Lineage of Mary?

by NanaR 9 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  NanaR

  I hope someone here can help me with this question. I seem to remember very strongly from my JW upbringing having been taught that while Matthew gave the lineage of Jesus through Joseph, Luke gave the lineage through Mary. I recently became somewhat interested in the Catholic faith. I decided, in my investigation, to read the New Testament from a Catholic Bible (and found one online). The one I am reading has a certain amount of commentary (set apart from the text).

  I started, of course, in Matthew. Then I decided to jump over to Luke's genealogy to see if the Catholic commentary had anything to say about this (considering the Catholic reverence for Mary). I was surprised to find that the Catholic commentary attributed Heli's fathership of Joseph to Heli being the older brother of Joseph's natural father Jacob, and that Joseph was born to Heli's widow after Jacob married her under the brother-in-law marriage arrangement of the Jews. There was NO reference to Heli being Mary's father, as I thought I had always been taught.

  Can anyone here clarify this? Is there historical evidence of Mary's lineage, or do the gospels ONLY give Joseph's lineage?

  NanaR
• 

  I.Wonder

  Hi NanaR

  This is what the Insight Volume 2 says on page 346:

  1.

  Mary the mother of Jesus. She was the daughter of Heli, though the genealogy given by Luke lists Mary’s husband Joseph as the "son of Heli." Says M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): "In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7)." It is undoubtedly for this reason the historian Luke says that Joseph was the "son of Heli."—Lu 3:23.

  Mary was of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David. Hence it could be said of her son Jesus that he "sprang from the seed of David accordingtotheflesh." (Ro 1:3) Through his adoptive father Joseph, a descendant of David, Jesus had a legal right to David’s throne, and through his mother, as the "offspring," "seed," and "root" of David, he held the natural hereditary right to "the throne of Davidhisfather."—Mt 1:1-16; Lu 1:32; Ac 13:22, 23; 2Ti 2:8; Re 5:5; 22:16.

  If tradition is correct, Heli’s wife, the mother of Mary, was Anna, whose sister had a daughter named Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptizer. This tradition would make Elizabeth the cousin of Mary. That Mary was related to Elizabeth, who was "from the daughters of Aaron" of the tribe of Levi, the Scriptures themselves state. (Lu 1:5, 36) Mary’s sister, some have thought, was Salome, the wife of Zebedee, whose two sons, James and John, were numbered among Jesus’ apostles.—Mt 27:55, 56; Mr 15:40; 16:1; Joh 19:25.

  This is the dubs understanding, I don't know if it is even close to being accurate. If I find anything else I will be sure to post it.

  I.Wonder
• 

  Narkissos

  That was one common apologetic device to account for the differences between the lists, but it has no support in the texts which plainly present both genealogies as Joseph's. Modern Catholic scholarship (e.g. the Jerusalem Bible) simply acknowledges the difference and does not try to explain it away, except by theological (or more broadly ideological)motives: judeo-centrism of Matthew who starts with Abraham, vs. universalism of Luke who traces the line back to Adam; emphasis on the royal line in Matthew who insists on Jesus as a Davidic Messiah-King, which the pro-Roman Luke carefully avoids, etc. Which boils down to admitting that both genealogies are artificial.
• 

  Leolaia

  The two genealogies of Matthew and Luke are of independent origin (cf. for example the different way they handle material from the Chronicler, the fact that Jesus is 11 generations from Zerubbabel in Matthew and 20 generations from Zerubbabel in Luke, etc.) and cannot be reconciled through the facile thesis that one represents the lineage through Mary while the other one is through Joseph, which imposes a very improbable reading of the Greek. Note also the second-century AD Infancy Gospel of James, which states that Mary's father was named Joachim (1:1, married to an Anna, Mary's mother, cf. 2:1). A better harmonization (tho an imperfect harmonization nonetheless!) is to construe both genalogies as through Joseph, but that one names Joseph's father and the other names his mother's father, skipping a generation in the reckoning (cf. the shorter genealogy in Matthew, which has only 11 generations from Zerubabbel to Jesus, and which artifically divides the entire genealogy into three series of 14 generations).
• 

  NanaR

  Thanks I. Wonder!

