coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

mikokiko

posted on Dec 06, 2007 - 12:18 PM

Hey guys its me again,
I just wanted to hear your guys' opinion on the seemingly contradicting genealogies given in the Gospels of St. Luke and St. Matthew, I'd be really interested in hearing your guys' ideas and how to rationalize such apparent discrepancies. Thanks...I will
provide the passages from the NKJV so its easier to quote from here:
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ
According to the Gospel of St. Luke the Evangelist:
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:
Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers. Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez begot Hezron, and Hezron begot Ram. Ram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon. Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab, Boaz begot Obed by Ruth, Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David the king.

David the king begot Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah. Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa. Asa begot Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat begot Joram, and Joram begot Uzziah. Uzziah begot Jotham, Jotham begot Ahaz, and Ahaz begot Hezekiah. Hezekiah begot Manasseh, Manasseh begot Amon, and Amon begot Josiah. Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel begot Abiud, Abiud begot Eliakim, and Eliakim begot Azor. Azor begot Zadok, Zadok begot Achim, and Achim begot Eliud. Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.

According to the Gospel of St. Matthew the Evangelist:
Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,[d]the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Semei, the son of Joseph, the son of Judah, the son of Joannas, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmodam, the son of Er, the son of Jose, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1131

mikokiko

posted on Dec 06, 2007 - 12:20 PM

Sorry the first is St. Matthew and the second St. Luke

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1131

tonyhabibi

posted on Dec 06, 2007 - 03:21 PM

i have a question to add to the extensive line of questioning .

since jesus was born in Virgin Mary's womb , does that mean jesus had the " Gene's " of saint mary in him ? did he have some of saint mary's blood in him ? or was our god merely formed in her womb , and not attain any human or biological aspects from her.

I think the answer is yes ... that jesus did have some genes of MARY , AND DID HAVE MARY'S BLOOD IN HIS BLOOD. but i just wanna be sure.

_________________
( insert Cool Signature here , think original )

Joined: Apr 09, 2004 | Posts: 1244
Location: IN THE back of your mind .navagating through your heart , resting in your soul .

Biboboy

posted on Dec 06, 2007 - 04:11 PM

Agape,

Tony, yes, Christ had St. Mary's genes, because that's where he got his humanity from. He was perfect God and perfect man, so yes he had everything like us, except sin.

Miko, in St. Matthew's account, it says that St. Joseph was the son of Jacob, and so it traces the geneology of Jacob's line. In St. Luke's account, it says that St. Joseph was the son of Heli, and so it traces the geneology of Heli's line. So the question really is: who's the father of St. Joseph?

Now here's what should be noticed: St. Matthew says that St. Joseph was born or begotten (Gr. egenneesen) of Jacob, but St. Luke avoids using that term in his geneology, and says "Joseph of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi.." So that means that St. Luke did not record the biological geneology of St. Joseph - and for the same reason he begins by saying that it is "ideally" or "as thought" that Jesus was the son of Joseph. That "ideally" part serves as a preface to what comes ahead: that the geneology isn't one that traces biological relationships. Rather, it's a geneology that allows for relationships of adoption: just as Christ was "ideally" the son of St. Joseph by adoption, so it's safe to assume that St. Joseph was "ideally" the son of Heli by adoption.

_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).

"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.

In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!

Joined: Sep 28, 2004 | Posts: 751

Peter

posted on Dec 06, 2007 - 10:18 PM

The two evangelists had different purposes in the listing of their genealogy, both genealogies are incomplete from historico-biological (pardon the made-up word) point of view, i.e. for a period of some 400 (like the captivity) years only 3 names are listed.

According to Eusebius in his Church History (chap 7 I think), the differences is one lists the the biological genealogy while the the other the legal (within Jewish law here are various circumstances a child can be considered one's son despite no direct relation). More modern commentators are of the opinion that the genealogy of St. Luke is actual of St.Mary.

Also Julius Africanus in his Epistle to Aristedes explains the discrepencies. http://www.haywardfamily.org/ccel/fathe ... nf0648.htm


P.S. Tony from a biological standpoint there is no mixing of blood between child and mother.

