How can Shems blood be untainted if his mother was of Cain?

[Kentucky]

Bertrand Comparet said that Luke's geneology was Mary's and Matthew's was Joseph's. Where it says in Luke's, Joseph who was the husband of Mary it should read father of Mary. Comparet said the Greek could mean either husband of or father of, the Joseph referred to in Luke was another Joseph and father of Mary. This sounds like a good explanation for the apparently contradictory geneologies, I'm not fully sure it's correct. Ferrar Fenton simply editted the entire geneology of Luke, saying it was impossible and incorrect.

I believe Luke's geneology is in the oldest manuscripts, so it seems to be genuine just incorrectly understood. Just my two cents.

Coincidently, I happen to be proofreading Dr. Lawrence Blanchard's 4th volume to his Covenant Heritage series (http://www.yourbiblicalheritage.com) and he addresses this subject as follows (I'm sure he would love to hear any positive critique so that it is presented in the most honest and truthful rendering possible; I've done some editing that refers to other volumes):

The Genealogical Connection in the Gospels

Let's bring forward this context now and link it into the context of Genesis chapters 1-11. We begin with the biblical genealogies as recorded in Luke 3:23-38 and Matthew 1:2-16.

The Luke account records the family line of Joseph, the stepfather (but not paternal father) of Jesus the Christ. Beginning in Luke 3:23, Joseph's genealogy is recorded, demonstrating that he was a direct descendant of David (v. 31), Jacob, Isaac, Abraham (v.34), and Adam (v.38). The main point here is to demonstrate that there is a direct genealogical descent from Adam to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to King David, down to Joseph. By implication, there is a direct racial descent from Adam to all Israel.

Matthew's genealogical record was the family line of Mary, the birth mother of Jesus the Messiah (Mt.1:1).

Although more general in nature and not all-inclusive extending back to Adam like Luke's account, Matthew's record traces Mary (and thus Jesus) back to David (v. 6), Jacob, Isaac and Abraham (v.2). However the implication is that Mary's family line (and thus Jesus' family line) and all Israel can claim descent back to Adam. [he then refers to Appendix A, which I'll get to in a moment].

Both Matthew and Luke record non-contradictory evidence (directly and by implication) that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their physical offspring were descended from Adam.

The Genealogical Connection in I Chronicles

In addition to these two gospel accounts of the genealogical record, there are two more to consider in the Old Testament. The first is a detailed genealogy of I Chron. chapters 1-8 beginning with Adam to the 12 tribes of Israel. From there until the end of chapter 8 is the record of the family tree of each tribe including Kings David and Saul. This is another evidence of the direct racial descent of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the children of Israel, their physical offspring from Adam.

Let's discuss the important reason for this record in I Chron. in the context of that time in Israel's history. After chapter 8 of I Chron. it says: "So all of Israel was enrolled by genealogies; and behold, they are written in the book of the Kings of Israel. And Judah was carried away into exile to Babylon for their unfaithfulness."

This statement gives us the reason for the genealogical record from Adam to Israel. It was used to "enroll" Israel, that is, to identify them by ancestral registration. The genealogical account recorded in I Chron. was used to verify that those who returned to their homeland in Judea after the Babylonian captivity were, in fact, Israelites. The returning Israelites were verified as Israelites by the written record of their ancestry, that is, the tribes from which they originated.

And with that history belonged the covenant promises that were an inheritance to these specific people. Verified ancestry meant that the Israelites had exclusive rights and privileges, but also sacred duties and responsibilities.

Appendix A

The Genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke

Upon closer examination of the two genealogies of Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 1 and Luke 3, one readily discovers that two entirely different family lines are being traced. Matthew traces the genealogy through David's son, Solomon, and Luke traces it through David's son, Nathan. Consequently, Matthew states that Jacob was Joseph's father, while Luke states Heli was Joseph's father. It is an impossibility for both of these genealogies to be that of Joseph. One line has to be the true genetic line of Mary traced through her father, who adopted Joseph, Mary's husband, as his legal son. Matthew 1:1 plainly claims to be the genealogy of Jesus, who was born of Mary (v.16). Luke makes nether of these claims.

