Board index ‹ Assorted Bible Questions

[JarJar Binks]

How was Joseph's ancestry known all the way from Abraham?

Was Joseph someone noble/important enough before Jesus was born that people would keep records of it or did everyone keep such detailed records? Or was there another source of that information (e.g. provided by God or a genealogist did research later on)?

[jimwalton]

The primary reason in the ancient world to keep a genealogy was to confirm the legitimacy of kings and priests. In Israel they were also kept because God had given each clan land that was to be kept in the clan as part of the covenant, so it was important to keep genealogical records.

We learn from history that the Jewish people were meticulous (OCD) genealogical record-keepers. From Genesis to Jesus, we can see built into the text a cultural and theological value of accurate generational records. There was a concerted effort to keep track not only of kingly and priestly lines, but also of common folks because of land inheritance. The OT manifests a continuous effort to keep a reliable genealogical record, with no fewer than 25 genealogical lists recorded for us.

We learn from history that Judaism continued to the tradition of the importance and value of an accurate genealogy. The purity of the priestly line was important in Israel life during the exile (586 BC and forward) through AD 70 (the destruction of the Temple and the end of the priesthood). The return from exile recorded by Ezra and Nehemiah is marked by long genealogical lists.

By the time we get to the Gospels we hear of John the Baptist being born of the son of a priest and his wife who was also from a priestly line. (In the Talmud there is a section called the Kiddushin, which is part of the Mishnal, dealing with rules about betrothals and marriages. It relates to us the dedication of the Jewish people to keep track of who were legitimate priests. In addition, since the Mosaic law forbade the marriage of Jews of legitimate bloodline to those of compromised bloodline (Ezra 10.18-44), every circumspect Jew—but especially priests and those in the dynastic line of David—would want to keep a reputable genealogical record. The purity of the priesthood was strictly safeguarded by proper marriage and accurate records.

It is from these rules and writings we can conclude that Jesus's genealogy through Joseph and Mary was faithfully recorded through history. Since John the Baptist's parents were of priestly descent, and since Jesus was John's cousin, Jesus may also have had some ancestral integration in priestly families (most likely through Mary if it's the case). The genealogies also show that Joseph was legitimately in the David dynastic line.

Joseph was neither noble nor important enough. David's genealogical line by now spread to many families. But the ancestral chain shows that Joseph was one of them, and that's important for the identity of Jesus as a son of David. It's possible also that Mary was a descendant of David's, and perhaps had priestly intersections in her genealogy as well, which is important, again, for Jesus. No matter how you figure it, he was a "son of David," a descendant of Judah, but perhaps also in the priestly line.

[Handsome]

> It is from these rules and writings we can conclude that Jesus's genealogy through Joseph and Mary was faithfully recorded through history.

There are huge discrepancies between Matthew and Luke. Ironically, the biggest differences are right after David. Luke doesn't even include Solomon.

[jimwalton]

Yes, I didn't address the discrepancies because they weren't the poster's question.

The two accounts differ, but it's not necessarily so that the genealogies contradict each other. There were different purposes in the ancient world for keeping such records, as I mentioned, so disparities can be intentional without being incorrect or contradictory. We must examine whether Matthew and Luke may each have a separate reason for including a genealogy.

Matthew is writing a book of Jewish history and theology, and so his genealogy traces back to Abraham, the patriarch of the nation of Israel. Luke, in contrast, portrays Jesus more as the Messianic David that King David never was, the Son of Man who takes away the sin of the world. His genealogy, therefore, goes all the way back to Adam in the Garden of Eden where sin began.

