In all of this there is a deep significance.

2. In Mathew Jesus appears as the Messiah. In Luke He appears as “the Son of man,” our Brother and Redeemer, who belongs to the whole race and claims kindred with all kinds and conditions of men. So in Matthew the genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph and Jesus, because all the predictions and promises touching the Messiah are fulfilled in Him. But in Luke the genealogy ascends from Jesus to Adam, because the genealogy is being traced back to the head of the whole race and shows the relation of the second Adam to the first.

3. Joseph’s line in Matthew is the strictly royal line from David to Joseph. In Luke, though the line of descent is from David, it is not the royal line. In this Jesus is descended from David through Nathan, David’s son indeed, but not in the royal line, and the list follows a line quite distinct from the royal line.

4. The Messiah, according to prediction, was to be the actual son of David according to the flesh (2 Samuel 7:12–19; Psalm 89:3–4, 34–37; 132:11; Acts 2:30; 13:22–23; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8). These prophecies are fulfilled by Jesus being the son of Mary, who was a lineal descendant of David, though not in the royal line. Joseph, who was of the royal line, was not His father according to the flesh, but was His father in the eyes of the law.

5. Mary was a descendant of David through her father, Heli. It is true that Luke 3:23 says that Joseph was the son of Heli. The simple explanation of this is that according to Jewish usage Mary’s name, being a woman, could not appear in the genealogy, males alone forming the line. So Joseph’s name is introduced in place of Mary’s, he being Mary’s husband. Heli was his father-in-law, and so Joseph is called the son of Heli, and the line is thus completed. While Joseph was son-in-law of Heli, according to the flesh he was in actual fact the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16).

6. Two genealogies are absolutely necessary to trace the lineage of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the royal and legal, and the natural and literal. We find the legal and royal genealogy in Matthew’s gospel, the gospel of law and kingship; the natural and literal in Luke’s, the gospel of humanity.

7. We are told in Jeremiah 22:30 that any descendant of Jeconiah could not come to the throne of David. Joseph was of this line, and while Joseph’s genealogy furnishes the royal line for Jesus, his son under the law, nevertheless Jeremiah’s prediction is fulfilled to the very letter, for Jesus (strictly speaking) was not Joseph’s descendant and therefore was not of the seed of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been the son of Joseph in reality, He could not have come to the throne, but He is Mary’s son through Nathan and can come to the throne legally by her marrying Joseph and so clearing His way legally to it.

As we study these two genealogies of Jesus carefully and read them in the light of Old Testament prediction, we find that far from constituting a reason for doubting the accuracy of the Bible they are rather a confirmation of the minutest accuracy of that Book. It is amazing how one part of the Bible fits into another part when we study it thus minutely. We need no longer stumble over the fact of two genealogies, but discover and rejoice in the deep meaning of the fact.

Source : Email from Quinton Howitt quinton@vineyardbi.org

Genealogy Quote #1

Jesus' genealogy is given in two places in Scripture, Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3, verses 23-38. Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus to Abraham. Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies. For example, Matthew gives Joseph's father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke gives Joseph's father as Heli (Luke 3:23). Matthew traces the line through David's son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), while Luke traces the line through David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27). What is the explanation for these differences?

Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regards to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel's father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel's father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah).

Another explanation is that Matthew is tracing the primary lineage while Luke is taking into account the occurrences of "levirite marriage." If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man's brother to marry his wife and have a son who would carry on the man's name. While possible, this view is unlikely as every generation from David to Jesus would have had a "levirite marriage" in order to account for the differences in every generation. This is highly unlikely.

With these concepts in view, most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for "son-in-law," and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).

