28 generations between David & Joseph, or 41? And...

[jeffnevins]

I'd heard that Matthew says 28 and Luke 41 (or vice versa), and was wondering if people knew which was right.

Also, does it matter if Jesus wasn't technically Joseph's son, but came about through a virgin birth?

And was Luke wrong on the census? That it happened in 6AD?

I've read that the gospels were written long after Jesus' death (90AD). Does this matter?

Thanks for any insights.

[EricH]

Here is a site that has some good discussion regarding the geneaologies

http://www.olive-tree.net/comingglory/Bibl...rations%201.htm

[Johni]

Here is a site that has some good discussion regarding the geneaologies

http://www.olive-tree.net/comingglory/Bibl...rations%201.htm

Eric, thankyou so much for that link!! I had asked about the missing kings in the Matthew account previous to this (in the Hebrew roots section) and never got an answer.

[EricH]

Here is a site that has some good discussion regarding the geneaologies

http://www.olive-tree.net/comingglory/Bibl...rations%201.htm

Eric, thankyou so much for that link!! I had asked about the missing kings in the Matthew account previous to this (in the Hebrew roots section) and never got an answer.

You are welcome. I posted that link to your thread I think, but it was pretty late in the game.

[Iryssa]

It doesn't matter that Jesus was not of Joseph's seed...by the people around them, Jesus was legally considered Joseph's son, and as for the rest, I believe Mary was also of the line of David. God had both sides covered.

[Leonard]

I'd heard that Matthew says 28 and Luke 41 (or vice versa), and was wondering if people knew which was right.

Also, does it matter if Jesus wasn't technically Joseph's son, but came about through a virgin birth?

And was Luke wrong on the census? That it happened in 6AD?

I've read that the gospels were written long after Jesus' death (90AD). Does this matter?

Thanks for any insights.

Ad Seriatim:

1. The differences between the two geneological lines is that one traces Joseph, and one Mary. One lists all the kings--even those who only reigned a very short times--whereas Matthew's is clearly using the mnemonic device of the number 14 for purposes of memorization.

2. It matters ULTIMATELY that Jesus was God's Son, and not Joseph's!

3. Quirineas was Governor of Syria ca 10 BC to 2 BC, if I remember correctly, but not in 6 AD. And when speaking of "all the world" it was quite common that the 1st century Jews in the Middle East used the term to describe Palestine; they're talking about just their 'whole world!'

4. Recent discoveries at the Sorbonne, and in Toledo have given a copy of Matthew's Gospel (perhaps even the very AUTOGRAPH!), dating from A.D. 62-65. Most scholars believe Mark was written prior to Mattew, so Mark clearly predates A.D. 62-65, many scholars leaning toward a date of around 45 for Mark. For Luke and John, the guess work is still a little more complicated, and most scholars feel 65-85 for Luke, and somewhere around A.D. 90 for John is probably fair.

[JustinM]

That would be 15 years after Christ's Resurrection. That's not a lot of time to "forget" or change things, especially when some of Christ's disciples were still alive when those books were written.

[Johni]

Thanks EricH... You are right I quit looking back at that post to see if anyone had answered. I had given up. I appreciate you link. I still have questions but I am getting an idea of how it might be that some are left out. As one person pointed out, the book of Matthew was written fairly early on and there were still many Jewish people around with access to the geneological record at that time, if this had not been correctly understood by Jews of this day there would have been challanges, and it does not seem that there were.

I'd heard that Matthew says 28 and Luke 41 (or vice versa), and was wondering if people knew which was right.

Also, does it matter if Jesus wasn't technically Joseph's son, but came about through a virgin birth?

And was Luke wrong on the census? That it happened in 6AD?

I've read that the gospels were written long after Jesus' death (90AD). Does this matter?

Thanks for any insights.

