![\"DavidKing2\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2017\/07\/DavidKing2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
King David<\/em> (ancestor of Jesus), by Rembrandt (1606-1669)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n This is my third installment of replies to atheist Jonathan MS Pearce<\/a> skeptical series, Debunking the Nativity<\/em>. I have previously responded to his claims about the alleged mistranslation of \u201cvirgin\u201d (Isaiah 7:14)<\/a>, and supposed irreconcilable differences regarding the death of Herod the Great <\/a>and biblical chronology. Presently, I am responding to two of his papers (both posted on 12-12-16): \u201cContradictory Genealogies\u201d<\/a>\u00a0and \u201cConflicting Genealogies of Jesus and the Thesis of a Matrilineal Bloodline Refuted.\u201d<\/a> His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n First of all, I\u2019d like to emphasize that Christians have no problem freely admitting that there are \u201cdifficulties\u201d to be resolved as regards the two genealogies. Our view is not to pretend that there are no \u201cproblems\u201d to be resolved with Bible scholarship, learning more and more about ancient Near Eastern culture, and further study of various sorts. We welcome that; we love to learn more and more about all the relevant data.<\/p>\n That\u2019s different, however, from the positive (or should I say, \u201cnegative\u201d?) assertion of the definite presence of demonstrable \u201ccontradiction\u201d in the two genealogies. Christians have offered many possible solutions to the various\u00a0issues raised and considered. Of course, atheists will then say (fair and charitable as they always are to Christians): \u201csee how many<\/em> explanations there are?! Christians can\u2019t agree<\/em>! Therefore, we conclude that this evident chaos suggests no<\/em> explanation, and\u00a0rather, mere\u00a0special pleading and rationalization.\u201d<\/p>\n Atheists very often don\u2019t even consistently follow\u00a0their own inclinations when it is virtually any other<\/em> subject matter. Take, for example, theories on the origin of life or of the universe. Scientists don\u2019t have any definite solutions<\/em> to those things (within the \u201corthodox\u201d materialistic perspective). But they have many proposed<\/em> explanations. Atheists think that that means the scientific explanation\u00a0will<\/em> one day be nailed down. They don\u2019t assume that a diversity of theories proves \u201cchaos\u201d or special pleading. They don\u2019t ditch scientific method or question its usefulness simply because science doesn\u2019t provide every<\/em> answer to every<\/em> \u201canomaly\u201d in nature.<\/p>\n We might also mention the absence of the vaunted \u201cGrand Unified\u00a0Theory\u201d<\/a> in particle\u00a0physics. Scientists thus far have been unable to synthesize what they believe they know into one unified theory. Wikipedia states that \u201cSeveral such theories have been proposed, but none is currently universally accepted. . . .\u00a0There is currently no hard evidence that nature is described by a Grand Unified Theory.\u201d\u00a0It doesn\u2019t follow, however, that such a theory is either unthinkable, inconceivable, or\u00a0unattainable.<\/p>\n But when it comes to the Bible and Christian theology, atheists think that any multiple theories suggest no<\/em> resolution (because of prior hostility). Multiple theories are just as likely indications that one of them (or a combination) are true<\/em>, rather than that all of them are false<\/em>. Physicists used to suggest\u00a0multiple theories of the origin of the universe, such as \u201csteady state theory\u201d<\/a> and \u201cBig Bang\u201d <\/a>(formulated by Catholic priest-scientist, Georges Lema\u00eetre<\/a>, by the way). It turned out that the latter became accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Scientists never thought that there was no possible solution merely because there were multiple theories.