Source : Received via email from Quinton Howitt quinton@vineyardbi.org

Mini Driving

Caron was invited to the launch of the new mini which she happily agreed to, I was a little reluctant but the promised drive in the new cooper-s was too tempting. We both arrived at the mini showroom at 18:30 on thursday night, tired from a day at the salt mines, expecting to have a drive and then go home by 19:30 max. This was not to be, we waited until 19:00 before there was a little bit of a ho, hum speech from the marketing director before we were given the keys to a mini along with a set of instructions how to get to somewhere. We were allocated a cooper instead of a cooper-s BUT, we were promised, we would have an opportunity to drive one later on.
The instruction led us to the newtown area of johannesburg which is not the best of areas to put it mildly and to a series of activities each of which was designed to show off a particular facet of the new mini. This must really have taken some organisation with about 35 minis driving around at break neck speed going to all the activities.
First up was the car wash where we were unceremoniously turned away for a bit of an outride before we went to the drive-in which was like the old fashioned drive-ins which were so popular her during the 60's and the 70's. We got to chomp our way through popcorn while we watched a movie extolling the virtues of the mini as the sound track blared through the cars sound system. Pretty impressive sound system by the way. Next up we were back at the car wash where we were handed an ipod to attach to the sound system before we were escorted through the carwash by suitably busty car washmaids and buff washmen. I kid you not, the one guys T-shirt even shouted "Buff" at you and several of the guys tried to dry the windows with their chests. Just for Caron I'm sure, I think ... I hope! Unfortunately I can't say that I was treated with the same behaviour by the comely washmaids.
Last but not least was the "joyride" which was where we were to get our taste of the cooper-s but due to the rain this was cancelled much to our disappointment and we were led off to a nearby restaurant for some snacks, not to be confused with dinner, before the bus came to fetch us at 22:00. So there we were, stranded in the middle of downtown johannesburg with absolutely no means of getting home except to wait the hour before the bus left. By 21:30 I was ravenous having eaten as many snacks as I thought I could get away with without appearing to be a pig. 30 minutes, I thought, ought to be enough to get a real meal and eat it before the bus left so I ordered a vegetable stir fry with instructions to make it quickly. 15 minutes later with no food in sight, it was announced that the bus was leaving within 5 minutes so there was a mad scramble to find out how far the food was which wasn't very. In fact it was still frozen to I had to abandon the order which I felt a bit bad about but I wasn't going to be hanging around for the next bus which was due to leave at between 23:00 and 24:00.
As we departed we were handed 512Mb flash drives as a present which was pretty cool and rescued the evening somewhat.
The newtown area is somewhere we just never go to. There is a big push to revive the area and a lot of money and effort has gone into it so there are these very juz restaurants and entertainment venues between the decaying buildings. Driving 1/4 million rand mini's around past marble edifices like bank city while homeless people sleep under cardboard boxes on the pavement one the other side of the street was a wild contrast of lifestyles.

Forewarned

Last Sunday Jason and I did a 60km ride around what turns out to be quite a tough course, just one respectable hill after another. Of course you do get to go downhill sometimes but you hardly notice these in relation to the uphills. I actually did 85km since I rode to the meeting place and back as well. Great ride although I was a bit tired by the time I finally finished. Glynne was meant to have joined us so that there would be two of us wanting to have a nice easy ride and only one trying to beat lance. I lucked out, glynne didn't ride so I tried to keep up with Jason trying to beat the imaginary lance. I don't think Jason understands the meaning of "nice'n easy" and to make me feel worse, he had done the same ride during the week with the other Jason who couldn't get his heart rate over 150 without dropping Jason. How demoralising.
Went home for lunch and then met Kirsten and Carl along with the little ones for a mountain bike ride at Northern Farm. Everyone brought their bicycles except Caron who brought her book. I hope she feels embarassed reading this. Nice'n Gentle ride with the family, Megan is really, really coming on and she is going to enjoy it so much more when she gets a bicycle with some gears. Having a single gear bike is no joke, especially as a child. There is a bit of a movement to ride on single geared mountain bikes which I can only think must be absolute torture.
On the way home we were driving behind a nineteen voetsek (very old) nissan bakkie which looked like it had cellulite. There wasn't a smooth panel on the bakkie and the tailgate had been replaced entirely. Written on the tailgate were the words "Fore Sale", I wondered if the current owner was forewarning any prospective owners but I think it more likely that they just couldn't spell.

