Tag: Solution

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.

The Matthew-Luke Discrepancy: The Joseph Solution

thebibleword.org

Rather than say that different people’s genealogies are being traced from the beginning, some prefer to stick with the most apparent meaning of the texts: that both lines do in fact go through Joseph. Counter to the linguistic concerns of the first argument, proponents of this second view would understand that Joseph is most likely the grammatical focus of both passages. To logically hold this view, one must explain the different names.

One subset of this theory is that the names of both genealogies refer to the same people under different names. As stated in the article about names, many people of this culture had several names. Perhaps one of the writers found a legal documentation of the line of Joseph while the other found the family tradition. Several names do appear to be similar. The legal names may represent family heads and would have to skip two or three generations on occasion.

A second subset could argue that all the names should belong to one single line with some or no names overlapping. Matthew already doctors his generational number, so he could just pick and choose whom to include. Luke feels free to add names from the Greek manuscripts, so he may also have variation on his part. It would be impossible to determine who was who’s son exactly since the line would be so out of order. Joseph’s own father would be either Heli or Jacob.

The third, and most common argument about the Joseph resolution goes back to the same issue in the first solution about legal verses literal lines. Luke may portray the physical lineage of Joseph while Matthew shows the legal inheritance line (often blood relation, but not necessarily. The Legal vs. family name option coincides with this). Joseph may or may not be an actual son of the kings, but has the technical right to the throne through Nathan. Matthew’s term “begat” is just the language of genealogy, and does not have to imply biological imparting (although this argument trends against the focus of the seed promise). This legal heir version of sonship may not have been uncommon in rabbinic thought. Because of this, the Christians of the time would have had no problem with the legality of Jesus’ right to the throne (since it did pass from David either way).

The second name set between Zerubbabal and David may be answered in similar terms as the above. The names that Luke provides may be the birth name of the kings and their actual sons, while Matthew uses the king title. There are more generations to fit into Luke’s time frame. One would have to recognize short generations between kings to keep the years congruent. Otherwise, it may be the same resolution as before: that Neri was a blood father, and Jeconiah was legal family head. The family title passes through Neri and his son.

The strengths and weaknesses of the above theory versions are as follows. The strength of the same persons theory is that both Matthew and Luke can provide factual content at apparent value without really having to stretch anything. The weakness is that the generations don’t line up, and it makes it difficult to synchronize how this actually would play out. It would make the authors pick and choose data at random without stated reason. Similar strengths (though not as strong) applies to the second theory. Little other advantages can be found to this solution. The greatest weakness for all is practicality. For that many generations to fit into one line would either push back the accepted time table of Israelite history, or cram all generations to an average of under twenty years. It also leaves the question of why the authors chose to do it that way and (intentionally?) avoid each other’s material.

The weakness of the last Joseph view is once again assumptions, as well as the context of Luke. The same assumptions about the first solution must be made about this second view (assumptions about who’s father is whom, the specific intention of the authors, and cultural standards). Additionally, Luke’s context, though focused on sonship, is not placed on Joseph, but on Jesus. There would be a major question why Luke would introduce Joseph’s bloodline when Jesus’ sonship is in question. This last version of the Joseph solution is the most common and is the strongest of the Joseph solutions. It makes the conflict of names disappear, and allows for Luke to trace the “exact truth” and for Matthew to trace “the King.”

The Matthew-Luke Discrepancy: The Mary Solution

thebibleword.org

One popular resolution to the Matthew-Luke genealogy difference is that Matthew presents the full line of Joseph and Luke presents the full line of Mary. This view can be found as early as Hilary of Poitiers in the fourth century AD [1]. We don’t really know how popular this view was before this.  There are several reasons to suggest this view. First, one must consider the genealogical format of the time. Nowhere else in scripture do we read of a genealogy from a woman. This does not mean that women did not have recorded heritage, it just means that in format, they were traced through men. In some cases where a man has only daughters, he will find a son to adopt through a daughter to carry the family name (see 1 Chronicles 2:34-41). Although the genealogy would have the man’s name, the woman was the blood relation. Since a son-in-law is just as legitimately an heir to the family, if the genealogy was through Mary, then Luke might not have used Mary’s name as a link anyway, in keeping with the custom of the day. This is different from Matthew’s use of women. Matthew never took a bloodline through the woman, but rather supplemented the woman onto the male’s line.

Additionally one can argue for a royal vs literal line difference between Matthew and Luke. The royal line is passed on to Jesus through Joseph who was the “husband of Mary” as Matthew states. Luke on his part also separates Jesus from Joseph at the start by called Jesus the “supposed” son of Joseph. This separation from Joseph makes it less likely that a physical genealogy would prove any good. Whats the use of tracing Joseph’s lineage if Jesus wasn’t from him anyway? Rather if Matthew was using a royal heir line, then Jesus receives that title as legally adopted son of Joseph, while Luke can focus on the biological seed promise.

There are some who focus on linguistics. Linguistically, since Joseph’s name is the only name in Luke’s genealogy without the reoccurring article introducing it, some say Joseph’s name should be taken out as a candidate for the genealogy itself. The article in front of Heli’s name would then identify not with “Joseph” but with “the son”. The reference to Joseph in our English format should then be in parentheses. By this reasoning one could try to show that Luke is intending to linguistically bypass Joseph and call Jesus the son of Heli. If Heli is the father of Mary, then Jesus is his son also. This resolves the two lines extending back to David.

As to the problem with Zerubbabel’s father(s), the same supporters of this current train of thought would consistently apply the same to Neri and Jeconiah. If Jeconiah was the legal father of Shealtiel (Royal title, adoption, or association), then Neri could be the actual father, or father in Law (biology still passes through mother while crown through father). Jeremiah did make a point about Jeconiah having no child who would ever sit on the throne. Luke, who may have seen this as a potential problem, decides to trace through another side of the family and still end with David.

There are strengths and flaws with every position. As for this first argument, that Luke presents Mary’s line, the biggest weakness is in the lack of information. There must be an assumption made that cannot be supported through any other scripture. Both texts appear to show that Joseph came from two men. The linguistic points are merely an interpretation of the grammar. Nothing is exclusive in the argument. This being said, similar assumptions must be made to entertain the other solutions as well. The greatest strength with the Mary view of Luke is that it provides the least friction between accounts, and allows for Jesus’ bloodline to extend back to David and Abraham, from whom God said the seed would come from their “very being.”

1 – Hilary of Poitiers, in Angelo Mai ed., Novae Patrum Bibliothecae (Rome: Propaganda Fide, 1852), pp. 477-478.