Because everyone seems to enjoy inferring arguments in my posts that I'm not making, I'll make it explicit from the outset on this one: This is to point out a single contradiction between two of the gospels. I am not attempting to discredit every word of the Bible, disprove religion, insult your mother, etc. Mainstream Christians probably won't even be phased by this. However, if you take the Bible to be the infallible Word of God, then this is meant to give you pause for a second. Aside from that, I just wanted to bring up a few points about how the gospels address this topic that might be of some interest. 
One of the easiest contradictions to find within the Bible is that of the two genealogies of Jesus, the first in Matthew 1, the other in Luke 3 (neither Mark nor John include a genealogy). In viewing the two (placed in convenient column format to your left), a few things should be apparent. Both start with David, and end with Joseph and Jesus (in fact, both trace David back to Abraham, Luke even going further back all the way to Adam, but since these parts of the account agree, they are irrelevant to the topic at hand). Aside from David and Jesus, only four names are shared between the two lists.
Matthew has 28 generations, and Luke has 43 between David and Jesus. This can be accounted for by tracing Jesus' lines through two different
descendants of David, Matthew through Solomon and Luke through Nathan. Presumably the lines cross again at Salathiel and Zorobabel, then diverge again until reconvening at Joseph, although it is never explicitly stated as such (maybe Salathiel and Zorobabel were common names back then).
Then we run into the obvious issue that Joseph seems to have a different father depending on which gospel you study. The common apologetic response to this is that one of these accounts traces Jesus' lineage through Mary. This would make sense at first glance, until one realizes that Mary is not mentioned anywhere in Luke, and only arises incidentally in Matthew.
The format Matthew's genealogy takes is straightforward, reading of the vein "Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud," and so on until: "Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born." The only reason the format changes at Joseph is because Matthew makes it quite clear that Jesus was the result of a virgin birth, so Joseph was not
technically Jesus' father. To claim that this is the genealogy of Mary becomes difficult to argue, since what is the point of having a genealogy if every single person listed isn't related to the person whose ancestors are being chronicled? Both genealogies clearly pertain to Joseph, not Mary.
More evidence for this view can be found when it is noted that not a single genealogical record of any woman within the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) or in any other part of the Greek Bible (New Testament). In fact, once place in the Bible, in Numbers 1:18, we are given an example for how at least this genealogy was assembled: "...declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers."
One of the main reasons Jesus' genealogy was included in these gospels was to fulfil the Jewish prophecy that the Messiah would be a direct descendent of David. Apparently for the authors of these gospels, being the son of the wife of a descendent of David was close enough. This again lends credence that neither genealogy was of Mary, since women were not entitled to be heirs to the throne of David, meaning Mary could not pass on what she never herself possessed. Knowing this about why these lists were put in, we see a problem with the list in Matthew. Jeremiah 22:28-30 has YHWH proclaiming Jechoniah "as if childless... none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David." If none of Jechoniah's children were to be part of the Davidic legacy, how can Jesus be if he is descended from Jechoniah's child as Matthew 1:12 states? Jesus would be under the curse of Jechoniah.
The final problem we find with the concept of these lineages is that of direct descent. According to Jewish prophecy, the Messiah would be a blood descendent of King David (2 Samuel 7:12-13, Psalms 89:3-4, 132:11). Obviously Joseph isn't portrayed as a flesh and blood relation to Jesus, so Jesus cannot be a flesh and blood relation to David through Joseph. Even if one does take Luke to be the ancestry of Mary, 1 Chronicles 22:9-10 tells us that the Messiah will also be descended from Solomon, but we see that the line Luke traces goes through Solomon's brother, Nathan.
True
Comments (112)
@HLPU@xanga - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_of_the_Bible#New_Testament. This was also covered in my world religions class I took in college. My claim that Mathew and Luke were not written by them is sound and well supported. Again, don't assume anything.
Am I assuming that the contradictions presented here are true? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give anyone that impression. I think it's highly suspect that the genealogy is wrong at this moment but people are making some good arguments for it so I'll wait to make a judgment.
If someone would post a link to the previous proving of the correctness of Jesus' genealogy as presented in the bible then we can all go home happy.
