Chronological Life of Christ

1. Chronological Life of Christ Lesson 3: Genealogy Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-38, John 1:1-5, 14

2. Preface to the Genealogies No difficulty was ever found, or alleged, in regard to them, by any of the early enemies of Christianity. There is no evidence that they ever adduced them as containing a contradiction. Many of those enemies were acute, learned, and able; and they show by their writings that they were not indisposed to detect all the errors that could possibly be found in the sacred narrative. Now, it is to be remembered that the Jews were fully competent to show that these tables were incorrect, if they were really so; and it is clear that they were fully disposed, if possible, to do it. The fact, therefore, that it is not done, is clear evidence that they thought it to be correct. The same may be said of the acute pagans who wrote against Christianity. None of them have called in question the correctness of these tables. This is full proof that, in a time when it was easy to understand these tables, they were believed to be correct. – Albert Barnes’ NT Commentary

3. Preface to the Genealogies St. Matthew took up the genealogies just as he found them in the public Jewish records, which, though they were in the main correct, yet were deficient in many particulars. The Jews themselves give us sufficient proof of this. The Talmud, title Kiddushim, mentions ten classes of persons who returned from the Babylonish captivity: I. ynhk COHANEY, priests. II. ywl LEVEY, Levites. III. larvy YISHRAEL, Israelites. IV. ylwlx CHULULEY, common persons, as to the priesthood; such whose fathers were priests, but their mothers were such as the priests should not marry. V. yryg GIREY, proselytes. VI. yrwrx CHARUREY, freed-men, or servants who had been liberated by their masters. VII. yryzmm MAMZIREY, spurious, such as were born in unlawful wedlock. VIII. ynytn NETHINEY, Nethinim. IX. yqwtv SHETUKEY, bastards, persons whose mothers, though well known, could not ascertain the fathers of their children, because of their connections with different men. X. ypwoa ASUPHEY, such as were gathered up out of the streets, whose fathers and mothers were utterly unknown. Such was the heterogeneous mass brought up from Babylon to Jerusalem; and although we learn from the Jews, that great care was taken to separate the spurious from the true-born Israelites, and canons were made for that purpose, yet it so happened, that sometimes a spurious family had got into high authority, and therefore must not be meddled with. See several cases in Lightfoot. On this account, a faithful genealogist would insert in his roll such only as were indisputable. "It is therefore easy to guess," says Dr. Lightfoot, "whence Matthew took the last fourteen generations of this genealogy, and Luke the first forty names of his: namely, from the genealogical rolls, at that time well known, and laid up in the public keimhlia, repositories, and in the private also. And it was necessary indeed, in so noble and sublime a subject, and a thing that would be so much inquired into by the Jewish people, as the lineage of the Messiah would be, that the evangelists should deliver a truth, not only that could not be gainsayed, but also might be proved and established from certain and undoubted rolls of ancestors." See HoraeTalmudicae.

4. Matthew Luke Adam Seth Enos (Enosh) Cainan Mahalalel Jared Enoch Methuselah Lamech Noah Shem Arphaxad Cainan Shelah (Salah)

5. Matthew Luke Eber Peleg Reu Serug Nahor Terah

6. Matthew Luke Abraham Isaac Jacob Judah Perez Hezron Ram Amminadab Nahson Salmon Boaz Obed Jesse David • Abraham • Isaac • Jacob • Judah • Perez • Hezron • Ram • Amminadab • Nahson • Salmon • Boaz • Obed • Jesse • David

7. Matthew Luke David Nathan Mattathah Menan Melea Eliakim Jonan Joseph Judah Simeon Levi Matthat Jorim Eliezer Joseph Er Elmodam • David • Solomon • Rehoboam • Abijah (Abijam) • Asa • Jehoshaphat • Joram (Jehoram) • Ahaziah • Joash (Jehoash) • Amaziah • Uzziah (Azariah) • Jotham • Ahaz • Hezekiah • Manasseh • Amon • Josiah

8. Matthew Luke Elmodam Cosam Addi Melchi Neri Shealtiel Zerubbabel Rhesa Joannas Judah Joseph Semei Mattathiah Maath Naggai • Josiah • Jehoiakim • Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) • Shealtiel • Zerubbabel (nephew) • Abuid • Eliakim • Azor • Zadok • Achim • Eliud • Eleazar • Matthan • Jacob • Joseph