<\/p>\n If Christians didn\u2019t have any<\/em> theories about the genealogies, atheists would surely be on our backs for total ignorance, and reiterate that they believe that Christians don\u2019t \u201cthink\u201d or speculate about issues: that we are against reason itself<\/em>. If we have many<\/em>, this also proves that we must be wrong: it indicates rationalizing and incoherence and implausible solutions. In other words, we can never \u201cwin\u201d no matter what we do. But (contrary to some jaundiced, triumphant atheist claims) we have no difficulty admitting that there are<\/em> exegetical difficulties to resolve:<\/p>\n Christian apologist Glenn Miller includes in his extensive treatment<\/a>\u00a0these words:<\/p>\n The difficulties in the genealogies are numerous, but the only thing that \u2018outnumbers\u2019 them are the possible \u2018solutions\u2019! . . . every potential problem<\/em> has many, many<\/em> proposed solutions\u2013some smooth, some weird, some tortured. But we really do not<\/em>\u00a0have enough data to really \u2018catch these guys\u2019 at historical error. . . . [my italics substituting for his all caps, as throughout] [1]<\/p>\n Likewise, The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em> (1909) starts out its article on the topic<\/a> by stating:<\/p>\n It is granted on all sides that the\u00a0Biblical\u00a0genealogy\u00a0of\u00a0Christ\u00a0implies a number of\u00a0exegetical\u00a0difficulties; but\u00a0rationalists\u00a0have no solid\u00a0reason\u00a0for refusing to admit any of the attempted solutions, nor can we agree with those recent writers who have given up all\u00a0hope\u00a0of harmonizing the\u00a0genealogies\u00a0of\u00a0Christ\u00a0found in the First and Third\u00a0Gospels. [2]<\/p>\n Jonathan\u2019s inclination (what a shock!) is to think that the genealogies were \u201ccreated\u201d<\/span> or \u201ccontrived\u201d<\/span> out of whole cloth. And so he writes:<\/p>\n In reality, the Gospel writers, in all probability, had no great desire to fulfil historical accuracy; they had an agenda. These genealogies, like much of the infancy narratives,\u00a0involved using mechanisms to derive symbolic truth claims. And when such mechanisms are shown to be problematic, so too, then, are those theological truth claims.<\/span><\/p>\n As usual with atheist \u201cexegesis\u201d he starts out assuming that the Bible writers are trying to pull a fast one on us, trying to hoodwink readers with mere propaganda. And, of course, if any passage suggests otherwise from atheist preconceived notions, they can always wave the omnipotent magic wand of \u201coh; that passage was clearly added later<\/em>.\u201d For the atheist every Bible difficulty (real or imagined) has a quick, easy answer. It\u2019s sort of like eight-year-olds in the school playground: everyone knows everything, when in fact, few of them know much at all. Atheists (when doing their butchery of the Bible) are like the most confident, obnoxious 8-year-old kid, who thinks<\/em> he knows everything. I know firsthand what I\u2019m talking about (believe me). I\u2019ve interacted with atheists on these topics many times, for many years now.<\/p>\n Jonathan has, of course, his laundry list of biblical difficulties (oh, how atheists love<\/em> those!). Here\u2019s one:<\/p>\n There is a genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3 which overlaps Matthew\u2019s and it seems like he has omitted three names (Joash, Amaziah, and Azoriah) which undermines one of the two lists. This is probably Matthew\u2019s doing\u2014it could well be an opportunity to lose a few names for numerical reasons, and these kings were particularly wicked, coming to infamous ends by God\u2019s will.\u00a0\u00a0Also, two Jeconiahs seem to have been melded into one. The fact that the genealogies differ from the Old Testament list is telling, though.<\/span><\/p>\n Glenn Miller [1] responds:<\/p>\n Matt[hew]\u2019s has a rhetorical\/pedagogical structure to it. In other words, it was designed for memory-retention (common practice in his day \u2014 cf. Keener,\u00a0Bible Background Commentary\u2013NT<\/i>\u00a0loc. cit.). The omissions are simply to make the list easier to learn and\/or memorize. . . .<\/p>\n His word choice for \u2018begat\u2019 simply means \u2018progenitor\u2019 and allows considerable gaps to exist without<\/em>\u00a0it being an inaccuracy. (E.g. my great-great-great-grandfather \u2018begat\u2019 me, in Matt\u2019s word-choice.)<\/p>\n What this means is that \u2018omissions\u2019 in Matthew are not<\/em>\u00a0\u2018problems\u2019 at all.