Replies

Part of the problem is translational. English texts say, "...was the father of..." The actual Greek word is akin to "generated," and would probably best be translated as, "brought forth." Hence, Matthew can skip a generation, or even jump a branch in the family tree, to bring about the deeper, symbolic meanings of the origins of Christ.

The geneaology of Luke is even far more dissimilar to that of Matthew. After King David, the two geneaologies bear no resemblance whatsoever. BUT The English texts often say "...who was the son of...". No such words exist in the bible at all!

At least some King James' bibles at least write, "...which was [the son] of...", suggesting that the English translators are adding the words, "the son." But the words, "which were" are also added. The Greek text only lists the names, "Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat, of Melchi, ..." A son is often spoken of relative to his father, but not ncessarily.

For instance, one woman is described as being "[mother] of James," "[mother] of Joses," and "[wife] of Clophas," While James, is described as being "[son] of Alphaeus," "[brother] of Joses," and "[brother] of Jesus." (Some Catholics have identified these references to James as being all to the same person, and these references to Mary as being all to the same person, which would establish that James actually was Jesus' cousin.)

If Luke does not mean "the son of," what does he mean by "of"? Frankly, I've yet to read an explanation which identifies these people to my satisfaction.

Interesting, thank you.

I will ask you the same question I asked Con X-Poser: Why do you think Thayer specifically mentions Matt 1:17 when saying genea should be taken as a "successive line"? Just a point of curiousity for me, as I now see no problem with the first 17 verses of Matthew.

Thanks and God Bless,
47