  Says M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): "In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7)." It is undoubtedly for this reason the historian Luke says that Joseph was the "son of Heli."—Lu 3:23.

  Last night after I got home from work, I found a similar reference in the earlier Aid book. Notice the reference to M'Clintock and Strong's, which to the casual reader would be thought to refer directly to Luke's account. The Cyclopaedia reference, though, is a commentary on Numbers, not Luke, and the conclusion "It is undoubtedly for this reason..." is a perfect example of the way WTS literature links quotes out of context to its conclusions.

  I was a very active "publisher" from the age of 5, later a "pioneer", remaining active until somewhere in the late 1990s (don't remember exactly *hah* as I faded over several years). During that time I conducted MANY Bible studies with people, and I have repeated the above explanation nearly verbatim more times than I can count. It was solid in my head as FACT.

  I discovered the discrepancy between the WTS teaching of Jerusalem's destruction in 607 B.C.E. and history's record that it was destroyed in 586 or 587 B.C.E. when I was in high school studying World History (1968 or so). But my father's answer was that we must trust the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" because they have Jehovah's direction. Implication being, of course, "they would never lie to us".

  I also wondered greatly about the insertion of the name Jehovah into the New Testament of the New World Translation. You see, I am old enough that my first Bible was the American Standard Version, which had the name Jehovah throughout the OT but not the new. The NWT was first released in parts -- and the big surprise was the NT "featuring" the Divine Name. How was it that NO OTHER BIBLE TRANSLATION had done that? How could every other scholar in the world be mistaken? But of course, I swallowed it whole like medicine -- it was supposed to be good for me.

  Those were big lies to me (artifical chronology ala 607 B.C.E. and inserting names into the Bible text ala Jehovah in NT), when I finally figured them out many years later. But now it is the "little" things (like the geneology of Luke question) that are really starting to bug me.

  Discovering that the geneaology of Luke has been interpreted MANY ways by EXPERTS (while I was only ever taught one way as if that were irrefutable fact) just really struck a chord with me. Is there something wrong with presenting more than one explanation for a scriptural passage? Apparently not, as the WTS has changed explanations frequently about many passages. The NWT itself has undergone several "revisions". But what seems to be totally forbidden is to present more than one explanation AT A TIME. That, of course, would require that the R & F Witness actually THINK -- and we know how dangerous that would be!!

  No wonder the WTS discourages education!! I was in my 40s and thoroughly indoctrinated when I took my first college class. Still took me ten years to progress from wondering about things to joining this forum and actually reading what the "other side" had to say.

  All I know is, boy do I have a lot to learn!

  NanaR
• 

  NanaR

  Thanks Narkissos!

  Modern Catholic scholarship (e.g. the Jerusalem Bible) simply acknowledges the difference and does not try to explain it away, except by theological (or more broadly ideological)motives: judeo-centrism of Matthew who starts with Abraham, vs. universalism of Luke who traces the line back to Adam; emphasis on the royal line in Matthew who insists on Jesus as a Davidic Messiah-King, which the pro-Roman Luke carefully avoids, etc.

  I want to get a copy of the Jerusalem Bible. I remember buying one for my Catholic nephew as a wedding present back in the 1980s.

  This is the online reference from the Douay-Rheims Bible that I was reading originally:

  http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=3&l=23

  23 And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat, 24 Who was of Levi, who was of Melchi, who was of Janne, who was of Joseph, 25 Who was of Mathathias, who was of Amos, who was of Nahum, who was of Hesli, who was of Nagge,

  23 "Who was of Heli"... St. Joseph, who by nature was the son of Jacob, (St. Matt. 1. 16,) in the account of the law, was son of Heli. For Heli and Jacob were brothers, by the same mother; and Heli, who was the elder, dying without issue, Jacob, as the law directed, married his widow: in consequence of such marriage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law the son of Heli.

  This particular explanation of Luke 3:23 was totally new to me (although I was familiar with the Jewish tradition of brother-in-law marriage).