<\/p>\n The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>\u00a0explains how omissions were not at all uncommon or regarded as \u201cdishonest\u201d in Hebrew genealogies:<\/p>\n Before the introduction of writing, two devices were employed to aid the\u00a0memory; either\u00a0history\u00a0was versified, or the facts were reduced to\u00a0certain\u00a0standard numbers. This second\u00a0form\u00a0was in use among the\u00a0Scriptural\u00a0nations. There were ten\u00a0antediluvian\u00a0Patriarchs, ten postdiluvian; seventy descendants of\u00a0Jacob\u00a0are named on the occasion of\u00a0Israel\u2019s\u00a0going into\u00a0Egypt, though some of them were dead at that time, others had not yet been born; the ethnographical list of\u00a0Genesis\u00a0enumerates seventy nations, though it gives some names of little importance and omits others of great importance;\u00a01 Chronicles 2:3-55, gives seventy descendants of\u00a0Juda;\u00a01 Chronicles 8:1-28, seventy descendants of\u00a0Benjamin. This device guarded against arbitrary insertion or\u00a0omission\u00a0of any name, though it did not fully exclude the substitution of one name for another. . . .<\/p>\n It cannot be denied that some of the\u00a0genealogical\u00a0links are omitted in the\u00a0Biblical\u00a0lists; even\u00a0St. Matthew\u00a0had to employ this device in order to arrange the ancestors of\u00a0Christ\u00a0in three series of fourteen each. At first sight such omissions may seem to be at variance with\u00a0Biblical\u00a0inerrancy, because the single members of the\u00a0genealogical\u00a0lists are connected by the noun son or the verb\u00a0beget.<\/em>\u00a0But neither of these links\u00a0creates\u00a0a real difficulty:<\/p>\n The wide meaning of the noun\u00a0son<\/em>\u00a0in the\u00a0genealogies is shown in\u00a0Matthew 1:1: \u201cJesus Christ, the son of\u00a0David, the son of\u00a0Abraham\u201d. This phrase prepares the reader for the view that the noun\u00a0son<\/em>\u00a0may connect a\u00a0person\u00a0with any one of his ancestors, however remote.<\/p>\n As to the verb\u00a0beget<\/em>, some writers maintain that the\u00a0Hiphil\u00a0form\u00a0of its\u00a0Hebrew\u00a0equivalent refers to the immediate offspring, while its\u00a0Qal\u00a0form\u00a0may denote a more remote generation. But this contention does not rest on any solid foundation. It is\u00a0true\u00a0that the\u00a0Hiphil\u00a0form\u00a0occurs in\u00a0Genesis 5\u00a0and\u00a011; it is also\u00a0true\u00a0that the successive links of the\u00a0genealogies in these two\u00a0chapters\u00a0appear to exclude any intermediate generation. But this is only apparent. Unless it be\u00a0certain\u00a0from other sources that the\u00a0Hebrew\u00a0in question\u00a0signifies\u00a0the begetting of an immediate offspring,\u00a0Genesis 5:15, for instance, may\u00a0just\u00a0as well mean that\u00a0Malaleel\u00a0at the age of\u00a0sixty-\u00a0five begot the grandfather of Jared as that he begot Jared immediately. The same holds\u00a0true\u00a0of the other\u00a0Patriarchs mentioned in the above two\u00a0chapters. Nor can it be urged that such an interpretation would destroy the\u00a0chronology\u00a0of the\u00a0Patriarchs; for the\u00a0inspired\u00a0writer did not\u00a0intend\u00a0to transmit a\u00a0chronology. [3]<\/p>\n Matthew used three sets of 14 in his genealogy for a specific reason:<\/p>\n In Hebrew\u00a0gematria\u00a0<\/i>(a type of numerology very popular in ancient Judaism) the value of\u00a0David\u2019s name, obtained by summing the value of its three consonants, is fourteen (dalet<\/i>=4,\u00a0vav<\/i>=6; thus D+V+D = 4+6+4). [10]<\/p>\n In a long, fascinating article<\/a> devoted to\u00a0such alleged \u201cgaps\u201d or \u201comissions\u201d (filled with many biblical proofs of this casually accepted practice in ancient Hebrew culture), Presbyterian theologian William Henry Green observed:<\/p>\n It can scarcely be necessary to adduce proof to one who has even a superficial acquaintance with the genealogies of the Bible, that they are frequently abbreviated by the omission of unimportant names. In fact, abridgment is the general rule, induced by the indisposition of the sacred writers to encumber their pages with more names than were necessary for their immediate purpose. This is so constantly the case, and the reason for it so obvious, that the occurrence of it need create no surprise anywhere, and we are at liberty to suppose it whenever anything in the circumstances of the case favors that belief. . . .