Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Luke

[Yummy Yummy]

Biblical Non-literalists, in what ways is Luke's genealogy from Adam to Jesus inaccurate or metaphorical?

In other words, why are Young Earth Creationists wrong for believing that the list of names is accurate and complete?

Note that Matthew goes from Abraham to Jesus, and the two genealogies are identical between Abraham and David.

If that is enough to satisfy you, then how do you account for the 10,000-ish years of genealogy versus at least 200,000 years (to 1 or 2 millions of years) of humanity based on scientists' studies?

[jimwalton]

I don't consider Luke's genealogy to be either inaccurate or metaphorical. There are other choices here.

Ancient genealogies were selective. They were not like our modern ones. They were rarely, if ever, all-inclusive. Select generations were included to suit the purpose of the list (royal dynasty, priestly legitimacy, property ownership). The included # of generations were often symbolic.
- Gn. 5 records 10 from Adam to Noah
- Gn. 10 includes 70 names
- Gn. 11 records 10 from Shem to Abraham
- Gn. 46 includes 70 names
- Ruth 4 records 10 from Perez to David

Matthew & Luke have separate purposes for their genealogies. Matthew is writing a book of Jewish history and theology, and so his genealogy traces back to Abraham. Luke wants to show Jesus as the son of Man who takes away the sin of the world, and so his goes back to Adam. Matthew's is a descending list, while Luke's is ascending.

Matthew includes 14 generations in each grouping (obviously not all inclusive of every generation, but obviously a symbolic number. He has obviously been intentionally selective.

As you mentioned, the lists are identical until David, after which they diverge. Several theories have been proposed to explain the difference (none of which are metaphorical nor necessarily inaccurate).

1. Matthew gives Joseph's line and Luke gives Mary's.
2. Matthew gives Mary's line and Luke gives Joseph's.
3. Matthew follows Jesus's natural descent and Luke traces his legal descent.
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 and Luke's through Joseph's father ( no matter which way, 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's interesting that no one in early Christianity writes about any problem with the two lists, though they knew they were different. Not a single one writes about discrepancy, contradiction, inaccuracy, or metaphor.

> In other words, why are Young Earth Creationists wrong for believing that the list of names is accurate and complete?

They are wrong because the ancient genealogies are not all-inclusive. They telescope the genealogies for their purposes in writing, as did all ancient genealogists. Ancient records confirm this approach to genealogies. Though we only have a handful of ancient Mesopotamian genealogies, the ones we have are the records of either royal or scribal families, spanning anywhere from three to twelve generations. Egyptian genealogies are mostly of priestly lines of succession and legitimacy, sometimes as long as 17 generations. Some of them contain a consecutive list while others exercise more freedom by not including everyone.

Their point wasn’t to include everyone, but instead was mostly to establish pedigree ("I am the rightful king or priest"), as well as to notate how God, or the gods, had perpetrated continuity from one era to another. In other words, they served mostly a theological role, justifying the divine right of kings who were trying to maintain their power, rank, and status, and also of priests, to prove their right of access to sacred space. The primary reason to keep a genealogy in the ancient world was to confirm the legitimacy of the king or priests.

We are historically wrong to just do the math, add up the genealogical numbers in the Bible and think we can arrive at the date of people like Noah or Adam.

> how do you account for the 10,000-ish years of genealogy versus at least 200,000 years (to 1 or 2 millions of years) of humanity based on scientists' studies?

Because 10,000-ish years of genealogy is basically the era of human history (the Neolithic Era). Before that, we consider it "pre-history." It's no surprise that the Bible possibly picks up the biblical story in the historic era of humanity, perhaps supposing that Adam and Eve were ~6,000 BC (who really knows).

Let's talk some more. It's a fascinating subject.

[Yummy Yummy]

Thank you for the thorough reply. Would be interesting to see whether a YEC can explain why their interpretation is more accurate.