Did I say 100's of thousands of copies of the bible? No, I said thousands. Which means 1,000, 2,000, maybe even 5,000. Any figure higher than that would be distorting my statement. You're also assuming that the errors would have been found really early on, and not later, like after the invention of the printing press where 100,000's would be a reasonable figure. Maybe thousands is too high; I'm not sure how fast a scribe is at copying a book. How about a hundred copies dispersed widely over a continent. Would it even be conceivable to retrieve revision one?
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - Funny, you calling me a troll. I noticed you haven't been to the link wherein I describe you. Or visit my latest, wherein you likely will see yourself reflected.
@Pass_the_Aura@xanga - I actually don't know why I'm arguing with you. Your first response to my comment was "No, I'm arguing..." The entire paragraph did not refute anything I had said beforehand. You also made a straw man argument earlier by claiming I had actually taken something out of historical context but I had not even commented on the main post at all. The only reason I addressed the straw man was because you were wrong about what you said.
Now to the matter of my synonymous use of literal/truth. Those words are closely related and even if I used them interchangeably you could just simply replace the only time I wrote "literal" by itself with "literal truth" and none of my statement remain any less valid. Maybe I should have just written "accurate" every time I wrote "literal" or "truth". It would have been bad writing style but it would have made it harder to shrug off my argument.
I already refuted the statement you decided to make again about how the bible shouldn't be held up to modern day standards of truth and accuracy. That was well covered by my paragraph about reading historical documents.
@GodlessLiberal@xanga - For some reason you ignored my answer, which completely clears up the problem.
The geneology in Luke is obviously MARY'S and is included in order to show that Jesus is GENETICALLY descended from King David through his son Nathan because Mary is.
His foster father Joseph was also descended from King David through King Solomon, but King Jechoniah's sin resulted in God's curse denying the kingship to any of his descendants including Joseph.
Thus, ONLY Jesus, being both an adopted son of a descendent of David, Solomon, and Jechoniah (Joseph) and the blood son of a descendant of David and Nathan (Mary) could POSSIBLY fulfill both the promise to David and the curse on Jechoniah.
Ridiculously complicated? Certainly much too complicated for conmen trying to foist a false religion on the skeptical, but precisely the sort of exquisitely fulfilled complication that an omniscient God who likes to tweak the not-as-smart-as-they-think-they-are might want to pull.
@dirtbubble@xanga - I think you have a link confused, maybe. You're not someone who's capable of serious reflection--just of making stuff up or repeating lies you've heard before.
@locketine@xanga - "Those passages weren't even written by Mathew or Luke "
References? Somehow you'd have to show that almost all of the ancient witnesses who wrote much closer in time to the 1st century were wrong, including Marcion, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus.
@locketine@xanga - I tend not to ever cite "wikipedia" as authoritative, although I assume you did so merely for our convenience. Your claim of lack of authorship is neither well supported nor sound; rather based upon guesswork by people in very recent times. I am aware of some of the arguments, perhaps even most of them. Yet those people closest to the dates of origination never doubted the writers' identities. Again, the differences in names would have been well known and the difference exists for a reason which has been presented here and elsewhere. The original post saying it was 'in fact a contradiction' is incorrect and misleading. Now, your 'don't assume anything' position is impossible because you HAVE to assume something; and it is hypocritical because you assume what was presented in your basic college world religion class was accurate (unless you've done all of the primary research and read all of the Greek, Latin, et al. manuscripts yourself) and balanced.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Why do you assume not? Luke 1.2-3 references his speaking to the eyewitnesses and careful research ---- is that a lie? He would have been a contemporary (to get the eyewitnesses and research, and probably Mary based upon some details) and was likely the Luke mentioned in the Bible. Luke also wrote Acts if you'll compare the openings. John makes it until late in the First Century so it is likely he knew of Luke, etc. and wrote John to compliment and not be another historical recount. Paul knew Luke. Early 'church fathers' had no doubt, and they'd be in a much better position than you or I to know. I wonder how much proof would it take for you?
@HLPU@xanga -
"Why do you assume not? Luke 1.2-3 references his speaking to the eyewitnesses and careful research ---- is that a lie?"
those verses say that he did research and took into account narratives told by eyewitnesses. where does it say he conversed with an eyewitness personally?
to answer your question: who knows?
"Early 'church fathers' had no doubt, and they'd be in a much better position than you or I to know. "
they also have a much larger bias than i do. would you expect them to say otherwise, even if it were true?