<\/p>\n The result of our investigations thus far is sufficient to show that it is precarious to assume that any biblical genealogy is designed to be strictly continuous, unless it can be subjected to some external tests which prove it to be so.\u00a0[4]<\/p>\n Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin adds similar information:<\/p>\n Ancient Jewish genealogies often skipped generations, in part because there were no terms for \u201cgrandson\u201d and \u201cgrandfather.\u201d Any male one was descended from was one\u2019s \u201cfather,\u201d regardless of how many generations back he was. Similarly, any male descended from you was your \u201cson,\u201d no matter how many generations down the line he was. This is why the Hebrews were called \u201cthe sons of Israel\u201d hundreds of years after the original Israel (Jacob) died. [6]<\/p>\n Here is also a specific<\/em> reply to the charge that Matthew \u201cshouldn\u2019t\u201d have omitted the three names that Jonathan refers to:<\/p>\n It is objected that Matthew omits three kings, viz. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (comp. 1 Chronicles 3, and 2 Kings 8), from his second series. In reference to this objection, it might suffice to say that Matthew, finding fourteen generations from Abraham to David inclusively, contracted, most likely in order to assist memory and give uniformity, the second, and possibly the last series. If we compare\u00a0Ezr 7:1-5\u00a0with\u00a01Ch 6:3-15, it will be seen that Ezra, in detailing, with apparent particularity, his own lineal descent from Aaron, calls Azariah, who was high-priest at the dedication of the first Temple, the son, not of Johbaan his father, but of Meraioth, his ancestor at the distance of six generations. Doubtless the desire of abridgment led him to omit those names with which there were connected no very remarkable associations. Some of the early fathers, however, give a different solution of this difficulty. Hilary (in\u00a0Mattum,\u00a0<\/i>cap. 1) says: \u201cThree generations are designedly passed over by Matthew, for Jaras is said to have begotten Ozias, when, in fact, he was the fourth from him, i.e., Jaras begat Ochazias from the Gentile family of Ahab, whose wife was Jezebel.\u201d That the omission of the three kings was a punishment inflicted upon the house of guilty Joram to the fourth generation is the view yet were pointedly put forth by St. Jerome also, and by many of our own best commentators. [9]<\/p>\n One problematic Messianic obstacle for Matthew\u2019s genealogy is the curse of Jeconiah. Reported in Jeremiah 22:24-30, this is where God cursed Jeconiah and all his descendents (\u201cRecord this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah\u201d). This rather puts paid to Messianic claims derived through Matthew\u2019s claimed lineage since Jesus is clearly of the offspring of Jeconiah. Some apologists claim that the curse was limited to Jeconiah\u2019s lifetime whilst others claim that Jesus is disqualified as an ancestor with Messianic properties.<\/span><\/p>\n Jeremiah 22:30<\/strong> (RSV)\u00a0Thus says the LORD:\u00a0\u201cWrite this man down as childless,\u00a0a man who shall not succeed in his days;\u00a0for none of his offspring shall succeed\u00a0in sitting on the throne of David,\u00a0and ruling again in Judah.\u201d<\/p>\n Glenn Miller provides a pretty definitive\u00a0solution to this pseudo-problem:<\/p>\n The context of the passage seems\u00a0to limit the scope to just his immediate descendants:<\/p>\n But\u00a0many commentators understand the curse to have been rescinded by God in Haggai anyway:<\/p>\n \u201cJehoiachin\u2019s name appears in Matthew\u2019s genealogy of Jesus Christ (1:11, 12), and some contend this contradicts Jeremiah\u2019s oracle of judgment against the king\u2019s descendants (Jer 22:30). Yet it is possible to understand Haggai\u2019s blessing of Zerubabbel (2:20\u201324) as\u00a0the rescission of Jeremiah\u2019s curse and the reinstatement of Jehoiachin\u2019s line on the Davidic\u00a0(and ultimately Messianic) throne (cf. Is 56:3\u20135).\u201d [Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible<\/em>.].