I have followed Jesus for over forty years, and read the Bible regularly. In all that time, I have found passages I didn't understand but never one that I found to be in contradiction to another. Now the other day, I was reading in Luke 3 about when John the Baptist starts his ministry, and it begins with a firm historical peg: "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee...". I like those touch-points with history. Then Luke moves on rather quickly to where Jesus is baptised, and John sees the Spirit descend on him like a dove. Then Luke goes into another sort of historical peg, stating that Jesus "began to be about thirty years old" - was it his birthday? - "and being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli," etc. All the way back to Adam, the son of God.
Now, I think it's cool that his complete genealogy is given, 75 generations from Adam. It sounds so little these days, and it's the kind of thing that leads people to calculate the beginning of the world at 4:00pm (Daylight Savings Time?) on a Sunday or something. Anyway, it is only around 30 generations since he was born to the present, so a lot can happen in this world in that kind of time. But wait, here's my problem: in Matthew, the gospel begins with a genealogy going the other way, only starting with Abraham. Matthew goes through David and on to Joseph, "the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus". The problem is that in Matthew, we go from David to Solomon and onward, whereas in Luke we go from David to his son Nathan, and onward. People sometimes are called by different names, but that is not the case here. Nathan and Solomon are two distinct sons of King David. So what is going on here?
All the other names in this last link are different in the different accounts. And don't tell me it doesn't matter. The Spirit took the trouble to write all those names down, and in Matthew even makes the point of counting fourteen generations from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the Carrying Away to Babylon, and fourteen from there to the Christ. An interesting symmetry.
But why is there such a different line in the two gospels? Scholars seem to think that the Joseph in Luke is actually Mary's father, and thus Jesus grandfather, which fits into the usage of the term 'son', and so represents Jesus' blood line all the way back to Adam, whereas Matthew clearly indicates he is relating Mary's husband's blood line. That is a very convenient, sensible answer, but what is their justification for such an idea? After all, it is in Luke that the phrase "as was supposed" is used about Jesus being a son. If it was Mary's father, then Jesus really actually WAS a child of that man. And I can't find any other place in the scripture that sheds any light on this. Are there, or were there at some point in history, any records of Mary's family that show her father's name?
As I said, I have been reading the Bible since I started following Jesus, and I take it to be the eternally being spoken word of God; a thoroughly reliable guide into His nature and that of His Creation. I don't think it is literature in the usual sense. The world itself is His literature: the scriptures mostly try to give an eye-witness kind of account of things that happened. As such, they are more of a Cliff's Notes of the Universe. It is the Spirit of God telling these stories, and the prophets wrote it down. If you have ever given a prophecy, you will understand something of the sense of voice that comes and the prophet must speak or write. It isn't like Captain Kirk being taken over by an alien intelligence (again), because even in this most personal kind of spiritual encounter, God wants our willing participation. I do not believe that the human, contextual elements detract in any way from the Truth, far from it. Yes, Bart, there is a lot of noise that has been introduced over the years, but the truth of the message can still be seen.
So I repeat one last time, What Is Going On Here? This is not a minor slip-up. What, then, is it?
At the Bell n Pomegranate, I want to focus on things of the Spirit and how our beliefs inform our lives in this world. So settle in with a drink of new wine, and put your two cents in with mine. Just remember this is a publick house, and I expect a certain amount of civility; but that does not rule out controversy, nor even passion.
Okay, well it's been three years since I asked the question and nobody has offered an answer; but today I have actually found one. Here, http://www.reasons.org/articles/from-noah-to-abraham-to-moses-proof-of-genealogical-gaps-in-genesis-part-2 (reasons is a very interesting and cool web site for those of us who respect science almost as much as we respect the scriptures) the writers make an argument based on usage in the scripture of the Hebrew words translated "begot" and "conceived" in English. They show that, when only the begot verb is used, there is the possibility of a genealogical gap. In other words, the scripture does not necessarily provide an unbroken, exhaustive list of the generations of Adam. This seems to pry open enough ambiguity to allow us to fit Genesis much better with Anthropology and still respect the inerrancy of God's word. So it is also with the two genealogies of Jesus and their inconsistencies. It seems to be a matter of emphasis rather than factual error.
ReplyDelete