Tag: History

The Matthew-Luke Discrepancy: The Levirate and Historicity Solution

thebibleword.org

So far, we have considered a Mary solution and a Joseph solution which have been proposed throughout the millennia. Another ancient argument dates to Africanus, who argues for a levirate law situation. A different article on Levirate Law can go into more detail on this subject. The basic Law states that if a man dies before he has children, his next eligible brother shall marry his widow and raise at least one child in the first brother’s name. This child would then be counted as the son of the first brother, not as the second brother’s. This is how the argument is applied to Jesus’ genealogy: if Heli and Jacob were brothers, and one died, the one left then brought up Joseph in the other’s name. It would be impossible to identify which brother was the actual father. The predominant view is that Luke traces the bloodline (actual father) while Matthew uses the inherited name (legal father). The same thought or similar thoughts could be said of the second set of names during the days of the kings. Jeconiah may have faced a time where he needed to bring up children in the name of his next of kin: Neri. Conversely, Jeconiah may have died “childless” (no actual blood children) and Neri raised up Sheiltiel with the royal name.

The advantage to this view (which is really a branch of the Joseph solution) is that where few of the other solutions have biblical precedent, this has both a law and a NT discussion to back up its credibility as an option.[1] It is a version of the legal vs. literal line and allows for both lines. The weakness of this argument is that it is factually misapplied. The Levirate law states that those who are legally obligated to this task must be brothers of the same house. If Heli and Jacob were of the same father (as opposed to half brothers through the mother) then the lines would be the same. If they were not of the same house and lineage and were operating by principle only, then the legality would be different. One of the other views must be taken past this single generation to adequately apply the Levirate Law. Beyond this, the same disadvantages of the other Joseph solutions may apply.

Some argue on a separate plane altogether. A popular trend today challenges the historicity of the genealogies. They want to show that genealogies were rarely intended to be biologically accurate. They say that ancient cultures did not always intend to record biological connections, therefore they could choose whomever they desired to pass the name through. This argument is based on research of ancient oral cultures. Much of the genealogical tradition is based on memory aid. This could significantly impact numbers of generations, sets of names, etc. Much of the purpose of those genealogies was to establish social connections with the community. Ancient society was more dependent on social interactions and neighborly connections. Genealogies may have been used in some societies to: establish links to other families that one was familiar with, establish links to a new family for the purpose of opening a new relationship, or/and confirm legitimacy and rights for heritage. Historians believe that these cultures may accomplish their goals by many means. One mean may be association of contacts rather than blood relation. One family who was closely associated with another could be grouped by genealogy. By these assumptions they would rather think that the genealogies of Matthew and Luke are not intending to be a strict biological chain anyway.

The strength of this argument is that it makes any discrepancy of accounts a non-issue, since there could be near infinite ways of recording the line. It is an extended version of the royal title argument, just applied to both genealogies and to social connection instead of kingship. Its weakness, like the previous argument, lacks historical proof. As covered in the Historicity article, in order to believe that the historical data is not literal, there must be an alternative credible historical source. Since there is no indication in the text that these lines are figurative, one must have another source to indicate this. Even if most ancient genealogies were figurative, we must show by text how this impacts the genealogies of scripture and bypasses Luke’s intent as preserving ‘the exact truth’ of Jesus. Additionally, this view does not take the Jewish culture into account, nor the expectations of their messiah. The Jewish culture was fiercely nationalistic, and valued bloodline religiously. Other cultures may have valued this to certain levels, but the scriptures clearly indicate that heritage and genealogy was a focal point of culture and religion. (see sonship and purpose articles). To apply a historicity argument nullifies much of the truth on which Christianity is based. It does not fit well with any context of the passages.

Historicity of Genealogies

thebibleword.org

Historicity is an important topic for establishing credibility. If the data within the scriptures are reliable, we must know what to expect in terms of its historical accuracy. Historicity is the field of study that targets whether the History recounted within a document is accurate or if it sacrifices what actually happened for literary or theological purposes. Before discussing the historicity of Biblical genealogies, one must establish a general understanding of Biblical historicity.