"I wonder how much proof would it take for you?"
finding a copy of Luke dated to before the death of the assumed author would suffice, provided it was identical to other early copies.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - Save it, moron. You're exposed.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - "they also have a much larger bias than i do. would you expect them to say otherwise, even if it were true?"
I seriously doubt that their bias is larger than yours. Yes, I would expect them to tell the truth. If Luke's authorship was an invention, there should be evidence from the period of its introduction in the form of writings about the controversy.
In any case, find me any opponent or Christian from the first two centuries who asserts that the account attributed to Luke wasn't actually written by Luke.
"1 Chronicles 22:9-10 tells us that the Messiah will also be descended from Solomon,"
This is an incorrect reading of the passage. David was speaking with reference to Solomon, not to Christ, in verse 9. However, in verse 10, the 3rd person pronoun refers to Christ, not to Solomon. The distinction is forced because of the contrast in times. Verse 9 speaks about "in his days" while verse 10 states, "I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever." This is an easy mistake to make and I don't fault you for it.
In any case, Christ could inherit the kingdom of Israel through his father, Joseph. If a man marries a woman who is already pregnant, any children born during the marriage inherit from the man, no matter whether he impregnated the woman or not. Natural lineage isn't required to inherit.
@FredTownWard@xanga - See my previous comment. Jesus wasn't adopted or naturally conceived, but he was still Joseph's son and inherited through Joseph.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga -
"I seriously doubt that their bias is larger than yours."
i'm an agnostic fifth-year Ancient Studies major. i have been trained to have as little of a bias as possible, and i'm sure i have less of a bias than an individual whose budding religion would rest on whether or not a gospel is widely accepted. if you don't think someone would lie to preserve that, you're naive.
"If Luke's authorship was an invention, there
should be evidence from the period of its introduction in the form of
writings about the controversy."
why? you'd be hard-pressed to find a majority of scholars who believe that the Torah was written by Moses, and they arrived at that conclusion without contemporary arguments in writing.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - If you think that you don't have a mountain of bias, you're naive. It's inherent in being human.
Who spread the gospels? You don't even have a story, much less a convincing one. It has to fit the sociological realities and internal textual realities. All men are liars. That doesn't mean that everything that men say are lies. You have to make your case about someone lying about the gospels.
Consider what happens when someone today claims to have found a new gospel. Immediately there is a controversy and people write about it. Where is there any evidence of that from the first or second century? Surely the Jews might have mentioned it in the oral law and the pagans would have mentioned it. Surely there would have been an internal squabble among Christians over new revelation, such as has occurred over the centuries since the first.
It's not hard to show that Genesis was not sourced by one person--I think that it was compiled from the writings of patriarchs. However, it still bears Moses' authority. I don't think that the argument about the Torah is relevant; the Torah may very well have been compiled by Moses as well as contained text he personally authored. The key is the authority--whether that was challenged by those in a position to question witnesses or whether it was asserted after all the witnesses were dead.
If a priest changed Torah text after Moses, how did the change get in all the texts? (Here by "change" I mean making major additions or deletions, not minor copying errors.) Surely, anyone presuming to do such a thing would have been found out by the other priests and stoned.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - They don't recognize those definitions because they say "I have faith."
when I ask for evidence. You're saying their definition of faith is
equivocal and disingenuous.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga -
"You have to make your case about someone lying about the gospels."
why? you're the one making a claim that the Gospels were written by the authors that Christian tradition attributes them to, and that they have no errors. you haven't given much proof, though, other than "the Bible says so."
"Where is there any evidence of that from the first or second century?"
prove that such a cause-and-effect relationship existed in that time period. considering the fact that the Gospels were not mass-produced, i find that hard to believe.
"Surely the Jews might have mentioned it in the oral law and the pagans would have mentioned it."
why? i don't see why either group would spend time analyzing documents of a religion they do not follow.
"The key is the authority--whether that was
challenged by those in a position to question witnesses or whether it
was asserted after all the witnesses were dead."
how is authority relevant when determining the historicity of a text?
"If a priest changed Torah text after Moses,
how did the change get in all the texts? (Here by "change" I mean
making major additions or deletions, not minor copying errors.)"
i don't nitpick. a change is a change. unless you have a time machine, you cannot determine how or why the change happened with any certainty. and it's irrelevant to the discussion, anyway.
why do you assume that any changes were made by a Christian?