Joined: Mar 18, 2003 | Posts: 461
Location: Jersey City, NJ

mikokiko

posted on Dec 06, 2007 - 10:58 PM

But I do not understand how if we follow this line of thinking, that we can call our Lady St. Mary, the daughter of King David, and of the tribe of Judah? Also, if St. Luke's genealogy was that of the Virgin's then I do not see how we could call her the daughter of St. Joachim (I realize we trace this tradition to the Protoevangelium of St. James). And lastly, why did they even trace the Lord's genealogy through St. Joseph when the evangelists stated that He was born of the Theotokos, and only of her? Of course they were trying to establish that the Lord Jesus had royal blood in Him as the prophecy goes:
‘The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet...’ But regardless, in order for our Lord to be called the Son of David His genealogy needs to come from the Virgin. So how do we rationalize these numerous problems we have run into?

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1131

Peter

posted on Dec 07, 2007 - 07:53 PM

From the standpoint of the law, Jesus was a son of David. Though in the Bible it is stated that he is also a son of David in the felsh, Romans 1:3 and 2 Timothy 2:8.

Due to Jewish custom and practice it was unusual for a person to marry outside their tribe, especially for an only child. Though of course there are exceptions,even within the genealogy of Christ, where there examles of intermarriages between the tribes of Levi and Judah, allowing Christ to lay claim to both kingship and priesthood in the flesh. So St. Mary is of the tribe of Judah. Also the earliest of church fathers, don't remember if it was St. Clement of Rome or St. Ignatius Theophorus, wrote of the Davidic descent of St. Mary.

Also as for the genealogy of St. Luke being St. Mary's, proponents of that idea claim the Heli is a variation of the name Joachim. Though, like I said, it is rather a modern idea and I don't believe any of the church fathers subscribed to that idea, most were as aforemention of the belief that one traced the genealogy according to the flesh and the other according to the law.

Joined: Mar 18, 2003 | Posts: 461
Location: Jersey City, NJ

mikokiko

posted on Dec 07, 2007 - 09:59 PM

I understand all that but what substantial proof has the Church used her belief that St. Mary was the daughter of King David, the daughter of St. Joachim, and of the tribe of Judah?

Surely we could not have claim that she was of the tribe of Judah and the daughter of the Psalmist based solely on probability did we?

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1131

Peter

posted on Dec 08, 2007 - 06:58 PM

Its biblical besides the two above mentioned from St. Paul also in the Gospel oL St. Luke
[quote=Luke 1:32]He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.[/quote]
The angel Gabriel is announcing this to St. Mary. Mentioning that David is His father, mean the relation has to be from Christ's mother side.

Also the words spoken by Zacharias in Luke 1:69 also alludes to this.

In the larger scheme of things what does it matter what St. Mary's father's name was actually?

Joined: Mar 18, 2003 | Posts: 461
Location: Jersey City, NJ

mikokiko

posted on Dec 08, 2007 - 08:40 PM

It matters because I am testing the reliability of all these claims. I needed to be aware of them. But yes that makes sense, I just wanted to know why on earth the Evangelists would draw the genealogy of the Lord through someone who was not related to Him. It strikes me as odd quite honestly.

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1131

Peter

posted on Dec 09, 2007 - 05:13 AM

Its possible that St. Joseph and St. Mary were kin of some sort. That explain why the evangelists traced St. Joseph's genealogy.

Joined: Mar 18, 2003 | Posts: 461
Location: Jersey City, NJ

mikokiko

posted on Dec 09, 2007 - 09:28 PM

Again, I would like to know the source of these claims thats all. From where did the Church derive these claims about their being kin to eachother?

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1131

Peter

posted on Dec 10, 2007 - 02:37 AM

I was just stating an opinion of why the evangelists focused on the genealogy of St Joseph. Based on the the above biblical verse (along with others) as well the fact that such as who wrote about the subject either directly state St.Mary is of the house of David or mention that of any prophecy of Christ being descended from David is through St.Mary.

