Bible Contradiction #1

[Wootah]

… some of the things in the bible aren't true and there are contradictions (multiple links provided to you earlier which you ignored) no matter what you 'wish' to believe.

Sorry, I thought it is not reasonable to take all the issues here, would be very, very long post. But, when I look at them, there is nothing that proves Bible wrong. If you disagree, please sow the worst case for the Bible.

This may not be the WORST case for the Bible, but it is a clear cut case. Who is Jesus's human grandfather? Jacob or Heli?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV

16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV

23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,

The usual apologetic for this (which falls flat and is proved wrong by the very text above) is that one genealogy is for Joseph and one for Mary. People who make this apology obviously hope you don't just read the passage and notice the words "Jacob father of Joseph" or "Joseph son of Heli". Joseph cannot be the son of both Jacob and Heli. QED.

This wikipedia page gives a nice side by side graphic showing where the genealogies match and differ:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy ... enealogies

Anyone want to rebut this contradiction in the Bible?

[Difflugia]

That's easy. It's just a translation mistake. Luke's "genealogy" isn't a genealogy at all, but a long list of people that incorrectly thought that Joseph was Jesus' dad.

"Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years old, being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph by Heli, by Matthat, by Levi, ..."

[Wootah]

Taken from: https://www.contradictingbiblecontradictions.com/?p=308

26. Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?
Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
Yes, that is correct.

Heli (Luke 3:23)
Wrong, Heli was the father of Mary. "23 … Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, …". (NASBu) It is strange to suppose, as the critic does, that Luke is giving here a list of Joseph's forefathers with the introduction "being, as supposed the son of Joseph". Of course we have to read "being – as supposed the son of Joseph – the son of Eli, …" In the old texts no reading marks are given, so we have to deduce them from the text logic. This also implies that Eli was the grandfather of Jesus and the father of Mary.
No Bible Contradiction

Taken from: http://www.bibleanswer.com/heli.htm

Clearly, Matthew 1 and Luke 3 offer different genealogies for Jesus. Only
when they arrive at King David do these two genealogies merge (Matt. 1:6;
Lk. 3:31).

Matthew 1:1-17 is the lineage of Joseph, through whom the kingly descent as
the "Son of David" was validated (Matt. 1:1). Luke 3:23-38 is a different
lineage - the fleshly lineage of Jesus through his mother, Mary. It records
the physical descent of Jesus from Mary, through David's son Nathan, and
finally through Adam (Lk. 23, 31, 38).

Luke 3:23 does not say that Heli is the father of Joseph. It says that
Jesus..."being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,......"
While it was assumed (from every outward appearance) that Jesus was the
fleshly son of Joseph, he was in fact the descendant of Heli (due to being
born of a virgin, Lk. 1:30-35). Thus, Heli can only be the father of Mary,
Jesus's mother. (Jacob was the father of Joseph, Matt. 1:16).

Hope this clarifies the matter for you. Please write back if I can be of
further help.

[Difflugia]

From The Expositor's Greek Testament, Volume I page 485:

Ver. 24. ών, being, introducing the genealogical list, which ascends from son to father, instead of, as in Mt., descending from father to son, therefore beginning at the end and going backwards.—ώς ενομίζετο: presumably an editorial note to guard the virgin birth. Some regard this expression with Ιωσήφ following, as a parenthesis, making the genealogy in its original form run being son of Eli, etc., so that the sense, when the parenthesis is inserted, becomes: being son (as was supposed of Joseph but really) of Eli, etc., Eli being the father of Mary, and the genealogy being that of the mother of Jesus (Godet and others). This is ingenious but not satisfactory. As has been remarked by Hahn, if that had been Lk.'s meaning it would have been very easy for him to have made it clear by inserting όντως δέ before τον Ήλί. We must therefore rest in the view that this genealogy, like that of Mt., is Joseph's, not Mary's, as it could not fail to be if Jews were concerned in its compilation.

From The Anchor Yale Bible volume Luke 1-9 by Fitzmyer, p. 497 (COMMENT):

Even more crucial is the listing of Jesus' grandfather as Jacob in Matt 1:16 and as Heli in Luke 3:23. Various solutions have been suggested to solve this part of the problem. Julius Africanus (cited in Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 1.7,2-15) explained the Lucan text by invoking levirate marriage, as in Deut 25:5-10, whereby on the death of a husband who was childless the next of kin would have intercourse with the widow to beget children in his brother's name and continue his lineage. Thus Luke 3:23 would be understood: "Being the son, as it was supposed of Joseph, (but really) of Heli," so that Joseph could still be the son of Jacob (according to Matthew). But the solution has many problems (on which see Brown, The Birth, App. I, 503-504), and in reality solves nothing.

