Loading...In my previous posts I have already said a number of things about the genealogy in Luke – possibly most of the important things:
- it differs from Matthew’s in numerous ways, many of them irreconcilable;
- even though it too is a genealogy of Joseph, rather than Jesus, it traces Joseph’s line through a (completely) different set of ancestors back to Nathan, son of David, rather than to Solomon Son of David;
- it is not, however a genealogy of Mary, but is explicitly said to be Joseph’s;
- it is not clear why a genealogy of Joseph is given, since the whole point of a genealogy is bloodlines, and Jesus is not in the bloodline;
- Unlike Matthew it begins with Joseph and works backward from there (that is not a discrepancy, of course, just a different way of doing it);
- And unlike Matthew it does not stop with Abraham but goes all the way back to Adam – as in Adam and Eve. And it goes in fact a step further, indicating that Adam was “the son of God.” This means that Jesus is in a straight line of descent from God! (Well, Joseph is, anyway) (and then again, by this logic, we all are).
There are numerous other points that can be made about Luke’s genealogy, but I want to focus on just one issue, which I raise initially as a question that may have occurred to you. Why is the genealogy in chapter 3 instead of ch 1? You would think a genealogy would be given at the beginning of a person’s life, since that’s where it seems most relevant. But this one is given, oddly, after Jesus baptism as an adult. Huh?
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN, OR YOU MAY NEVER KNOW.
Under this theory is the author of Luke 1-2 the same as the author of the rest of the book?
It’s hard to say!
If the first two chapters of Luke are a second edition, what about the first 4 verses of Chapter 1? Could those 4 verses have been part of the first edition and then the text skipped 1:5-2:52 and continued with 3:1? Both Luke and Acts mention Theophilus at the beginning.
Yes, it is sometimes thought that these were the opening of the first edition too. So it went from 1:1-4 directly to 3:1.
Just to get a quick Greek astronomy question in before Christmas, Strongs indicates that astare can be literal or figurative. Is there a chance that Matt’s Christmas star was referring to something figuratively rather than the astronomical term? I think in the OT, a star was used figuratively for an angel. Now regarding how many angels can sit on the head of a pin ….
It’s usually taken to be an attempt to fulfill the “prophecy” found in the Hebrew Bible — Numbers 24:17, taken as a messianic prophecy. But if wise men are “following” it, it must have been a real something, not a figurative something (it does “stop” over the place where the child is), and since that somethig is called a “star,” it is usually understood to be some kind of celestial body.
Thanks for your comment, but they could possibly follow something like an angel (whatever that is).
could have been following a stork too for that matter! 🙂
Second edition of the gospel by the same author or different editor? Is the writing style, vocabulary etc. in Luke 1-2 consistent with rest of the gospel?
Writing style is different, much more in line with the septuagint in style.
Thanks to hwl for this question and to you for the answer. In my weird mind, this says a lot.
Oh my-This is the first I remember reading of this idea, and I have almost all of your trade books. Des that mean that there was an intermediate source containing Q and Mark that later got folded into Luke-Acts?
Luke also had L, a document or gropu of documents that gave him his unique material — except for the portions he wrote himself….
Bart, since all kinds of people, according to the Bible, were ‘sons of God’ (like Adam being the son of God) when did the meaning of that concept change? When or why did it suddenly change from something quite common (if not even universal) in Jewish thought to the elitist Christian title of the One and Only Son of God(tm)? The actual word for ‘son’ used in the Greek text is always the same, no?
I don’t remember right now but did you already do a post on the concepts of ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of Man’? I guess that could be interesting too.
Ah, that’s a very long story! yes, the name for “son” is the same — UIOS. But the development from a general sense (we are all “sons of God”; or the angels are “sons of God” or the kings of Israel are “sons of God” etc.) to a very specific sense (so and so is THE “son of God”) happens in very peculiar circumstances. Roughly, if the king is uniquely God’s son (more than the rest of us), then the door is open to the idea of some people being more the son than the rest, which leaves open the possibility that one person in particular might be on the top of the heap. That’s what the Christians began to claim about Jesus, very early on in the tradition (specifically that at the resurrectoin God adopted him to be his Son; see Romans 1:3-4; Acts 2:36).
Para (2) sounds almost like an argument from silence. Where should they have been mentioned?
Possibly in passages that refer back to his family and upbringing?
So … are the first two chapters of Luke an “orthodox corruption”?
Yup, that’s the basic idea! I don’t deal with them in my book on Orthodox Corruption because there is no manuscript support, and for that study I was principally interested in the manuscripts, not in earlier editions.
Bart, what about the theory that what is meant in Luke is Joseph being the ‘son-in-law’ of Heli (thus making Heli Mary’s father)? Although I wonder why, if that was the case, the author didn’t write ‘son-in-law’ (I assume there’s a word for that in Greek/Hebrew as well?) … ? I can’t read the original Greek so I can’t tell if there’s any merit to this. As someone who can read Greek, what do you think?
And if this is Mary’s bloodline indeed then Jesus would be related to King David by blood? Although not, technically, ‘by seed’ since that would be traced through the father? Hm.
Apparently Joseph’s lineage to King David is also a ‘cursed’ one anyway (and therefore not worth much as for being eligible to the Throne of David) since it goes through Jechoniah (Jeremiah 22:30) …
This is based upon claims made by Prof Tabor (who, imho, sometimes makes some valid points but goes way overboard at other times): http://jamestabor.com/2012/12/25/a-historical-look-at-the-birth-of-jesus-part-3/
Yes, that’s the theory that the genealogy is Mary’s, not Joseph’s, which is not what the text says. Of course, for those who don’t like what the text says, one can always argue that it means something other than it says! 🙂 (Jechoniah, btw, is probably why there are two different genealogies; Luke’s doesn’t have the problem.)
I’m running into the same problem with someone. Here is what they say:
The original greek in Luke does not include the word “son” in the phrase “son of Eli”, which, in other genalogies of the time, was typically done to indicate “son in law”. This was because Hebrews never permitted women to be listed in genealogy tables.
Do you have any thoughts on the Greek translation?
Thanks
Uh, what other genealogies is this person thinking of? And if Hebrews never permitted this, why are women mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy?
Prof Ehrman
Matthew’s genealogy has its source from the Book of Chronicles (albeit he modified it). Does Luke have a similar source or is it completely made-up?
They differ principally *after* David, and so that is where Luke has a different “source” (the issue is whether he descended — or at least whether Joseph did — from Nathan’s line or Solomon’s) But we really don’t know what sources either one of them used for the material leading down to Jesus once the biblical genealogies were exhausted. Presumably someone at some point simply started making it up! (well, two someones)
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think , in the future, you would consider adding a “favorite article button” for your subscribers so that we can instantly refer back to them? That would be awesome!
Interesting idea. I’ll see if it’s possible.