  Then later when I went to the Catholic Encyclopedia, I found that the Catholic Church acknowledges that there are a number of conflicting explanations for the difference between the geneaologies of Matthew and Luke. But notice which one this reference says is supported by Catholic tradition:

  While commentators generally agree that the genealogy found at the beginning of the first Gospel is that of St. Joseph, Annius of Viterbo proposes the opinion, already alluded to by St. Augustine, that St. Luke'sgenealogy gives the pedigree of Mary. The text of the third Gospel (3:23) may be explained so as to make Heli the father of Mary: "Jesus. . .being the son (as it was supposed of Joseph) of Heli", or "Jesus. . .being the son of Joseph, as it was supposed, the son of Heli" (Lightfoot, Bengel, etc.), or again "Jesus. . .being as it was supposed the son of Joseph, who was [the son-in-law] of Heli" [23]. In these explanations the name of Mary is not mentioned explicitly, but it is implied; for Jesus is the Son of Heli through Mary.

  Her parents

  Though few commentators adhere to this view of St. Luke'sgenealogy, the name of Mary's father, Heli, agrees with the name given to Our Lady's father in a tradition founded upon the report of the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Gospel which dates from the end of the second century. According to this document the parents of Mary are Joachim and Anna. Now, the name Joachim is only a variation of Heli or Eliachim, substituting one Divine name (Yahweh) for the other (Eli, Elohim). The tradition as to the parents of Mary, found in the Gospel of James, is reproduced by St. John Damascene [24], St. Gregory of Nyssa [25], St. Germanus of Constantinople [26], pseudo-Epiphanius [27], pseudo-Hilarius [28], and St. Fulbert of Chartres [29]. Some of these writers add that the birth of Mary was obtained by the fervent prayers of Joachim and Anna in their advanced age. As Joachim belonged to the royal family of David, so Anna is supposed to have been a descendant of the priestlyfamily of Aaron; thus Christ the Eternal King and Priest sprang from both a royal and priestlyfamily [30].

  I find several things about these two separate Catholic explanations most interesting. One, that two (and probably more) completely different explanations exist in widely published Catholic scholarship and that such situation is OKAY with the Catholic Church. Second, that it seems clear to me that whoever wrote the WTS reference relied heavily on one of the traditional Catholic explanations WITHOUT REFERENCING OR ACKNOWLEDGING such reliance. Such intellectual dishonesty on the part of the WTS is deplorable.

  NanaR
• 

  NanaR

  Thanks Leolaia!!

  The two genealogies of Matthew and Luke are of independent origin (cf. for example the different way they handle material from the Chronicler, the fact that Jesus is 11 generations from Zerubbabel in Matthew and 20 generations from Zerubbabel in Luke, etc.) and cannot be reconciled through the facile thesis that one represents the lineage through Mary while the other one is through Joseph, which imposes a very improbable reading of the Greek.

  Excellent point about the "generations" issue.

  Note also the second-century AD Infancy Gospel of James, which states that Mary's father was named Joachim (1:1, married to an Anna, Mary's mother, cf. 2:1).

  Where would I find a copy of this book and other apocryphal gospels? They don't appear to be found in Catholic Bible versions, although they are referenced in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

  A better harmonization (tho an imperfect harmonization nonetheless!) is to construe both genalogies as through Joseph, but that one names Joseph's father and the other names his mother's father, skipping a generation in the reckoning (cf. the shorter genealogy in Matthew, which has only 11 generations from Zerubabbel to Jesus, and which artifically divides the entire genealogy into three series of 14 generations).

  A third explanation - and one that makes about as much sense as the other two and also agrees with McClintock and Strongs reference to Jewish treatment of geneaology.

  Wow, I really do appreciate the quick, thoughtful, and learned responses I received to my question. There are a lot of intelligent, well read individuals on this board and I have just benefited from comments from several of them!!

  NanaR
• 

  ajwnm

  Taken from an article by Chuck Missler........

  God announced very early that His plan for redemption involved the Messiah being brought forth from the tribe of Judah1, and specifically from the line of David2. The succession of subsequent kings proved to be, with only a few exceptions, a dismal chain. As the succeeding kings of Judah went from bad to worse, we eventually encounter Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin), upon whom God pronounces a " blood curse" : "Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."(Jeremiah 22:30)

  This curse created a rather grim and perplexing paradox: the Messiah had to come from the royal line, yet now there was a "blood curse" on that very line of descent! (I always visualize a celebration in the councils of Satan on that day. But then I imagine God turning to His angels, saying, "Watch this one!")