First, if historicity is to be challenged, then there must be a credible reason to believe the history is in question. Without adequate evidence against a historical statement, there is no basis to question the source. This implies that with every legitimate question there are multiple accounts of the same event providing mutually exclusive details. Once it can be proven that a contradiction in accounts exists, then one must evaluate which source is more credible. Credibility (or lack there of) can be studied on several grounds including: factual support, contemporary consent, motivation (political, religious, personal), plausibility, or context. As with any study of Historicity, the first attack is on the author and his credibility, and next on the work and it’s literary context.

When one questions the historicity of the Bible they question the authors and/or their purpose. The Bible has multiple authors from varying cultures and backgrounds.[1] Can we know that the authors are historically reliable? Almost all the historical information we have on its human authors comes from within the Biblical text. Many of the authors claim divine revelation,[2] meaning that doubts concerning reliability point rather to an all knowing and perfect source. Some Biblical authors write their works without claiming specific revelation, but are validated by others.[3] In this way, attacking one author invariably attacks others, to the point that the entire Bible stands as a whole unit more than just individual and unrelated works. The Bible is not infallible because it says so. It is infallible because no author within it contradicts another. All texts stand in perfect and incredible harmony.

One must be careful in questioning authors who have more knowledge of the events than ourselves. Every biblical author was in a better historical and cultural position to comment on the material they wrote.[4] If there is a case to be made from this side of time, then we can only use material that was written by those who were the most credible. Many people claim historical contradictions between the Bible and alternative sources, but a study of context always provides a reasonable explanation. This is not a blind and ignorant approach to historicity. We are merely looking for consistent benefit of the doubt to be applied to all history: Biblical documents included. An example of this from a genealogical standpoint is the difference between Luke’s account of the line of David to Adam verses what is recorded in the Masoretic text. Two names are added by Luke: Admin and Canaan.[5] This difference questions historicity. Were these names actually in the line or not? If they were does that mean the Jewish scriptures are unreliable? If they did not belong does that make Luke’s history false?

The answer lies in context, which is the first rule of thumb to solve any literary issue.[6] Where the Masoretic texts are intending to duplicate the originals in all ways, the Greek Septuagint translation makes no claim to this end. The LXX had the right to add material that was viewed as credible without intending to negate the claims of the originals. The Jewish scriptures themselves only represent a limited amount of historical data which focuses on the characters at hand. Luke affirms that he did research apart from traditional scripture. One of the most obvious places we see this is the line extending from Jesus to Nathan son of David. Luke had access to genealogies not needed in scripture but still not questioned by contemporaries. [7] Luke adds these names based on his trust that the LXX was accurate in preserving these names. These names, not needed nor preserved in the Masoretic text, can still be part of history. The Jewish data is not in question because they skipped generations (see article of genealogical Gaps). In this case we do not need to question either the Jewish scriptures nor its Greek translation. Luke researched this issue beyond the documents we personally have. The  LXX in its entirety may not be perfect in historicity, but Luke for his genealogy confirms that it is trustworthy in this case.[8]

Beyond context of source is context of culture. The orthodox Jewish culture was fiercely nationalistic and did not welcome foreign blood. This is often overlooked by historians who like to challenge the historicity of biblical genealogies based on other ancient oral cultures. When we study ancient oral cultures, some say that exact historicity was irrelevant to the ancients. They didn’t always care who made up their history (or they manipulated some in their favor). While other oral cultures may or may not care where their exact origins lie, the Jews saw historicity as of utmost importance in both religion and culture (see sonship and purpose articles). Some call for a postmodern reading of the historical data. In this argument the genealogies aren’t intending to represent real people or times. Instead they are trying to establish loose society connections with those who surround them.