Why, we must then ask, are the two genealogical trees so different in Matthew and Luke, especially, as you mentioned, right after David? We can easily see that Matthew has a descending list, from Abraham down to Jesus, while Luke has an ascending list from Jesus back to Adam. Matthew has obviously structured his list for theological purposes, including specifically fourteen generations in each set (Mt. 1.17). No one knows what is behind Matthew’s numbers and why he has chosen only 14 from each grouping, though there are a few theories. He has obviously been intentionally selective. Fourteen is a multiple of seven, but all theories are speculative about Matthew’s method. Luke, in contrast to Matthew, seems to give a more complete list.
The two lists are virtually identical from Abraham to David, but after David they are completely different until they arrive at Jesus. It is irresponsible to shallow-mindedly jump to the superficial conclusions that the authors were ignorant and contradict each other. In the case of Jesus’s family, we have learned that there was a strong motivation to keep accurate records, both because He was of the line of David and also because he was at least partially of priestly descent.

Several theories have been proposed to explain the differences between the two lists.

1. Matthew gives Joseph’s line and Luke gives Mary’s. Matthew 1.16 identifies Jacob as the father of Joseph, while Luke is a little more vague. The text reads that Jesus “was the son, as it was assumed, of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat…” It’s altogether possible that Joseph is not really part of the list that Luke is putting together. Matthew presents Jesus as the king of the Jews, thus his legal position in the royal line descended from David is vital, as is His descent from Abraham. Luke, on the other hand, presents Jesus as the Son of Man who came for Jews and Gentiles alike, so his genealogy focuses on His only tie to the human race (Mary) and traces His line all the way back to Adam, thus connecting Him to all of humanity.

2. Matthew gives Mary’s line and Luke gives Joseph’s. Matthew specifically mentions that Joseph is the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus (Mt. 1.16). He concludes his genealogy by connecting Jesus’s birth to Mary, not to Joseph (Mt. 1.18). Matthew never claims that Joseph is Jesus’s father, so possibly Matthew is tracing the line through His mother.

3. Matthew follows Jesus’s natural descent and Luke traces His legal descent. In other words, Matthew is more interested to show Jesus as a biological son of David (Mt. 1.1, 6, 20), while Luke may be tracing a more legal and possibly even priestly line, including King David, Governor Zerubbabel, and General Joshua. It’s possible that Joseph was from the tribe of Judah (David), and Mary from the tribe of Levi (Aaron).

4. Joseph’s biological father, Jacob, died, and so his brother Heli married Joseph’s mother (levirate marriage).

5. Matthew’s genealogy is through Joseph’s mother (his maternal ancestors), and Luke’s is through Joseph’s father (paternal ancestors), showing us that no matter how one traces the line, it still arrives at David.

6. Matthew’s genealogy traces through the royal line of Solomon, David’s choice for successor (1 Ki. 1-2), but Luke’s bypasses a particular segment of the royal line because of Jeremiah’s curse (Jer. 22.24-30), and therefore traces the lineage through a separate heir of David, Nathan. Both of them still end up at Joseph. Jeremiah prophesied against the godless kings of Judah and warned that the family of Jehoiachin would be barred from the throne. It is speculated that Luke follows the line of Nathan, another of David’s sons (2 Sam. 5.14) but still of the royal bloodline.

It is interesting that no one in early Christianity writes about any problem with the two lists. Not a single one writes about an awkward discrepancy or a contradiction. It makes one pause to consider that they knew something we don’t—the explanation behind the two disparate lists that has been lost to history. Some of the Church Fathers may have personally known some of the Apostles, and there’s not a peep about any problem with these two texts. Though this is an argument from silence, it possibly shows that the different genealogical lists were not a major obstacle for the apostolic and church fathers, who were much closer to the information and may have had access to the original authors as well as to documents now lost to us.

That Jesus is a legitimate son of David seems to have been a matter of common understanding during His ministry (Mk. 10.47 and others). Paul asserts the same lineage for Jesus (Rom. 1.3), and Hebrews 7.14 assumes that everyone knows that Jesus belonged to the tribe of Judah—David’s tribe (Gn. 38.29; Ruth 4.18-22). It was a fact that was never questioned. There is never any record in any ancient source that His lineage was ever doubted or denied.

[Handsome]

Which theory do you subscribe to?

[jimwalton]

I dunno, and it really doesn't matter what my opinion is. The point is that the two genealogical lists may be tracing different ancestries.