<\/p>\n Rabbinic tradition\u00a0generally agrees with this as well:<\/p>\n \u201cfor no man of his seed shall prosper\u00a0-In this, too, no man of his seed shall prosper, namely\u00a0that no one will occupy the throne of David nor rule in Judah. Although we find that Zerubbabel, his great grandson, did rule over Judah upon the return of the exiles, the Rabbis (Pesikta \/\u2019Rav Kahana\u00a0p. 163a) state that this : \u2018was because Jehoiachin repented\u00a0 in prison. They state further: Repentance is great, for it nullifies a person\u2019s sentence, as it is stated: inscribe this man childless.\u2019 But since he repented, his sentence was revoked and turned to the good, and\u00a0 he said to him, \u201cI will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you a signet\u201d (Haggai 2:23). . . . [Judaica Books of the Prophets<\/em>, in loc]<\/p>\n [Notice how this parallels the known case of Manasseh, the evil Davidic king who was exiled by Assyria to its southern province in Babylon, and who then repented and was restored to rulership in Judah\u20132 Chron 33.10-13.]<\/p>\n This highly-probable understanding\u00a0completely removes any problem with Jeconiah\u00a0in anyone\u2019s geneaology. [1]<\/p>\n Conditional prophecies are very common in the Bible (i.e., \u201cif<\/em> you obey<\/em> and do A<\/em>, then you will prosper, but if<\/em> you rebel<\/em> and do B<\/em> I will cast you out . . .\u201d). See my related paper:\u00a0God\u2019s \u201cPunishing\u201d of Descendants: Is it Unjust and Unfair? (Exodus 20:5: \u201cvisiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation\u201d)<\/a>.<\/p>\n These two genealogies disagree with these lineages. But more damning is that they also disagree on who Joseph\u2019s father was! Even Augustine recognised a problem here. There are some Christian harmonisations such that he could have two fathers (legal and natural). These are weak and unsubstantiated.<\/span><\/p>\n There is a\u00a0possible explanation involving the Jewish levirate law<\/a>\u00a0(which Augustine later adopted himself, after reading the historian Julius Africanus):<\/p>\n In\u00a0Luke\u00a0he [Heli] is said to be the father of\u00a0Joseph, while in\u00a0Matthew 1:16,\u00a0Jacob\u00a0was\u00a0Joseph\u2019s\u00a0father. The most probable explanation of this seeming contradiction is afforded by having recourse to the\u00a0levirate\u00a0law\u00a0among the\u00a0Jews, which prescribes that when a man dies childless his\u00a0widow\u00a0\u201cshall not\u00a0marry\u00a0to another; but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother\u201d (Deuteronomy 25:5). The child, therefore, of the second\u00a0marriage\u00a0is\u00a0legally the child of the first (Deuteronomy 25:6).\u00a0Heli having died childless, his\u00a0widow\u00a0became the wife of his brother\u00a0Jacob, and\u00a0Joseph\u00a0was the offspring of the\u00a0marriage, by\u00a0nature\u00a0the son of\u00a0Jacob, but\u00a0legally\u00a0the son of\u00a0Heli. It is likely that\u00a0Matt. gives the\u00a0natural, and\u00a0Luke the\u00a0legal\u00a0descent. [5]<\/p>\n This is not merely \u201cdesperate\u201d speculation, for any possible solution. Jimmy Akin provides historical background, as to why this is the most accepted theory regarding Joseph\u2019s father:<\/p>\n Julius Africanus [c. 180-c, 250] . . . records information given by Christ\u2019s remaining family in his day. According to their family genealogy, Joseph\u2019s grandfather Matthan (mentioned in Matthew) married a woman named Estha, who bore him a son named Jacob. After Matthan died, Estha married his close relative Melchi (mentioned in Luke) and bore him a son named Heli. Jacob and Heli were thus half-brothers.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, Heli died childless, and so Jacob married his widow and fathered Joseph, who was biologically the son of Jacob but legally the son of Heli (Eusebius,\u00a0Ecclesiastical History<\/em>\u00a01:6:7). [6]<\/p>\n Africanus was an important enough historian to make it into Encyclopaedia Britannica<\/em>, which states<\/a>: \u201cHis work raised the\u00a0prestige\u00a0of early Christianity by placing it within a historical\u00a0context. He also wrote a critical work on genealogies of\u00a0Christ\u00a0as found in Matthew and Luke.\u201d The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia<\/em> also praises him<\/a>:<\/p>\n Byzantine chronographer, noted for his surprisingly lucid interpretations of some Biblical questions; . . .\u00a0These relations with the Orient explain his knowledge of Syriac, . . . His works in Biblical criticism indicate that he knew Hebrew also. . . .