The context of the Jewish culture fiercely opposes this attack on historicity. The dependence on bloodline was unprecedented in the Jewish society. This is what drives the animosity seen in the NT when the fulfillment of the Law allows for Gentiles to be included as sons of God. Without strict historicity this Pharisaical mentality does not evolve as we see it. Because the Jews cared so much about their bloodline, their genealogies were written down early on to preserve them as accurately as possible. Skipping generations was not seen as an offense, but moving or fabricating ‘branches’ of their genealogical tree was egregious. We can trust their motives to preserve accurate history, especially to preserve bloodline.

No one can deny that our understanding of scripture can be enhanced by the study of the ancient world. In such a study we are simply trying to see things through their eyes. But let us also hold to certain parameters. For, unless we introduce consistent rules for application, we will have no grounds to separate scripture and truth from myth and tradition. I hope we would all agree that applying every cultural whim of the ancients to scripture would undermine the very faith the scriptures support. Let us also keep in mind that the scriptures purport things that are, in fact, contrary to contemporary opinion. The Jews were called out to be different from the nations around them. They did fail in this many times over, but when the faithful saints of the Old Covenant preserved scripture, they did so in a very holy and guided way. In order to suggest that a cultural practice, understanding, or intention change the apparent meaning of the text of scripture there must be substantial evidence.

To suggest that the ancients were ok with mythological genealogies is fine. They were entitled to their culture and understanding. To say that the Jews also were aware of this culture is expected. But to suggest that the Jews adopted that meaning simply because it was contemporary needs further support. Especially when every case presented within scripture supports the importance of bloodline, history, and truth. If there is a case that shows the ancient scriptural authors intended a fiction format for their genealogies then we must first explain why they do so in contrast to the pattern established by the seed promise and Israelite bloodline. They must, second, show ample proof that the genealogy is intended to be fiction. Without any evidence to support such, simply claiming “the ancients often thought so” is without warrant, and quite honestly not very consistent with the stress of truth surrounding the scriptures.

Remember what Paul says: “command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.”

Myths and Genealogies should not distract us from the truth. The myths and genealogies were very prominent in Paul’s day. Rather than interpreting the scriptures by them, Paul saw myth in opposition to it! How do we combat myth and endless genealogy? By sticking to scripture. The point at which we make the genealogies within scripture myth and endless speculation, we are in danger of leaving sound truth and holding to personal opinion.

We must all be careful to not hold to things which we do not know, and to admit ignorance when the truth is not explicit. Humility is important for all sides. But the scriptures are always described as the words of truth. If we substitute truth for myth within genealogies, on what grounds do we stand to hold to the other truths of scripture?

With both source and culture we see that historicity is important to the Jews. The historical accuracy becomes especially important in genealogies. If one questions the accuracy of the genealogies he must present adequate, more accurate, and more credible material that presents a true contradiction. If one questions the historicity of Biblical genealogies, then it is incumbent to provide true and applicable history rather than self opinion.

[1] Noting the extremes of Moses to Solomon to Paul to John
[2] ex: Ezekiel 1:1; Isaiah 1:2; 1 Peter 4:10-11; Galatians 1
[3] Matthew 5:18-19; 2 Timothy 3:14-17; 2 Peter 1:20
[4] 2 Peter 1:16-18; 1 John 1:1-4
[5] Luke 3:33, 36
[6] Another article on skipping generations could expound on this thought. In short, we can see from many places in the Bible where skipping generations is commonplace and still historically accurate. The terms “son of” and “begot” accommodate more than just one generation. The topic of Sonship also aids this discussion by allowing for fluctuation in family connections.
[7] The LXX, for instance, does not claim to be a one to one transliteration of the original text. It retains the literary right to add whatever data it wishes without corrupting the original text. Many of the NT authors confirm that the LXX is accurate enough to use. In other words: the LXX, though not an exact copy of scripture, retains accurate enough historical data that does not necessarily have to conflict with the Hebrew text.
[8] Luke 1:3-4