"Surely, anyone presuming to do such a thing would have been found out
by the other priests and stoned."
you say "surely" a lot. i have yet to see you prove any of it, though.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - If I understand your point correctly, I agree with it. Jesus obtained His LEGAL claim to the throne of David through Joseph, but obtained His GENETIC claim to descent from David through Mary, and the lack of genetic descent from David through Joseph means that His kingship did not violate God's curse on the genetic descendants of Jechoniah.
@lalalandsucks4ever@xanga - See my reply here.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - "why? you're the one making a claim that the Gospels were written by the authors that Christian tradition attributes them to, and that they have no errors. you haven't given much proof, though, other than "the Bible says so.""
I think that we have the writings of the church fathers as strong supporting evidence. Also, Marcion is a testimony to an early controversy, even though his ideas are self-contradictory. (He kept Luke, but excised the Old Testament from which Luke quoted.) Marcion excised the OT, but Clement quoted from it, just as Luke did. Hence, we see a controversy between the ideas of Marcion and the ideas of Clement.
"prove that such a cause-and-effect relationship existed in that time period. "
Marcion of Synope is my illustration of such a mindset.
"considering the fact that the Gospels were not mass-produced, i find that hard to believe."
I don't see that mass production is necessary for widespread distribution of literature. The only requisite is the ability to copy and reasonably inexpensive material to write on.
"why? i don't see why either group would spend time analyzing documents of a religion they do not follow."
Are you a student of ancient things and unaware of ancient polemics between Christians and Jews and Christians and pagans?
"how is authority relevant when determining the historicity of a text?"
What does "historicity of a text" mean to you? This may be the key question to avoid talking past one another.
"why do you assume that any changes were made by a Christian?"
They were the repository of the NT texts, by all accounts. Surely the Jews and pagans didn't warehouse Christian texts. Hence, if anyone changed the NT texts, it was the Christians. We find numerous differences between the texts, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.
[ "Surely, anyone presuming to do such a thing would have been found out by the other priests and stoned."] "you say "surely" a lot. i have yet to see you prove any of it, though."
Well, adding to God's revelation without authorization was a type of blasphemy and bearing false witness against God. Under the Jewish Law, this would have required stoning of the offender. (See Deut. 13:1-10 and 18:20.)
@FredTownWard@xanga - Right, thus the critical distinction between "seed" and "son".
@locketine@xanga - Wow. Speaking of out-of-context misinterpretations.... What comments are you responding to? Surely not what I wrote.
(Hint: my opening phrase was not "No, I'm arguing..." but "No, my point is...")
(Another hint: By "point," I don't literally mean an actual sharp object, but is my statement therefore inaccurate?)
If you can show me that you understand the position I present in my original comments, maybe then we can go back to discussing the understanding of 1st-century Greek manuscripts. Otherwise, I really don't know why you're arguing with me either. Sorry.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga -
"Also, Marcion is a testimony to an early controversy, even though his ideas are self-contradictory."
but his gospel was not being argued against because it was viewed as being inaccurate. it was viewed as being heretical.
"I don't see that mass production is
necessary for widespread distribution of literature. The only requisite
is the ability to copy and reasonably inexpensive material to write on."
okay, so what proof do you have that a majority of those spreading the Gospel of Luke knew how to write?
"Are you a student of ancient things and unaware of ancient polemics between Christians and Jews and Christians and pagans?"
not unaware. but they did not take center stage as you apparently perceive them to have. and you certainly haven't provided any proof that this was the case. throughout most of the first century (the time period of your so-called eyewitnesses) the followers of the Christ were identified as being Jewish by the state of Rome, and by themselves.
"What does "historicity of a text" mean to you? This may be the key question to avoid talking past one another."
how accurately and objectively a document addresses historical events.
"Surely the Jews and pagans didn't warehouse Christian texts."
the Torah was a Jewish text long before it was a Christian text.
"Well, adding to God's revelation without
authorization was a type of blasphemy and bearing false witness against
God. Under the Jewish Law, this would have required stoning of the
offender. (See Deut. 13:1-10 and 18:20.)"
i don't see how either section of Deut. would be applied to changing written texts. the commands mentioned involve prophecy.
@GodlessLiberal@xanga -
you judged me by saying that I don't view atheists as normal people, when i'd never made that kind of implication. i don't think of atheists any less than normal people and i don't think of myself as any higher than atheists. They are simply people just like everybody else, but you flat out judge that I would think differently because I wondered what kind of blogs would represent their beliefs.. Don't try to put words into my mouth and pretend you know exactly how i view others.