From St. Ignatius Theophorus, "To the Ephesian" chap18:For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.
It is possible St. Ignaius learned that St. Mary was of the house of David directly from St. Mary herself, as we have an epistle of his written to her and her reply.

From IJustin Martyr "Dialogues with Trypho" Chap 120:
He says that neither to Esau nor to Reuben, nor to
any other; only to those of whom the Christ should arise, according to the dispensation, through the Virgin Mary. But if you would consider the blessing of Judah, you would perceive what I say. For the seed is divided from Jacob, and comes down through Judah, and Phares, and Jesse, and David.

From Irenaeus "Against Heresies" Book 2 chp. 16: [St. Paul] plainly indicating one God, who did by the prophets make promise of the Son, and one Jesus Christ our Lord, who was of the seed of David according to His birth from Mary

Afew quotes that hopefully would clear things up a bit.

Joined: Mar 18, 2003 | Posts: 461
Location: Jersey City, NJ

mikokiko

posted on Dec 10, 2007 - 03:57 AM

They're just repeating what St. Paul the Apostle said. We have no evidence that St. Ignatius wrote a letter to St. Mary, in fact that letter was fabricated later on. I still believe and trust the Apostles and the Fathers that St. Mary was of the seed of King David, I would just have liked to see their sources...thanks though.

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1131

Cephas

posted on Dec 10, 2007 - 11:19 AM

+ Iryny nem `hmot>

It seems to me that you're just looking for an excuse not to acknowledge that St. Mary is from the line of David. You've been provided primary sources from people who actually knew St. Mary, and that's not enough for you? I'm not sure what more you could possibly want. A birth certificate perhaps?

_________________
Cevac ¨
<ere peniwt Abba Paule pimenrit `nte P=,=c

"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."
-- Philippians 4:13

"Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!"
-- Mark 9:24

"Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart."
-- Jeremiah 29:12-13

Joined: Aug 06, 2004 | Posts: 614
Location: St. Paul the Anchorite Coptic Orthodox Church, London, Ontario

Peter

posted on Dec 10, 2007 - 05:39 PM

From mikokiko:They're just repeating what St. Paul the Apostle said. We have no evidence that St. Ignatius wrote a letter to St. Mary, in fact that letter was fabricated later on. I still believe and trust the Apostles and the Fathers that St. Mary was of the seed of King David, I would just have liked to see their sources...thanks though.

First about the epistle, it is innocous enough that its not to hard to believe it may have authentic, just St. Ignatius stating a desire to learn about Jesus Christ from St. Mary. (Her reply was simply everything St John taught you is true and she may come with St. John when he comes to visit) Though whether they are truly authentic, I don't know.

Besides the prophecies of Isaiah and others, the declaration of Archangel Gabriel during the annunciation, its probably an oral tradition lost to us. Seeing St.Mary was in St. John's care and St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John; Irenaeus was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who also was disciple of St. John. So it is possible to the chain in which an oral tradition was passed.

What if Irenaeus was repeating what was stated by St. Paul. St. Paul would have learned from the apostles (possibly St. Mary herself) as well as the OT prophecies. He did not just create this idea de novo. (Be careful of the common idea among many "scholars" that St. Paul created much of Christian doctrine)

_________________
“While the theologians are searching these abstruse
matters, many simple-souls will have slipped into the
Kingdom of God” - H.H. Pope Shenouda III

"If you wish to be a theologian then follow the commandments." - St. Gregory Nanzianus

Joined: Mar 18, 2003 | Posts: 461
Location: Jersey City, NJ

mikokiko

posted on Dec 11, 2007 - 12:04 AM

Cephas, I don't think its fair for you to accuse me of such things. I say that I trust the Apostles, I mean it, I put my faith in their authourity along with the rest of the fathers of the Church in their due place, I was not looking to disprove it. The reason I started this thread was because I was having a discussion with someone who stated and told me explicitly that St. Mary was not of the tribe of Judah, or the daughter of David, (they even claimed that somewhere in the Synexarium it stated that she was of the tribe of Benjamin!) and that the Lord Jesus was called the son of David because of His adoption by St. Joseph. So I came to search for an explicit statement, that I thought I had seen or read somewhere but could not find anymore, so I was a bit dissapointed, not being discouraged from believing it however.