\u00a0All the works of Africanus, which are of course especially important for Christianity, are also highly interesting for Judaism.<\/p>\n Jonathan\u2019s second, follow-up article<\/a> mostly argues against the hypothesis of Luke\u2019s genealogy being maternal (i.e., the ancestral lineage through Mary). He even favorably cites the historian Africanus and quotes his own words. I haven\u2019t followed that theory in my replies (in effect agreeing with Jonathan), so I need not refute it, except to document\u00a0some corresponding disagreement over against that view, among sources I have found and\/or utilized (along with a little bit of respectable agreement):<\/p>\n [A]ccording to\u00a0Patrizi <\/a>[Jesuit exegete: 1797-1881]\u00a0the view that\u00a0St. Luke\u00a0gives the\u00a0genealogy\u00a0of\u00a0Mary\u00a0began to be advocated only towards the end of the fifteenth century [c. 1490] by\u00a0Annius of Viterbo<\/a>, and acquired adherents in the sixteenth.\u00a0St. Hilary\u00a0mentions the opinion as\u00a0adopted\u00a0by many, but he himself rejects it (Mai, \u201cNov. Bibl,\u00a0Patr.\u201d, t. I, 477). . . . Both\u00a0St. Matthew\u00a0and\u00a0St. Luke\u00a0give the\u00a0genealogy\u00a0of\u00a0St. Joseph, the one through the lineage of\u00a0Solomon, the other through that of\u00a0Nathan. [2]<\/p>\n The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>, in its entry on him<\/a>, is very critical of historian \/ archaeologist Annius of Viterbo:<\/p>\n He is best known, however, by his \u201cAntiquitatum Variarum\u00f6, 17 vols. (Venice, 1499,\u00a0et s\u00e6p<\/em>). In this work he published alleged writings and fragments of several pre-Christian\u00a0Greek\u00a0and\u00a0Latin\u00a0profane authors,\u00a0destined\u00a0to throw an entirely new light on ancient\u00a0history. He claimed to have discovered them at\u00a0Mantua. This work met at once both with\u00a0believers\u00a0in the\u00a0genuineness\u00a0of his sources, and with severe\u00a0critics\u00a0who accused him of willful interpolation, or even fabrication. The spurious\u00a0character\u00a0of these \u201chistorians\u00f6 of\u00a0Annius, which he published both with and without\u00a0commentaries, has long been admitted. It would appear that he was too credulous, and really\u00a0believed\u00a0the texts to be\u00a0authentic.<\/p>\n The presentation of facts in the above citation, however (about Patrizzi), are a bit too sweeping and sloppy, according to the analysis of Catholic biblical and patristic scholar, John F. McCarthy:<\/p>\n Francis Xavier Patrizzi, in an elaborate treatise on the genealogies of Matthew and Luke published in 1853, <\/b>claims that Annius of Viterbo was the first writer who attempted to show that Eli of Lk\u00a03:23 was the biological father of the Virgin Mary and the biological grandfather of\u00a0Jesus.\u00a0Subsequently, many Catholic and Protestant exegetes adopted the theory, including Cornelius a Lapide, as stated above. In\u00a0his treatise, Patrizzi severely criticizes this hypothesis, not for seeing the ancestry of Mary within Luke\u2019s genealogy, which Patrizzi himself upholds along with many before him beginning in ancient times, but solely and simply as understanding Eli to be the Father of the Virgin Mary. Patrizzi\u00a0claims that this is an unacceptable reading of the text. . . . [cites five of Patrizzi\u2019s arguments]<\/p>\n Patrizzi\u2019s arguments batter the idea of a Marian link to Eli, but they do not utterly destroy it. [the he provides five possible counter-arguments] [8]<\/p>\n McCarthy\u2019s take is an exceptionally subtle, thorough, and interesting one. He doesn\u2019t cavalierly dismiss the \u201cMary\u201d theory of genealogy altogether, and entertains five different theories of interpretation: maintaining that all five have many elements in which they converge. He refuses to rule out the fact that Mary\u2019s lineage may be included somehow within<\/em> Joseph\u2019s:<\/p>\n The Marian reading of Luke\u2019s genealogy is weak in the plain reading of the text, but it converges with the levirate and the adoption theories after two or three generations, because of the factor of consanguinity. Therefore, there is a deeper Marian meaning beneath the genealogy of Luke and possibly also of Matthew. . . .