The step 'Grandfather' of Jesus!

[oldbadger]

Here's my problem....
.... in G-Luke Joseph's father is named as 'Heli', and so Joseph's formal name would have been Joseph BarHeli.... ?

.... in G-Matthew Joseph's father is named as 'Jacob', and so Joseph's formal name would have been Joseph BarJacob...... ?

So please, is there any way that these two accounts can be explained?

I would have posted this in the HJ section, but I might get more response here.

Thanking you in anticipation of lots of replies!

[oldbadger]

You will notice that the texts you have presented are not being used to determine genealogy. MClintock and Strongs Cyclopdia never said they did not use a term for mother-in-law. Only that in their genealogies they reckoned through all males. And that is true in both the Old and the New Testaments.

But if you prefer to believe the writer made a mistake just ignore that. I personally would rather know what the real reason was for the way it was written and my personal survey of genealogies in the scriptures proved to me that MClintock and Strongs Cyclopdia gives the more correct answer.

Hello.....
I also perceive that Luke's account deals with names rather than titles.

But skepticism and caution of Luke's book is reasonable because of the manipulation of the story, presumably to reverse in to ancient prophesy and to exaggerate Jesus into a God; quite an undertaking.

Another reason that I asked for as many responses as possible is because (I understand that) Galilean peasants mostly used oral tradition and the idea that any one of them could remember his/her lineage further back than, say, a great great grandparent is ......... beyond belief. Yesterday I asked my wife if she could name all of her great grandparents, and just like me she was unable to.....

Luke was an evangelist with a full-on agenda.

However, I do expect that the names of Jesus's grandparents and possibly great-grand-parents might well have been remembered...........

[Left Site]

You will notice that the texts you have presented are not being used to determine genealogy. MClintock and Strongs Cyclopdia never said they did not use a term for mother-in-law. Only that in their genealogies they reckoned through all males. And that is true in both the Old and the New Testaments.

But if you prefer to believe the writer made a mistake just ignore that. I personally would rather know what the real reason was for the way it was written and my personal survey of genealogies in the scriptures proved to me that MClintock and Strongs Cyclopdia gives the more correct answer.

Hello.....
I also perceive that Luke's account deals with names rather than titles.

But skepticism and caution of Luke's book is reasonable because of the manipulation of the story, presumably to reverse in to ancient prophesy and to exaggerate Jesus into a God; quite an undertaking.

Another reason that I asked for as many responses as possible is because (I understand that) Galilean peasants mostly used oral tradition and the idea that any one of them could remember his/her lineage further back than, say, a great great grandparent is ......... beyond belief. Yesterday I asked my wife if she could name all of her great grandparents, and just like me she was unable to.....

Luke was an evangelist with a full-on agenda.

However, I do expect that the names of Jesus's grandparents and possibly great-grand-parents might well have been remembered...........

I agree that there are proper places for skepticism. Luke, however, presumably was the more educated of the three gospel writers; he being a physician. And as such Luke also presumably was the least likely to err in his choice of words. Presumption, however, is but a form of speculation which I am not certain is any better than skepticism.

To each his own, I guess.

[oldbadger]

You will notice that the texts you have presented are not being used to determine genealogy. MClintock and Strongs Cyclopdia never said they did not use a term for mother-in-law. Only that in their genealogies they reckoned through all males. And that is true in both the Old and the New Testaments.

But if you prefer to believe the writer made a mistake just ignore that. I personally would rather know what the real reason was for the way it was written and my personal survey of genealogies in the scriptures proved to me that MClintock and Strongs Cyclopdia gives the more correct answer.

Hello.....
I also perceive that Luke's account deals with names rather than titles.

But skepticism and caution of Luke's book is reasonable because of the manipulation of the story, presumably to reverse in to ancient prophesy and to exaggerate Jesus into a God; quite an undertaking.

Another reason that I asked for as many responses as possible is because (I understand that) Galilean peasants mostly used oral tradition and the idea that any one of them could remember his/her lineage further back than, say, a great great grandparent is ......... beyond belief. Yesterday I asked my wife if she could name all of her great grandparents, and just like me she was unable to.....

Luke was an evangelist with a full-on agenda.

However, I do expect that the names of Jesus's grandparents and possibly great-grand-parents might well have been remembered...........

