contradictions in the bible???

[gnostic]

Ok, but if you read the Greek you won't see 'son' either, but you will see it for the rest of the blokes mentioned thereafter.

ἰωσὴφ τοῦ ἠλὶ

Joseph, qui fuit Heli

Joseph, son of Heli

(Polyglot Bible: Luke 3 from Sacred Texts)

:sorry1: ...but your explanation about Greek doesn't work for me as well.

 

[rojse]

Good question. Many scholars consider Luke's account to be the genealogy of Mary, and Matthew's account that of Joseph, after all, the two accounts share almost no names. Others add that Luke may have included levirite marriages, although by itself it's unlikely that this would account for the difference. Both ideas are debatable but put the two together and you have one possible explanation.

No, I still don't think that works.

The main argument I have with this is that in one lineage, Joseph's father was Jacob, in the other, it was Heli.

 

[rocketman]

(Polyglot Bible: Luke 3 from Sacred Texts)

:sorry1: ...but your explanation about Greek doesn't work for me as well.

Good work! I'm happy to withdraw my earlier point then. Some of my 'freinds' gave me a bum-steer on this one. Doh!

However, you are not quite right. I checked (properly this time) and the original Greek simply says 'of'. Translations such as Young's put the word [son] in brackets, while Darby's more correctly leaves it out altogether. But, the word 'of' applies to all of the blokes in the line, so while I was right about Joseph/Eli, I stuffed up on the rest.

Now here is where I turn into a pain in the butt because I am going to re-introduce my earlier point in a corrected form. Here's what I see: Joseph was 'of' Heli, Heli was 'of' so and so, and so on. But only Jesus/Joseph was nozimo. Why would Luke try to establish Joseph's lineage when he has already disconnected Joseph from the picture? When I add to this the possibilities raised by the heritage traditions I mentioned earlier it seems to me that there is more than enough room for this to be Mary's lineage. And no, as silly as it may sound at first, I don't understand why Luke would have wanted to put Mary's name in there as he has already established her motherhood earlier.

I cannot rule out the possibility that Jacob was Joseph's father and Heli Mary's, with Joseph taking on that name as allowed by precedent. I'd be dishonest with myself if I called this one a contradiction without something more substantial.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Numbers 27:8 lets brotherless women inherit their Father's heritage, but in verse 4 is a clear reference that the intent was for the family name to carry on too.

If you were right about that (which you're not, and I'll explain in a bit), the line would stop with the mother. The mother doesn't determine a child's household/tribe.... the father does.


As for you being wrong about Numbers 27:8... That verse is about the transfer of land/animals/gold.... material possessions. It has nothing to do with bloodlines and monarchical heritage.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As for you being wrong about Numbers 27:8... That verse is about the transfer of land/animals/gold.... material possessions. It has nothing to do with bloodlines and monarchical heritage.

It is impossible to understand this topic without understanding the early view of kinship, primogeniture, the afterlife, and such things as the levirate marriage which resulted.

 

[gnostic]

However, you are not quite right. I checked (properly this time) and the original Greek simply says 'of'. Translations such as Young's put the word [son] in brackets, while Darby's more correctly leaves it out altogether. But, the word 'of' applies to all of the blokes in the line, so while I was right about Joseph/Eli, I stuffed up on the rest.

Now here is where I turn into a pain in the butt because I am going to re-introduce my earlier point in a corrected form. Here's what I see: Joseph was 'of' Heli, Heli was 'of' so and so, and so on.

Granted it only say "of" instead of "son of", but as you yourself have stated, the same thing is repeated with "of", beginning with Jacob and Heli.

In the Darby translation it use the same thing ("of") as the Greek for everyone else:

23And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli, 24of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi, of Janna, of Joseph,
25of Mattathias, of Amos, of Naoum, of Esli, of Naggai,

So I am still more inclined to say that Luke believed that Jacob was a son of Heli, as opposed to Matthew writing that Joseph was son of Jacob. You are basing it all solely on your interpretation, as I am, but I do have other sources (from KJV Bible and Good News Bible that I have quoted) that Luke says the same thing.

It look like we are not getting anywhere with this. We will just have to agree that we disagree on this subject.

 

[Poisonshady313]

It is impossible to understand this topic without understanding the early view of kinship, primogeniture, the afterlife, and such things as the levirate marriage which resulted.

I just told you... the matter of Numbers 27 deals strictly with material possession... land.

Rashi comments on the verse that says "you shall cause his inheritance to pass over to his daughter.

Instead of using the verb give as in verses 9, 10, and 11, which speak of male inheritance, here the Torah uses the term pass over, because the inheritance of a woman can have a result that a man's does not. If she were to marry a man from a tribe other than her father's, the effect would be that the title to her property would pass over from her original tribe to her new one. Thus, her tribe as a community would lose land.


A woman becomes a part of the household of her husband. This is why lineage is traced solely through the father.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I just told you... the matter of Numbers 27 deals strictly with material possession...

Forgive me for not bowing down in acquiessence - to you or, for that matter, to Rashi.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Forgive me for not bowing down in acquiessence - to you or, for that matter, to Rashi.

When you say something like: It is impossible to understand this topic without understanding...

What makes you think I don't understand?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What makes you think I don't understand?

I'm sorry, but was that a trick question?

Rashi is not the last word in scholarship. Anyone who thinks that the issue of inheritance and land was strictly a material question is demonstrating significant ignorance. See, for example, Herbert Chanon Brichto's "Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife - A Biblical Complex", in Hebrew Union College Annual 44.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'm sorry, but was that a trick question?

Rashi is not the last word in scholarship. Anyone who thinks that the issue of inheritance and land was strictly a material question is demonstrating significant ignorance. See, for example, Herbert Chanon Brichto's "Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife - A Biblical Complex", in Hebrew Union College Annual 44.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm talking about Numbers 27.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I understand.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I understand.

Very good. Since you disagree with me, you look for reasons to take me less seriously.

I hope you're better at facing challenges in real life than you are online... otherwise, you're in trouble.