Anyways, I thank you for your time Peter, you did bring to my attention many important points and I will bring them up the next time I will see her (my friend that is ).

I am in no way a skeptic of that sort Peter, I hope you understand that. However you have stated very reliable facts concerning St. Ignatius and the disciples of the Evangelist.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1131

Peter

posted on Dec 11, 2007 - 03:09 AM

Glad to be of service. a little skepticism is healthy. Though now knowing the context of your questions, things are clearer.

Joined: Mar 18, 2003 | Posts: 461
Location: Jersey City, NJ

Cephas

posted on Dec 11, 2007 - 11:34 AM

+ Iryny nem `hmot>

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just at a loss as to how you can repeatedly as for 'their sources', when these are people who had first hand contact with St. Mary herself. I can't think of a more reliable source then the Theotokos herself. As I'm sure you are aware, primary sources trump secondary sources when it comes to investigating the past. Luke knew St. Mary, as I'm sure Paul did. St. Mary, almost certainly knew her family tree, as most Jews made the effort to preserve it. If the Synexarium did in fact say that Mary was of the tribe of Benjamin, then odds are, the Synexarium, being a secondary source, would be incorrect. I'm sorry you felt I was being accusatory, but what else is one to think if, having been provided primary sources, one continues to insist on what the source of these primary sources was.

_________________
Cevac ¨
<ere peniwt Abba Paule pimenrit `nte P=,=c

"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."
-- Philippians 4:13

"Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!"
-- Mark 9:24

"Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart."
-- Jeremiah 29:12-13

Joined: Aug 06, 2004 | Posts: 614
Location: St. Paul the Anchorite Coptic Orthodox Church, London, Ontario

Remnkemi

posted on Dec 11, 2007 - 02:00 PM

From mikokiko:The reason I started this thread was because I was having a discussion with someone who stated and told me explicitly that St. Mary was not of the tribe of Judah, or the daughter of David, (they even claimed that somewhere in the Synexarium it stated that she was of the tribe of Benjamin!) and that the Lord Jesus was called the son of David because of His adoption by St. Joseph. So I came to search for an explicit statement,

Miko, thanks for starting this thread. The one thing we can prove for sure (from the Bible) is that St. Joseph didn't adopt anyone. Adoptions implies St. Mary had a son, then St. Joseph became his legal father. This is impossible since St. Joseph and St. Mary were bethroted (married in the NIV) before Jesus was born. That's it. We can't prove St. Mary was from the tribe of Judah, Levi or Benjamin. (I tend to believe that she was from the tribe of Judah). Different church fathers believed in different things and none of the church fathers ever said Virgin Mary and St. Elizabeth were cousins (or St. Elizabeth's mother and St. Anna were sisters, etc). Only the Synaxarium makes this claim and quite honestly it is hard one to believe because they are so many contradicting geneologies of St. Mary (many based on the apocraphyl New Testament)

So in the end, all we can do is see what the Bible tells. Anything more than that must be taken with caution.

George

_________________
Administrator for Coptic Studies
coptichymns.net
Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World
Need help? - Post here.
Comment or criticism? - Use our Feedback Form

Joined: Apr 07, 2003 | Posts: 732
Location: Boston, MA USA

mikokiko

posted on Dec 11, 2007 - 09:22 PM

I generally agree with those statements, however I do believe we can distinguish between Church Fathers whose claims are more reliable and valid than others. For example, St. John the Evangelist, who lived with Mary for much of his life would become more reliable, as with his disciples St. Polycarp of Smyrna and St. Ignatius of Antioch. So simply because there are 'contradicting' genealogies, as one might conclude from the Gospels, I do not think this means that it does not matter which tribe she is in. I understand what you are saying take things outside of Canon with caution, more so than one would with the Bible, and I agree with you on that.

