New testament genealogies and the families of Mary and Joseph

Abstract

This study explores the differences between the most recent parts of the genealogies of Jesus found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, differences that have puzzled scholars for over seventeen hundred years. These differences do not conform to the types of inconsistencies found in most traditional genealogies. They are more effectively explained as being the products of different genealogical sources. Looking at these recent lineage segments from a genealogical perspective reveals four independent sources: the list of names after Zerubbabel from Abiud to Matthan to Joseph in Matthew 1:13-16; the name of Joseph's grandfather in Matthew 1:15, 16; the name of Joseph's grandfather in Luke 3:23; and the long listing of names between Nathan and Zerubbabel and after Zerubbabel in Luke 3:24-31. These sources were incorrectly combined, with the name of Joseph's father Jacob placed with a list of Mary's ancestors (Matthew 1:13-15) and the name of Mary's father (Joseph son of Heli, probably Joseph ben Elim, a Sepphoris priest) placed with the oral list that includes her husband's ancestors (Luke 3:29-30). Much of the confusion in these most recent genealogical segments is the result of the fact that Mary's husband and her father were both named Joseph, which was the second most popular male Jewish name in Second Temple times. Naming patterns derived from studies of Second Temple names and use of ancient sources help to recreate the family of Joseph, Mary's husband.

**********

For over seventeen hundred years scholars have faced difficulties in reconciling the genealogies of Jesus found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke (Mussies: 39-42; Johnson: 140-44). Oral historians, who have long collected genealogies, are familiar with these difficulties. As one states: "Historians who collect genealogies in oral societies will usually find that there are many more versions than they might have preferred" (Henige 1982: 98). In oral societies, differing versions often perform different functions and purposes, each equally valid within its own context Wilson 1977: 46-54; Vansina: 101, 182.

Introduction--Presentation of the Problem

Linear genealogies, however, serve only to validate an individual's claim to power, status, rank, or inheritance through descent from an earlier ancestor (Wilson 1992: 931). Since both the Matthean (Matt 1:2-16) and Lukan (Luke 3:23-38) genealogies trace the descent of Jesus, or at least of Joseph, from King David, their different theological themes expressed by tracing Joseph's ancestry from Abraham in Matthew or from Adam in Luke do not really explain the extensive differences that occur in the more recent parts of the genealogies; nor do these differences conform to the usual inconsistencies found in most traditional genealogies, such as those in the Old Testament: founder figures are remembered consistently, followed by a middle area with very few names and/or many omissions--what some oral historians call a "floating gap" (Vansina: 23), while the most recent generations are usually well remembered (Wilson 1977: 33).

Both the Matthean and the Lukan genealogies trace Joseph's descent from King David through Zerubbabel, the post-exilic leader in Judea. While Matthew traces the line of David to Zerubbabel through the Judean king line (in reasonable agreement with Old Testament sources four kings are omitted), Luke puts Zerubbabel as the descendent of Nathan, a younger son of David. From Zerubbabel down to Matthat/Matthan, Joseph's grandfather, there is again complete disagreement. The number of generations in Matthew's list seems to have symbolic importance (Brown: 69-70), but the line from Zerubbabel to Joseph in Matthew has far too few generations (a phenomenon termed "telescoping" by oral historians-see Henige 1974: 373-75). The line from Zerubbabel to Joseph in Luke's genealogy has a realistic number of generations, but there are signs of repeated segments in the lineage. And finally, Joseph's father is called Jacob in Matthew but Heli (Eli) in Luke.

The Nature of Genealogical Sources

Genealogists have long been familiar with the difference between information about a person's parents and grandparents and information on earlier generations in a person's family (Jacobus, 1938; 1958: 82, 84, 85). Most people know the names of their grandparents, but not the names of great-grandparents and beyond. The names of one's parents and grandparents are usually a matter of personal experience and memory, while the names of earlier generations are almost always passed on to an individual second-hand. In literate societies, names of these earlier generations are often derived from written records, either personal or public. Thus, in both oral and literate societies, it is typical that the name of a person's father and grandfather or grandfathers comes from a different source than that which contains the names of earlier generations.

This is, I believe, the case in the two gospel genealogies for Jesus: the most recent segments of each genealogy from King David to Joseph show evidence of two separate and independent sources, with one source supplying the name of Joseph's father and another source providing the names the earlier generations, with a break or genealogical fault line in the lineage between Joseph's father and these earlier generations. The lack of agreement between the two gospel genealogies reflects both the independence of these four sources and their incorrect juxtaposition. These four sources are as follows: first, the list of names after Zerubbabel (from Abiud to Matthan to Joseph) found in Matthew 1:13-16; second, the name of Joseph's grandfather in Matthew 1:15, 16; third, the name of Joseph's grandfather in Luke 3:23; and fourth, an oral list, the long listing of names found between Nathan and Zerubbabel and after Zerubbabel-Rhesa-Joanan in Luke 3:24-31. Below, I will discuss each of these sources and then suggest how they came to be combined.