Another solution was to maintain that the Matthean genealogy was Joseph's and the Lucan Mary's; this has been suggested because of the prominence of Joseph in the Matthean infancy narrative and of Mary in the Lucan. This view was made popular by Annius of Viterbo (ca. A.D. 1490) and used in modem times by J. M. Heer. Though tradition has at times thought of Mary's Davidic descent, there is no basis for this in the NT; and Luke has traced the genealogy of Jesus specifically through Joseph (see NOTE on 3:23).

p. 499 (NOTE on 3:23):

in the minds of the people, the son of Joseph. Lit. "being the son, as it was thought, of Joseph ..." (ōn huios, hōs enomizeto, Iōsēph tou Hēli). As in the Matthean genealogy, Jesus' ancestry is traced through Joseph, not through Mary (despite later attempts to label the Lucan genealogy as that of Mary). To Joseph a legal or commonly estimated paternity is thus ascribed; Jesus is regarded as his heir. This is also the reason why Mary and Joseph are described as "his parents" in 2:41, and Mary is made to refer to Joseph, in speaking to Jesus, as "your father" (2:48). Cf. 4:22; John 1:45; 6:42. The cl., "as it was thought," added by Luke (see COMMENT), modifies solely "the son of Joseph," and is not to be understood with the further list of genitives. On a mode of punctuating these words, to permit an interpretation of them in terms of levirate marriage, see the COMMENT.

[1213]

...
Anyone want to rebut this contradiction in the Bible?

I think the answer to this is that Matthew is speaking of the book of generations, which is not the same as direct family tree that Luke seems to have.

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ...
Matt. 1:1

[TRANSPONDER]

Taken from: https://www.contradictingbiblecontradictions.com/?p=308

26. Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?
Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
Yes, that is correct.

Heli (Luke 3:23)
Wrong, Heli was the father of Mary. "23 … Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, …". (NASBu) It is strange to suppose, as the critic does, that Luke is giving here a list of Joseph's forefathers with the introduction "being, as supposed the son of Joseph". Of course we have to read "being – as supposed the son of Joseph – the son of Eli, …" In the old texts no reading marks are given, so we have to deduce them from the text logic. This also implies that Eli was the grandfather of Jesus and the father of Mary.
No Bible Contradiction

Taken from: http://www.bibleanswer.com/heli.htm

Clearly, Matthew 1 and Luke 3 offer different genealogies for Jesus. Only
when they arrive at King David do these two genealogies merge (Matt. 1:6;
Lk. 3:31).

Matthew 1:1-17 is the lineage of Joseph, through whom the kingly descent as
the "Son of David" was validated (Matt. 1:1). Luke 3:23-38 is a different
lineage - the fleshly lineage of Jesus through his mother, Mary. It records
the physical descent of Jesus from Mary, through David's son Nathan, and
finally through Adam (Lk. 23, 31, 38).

Luke 3:23 does not say that Heli is the father of Joseph. It says that
Jesus..."being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,......"
While it was assumed (from every outward appearance) that Jesus was the
fleshly son of Joseph, he was in fact the descendant of Heli (due to being
born of a virgin, Lk. 1:30-35). Thus, Heli can only be the father of Mary,
Jesus's mother. (Jacob was the father of Joseph, Matt. 1:16).

Hope this clarifies the matter for you. Please write back if I can be of
further help.

I don't get this argument. No matter how you slice it, both (different) genealogies are supposed to be the descent of Joseph, Father of Jesus, actual or supposed.

Where is there any suggestion that one is the genealogy of Mary, other than from Gospel -apologists rewriting what the Bible says to get over problems, such as contradictions like these?

[benchwarmer]

That's easy. It's just a translation mistake. Luke's "genealogy" isn't a genealogy at all, but a long list of people that incorrectly thought that Joseph was Jesus' dad.

"Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years old, being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph by Heli, by Matthat, by Levi, ..."

Perhaps. Though my real point of contention is about the father of Joseph. Regardless of the actual relationship between Joseph and Jesus.

The contradiction is the naming of Joseph's father.

I see the following possibilities (some given by apologists)

1) This really is a contradiction. One of them is correct, the other one is wrong. Sorry the Bible is not inerrant.

2) Joseph's father is both Jacob AND Heli. Either because this is the same person known by two different names OR one of them is the biological father and one is an adoptive father.