  The Solution

  The answer emerges in the differing genealogies of Jesus Christ recorded in the gospels. Matthew, as a Levi, focuses his gospel on the Messiahship of Jesus and presents Him as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Thus, Matthew traces the legal line from Abraham (as any Jew would) through David, then through Solomon (the . royal. line) to Joseph, the legal father of Jesus3.

  On the other hand, Luke, as a physician, focuses on the humanity of Jesus and presents Him as the Son of Man. Luke traces the blood line from Adam (the first Man) through to David -- and his genealogy from Abraham through David is identical to Matthew's. But then after David, Luke departs from the path taken by Matthew and traces the family tree through another son of David (the second surviving son of Bathsheba), Nathan, down through Heli, the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus4.

  Zelophehad

  One should also note the exception to the law which permitted inheritance through the daughter if no sons were available and she married within her tribe5.

  The daughters of Zelophehad had petitioned Moses for a special exception, which was granted when they entered the land under Joshua.

  I believe it was C.I. Scofield who first noted that the claims of Christ rely upon this peculiar exception granted to the family of Zelo-phehad in the Torah. Heli, Mary's father, apparently had no sons, and Mary married within the tribe of Judah. Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, of the house and lineage of David and carrying legal title to the line, but without the blood curse of Jeconiah. [I believe that every detail in the Torah -- and the entire Bible -- has a direct link to Jesus Christ. "The volume of the book is written of me." (Psalm 40:7) [For a more detailed discussion, watch for our new book, Cosmic Codes -- Hidden Messages from the Edge of Eternity, presently in publication.]

  Earlier Glimpse

  This was no afterthought or post facto remedy, of course. It was first announced in the Garden of Eden when God declared war on Satan: " I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."(Genesis 3:15)

  The "Seed of the Woman" thus becomes one of the prophetic titles of the Messiah. This biological contradiction is the first hint -- in the early chapters of Genesis -- of the virgin birth.

  John also presents a genealogy, of sorts, of the Pre-Existent One in the first three verses of his gospel6. The Prophet Micah also highlights this: " But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."(Micah 5:2)..................

  I think thatthis is as reasonable an explanation as any regarding the lineage of Mary.

  .........
• 

  Narkissos

  NanaR,

  You can find the Infancy Gospel of James and many other non-canonical texts from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
• 

  Leolaia

  I find several things about these two separate Catholic explanations most interesting. One, that two (and probably more) completely different explanations exist in widely published Catholic scholarship and that such situation is OKAY with the Catholic Church.

  Exactly, freedom of thought....something very different from the groupthink of the Watchtower Society.

  Just to offer a criticism of one of the proposals:

  Now, the name Joachim is only a variation of Heli or Eliachim, substituting one Divine name (Yahweh) for the other (Eli, Elohim).

  This seems rather attractive at first glance, until one realizes that the actual name in the text is Heli ~ Eli, not Eliachim, and there is no evidence that Heli is a hypocorism of Eliachim as opposed to any other name beginning with the 'ly- theophoric element (e.g. Elijah, Eliab, Eliashib, Eliezer, Elihu, etc), and in fact Heli is identical with the Greek form of the name Eli (1 Samuel 1-4, 1 Kings 2:27, 4 Ezra 1:1), which has nothing to do with 'ly- "god", being `ly "high" in Hebrew (notice the different consonant `ayin), cf. `lywn "Most High". BTW, there is a piece of misinformation that is often presented on apologetic websites that claims that Jewish tradition construes Mary as a "daughter of Eli" (Haggadah 11a; usually miscited as 77b), but the reference is actually to a daughter of the biblical Eli named Miriam (who died at the peak of her youth and who was glimpsed in a vision suffering in Gehenna, being hung by her nipples), whose name is probably a pun meaning "bitter" that arises the image of her undeveloped breasts as "bulbs", and the passage as a whole is based on 1 Samuel 2:12-33 which foretold untimely deaths to the children of Eli. The tradition in the Infancy Gospel of James is the only early Christian reference to Mary's parentage, which asserts that Mary's father was someone named Joachim (unrelated to the Heli of Luke).