Ad Seriatim:

1. The differences between the two geneological lines is that one traces Joseph, and one Mary. One lists all the kings--even those who only reigned a very short times--whereas Matthew's is clearly using the mnemonic device of the number 14 for purposes of memorization.

2. It matters ULTIMATELY that Jesus was God's Son, and not Joseph's!

3. Quirineas was Governor of Syria ca 10 BC to 2 BC, if I remember correctly, but not in 6 AD. And when speaking of "all the world" it was quite common that the 1st century Jews in the Middle East used the term to describe Palestine; they're 'whole world!'

4. Recent discoveries at the Sorbonne, and in Toledo have given a copy of Matthew's Gospel (perhaps even the very AUTOGRAPH!), dating from A.D. 62-65. Most scholars believe Mark was written prior to Mattew, so Mark clearly predates A.D. 62-65, many scholars leaning toward a date of around 45 for Mark. For Luke and John, the guess work is still a little more complicated, and most scholars feel 65-85 for Luke, and somewhere around A.D. 90 for John is probably fair.

Interesting, for some reason I thought Matthew was the earliest written. But the fact that they were all written relatively soon after the events really supports their validity. Luke's writings contain the most intimate as far as Mary is concerned. Like he had spoken with her personally (or with someone who had known some of her most personal thoughts). Yet he was not one of the twelve.

[EricH]

Thanks EricH... You are right I quit looking back at that post to see if anyone had answered. I had given up. I appreciate you link. I still have questions but I am getting an idea of how it might be that some are left out. As one person pointed out, the book of Matthew was written fairly early on and there were still many Jewish people around with access to the geneological record at that time, if this had not been correctly understood by Jews of this day there would have been challanges, and it does not seem that there were.

I'd heard that Matthew says 28 and Luke 41 (or vice versa), and was wondering if people knew which was right.

Also, does it matter if Jesus wasn't technically Joseph's son, but came about through a virgin birth?

And was Luke wrong on the census? That it happened in 6AD?

I've read that the gospels were written long after Jesus' death (90AD). Does this matter?

Thanks for any insights.

Ad Seriatim:

1. The differences between the two geneological lines is that one traces Joseph, and one Mary. One lists all the kings--even those who only reigned a very short times--whereas Matthew's is clearly using the mnemonic device of the number 14 for purposes of memorization.

2. It matters ULTIMATELY that Jesus was God's Son, and not Joseph's!

3. Quirineas was Governor of Syria ca 10 BC to 2 BC, if I remember correctly, but not in 6 AD. And when speaking of "all the world" it was quite common that the 1st century Jews in the Middle East used the term to describe Palestine; they're 'whole world!'

4. Recent discoveries at the Sorbonne, and in Toledo have given a copy of Matthew's Gospel (perhaps even the very AUTOGRAPH!), dating from A.D. 62-65. Most scholars believe Mark was written prior to Mattew, so Mark clearly predates A.D. 62-65, many scholars leaning toward a date of around 45 for Mark. For Luke and John, the guess work is still a little more complicated, and most scholars feel 65-85 for Luke, and somewhere around A.D. 90 for John is probably fair.

Interesting, for some reason I thought Matthew was the earliest written. But the fact that they were all written relatively soon after the events really supports their validity. Luke's writings contain the most intimate as far as Mary is concerned. Like he had spoken with her personally (or with someone who had known some of her most personal thoughts). Yet he was not one of the twelve.

It's funny you mention Luke. I just started reading it today in my quiet times. As he was describing Mary's reactions to the various people who were witnesses to Jesus early life, Luke reported this:

Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth and was obedient to them. His mother kept all these things in her heart.

Luke 2:51 HCSB

I get the feeling that he did talk to Mary, and that as she recounted Jesus' early childhood, Luke could tell she treasured the memories in her heart. Luke also said this:

It also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus,

Luke 1:3 HCSB

My guess is that part of his "careful investigation" was interviewing the actual eye-witnesses

[jeffnevins]

Leonard & the rest- thanks, that helps.