From: David L. Moore (dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Dec 23 1997 - 13:23:33 EST
Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net> quoted and wrote:
>>Could Luke 3:23 be translated as:
>>
>>"Now Jesus Himself began His ministry..... (as was supposed the son of Joseph)
>>being of Heli..."
>>
>>Is it clear in Luke 3:23 that Luke intends to convey the information that
>>Joseph was not the father of Jesus so that Jesus was not the physical son of
>>Joseph and that Jesus was the physical grandson (at the least) of Heli? Or is
>>such a conclusion subject to one's interpretation of the Greek?
>
>This passage has troubled interpreters since the early church. Two aspects
>of the problem have been problematic. The easiest part has to do with the
>parenthetical statement (hWS ENOMIZETO). The more difficult has to do with
>the variance from the genealogy in Matthew. The scribe of Beza (D) rewrites
>the whole passage to take care of both problems. He changes the order,
>putting hUIOS after the parenthesis (and probably making it part of the
>parenthesis) and adds the verb EINAI before hUIOS. Thus hWS ENOMIZETO
>EINAI hUIOS IWSHF. There is no doubt that this is intended by the scribe
>to indicate that the writer did not think that Jesus was the actual son of
>Joseph. This scribe also changed all the names back through David to
>conform to Matthew's genealogy.
>
>From this rewriting until the work of A.T. Robertson (Appendix of his
>Harmony of the Gospels) most commentators have done some work on the text.
>Robertson extends the parenthetical statement to enclude both the words Son
>and Joseph and interprets it to say that HLI is the father of Mary, thus
>the genealogy is that of Mary not Joseph. All such interpretations are
>motivated by a desire to harmonize. I once had a prof who said, "I have a
>Ph.D. in Biblical studies; that gives me the right to twist this verse a
>little bit!" Would that we all were so honest!
The asumption that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary and Matthew of
Joseph seems to me the most difficult way to construe these passages. It is
especially difficult to reconcile this view with the hWS ENOMIZETO of Luke
3:23. Carlton has pointed out efforts by the scribe of MS Beza (D) to make
the parenthetical phrase say emphatically that Joseph was not Jesus' father;
but, although not emphatic, that is already the meaning of the phrase as it
stands in our text; otherwise why would the phrase be included at all?
Robertson's suggestion that hUIOS and IWSHF should be included in the
parentheses making Eli the father of Mary must stumble over the lack of any
mention of Mary in the immediate context. So if hWS ENOMIZETO is genuine,
then Luke's geneology must be of Joseph as *titular* father of Jesus.
The genealogy in Matthew, however, may bear consideration as
possibly being that of Mary. We find no expression in Matt. which
corresponds to the hWS ENOMIZETO of Lk. 3:23. (Ben Crick's way of
understanding Luke's genealogy would get around the problem of hWS
ENOMIZETO's indicating a merely titular genealogy, but it seems unlikely
that TOU HLI could mean "son-in-law of Eli" whereas the same construction in
the rest of the passage means "son of..."). Matthew straightforwardly
presents Jesus as concieved by the Holy Spirit, and not by Joseph. And
Matthew's genealogy includes the names of several women (1:5,6), including
Mary (v. 16), whereas Luke's includes no women at all. Matthew's genealogy
could be that of Mary if we allow that the ANDRA of v. 16 had been
substituted in an early stage of the MS tradition for what was originally
PATERA; this would mean that the Joseph of Matt. 1:16 is not the Joseph who
was Mary's husband, but a different Joseph, her father.
If the emendation to substitute PATERA for ANDRA in v. 16 could be
accepted, it would make the series of "fourteens" intelligible. The first
fourteen generations would run from Abraham to David, inclusive. The second
set of fourteen would include from Solomon to Jechoniah - not counting David
twice. And the third set of forteen would, according to the same system of
counting, begin with Shealtiel and end with Jesus - counting Mary as a
generation between Joseph (her father according to the suggested emendation)
and Jesus.
It seems obvious that the sets of fourteen are not meant to refer to
the actual number of generations between Abraham and Jesus; several people
included in the Bible genealogies, a source of information certainly
available to the writer of Matt., have been left out. The various reasons
that have been suggested by the commentators for the "fourteens" (doubled
mystical sevens, etc.) are not very convincing. But might it not be that
the mention of the three sets of fourteen were meant as a check to assure
that the genealogy was conveyed in its complete form. If that is the case,
the emendation of PATERA for ANDRA would be a possible solution to the
problem of the missing generation (assuming, of course, that they were meant
to be counted according to the system used above).
As to how ANDRA might have been substituted for PATERA, I think it
is not inconceivable that an early scribe saw PATERA and thought it was a
mistake since the "Joseph" he knew was Mary's husband, not her father. And
since most, if not all, Jewish genealogies trace the line of descent through
the male line; by substituting ANDRA for PATERA he would have been making
Matthew's genealogy conform to usual genealogical form, as he knew it. This
view discounts, of course, the tradition that would have Mary's father as
Joachim, as Ben Crick has mentioned.
I've been turning this possible solution to this crux over in my
mind for some time. This recent discussion of the topic has opened an
opportunity to put this suggested solution out in the open and see whether
it grows or withers. The season is right, at any rate.
I realize this is a conjecture, and I'm not suggesting that, without
MS evidence, we change our text to read PATERA in place of ANDRA. But it
seems to me a conjecture that solves a number of the problems associated
with these passages, and so is worth considering.
Regards,
David Moore
David L. Moore
Miami, Florida, USA
Southeastern Spanish District of the A/G Dept. of Education
E-mail: dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com
Home Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:41 EDT