9. Matthew Luke Esli Nahum Amos Mattathiah Joseph Janna Melchi Levi Matthat Heli Joseph

10. Gap problem Matthew has at least 4 people skipped: Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim It is very likely that more were skipped in the last 14 generations but are not referenced anywhere except in the Talmud

11. Genealogical Abridgement / Use of “son” Definition of Genealogical Abridgement Jacob and Abraham (Genesis 32:9) Pharisees and Abraham (John 8:39) Jesus son of David son of Abraham (Matt. 1:1) Zerubbabel and Shealtiel (Probably due to a Leverite marriage: Compare 1Chronicles 3:17-19 to Ezra 3:2; Nehemiah 12:1; Haggai 1:12) Jair grandson-in-law or something of Manasseh (1Chronicles 2:21-23, 7:14-15 to Numbers 32:41; Deuteronomy 3:14; 1Kings 4:13) Son means ancestor or kinship as easily as son

12. Why use Genealogical Abridgement Adam to Terah – 20 Abraham to David – 14 David to Josiah (w/GA) – 14 (wo/GA – 17) Josiah to Jesus (w/GA) – 14 (wo/GA - ~30)

13. Father of Joseph Problem Matthew says that Jacob was the father of Joseph Luke says that Heli was the father of Joseph Which is it?

14. Jerusalem Talmud For years this was an issue Then came this discovery in the Jerusalem Talmud: Mary was the daughter of Heli So, Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli This shows that Matthew traced Joseph’s lineage and Luke traced mary’s

15. Cainan Problem Luke 3:36 has Cainan as the son of Arphaxad but Cainan is not the son of Arphaxad in any other place.

16. 1Chronicles 1:1-28 Luke Adam Seth Enos (Enosh) Cainan Mahalalel Jared Enoch Methuselah Lamech Noah Shem Arphaxad Cainan Shelah (Salah) • Adam • Seth • Enosh • Cainan • Mahalalel • Jared • Enoch • Methuselah • Lamech • Noah • Shem • Arphaxad • Shelah

17. Genesis 5:1-32, 10:22-29 Luke Adam Seth Enos (Enosh) Cainan Mahalalel Jared Enoch Methuselah Lamech Noah Shem Arphaxad Cainan Shelah (Salah) • Adam • Seth • Enosh • Cainan • Mahalalel • Jared • Enoch • Methuselah • Lamech • Noah • Shem • Arphaxad • Shelah

18. Cainan Problem Which is correct Luke or everything else? Or is there another answer… ()

19. Possible Solution Cainan was accidentally added in by a scribe Note the following: • Not in any Hebrew manu. Gen 10, 11 or 1Ch. 1 • Not in Sam. Pent., Syriac, Targum or Vulgate • Cainan’s name is absent from the earliest known copy of Luke P75

21. Cainan Problem 33 – [του] [αρνι] [του] [εσρωμ] [του] [φαρες] του ιουδα̣ 34 [του] [ιακωβ] [του] [ισαακ] [του] [α]βρ̣α̣[αμ] τ̣ου θαρ[α] του ν̣α̣χ̣ω̣[ρ] 35 [του] [σερουχ] τ̣ου̣ [ραγα]υ̣ το̣υ φ̣αλε̣[κ] του [εβερ] [τ]ο̣υ [σαλα] 36<not here>[του] [α]ρ̣φα[ξ]αδ̣· τ[ου] σ̣[ημ] [του] [νωε] [του] λ̣αμεχ 37 τ̣ου μ̣α̣[θουσαλα] [του] [ενωχ] τ̣ου ιαρε̣τ̣ του μ̣[1λελεηλ] [του] [καιν]αμ̣ – From P75

22. Cainan Problem this touserouchtouragautoufalektouebertousala touarfaxadtouseemtounooetoulamech toumathousalatouhenoochtouiarettoumaleleeeltoukainan touenoostouseethtouadamtoutheou became touserouchtouragautoufalektouebertousalatoukainan touarfaxadtouseemtounooetoulamech toumathousalatouhenoochtouiarettoumaleleeeltoukainan touenoostouseethtouadamtoutheou

23. Possible Solution You say: “Ah, but Luke used the LXX not any of the others” I say: “Oh, but Josephus also used the LXX in his uninspired writings and he didn’t include it either!” Antiquity of the Jews All of this is from Apologetics Press article

24. What should we learn from the Genealogies Jesus was the son of God All men are equal regardless of ethnicity God does not care about our background