Qoute of the week

I emailed Paul only to receive an "out of office" reply stating that he was on leave from the last week in february to the first week in april. A whole six weeks which is very suspicious since he hardly ever takes leave, it is one of those unfortunate thnigs about owning your own company - it makes it really difficult to take leave. I sent him an SMS asking him who signed his leave form or words to that effect, his reply was very quoteable. "Leave for Paul is like a glitch in the matrix", I spent some time chuckling.

Human Rights Day

Wednesday was a public holiday in South Africa, one of the excessively many such public holidays which we have these days. On this topic, I have figured out one genuine benefit that Religion, not that Human Rights Day as anything to do with Religion, has brought to humanity and that is public holidays. Masses and masses of them, not that I'm complaining at all. I'm still working out other benefits that Religion may bring but I at least have one that I can definitely count on.
Off the top of my head Religion doesn't seem to have a particularly good track record as far as Human Rights is concerned. Sure there are Human Rights campaigners who were religious but that is not the question. The question is what Human Rights has Religion advanced as opposed to Human Rights advance by people who happen to belong to a Religion. That ought to get someone hot under the collar and hopefully some good examples.

It was Kirsten and Carls son, Alistair's birthday party on Wednesday at the RSME which stands for the Rand Society of Model Engineers who have a scale model steam engine track out in Roodepoort. This proved to be a really big hit with the youngsters who just loved being pulled around and around on the model steam trains. Couldn't quite see the attraction but the kids certainly enjoyed it. That seems to be a common problem with adults, you need seriously expensive toys to generate some excitement.

After the childrens party which I had carefully timed to ensure that I arrived at about an hour before it finished the family remained for a braai. Almost needless to say that the token vegetarian ended up braaing the wors and my vegetarian sausages or wood chips as Carl calls them.

Bruno asked me why I was a vegetarian (hormones, anti-biotics and energy savings relative to meat in case you were wondering) and I was pleasantly surprised at his response which was that these were good reasons for going veggie. Not that I can see him changing but at least he can see the logic. Tried to foister one of my wood chips off on Carl but he wasn't biting.

Went home to my empty house, strange how one gets so used to having someone around, before I went to Hyde Park for supper on my own, Mantovanis has a really fantastic vegetable platter. Phoned Kim to see if she was interested in going to a movie which I don't think she really was but I laid it on thick about how she never goes out etc, etc. She succumbed and we went to see "Because I said so" which was a definite chic flick. A couple of humorous moments but nothing too wild. It did manage to get Kim to shed a brief tear so it couldn't have been all that poor.

End of the Human Rights Day.

Change Control ... Again

Ughh! Change control rolls around so quickly and it really does destroy a weekend although if I was honest, which I'm not on this particular topic, I would have to admit that I seriously helped to decimate this weekend. The weekend proceeded as follows:

Wake up at 04:30 to start cycling, it is totally pitch black at anytime before 06:00, and it is even starting to get a little chilly. After this summer, this is a very welcome relief from the heat. One of the reasons that I quite like Johannesburg is that by the end of summer, one has had quite enough of the hot weather and having some cold weather is rather appealing. By the end of winter, on the other hand, one is very glad to be leaving the cold behind and looking forward to some hot summer days. So we have the best of both worlds without either being really extreme.

Back to cycling, spent almost 3 hours on the mountain bike trying to keep up with Jason who just seems to get stronger and stronger. Very infuriating. We went through Northern farm and out the back and once again, I forgot my entrance ticket and had to borrow Jasons. Took a trip up some quite tough gravelly climbs to find the most fantastic views looking north over a valley with the Magaliesburg mountains in the distance. Absolutely fantastic views, it's hard to believe that they exist less than an hours drive from Johannesburg. I didn't take any pictures because I didn't have my camera with me since camera = weight = slow = dropped = teasing for being dropped. Therefore NO camera!