I keep the genealogical list for my family on ancestry.com, and I know that there are many different ways I could trace my own lineage. Genealogies are an interesting thing: from every individual they diverge in both directions. If I start with me and go backwards, I have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 16 greats, along with many aunts and uncles, like a giant funnel with me as the narrow part. But if I start with me and go forwards, I have 4 kids, 13 grandkids, 26 greats, etc. It's like a giant inverted funnel with me as the narrow part.

I've had conversations with geneticists. There are various foci where the genetic line (different from the biological line) for each individual converges with that of many others. Apparently all of humanity converges (genetically, not biologically) on a single couple in about 6000 BC), as well as another one in the far distant past (700K BC). These things are just fascinating to me. They also humble me. I'm not so quick to assume that because the lists of Matthew and Luke are different that they contradict, and the authors were either stupid, clueless, or manipulative. Genealogical lines are not fluid, but they can be viewed through so many different lenses. In my own family, there are enough deaths and divorces to make lineage a very complicated matter, and there are many ways to trace it. One ancestor, several generations back—his wife died and he married her sister! One ancestor's wife died, and his brother died, so he married his sister-in-law.

We dare not make a simple, superficial, and biased conclusion about Luke's and Matthew's lists. Whatever the deal going on there is lost to us, but I don't assume they contradict. These were both intelligent writers who carefully researched their works, and no one in the ancient world seemed to have a problem with what they wrote. They knew something we don't. It's interesting to speculate what it was, but my opinion/preference is totally meaningless.

[Millennial]

I have a question about humanity tracing back to a single couple in 6000 BC. Around that period there were the Jiahu in China, and there were at least nomads in the Americas. How do those reconcile with a single ancestral couple around 6000 BC?

[jimwalton]

There is a pair of homo sapiens that are universal genealogical ancestors (not human biological ancestors) of all humankind. We all have universal genealogical ancestors, individuals in the genetic line, to whom we all relate.

Don't be confused. Modern genomics indicates not only that we as humans arose through an evolutionary process, but also that we did so as a population (consistent with evolutionary data from other species). There is no evidence in our evolutionary history for an ancestral population less than about 5,000-10,000 individuals. It is known that modern humans descend, in part, from both Neanderthal and Denisovan populations.

There are ways that geneticists can trace alleles to discover a distribution of times to the most recent common ancestor for alleles across the genome. The work of Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass (Washington Univ., St. Louis) shows that ~8,000 years ago, human genetic lines (not biological lines) coalesce in a homo sapiens couple.

As I mentioned to another poster, genealogies are an interesting thing: from every individual they diverge in both directions. If I start with me and go backwards, I have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 16 greats, along with many aunts and uncles, like a giant funnel with me as the narrow part. But if I start with me and go forwards, I could have 4 kids, 13 grandkids, 26 greats, etc. It's like a giant inverted funnel with me as the narrow part. With all of us like this, geneticists tell us there are genetic points of convergence where all humans cross through the same individuals (which is not to claim biological relation, but only genetic relation). Since the funnels for each one of us keeps growing larger, eventually we hit individuals to which we are all genetically related. That's what Swamidass has discovered.

[Handsome]

Forgive me, but that's one dude with one theory - there isn't a whiff of consensus. It's an incredible theory that would change the world if it were as compelling as you're making it sound. I have a sneaking suspicion that the majority of those people who are satisfied with this theory are endorsers of Abrahamic religions. If we start to see Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Sikh, Jain, Tao, pagan, and non-religious scientists forming a consensus around this theory then this guy might be onto something. If it turns out to be true then great, but let's hold our proverbial horses.

[jimwalton]

If it's good science, it doesn't matter if the source is an Abrahamic endorser or not. It has been commented that "Swamidass’ hypothesis seems to be scientifically unassailable," so we'll have to see what continued analysis and peer review brings out. Don't let your "sneaking suspicions" lead to premature and unwarranted bias. We'll all keep an open mind until more data and critique is brought to bear.