# *Bibleman, you there??

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Bibleman [Bibleman] on November 25, 1999 at 21:39:18 {yaNwUlwC5cf9UnUPxURUslyACFuF8c}:

In Reply to: Bibleman, you there?? posted by DaJahVeu on November 25, 1999 at 11:39:10:

Hi Dah,

Thanks for your vote of confidence or at least inteerest.

As far as the lineages go, I think that Matthew and Mark simply were showing how the lineages were compiled and by comparison we can learn certain things. My general observation seems to indicate that Matthew demonstrates more of the LEGAL line genealogy which would have been the legally established right of accession to the kingship, thus the line is given through Solomon.

Luke's genealogy gives an alternative link through Nathan, perhaps to show Jesus had a claim to the throne via another line other than Solomon's if in some spiritual sense, Solomon's kingship line became ultimately rejected because of all the problems and Solomon's apostasy.

So maybe one shows an alternative line that those of a spiritual nature might relate to if the line went through Nathan rather than Solomon, so that ultimately it could be claimed that Jesus was not sitting on the Solomon's throne, but David's through Nathan. But to establish his legal right to the throne via the actual kingship via Solomon, it was included.

A comparison of the two genealogies does provide some information though about how the genealogies were compiled. It seems that Luke always follows the natural line rather than the legal-property line. That is, in the case of levirate brother-in-law marriage, Luke always gives the natural father rather than the "legal" father, whereas Matthew pays more attention to the legal father. So the two are also different TYPES of lists employed.

Some highlights that some think are "discrepancies" are the issue of CAINAN being the son of Arpachshad, inserted between Arpachshad and Selah. Since it appears in Luke's list, this suggests that Cainan was the son-in-law of Arpachshad and Selah was the grandson of Arpachshad rather than his son. But this also tells us that sometimes generations are skipped in the lists in the case where the line goes through the daughters.

This is consistent with the problems involving Zerubbabel being the son of "Pedaiah" and the son of Shealtiel. But also Shealtiel being called the son of "Neri" as well as the son of Jeconiah. What it thus appears is that Shealtiel married Neri's daughter via brother-in-law marriage, she being Shealtiel's brother's wife who must have died childless. Therefore, Zerubbabel is said to be the son of both "Pedaiah" and Shealtiel. But since Luke deals with the natural son-in-law, Shealtiel must have been the actual father of Zerubbabel. So that worked out.

Also of note, since both lines combine at Zerubbabel and Shealtiel, there must have been a specific purpose for the alternative chronology since it wasn't necessary to show the alternative line past those two men. So the differences are intentional.

Cheers,
Bibleman

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: **Bibleman, you there??

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]