Met barry and helena for breakfast at fruits and roots and they've taken my favourite meal off the menu. I can't believe it, fortunately they still serve it if one asks for it so no big deal. Met a couple of friends of theirs whose names I now forget but one of them is a photographer/journalist/art critic which was pretty cool. She is about to leave on a photo holiday which is a novel concept for me and sounds like something I might be interested in doing at some stage in the distant future. A bunch of people who have a common interest, photography, get together and go somewhere which is photographically interesting and then spend their time touring and taking photographs, I can think of worse ways to spend a holiday. The other lady, whose name I also forget, was absolutely fascinating. She must be a psychologists dream client and I only spent an hour or two with her.

After the breakfast they were all going to a nearby gallery so I tagged along wondering what I was letting myself in for which was just as well because I got cornered by said neurotic and ended up discussing fine art with her, a topic I am most definitely not even vaguely qualified to do.

Standing looking at a painting and being asked questions like "what does this say to you?" just confounds me, it isn't saying anything, we are just thinking/assuming that the artist is actually trying to pass on a message. Who's to say he is?, maybe it's like some kind of in joke amongst artists to see what people think that they are trying to 'say' through their work. I find it a bit like wine tasting where there is the 'in' crowd and the others. The 'in' crowd talk in terms like flavours of berries for wine and angst and anger in terms of art and for those who don't speak the language, pity on them, they're missing out. It all seems a bit pretentious to me, why can't people just enjoy or appreciate wine or art because they do, why do they have to have a reason why they do? I re-iterate my ignorance of art so anyone reading this whose toes I have just stepped on, it's only my opinion not a fact.

I spent most of the afternoon adding labels to this blog and before I knew it, it was time to go to work and start the change control. Frigging long and complicated change control and we only left at 04:00 having worked for a full 7 hours upgrading the system while only actually taking it down for a period of 3 minutes during the time. I had to get up again at 05:30 which meant only an hour and a half of sleep and even this was interrupted by the mother of all cat fights directly outside my window at 05:00.

Met Michael at 06:30 and had a very pleasant 60km ride. Alison, his wife, has just found out that she is pregnant so they are both very happy that they are once again going to be proud parents. Can't quite share the enthusiasm but I try my best. Really pushed hard up Judges avenue hill near the end of the ride and made about 90 seconds on Michael which I was very pleased with. Michael, not so, he thought I was just rubbing it in which wasn't actually the intention. I have finally figured out how to stop my heart rate monitor from beeping when it goes over a predetermined level which I do fairly regularly so now everyone can cut out their jokes about flatlining and beep, beep, beep, beeeeeeeeeep.

Had lunch at kim and laurels with another couple who were very pleasant company. At one point in the conversation, samuel, who is being indoctrinated by his father, interjects and asks who goes to church. All hands stay firmly below the table much to samuels dismay, he is living in the company of heathens it turns out. He's going to have to come to terms with this because, outside of a monastery, it isn't going to change.

Started feeling really tired by the time laurel and I went to see "Notes on a scandal" which was great even though it can't be described as light entertainment by any stretch of the imagination. Judi Dench and Kate Blanchette were both fantastic and I would highly recommend it to anyone looking for a thought provoking movie to go and see.

Did you catch the subtle puns?

Anti-Punsters Unite

I have been soundly beaten (figuratively of course) for using such weak puns in one of my previous posts. I will therefore, in future, only use puns so subtle that you will never know that they are there. ;-)

Bachelordom strikes again

Every time Caron goes away we play out this little game where she does the dutiful wife thingy and makes sure that there is enough in the refrigerator to keep me hale and hearty until she returns. The problem is that I don't really know how to cook outside of braaing and even worse, after a day at work, I have absolutely no inclination to start learning. So, while I have a refrigerator full or raw ingredients, I have no skills to convert this into edible food so I tend to do what all intelligent people do when faced with something they don't know how to do - they outsource it. In this context this means that I have been out to a restaurant every night this weekend except thursday when I went for supper at Kim and Laurels. As a result of this I am feeling like I have put on a couple of kilograms, actually I have put on a couple of kilograms so I think that I need to get back to exercising. In addition to not eating very well I haven't managed to cycle or run once this week principally due to work committments.