God Bless

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1131

mikokiko

posted on Dec 11, 2007 - 09:37 PM

From Cephas:+ Iryny nem `hmot>

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just at a loss as to how you can repeatedly as for 'their sources', when these are people who had first hand contact with St. Mary herself. I can't think of a more reliable source then the Theotokos herself. As I'm sure you are aware, primary sources trump secondary sources when it comes to investigating the past. Luke knew St. Mary, as I'm sure Paul did. St. Mary, almost certainly knew her family tree, as most Jews made the effort to preserve it. If the Synexarium did in fact say that Mary was of the tribe of Benjamin, then odds are, the Synexarium, being a secondary source, would be incorrect. I'm sorry you felt I was being accusatory, but what else is one to think if, having been provided primary sources, one continues to insist on what the source of these primary sources was.

I understand where you are coming from Cephas, but my initial reason for asking was because I wanted to know why the Apostles (St. Mathew and St. Luke) demonstrated so much evidence from St. Joseph's lineage, but they only mentioned that the Lord Jesus was of the seed of David. This is why I simply asked if there was any evidence backing their statements that is all, I did not try to disprove them, or even doubt their statements at all. God Bless.

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1131

Biboboy

posted on Dec 11, 2007 - 10:48 PM

Agape,

There is no doubt that St. Mary, like St. Joseph, was of the tribe of Judah, and a descendent of King David. This is from the Bible, e.g. St. Paul in Acts 13:23 says that Jesus Christ is of the posterity - or seed - of David, and this can only refer to the Virgin Mary's place in David's posterity, since Joseph was not Christ's biological father. And in Hebrews 7:14, it is states that Christ descended from the tribe of Judah, which in turn refers to his birth from the Virgin, who in turn had to be from the tribe of Judah. Based on the Epistle to the Hebrews, too, we know that the Virgin could not be from the tribe of Levi, otherwise Christ would have automatically been a priest according to the order of Aaron. But Christ is not, and that's why the Epistle argues that he is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Christ is a king because he is of the descendent of King David, of the tribe of Judah, and a priest, but not because of descent from the tribe of Levi, but because of affiliation with Melchizedek. All this means that the Virgin Mary was not of the tribe of Levi, but of the tribe of Judah. And this has nothing to do with the two geneologies mentioned by St. Matthew and St. Luke, both of which state that they describe the lineage of St. Joseph.

This is not only clear from the Bible, but it's also in our hymns: e.g. the 8th part of the Sun. Theotokia: "... Hail to you O Mary, the daughter of King David." There's also the 4th part of the Sat. Theotokia: "You are the offspring, and root of David, who for us gave birth according to the flesh, our Saviour Jesus Christ." Also, the Doxology for the Virgin during Advent: "The Virgin is of the tribe of Judah, who gave birth to our Saviour, and after His birth, she remained a virgin." The same with the another Doxology for the Advent season: "The adornment of the Virgin, Mary the daughter of King David..."

The issue isn't which tribe St. Mary was from. Rather, the issue is really which tribe Elizabeth was from. It is assumed that Elizabeth was of the tribe of Levi because Zachariah was a priest, yet at the same time the Archangel in St. Luke's Gospel (1:36) says that Elizabeth is related (most probably a cousin) to St. Mary. But it has been established that St. Mary was of the tribe of Judah; so what does that make of Elizabeth? Perhaps in the case of Elizabeth the Mosaic rule was not necessarily observed and she was married to someone who was of another tribe - Zachariah the priest, of the tribe of Levi. This is only my theory, so I suppose more research needs to be done in this case of Elizabeth's tribe, and whether the Mosaic rule of marrying someone within the same tribe was historically observed in the Second Temple period.

_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).

"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.

In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!

Joined: Sep 28, 2004 | Posts: 751

mikokiko

posted on Dec 11, 2007 - 11:40 PM

Biboboy, I never said those were not sufficient proofs, I was just asking if there was more, and I think you know that...

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1131

Biboboy

posted on Dec 11, 2007 - 11:44 PM

Miko, who said I was answering you? I was adding to what was missing in the topic in general.

_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).

"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.

In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!

Joined: Sep 28, 2004 | Posts: 751