3) This really is Mary's genealogy, which for some reason lines up perfectly with Joseph's genealogy in various places and it's also showing Mary's line because, well, Jesus has no biological father.

4) There are 'silent' gaps in the genealogies (they are different lengths by the way) and for some reason some generations are skipped.

5) BOTH genealogies are wrong. Sorry the Bible is not inerrant.

6) Both genealogies are made up to place Jesus in history with known lineage that would put Jesus in the correct place for prophesy to be fulfilled. Sorry the Bible is not inerrant.

I'm sure there are others.

I'm partial to either (5) or (6), but that's based on my gut more than any solid evidence. There are a few place (perhaps more than a few) where it seems evident that the authors are trying to show prophesy fulfilled. That can only happen if things line up. Well, if you write the story that way - look Ma, it lines up! If another author reads a previous account and doesn't like how it lines up they rewrite it and 'fix' it and now - look Ma, it really lines up!

I find (2), (3), and (4) to be nothing more than unconvincing, apologetic tap dancing. Using these methods of smoothing over issues can basically "cover all sins". If a name isn't right, pretend it's really the same guy known differently (with no corroborating evidence). If the names are different, pretend we are talking about someone else - even if a good chunk of the names ARE the same (oops). If names are missing, pretend they are legitimate gaps in knowledge (even if those gaps are the most recent in history as far as this topic goes).

Basically, if some find the apologetic arguments convincing, well enjoy. You might be able to paper over ONE contradiction this way. When this kind of tap dancing has to be used over and over, one starts to question why we are trying to fit the data into a pre-existing hypothesis rather than coming up with a hypothesis that actually covers all the data.

[Difflugia]

That's easy. It's just a translation mistake. Luke's "genealogy" isn't a genealogy at all, but a long list of people that incorrectly thought that Joseph was Jesus' dad.

"Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years old, being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph by Heli, by Matthat, by Levi, ..."

Perhaps. Though my real point of contention is about the father of Joseph. Regardless of the actual relationship between Joseph and Jesus.

The contradiction is the naming of Joseph's father.

I meant it as a perhaps poor joke. The way the grammar works, it's possible to read it in a profoundly strange way, but still be technically correct. Instead of "being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, son of Heli, son of Levi," it could be read as though the long list of people are, rather than ancestors, a list of unrelated people that thought that Joseph was Jesus' father. The list doesn't explicitly say "son of" for each entry, but just "of." It's technically ambiguous enough that it could also mean that the supposition was "of" each person in the list, so Heli would just be some random guy that thought that Joseph was Jesus' dad.

That's not how someone would write it or read it in practice, but my point is that I've seen worse apologetic arguments. My attempt at parody ran headlong into Poe's Law.

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't buy the excuse rather than explanation and rather than it being about how Believers can excuse it to themselves, it Should be about how it looks to any reasonable person.

Luke 3.23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,

This is pretty clear. Jesus (according to Luke) was the son of Joseph - or so it was thought, because Luke knows Jesus wasn't really Joseph's son.

However, he then sets out to give the genealogical validity as son of David. Joseph was the son of Heli, which is to say that Heli was Joseph's father and so on. and no mention of Mary at all.

What's also evident is the reason for the different genealogies - one has a line though Zerubbabel, a kingship line but only by permission of Persia, in fact and tainted by Babylonian origins, and the other through Nathan, a son of Solomon but not the line that led to kingship.

Or that's how I recall it. The explanation is that both tried to legitimize Jesus' Davidic/kingship credentials through the line of Joseph, and (aside the red herring of female lineage) there is no mention of Mary at all, which you'd expect if that was the argument.

Further, for what it's worth, Luke and Matthew contradict over many, many things which is why I start with the Nativities where the contradiction is profound and terminal, the Resurrections, which are not much better; and they set the tone for other contradictions such as the death of Judas, sinking Simon, the rejection in the Nazareth synagogue, the involvement of Antipas in the trial, the tomb - guard, the repentant thief and most of the rest of the Book, as they say, and this is just another contradiction to go along with all the others; and trying to excuse it as one being the line of Mary is actually futile since they've been caught bang to rights in contradictions several times already.

[Wootah]

https://jewsforjesus.org/learn/the-gene ... e-messiah/

One thing I would like to see responses to is this.

The Jerusalem Talmud recognized this genealogy to be that of Miriam and not Joseph and refers to Miriam as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:2).

If that is true and all the links say it is (they may be copying each other) does it give more weight to the linage of Mary hypothesis?