On friday I went out for lunch to the Ocean Basket which is a chain of fish centric restaurants and when I asked what the line fish was I was told that it was a "Cardinal" which I promptly looked up on FISHMS (+27 79 499 8795) only to be told that there is no such thing as a "Cardinal" fish. When challenged on the actual origins of the fish because it could possibly be imported the waiter and then the manager got vaguer and vaguer assuring us that "it was like Kablejou" and the real clanger for the conversation was when we were told that it comes from the west coast of Mozambique. A cardinal error since Mozambique does not have a west coast. In the end the manager brought up his fish list which didn't have it on it and even a search on the internet by the manager didn't locate the elusive fish. Must be very rare, we're so lucky to actually have the opportunity of eating it. Not.

Back at the office we contacted SASSI who knew of a "Cardinal" but it is an aquarium fish which means that we would need about 20 of them to make a decent meal. It is looking highly probable that the Ocean Basket has just unilaterally renamed a fish, problably with the express purpose of avoiding awkward questions as to why they are serving fish that isn't on the approved green list of fish which can be caught in a sustainable and renewable manner. Definitely smells a bit fishy to me. :-) More on this when a response from Ocean Basket is received.

Sodwana Bay

It seems like ages since I last went diving but in reality, it isn't so long ago. I met Barry at work and cleared out some emails before we departed on the 7 hour drive down to Sodwana Bay lodge. It was a very quiet drive and it doesn't even seem so long these days. We went down in my 320d which is proving to be the ideal car for long distance travelling, we drove from Johannesburg to Sodwana Bay and back to Pongola which is about 1000km on just over 3/4 of a tank of fuel. Just absolutely amazing and extremely reasonable on the pocket. My new glasses are making such a difference to my driving since I don't get anywhere near as tired with them on as I do when I don't use them.

Saturday morning we were meant to get collected from the Dive Shop but 20 minutes after the designated time, out lift still hadn't appeared so we resigned ourselves to lugging our dive gear over the dunes and drove down in my car. Once on the beach it looked like we weren't even going to get one dive in let alone two. Apparently, the coast guard had closed the entire coast because of the cyclone just south of Madagascar and this was only lifted at about 10:00 which meant we had just enough time to dive before the wind picked up and made diving impossible. The rest of the boat was a couple of small dive schools so everyone else was on either their first or second dives which is normally a recipe for interesting things to happen.

From the shore the waves didn't look that big and there seemed to be a big gap between the swells but once we got onto the sea the swells were largeish at about 3m but they were unusual in that they were travelling much faster than normal waves so the boat skippers were having real difficulty in getting the gap. A couple of times we almost got through only to be stymied by the back line and had to turn tail and run back in and wait for another so called gap. We had to punch through a couple of waves which is like driving through a wall of water with a not so hydro-dynamic inflatable boat. We also had waves break on both the port and starboard sides, quite an experience by the end of the weekend and quite a welcome for the novices. Once we got beyone the back line the sea was actually fine but the swells were big. We heard later that Durban actually closed the port which is a highly unusual occurrence and the shops near the harbour mouth got flooded and the durban boardwalk which is normally way above the high tide mark was flooded and half the beach dumped on it. In other words, NOT small waves which didn't bode well for the dive because big waves equals big surge.
Sure enough, the surge was huge and at times one could barely see the reef for the sand in the water. This dive was unusual because by the time we had descended to depth the novices were nowhere to be seen. Normally there is a problem with one or two but at least some of them normally make it down. There was so little to photograph that I think I only took 5 pictures and we aborted the dive after about 30 minutes due to the surge and lack of visisbility. Nevertheless it was great to actually get wet again.

Spent the afternoon watching the rugby on and off and reading "tour de force" which is proving to be a very interesting book. The way that Lance Armstrong comes across I'm not sure that he should be a model for other people to follow except if they want to win at cycling. Had supper and retired early pretty exhausted. There is definitely something about diving and detox that go hand in hand.




