Genealogies of Jesus

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

HELEN:
It seems to me that I've seen the Catholic Church claim that the Luke
genealogy is of Mary is a revealed truth of the Church. I don't think
Protestants can use that line. I wonder if the author Ed quotes that make
the
claim based on "the" being present in the Greek gave any other situations
were this indicated that it was a genealogy on the female side. There is a
tradition that says that Mary is of priestly birth, but since David wasn't
of
either of the priestly castes and both genealogies have David in there this
claim doesn't hold up. I have never seen how an inerrantist can claim that
the Luke Genealogy is of Mary, but I know they do. I suppose I could try to
ask for another inerrantist to try to explain this to me one more time? It
begins, you know. with Luke 3:23, "Jesus was about thirty years old when he
began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,..."
Please explain how this can possibly be the beginning of Mary's genealogy?

EDWARDS
This significance of "the" is mysterious to me.  In looking at the Textus
Receptus (sorry, I don't have any other computer version of the Greek NT), I
find that the definite article is used before the proper names in both
genealogies.  In Matthew, the word "TON" is used in the accusative case:
e.g., Matt 1:2:  "Matthew begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob ..."  In Greek,
"ABRAAM EGENNHSEN TON ISAAK ISAAK DE EGENNHSEN TON IAKWB ..."  Here, the
definite article "TON" (the) modifies the direct object (Isaac and Jacob).
If we look at Luke, we see basically the same thing occurring.  For example,
Luke 3:34, "Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which
was the son of Abraham ...".  In Greek, "TOU IAKOB TOU ISAAK TOU ABRAAM"
Here again we have the definite article, except in this case it is "TOU" (of
the), denoting the genitive case rather than the accusative case.  To me,
then, the argument based on the definite article doesn't seem to carry much
weight, since both genealogies use it.  Besides, definite articles are used
throughout the NT preceding proper names.  Maybe Nancy or Jan have other
insights on this, in which case I'd be interested in their opinions.

I, too, am mystified by the claim that Luke is presenting Mary's genealogy
and the fact that such people basically jettison the work of Africanus, who
lived much closer to the time in question and ostensibly had better access
to relevant information.  I think what we're seeing is a case of this type
of thinking:  1. The genealogies are different.  2. Both are correct.  Thus,
3. One genealogy is through Mary, the other through Joseph.  QED.  So much
the worse for Africanus.  Or maybe he's right, too.  Go figure.

• Previous message: Genealogies of Jesus
• Next message: To Bryce on Solomon's Sea
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]