I don't believe atheists have morals because morals are definite, and each atheist i've met has different morals. So they aren't morals, but rather relativistic preferences.
there are many things in the bible that aren't obviously implied which is why hermeneutics exist, which is why we must study the context of the situation to better understand it. We can't take separate bits and pieces because the bible was meant to be taken as a whole, with nothing being added or taken away, the message of salvation and forgiveness from beginning to end.
you judge me by saying i "self-invented" what i said. I've heard that explanation time and time again. and i adopted that explanation from a compilation of philosophers, theologians, and pastors. Just look through your standard NKJV bible and the very title for the passage itself says "the geneology of Christ through Mary".
I'll quote a bible commentary referring to Luke 3:23-38:
People naturally assumed that Jesus was the physical son of both Joseph and Mary. Luke corrected this misunderstanding by emphasizing that Jesus was only apparently Joseph's physical son. Luke's geneology is unlike Matthew's, although both go back to David and Abraham. Luke traces Jesus' line all the way back to adam, showing Jesus' significance for all people. Matthew provides the legal lineage from David through Joseph to Jesus, while luke provides the physical lineage from David through Mary to jesus.
This view is given creedance by Gabrial's words in Luke 1:31-32
which imply that Mary was a descendant of David.
Matthew has the geneology as if Joseph was the real father of Jesus because it was Jewish custom and Matthew was written from a Jewish point of view (Luke for the Greeks)
"However, if you take the Bible to be the infallible Word of God, then this is meant to give you pause for a second. "
- i defend myself strongly because you are "innocently" asking Christians to invite doubt that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, as if it has "mistakes". (John 1:1, you are in turn demeaning God himself), and by doing so you ask Christians to doubt God's capability to provide His Word infallably to us. and thus, you (perhaps unknowingly) try to take away people's faith in God.
I am studying all points of views but I will not adopt all points of views. Don't think me narrowminded simply because I will not invite doubt to God's power. I am way more convinced of God's existance than this petty attempt to "open our minds to doubt God".
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Ah, but then you'd dispute that it was Luke's handwriting, etc. Even a photograph can be 'fixed', so you really will never accede to that which is or was. Do you set these high standards for everything in your life? Sorry that Luke did not write with precision to your specifications, but you'd dispute it even if he wrote 'and I spoke to the eyewitnesses' because you'd want affidavits as to who and how do we know they're eyewitnesses, etc. Taking your standards to their logical conclusion eliminates all history before (approx.) 1900 because none could meet the type of standards you set. It's a real chasm that you've placed yourself into without even realizing it. Curious and irrational.
@HLPU@xanga -
"Ah, but then you'd dispute that it was Luke's handwriting, etc."
that'd only be feasible if we had a contemporary text with an opening line that flat out states, "i am luke, and this is my gospel" in order to compare writing styles. and even then, there's no way to prove the authorship of that text.
"Even a photograph can be 'fixed', so you really will never accede to that which is or was."
depends on the circumstances of the photograph. people are trained in that field and get paid tons of cash to examine photos for possible alterations.
" Do you set these high standards for everything in your life?"
do you always ask snarky questions when you run out of intelligent arguments?
"Sorry that Luke did not write with precision
to your specifications, but you'd dispute it even if he wrote 'and I
spoke to the eyewitnesses' because you'd want affidavits as to
who and how do we know they're eyewitnesses, etc."
um... no i wouldn't. i don't think affidavits existed then as we know them. but i would be more likely to believe his claim if he had maybe listed the witnesses at the beginning of the document, or if we could find a copy written earlier than 50 CE.
it's very annoying to be told how i would and would not examine an ancient text by someone who has probably never even examined one before. if that's all you have to add to the conversation, don't bother replying.
"Taking your standards to their logical
conclusion eliminates all history before (approx.) 1900 because none
could meet the type of standards you set."
you mean my standard of a text actually being dated to the two or three decades in which the author lived? or of an event or series of events being recorded by an individual with less of a bias? yes, that's so difficult to reach...
"It's a real chasm that you've placed yourself into without even realizing it. Curious and irrational. "
it's also irrational to dictate what i would and would not do when examining a text. you're not educated in the field, i presume. only someone ignorant of historical methods would reach the conclusions you have made. that, or someone offended by what the methods tell us.