Sunday morning the waves were no better but there wasn't much wind so we managed to get in two dives, both of which we managed the whole dive instead of having to abort it. Met a Canadian girl travelling on her own who professed to be a professional photographer. Yet another Canadian to reinforce the general stereotype that they are inordinately insecure and lost, I wonder what it is about them. It's a bit like they speak, think and act like a yank but they're definitely not and outside of speaking, thinking and acting how do they exhibit their Canadianness? They can't, hence the tortured lost soul type. Also met two guys from Venezuella, Jorge and Guillermo who were a whole bundle of fun. A bit like teenagers, always on the prowl for the next lay. Very funny to watch. After the second dive we had lunch with them and talked a bit about Hugo Chavez who, in their books, is from the pit of hades. They clearly come from the have's and Chaves is taking from them and giving to the have nots and it isn't going down very well.

We managed two dives today and surprise, surprise nobody got lost although the diving was pretty miserable. Still loads of surge and sand in the water. Didn't open my camera and I have now done 3 dives on it. Note for the future, the battery will only last one dive if I take more than 25 frames on a dive. It would be great to be able to do more but it is still such an advance on the analog camera.




More rest and relaxation during the afternoon before a quiet supper and a cigar down at the bar below afterwards. Watched a bunch of teenagers vying for the attentions of the one and only blonde girl in the group while they pretended to play pool.

Monday morning the swells were still big but not huge. Unlike Saturday and Sunday when there was the dive group, today we were the only South Africans on the boat. We had Italians, Belgians, Canadian, American, Venzuelan and French diving with us. Talk about the united nations, I must say that it is really great to see so many different nationalities coming to see South Africa. The one Italian who actually works in Stockholm was particularly funny. He was huge, so big that he couldn't bend over far enough to put his fins on in the boat but besides that, he thought he was coming to the third world and having arrived in Sodwana Bay, he was still looking for it. He describes his experiences in Italian laced broken English. He says that he lands and the airport, she is beautiful. The roads, they are beautiful, the verges all trimmed just like in Germany. And his cell phone he says, it works everywhere. So where is this third world he asks only half believing our answer that it definitely exists.

While we were kitting up we happened to be standing next to the Canadian girl Laura who needed some suntan creme put onto her back. I'm sure that Guillermo and Jorge would have obliged but she looked around and found the least threatening male i.e. the oldest, grayest i.e. Barry to apply the lotion and I could't help but see the funny side. What I didn't know was that Jorge and Guillermo were keeping a beady eye on our side of the matt and just about killed themselves laughing at me suppressing my laughter. Lots of Spanish chatter and laughter.

The conditions, while hardly perfect, were much better than yesterday so I was very hopeful for the dive. My camera has been recharged and the memory stick cleared so I'm all ready for a great dive. We get out to the dive site and there are the usual sniggers as I get handed my weight belt. Most weight belts have between 5 and 8kg of lead on them, the heavier ones you need two hands to lift. Mine has 2kg on it and it looks positively anaemic. I should actually drop one or both of them but it is starting to look ridiculous to get handed a belt with a solitary kg on it so I have stopped at two. In reality I have another 2kg in my BC but nobody can see that so they think I am really only using 2kg's. As I pick up my BC and cylinder there is a loud pop and hiss of 210bar of compressed air escaping. I turn the valve off as quickly as I could and checked my O-ring. It looked okay to me but I waited for the skipper to come and check it which he did and it looked okay to him too but when he tried to pick up the bc and cylinder we had a repeat so he had to get a new O-ring for me. These two little leaks cost me 40bar of pressure so I was going down with only 170bar to last 50 minutes. I thought I would be up really early and I was pissed off that I wasn't going to have my full time down because of the O-ring.



I had an absolutely fantastic dive, it was still a bit sandy but nothing like yesterday and I saw so many things and I was just finning over to the dive master to tell him that I was low on air and going up when he signalled that everyone was to ascend. I made the entire dive on a miserable 170bar without taking any risks at all, very pleased with myself. When I get around to touching up the photographs I will put them in here but that is going to take quite a while. On the way back I was sitting next to Laura and opposite us were two of the Italians with these huge underwater cameras with twin flashes on stalks. They looked like something out of a sci-fi movie to which Laura comments that she has the same camera and casing and that she usually finds that the size of the camera and the size of the ego go hand in hand. Who was I to disagree!