I agree that there are proper places for skepticism. Luke, however, presumably was the more educated of the three gospel writers; he being a physician. And as such Luke also presumably was the least likely to err in his choice of words. Presumption, however, is but a form of speculation which I am not certain is any better than skepticism.

To each his own, I guess.

Thanks for your reply.
Ok... Luke was a friend of Pauls, claimed to be a physician, was not a Galilean, was probably brighter.... but was he more honest? Luke needed to copy the earliest account that we have so clearly he was noy a witness to anything, and his description of nativity and Marys lone journeys can be ripped to shreds. Luke believed in what he was doing and writing, but only some of the pericopes of Luke ring loud, clear and true.

But as you say, that is just my opinion.

[polonius]

RESPONSE: Both nativity accounts are largely fictional. But the obvious error is that the Messiah was to be the biological son of BOTH David and Solomon. ( see references)

Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_(son_of_David)

Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn't help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

[oldbadger]

RESPONSE: Both nativity accounts are largely fictional. But the obvious error is that the Messiah was to be the biological son of BOTH David and Solomon. ( see references)

Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_(son_of_David)

Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn't help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

OK..... I've got no probs with any of that.
I simply search for any parts of the story that could be true, or even vaguely accurate, hence my interest in who Joseph's father was, or what his name might have been. A name for Mary's father (Heli) would simply be a bonus. My problem with 'Heli' is simply that it is not mentioned, and no other person named 'Heli' in the entirety of the Old Testament, which seems strange.....

[polonius]

Matthew 1:16:
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23:
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,
The contradiction in the references about the different fathers of Jospeh is caused by the general assumption that the Joseph mentioned in these two gospels is one and the same person, i.e. the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

For a solution to this apparent contradiction one must recognize that the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke are different in various points. The obviously serve different purposes and show that Jesus Christ is the son of David and the son of Abraham (Matthew) as well as the son of man (Luke).

RESPONSE: Then one or all are spurious, right?

[oldbadger]

Matthew 1:16:
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23:
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,
The contradiction in the references about the different fathers of Jospeh is caused by the general assumption that the Joseph mentioned in these two gospels is one and the same person, i.e. the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

For a solution to this apparent contradiction one must recognize that the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke are different in various points. The obviously serve different purposes and show that Jesus Christ is the son of David and the son of Abraham (Matthew) as well as the son of man (Luke).

RESPONSE: Then one or all are spurious, right?

I don't know enough to be sure that the other member's explanation about identifying the grandparent on the distaff (hence Joseph son of Heli) could be correct or incorrect.

Certainly I have never ever seen any word in Eastern Aramaic which means 'daughter-of' but scores and scores of 'Son-of' or 'Bar'.... Now that would fix the issue for me... if any can tell me where I can find a reference to any woman, 'the daughter of...... '. That would collapse any distaff threories for me and collapse Luke's already very shaky account. I just cannot see that any Galilean woman's blood-line would ever have been recorded so........ unless she truly had come from a wealthy Hellenised family in Sepphoris and really been a Temple Virgin in some pagan Temple......... That could fit, you know.... and she could have been caught up in the Sepphoris seige, revolt, Roman seige, and later association with the Roman Pantera...... but I am wandering off...


PS: That's the thing about this forum. HJ students can actually write as I have just done and not get moderated for blasphemy, or even given abandonment.

[oldbadger]

Matthew 1:16:
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23:
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,
The contradiction in the references about the different fathers of Jospeh is caused by the general assumption that the Joseph mentioned in these two gospels is one and the same person, i.e. the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

For a solution to this apparent contradiction one must recognize that the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke are different in various points. The obviously serve different purposes and show that Jesus Christ is the son of David and the son of Abraham (Matthew) as well as the son of man (Luke).

RESPONSE: Then one or all are spurious, right?

It looks as if you are correct. Luke looks very very dodgy.
I checked throughout the Old Testament, and women are identified as 'the daughter of' repeatedly, right through the books.

I then looked through Luke, and even Luke identifies women as 'the daughter of ...' and here is an example:-
Luke {2:36} And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel....

....... so for Luke to decide to use some other, totally differing., totally strange, identification of women using the husband's name is absolute deviation, and probably intentional deception.
Edit: Or Luke just made up a lineage and Apologists later thought up the 'distaff' answer.

But maybe Matthew's report that Jacob was Joseph's son could hold up....