\u00a0What comes forth from a consideration of all of the theories is the split-level meaning of the genealogies, even in their literal sense. The\u00a0fact that the genealogies are of Joseph does not mean that they are not also of Mary. \u00a0[8]<\/p>\n Jimmy Akin flatly rejects the theorized matrilineal descent:<\/p>\n [B]oth genealogies trace Jesus\u2019 lineage back to David, but through different sons. Matthew has Christ descending from David through Solomon, while Luke has him descending from David through a different son, Nathan. [Felix Just (source #10) concurs]<\/p>\n This is not itself a puzzlement since David had more than one son, and a later individual can be descended from more than one of them. The question arises when the two lines meet up again. . . .<\/p>\n Some have tried to deal with the issue [Joseph\u2019s father] by saying that Luke\u2019s genealogy really doesn\u2019t give Jesus\u2019 lineage through Joseph at all, but through Mary. It is true that Mary was a descendant of David (cf.\u00a0Rom. 1:3), but neither of the lines given in the gospels is her line. The text does not support that idea. Luke states that Joseph was the son of Heli, not that Mary was the daughter of Heli, . . . [6]<\/p>\n Evangelical scholar R. P. Nettelhorst suggests a \u201ctwo variations of Joseph\u2019s lineage\u201d theory, as follows:<\/p>\n Both genealogies are clearly through Joseph. I propose that one traces the lineage back through Joseph\u2019s father, and that the other traces back through Joseph\u2019s mother. The maternal genealogy, however, drops the name of Joseph\u2019s mother and instead skips back to her father. Which is which? I believe that the genealogy in Luke is through Joseph\u2019s father and that the one in Matthew is through Joseph\u2019s maternal grandfather.<\/p>\n That Matthew should skip Joseph\u2019s mother in the genealogical listing is not peculiar since it is readily apparent that Matthew skips a number of people in his genealogy . . . Matthew left names out in order to arrive at the structural symmetry he desired . . . [7]<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Conclusion: thus far, I see no absolutely irrefutable \u201ccontradiction\u201d in the accounts. There are several other \u201cproblems\u201d brought up, too. If Jonathan makes those arguments, I\u2019ll give replies to them, too. I agree with apologist Glenn Miller:<\/p>\n I do not want to give anyone<\/em>\u00a0the impression that there are no\u00a0<\/em>difficulties in these genealogies. They are full of issues, \u2018surprises\u2019, perplexing items.\u00a0But, at the same time, we have so many proposed explanations for each of these, that we are simply not in a position to criticize (much less decide against<\/em>!) the historicity of these accounts. Indeed, we have solid answers for the more difficult and perplexing ones, which gives us a qualified optimism about those that are still somewhat obscure. [1]<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n [1] \u201cProblems in the Genealogies of Jesus\u201d<\/a> (Glenn Miller, A Christian Thinktank<\/a><\/em>) .<\/p>\n [2]\u00a0Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>:\u00a0\u201cGenealogy\u00a0of Christ\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n [3]\u00a0Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>: \u201cGenealogy (in the Bible)\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n [4]\u00a0\u201cAre There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies?\u201d<\/a> (William Henry Green, \u201cPrimeval Chronology\u201d Bibliotheca Sacra<\/em>\u00a0[April, 1890], 285-303).<\/p>\n [5]\u00a0Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>: \u201cHeli\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n [6]\u00a0\u201cThe Genealogies of Christ\u201d<\/a> (Jimmy Akin).<\/p>\n [7] \u201cThe Genealogy of Jesus\u201d<\/a> (R. P. Nettelhorst, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society<\/em>: June 1988).<\/p>\n [8] \u201cNew Light on the Genealogies of Jesus\u201d<\/a> (John F. McCarthy, Living Tradition<\/em>, May 1987).<\/p>\n [9] \u201cGenealogy of Jesus Christ\u201d <\/a>(McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia<\/em>, 1880).<\/p>\n [10]\u00a0\u00a0\u201cThe Genealogies of Jesus\u201d<\/a> (Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.).<\/p>\n See also (not cited):\u00a0\u201cGenealogy of Jesus Christ \u201c<\/a>(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia<\/em>, 1939).<\/p>\n Books <\/strong>(available complete online):<\/p>\n\n
\n