Got back to the beach and washed all our kit and gave James and Ndu a tip each and said goodbye to everyone. I was walking around the outside of the tent saying cheers to Jorge and Guillermo when Laura appeared right in front of me and I almost didn't see her in time to stop. You know when someone invades your space and you have absolutely no idea why, she had scooted around the outside of the matt to find out what the tip that we had given James was but that isn't what Jorge and Guillermo thought was going on. They were hooting with laughter, chattering away and their parting sentence was an admonishment to me to "be good" to which I replied that I was always good, not that they believed me for one iota.

Drove the 7 hours back to Johannesburg and went straight off to a Cigar and Whisky evening. I can't believe what a difference these glasses make. There I was after having had an early morning, a dive and a 7 hour drive and still be wide awake up until 23:00 when I thought it best that I toddle off home. Great weekend, the last dive made up for all the other dives.

Vaal by the Weekend

We spent friday night at home mostly because we were both too tired to actually do anything at all and I honestly can't remember anything from Friday.

On Saturday morning we left for the Vaal for the weekend, packed the Mini to the roof with clutter and departed. The way that we pack one would think that we were either going for a week or that we were catering for a family, which I suppose we were in a roundabout way. Very quiet trip down, Caron driving and me reading the Mail and Guardian getting my weekly dose of bad news. It's not always bad, I think that it just seems that way.

Arrived, unpacked the caravan, set up the tent and got the boat ready to launch. Discovered that the battery was flat and that there wasn't any fuel left and since there wasn't any wind we thought we were going to need quite a lot of it. Filled up and added the two stroke oil which always, for some reason, requires some mental gymnastics even though it is about as easy an equation that one could get.
Launched the yacht and manually started the motor which proved to be relatively easy thank goodness. I desperately hoped that the battery would be enough to power the depth finder since I don't fancy navigating around the Vaal without one. Packed the yacht with the contents of the Mini and before we knew it, we were on our way for our first weekend on the other side of the Vaal dam. We had just cleared the DAC moorings when a very pleasant breeze sprang up and continued to freshen all the way around the back of the island and to Kirsten and Carls place.
Managed to get Caron to skipper a bit before the wind picked up and she started bleating about the yacht heeling over too much. One day she is going to get over this and realise that, no, the yacht is not about to tip over no matter how much it heels. Quite annoying while I wait for the realisation to dawn on her. It was actually a very nice sail and we left a much larger yacht trailing in our wake which made me feel very good even though there was no way to tell if they were or weren't racing me nor whether or not their yacht is meant to be faster or slower than mine. Since I am a below average sailor, either of these could be true. Rounded the northern tip of the island and started the beat up the channel to Kirsten and Carl's place while Caron clung onto the coach roof like a drenched cat, claws gouged into the coachroof. If I wasn't in so much trouble, it would have been quite funny. We were examining what we thought was their bay when the phone rang which was rather opportune since we could confirm the location and we proceeded to motor in and moor at their jetty. The trip took about 3 hours and I found it really nice to be sailing with a destination and a purpose, not just sailing for sailing's sake.
Met everyone and had a quick cup of tea before we headed out on Carls current pride and joy, a 21' 200hp motorboat. Definitely not going to struggle to put a skier up out of the water and we had a great time playing around on the “Scooter” and the knee board. The scooter is a bit like a floating mattress with handles and upturned ends and is great for people who aren't able to actually ski. Managed to cajole Caron to have a go and she clung on for dear life for about 5 minutes before her wrist started to give way and she asked to stop. The scooter is a bit tricksy because one has to lie quite far back to prevent the nose digging in. Having been warned of this Caron promptly forgot about it an all but went arse over kettle, much to our amusement. My own turn on the “Scooter” was quite spectacular as the photograph below shows. In the wipe out, I hurt some of my ribs which were still sore a week later. After a couple of spills on the scooter I tried the kneeboard which was rather fun, especially since, even without any skills, one can do jumps and career around behind the boat like a madman. Before we knew it, everyone had had a turn and it was time to go home and start making supper. The never-ending chore.





Even though Kirsten and Carl had a bedroom available we decide to sleep on the yacht which was great. On the way down to the yacht we went past the club pub and there was some idiot singing away at the top of his voice which we hoped was not going to keep us awake half the night. Carl remarked that it only takes a small amount of alcohol to turn the average idiot into an exceptional moron. A perspective to which I heartily agree and a quote I shall remember.
We both slept in the bows of the yacht and had a great nights sleep. Caron complained because she hadn't turned over once and woke up in exactly the same position in which she had gone to sleep and when she does that, her back seizes up and it takes a couple of hours to get flexible again.
Had breakfast up at the house before we left Caron behind and went for a couple of hours sailing with everyone else. There was great wind, just enough to heel the yacht over and get her going but not enough to be difficult to handle. I think that everyone really enjoyed it. Megan doesn't accept that the first time she went on a yacht she was absolutely terrified. Had fun letting them helm and getting them to actually steer the yacht and I think that they really enjoyed the experience. Megan said that next time we sail over she wants to come and sleep on the yacht with us which I'm sure we could organise. Back at the house caron had had a great morning, drinking coffee and reading. Nothing too stressful.

After we returned we had a quick morning tea before Caron and I had to make tracks all the way home. Great sail all the way home, the wind veering between a dead run and a broad reach which pleased Caron no end since the yacht doesn't heel over too much. Arrived back at DAC and managed to get the yacht onto the trailer without too much difficulty although steering without the keel down and a fresh cross wind was not that easy.

By the time we had packed up and were on our way home to join Pippa and Glynne for supper we were about an hour late and to make matters worse, we couldn't get through to them. Fortunately, about an hour out of Johannesburg, Glynne phoned to say that they were going to have to cancel because he could hardly walk after the mountainbike race that he did on Saturday which neatly cleared up the problem of being late.

Bought a prawn curry for supper which was absolutely delicious. I can highly recommend Ghazal in Peter Place, Sandton for a very good indian meal. Both of us were feeling quite knackered having spent just about the entire day in the 35+ heat and while I wasn't sun burnt, I certainly felt pretty tired and we retired early for a really good nights sleep.

No cuts from the yacht. A miracle weekend.

Dubious Advertising

I've just re-read some of my recent posted blogs and my English is definitely deteriorating so I'll have pick up the game and try to get into the habit of taking a bit more time over the posts. Having managed to squeak through school with an e means that it'll never be great but when even I can see that it is less than ideal, it is definitely time to make an effort. Actually, I shouldn't be blaming myself. My proof reader, Caron, didn't pick up the miserable English so really, it's all her fault. Just like in the Garden of Eden! :-)

We're having a controversy around northern suburbs because we have had a spate of strip and other clubs of ill-repute advertising on bill boards. I'll leave it to your imagination as to the pictorial matter; suffice to say that it has managed to get some sections of the population up on their soap boxes about protecting their children which is fair enough. The issue is that there really isn't anything sexually explicit or illegal i.e. no nudity so while I'm tempted to agree that they shouldn't be allowed to advertise on billboards, at the end of the day, the billboards are no more explicit (those that I have seen) than a suntan cream or exotic vacation advert so what is being objected to is not so much the material on display but the fact that it is advertising morally unacceptable businesses. If I was a strip club owner, I think that I would be morally bound to object to the advertisements for large church gatherings :-)

I would however be quite keen on banning all roadside advertising, not from some moral standpoint but simply because advertising, by definition, is meant to attract your attention. In this case it is attracting your attention away from what you should be doing which is driving. No wonder we have such poor accident statistics.

What actually started this was an article in the local newspaper which given that the headline contained the word 'evil' and a picture of one of the offending adverts with a picture of a beautiful woman on it, one could easily draw a relationship between evil and women. Now, I know that the point of the article was not to portray women of any sort as evil, it's just that that is the way it came across. So if you are a women, firstly it could be argued that you are exploited by the businesses of dubious distinction and then portrayed to be evil by those opposed to said businesses. What a conundrum to get out of.