There are differences of opinion and controversies regarding the correct identification of these genealogical accounts. The view presented here is that Matthew must be assumed to be the genealogy of Jesus through Mary in order for Jesus to fulfill prophecy that He must sit on the throne of David (which throne passed on to Solomon, not Nathan) as King of Israel (see I Chron 28:4-7). The Matthew and Luke accounts are different and must be explained to some satisfaction within the whole context of the Bible.

Matthew 1:1-17 gives three sections of fourteen generations that each reveals a partial list of the family line of Jacob, the father of Mary, who was Jesus Christ's genetic mother. The point of this genealogy is to reveal the genetic relationship of Jesus Christ to Solomon and David in order to verify His claim to the Kingship of Israel. This line then reaches back to Abraham proving Jesus' lineage to the biblical patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). But why fourteen generations? There are many opinions as to why it was recorded this way. One conservative commentator suggests that it was used to provide a "memory" aid.

"The whole may be conveniently divided into three fourteens, each embracing one marked era, and each ending with a notable event, i the Israelitish annuls. Such artificial aids to memory were familiar to the Jews [Judeans]..." - A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, Vol. 3, p. 2.

Others off alternative reasons for the fourteen generations of Matthew 1:1-17 as symbolic and symmetric in nature. Contextually, this genealogical list is not meant to be exhaustive but only to show family descent of Mary in relation to the kingly and patriarchal line.

Luke 3:23-38 gives the genealogy of Joseph, Jesus' legal, but not genetic, father. It extends to Nathan (a son of David), and from David to Jacob, and from Jacob to Adam.

Mark

[wmfinck]

16 and Iakob begot Ioseph the husband of Maria, from whom was born Yahshua, who is called Christ.

23 And this was Yahshua, beginning at about thirty years old, being a son, as was believed, of Ioseph, the son of Eli, 24 the son of Maththat

There is no genealogy for Mary without contradicting the text. I basically said that my interpretation accepts the text, and it is also within the bounds of attested Hebrew custom. Blanchard and Comparet are contesting the text without basis. They do so to their own peril.

If there is a gloss in the text, or variant readings in the manuscripts, one may establish as much. However that is not the case in these passages.

[Kentucky]

I found this tidbit that explains the "genealogy" found in Matthew was not in the original manuscript.

Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus who sold property and took it to Jerusalem, giving it to the apostles (Acts 4:36, 37). Years later we find him returning to Cyprus with Paul in their missionary journeys. We know that Barnabas was bilingual, fluent in both Hebrew and Greek. He must have been a Scribe, transcribing and translating documents neatly with free-flowing script.

Some of his handiwork was dug up not far from Alexandria, Egypt, in November of 1906. It was found by a man illegally digging in the ruins of Medinet Dimet, a Roman garrison and town that was abandoned by the early 200’s A.D. The digger’s identity was kept anonymous for fear of prosecution, but he sold it to an antiquities dealer named Cheikh Aly Arabi, who sold it to Charles Lang Freer, a Detroit businessman who had retired in 1900.

Freer loved art and was in the process of setting up an art gallery at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. when he decided to take a trip to Egypt in 1906. Thus, on the outskirts of Gizeh, he met Aly Arabi, who showed him an old 372-page manuscript that an unknown digger had discovered nearby.

The artwork on the two painted wooden covers attracted Freer’s attention. The manuscript itself was an old copy of all four New Testament gospels, written in Greek, but having Aramaic Hebrew notations in the margins. He purchased this 372-page manuscript and then donated it to the Smithsonian Institute, where it became known as Codex Washingtonensis, or just Codex W. Experts at the time assumed that it was a manuscript from the fifth or sixth century and did not do proper forensics on it.

It sat there for decades with little further interest, everyone assuming the earlier analysis to be correct. Finally, in 1981 Lee W. Woodard, having no degree in Paleontology, requested and received infrared and ultraviolet photographs of the manuscript from the Smithsonian. He was doing research in an entirely different area of study, wondering if perhaps some of the ornaments on letters might actually be musical notations. But in looking at his photographs more carefully, he began to do what others had not yet done and to see what others had not noticed earlier.

As a result of his studies since 1981, he concluded that Codex W was actually the original (or near-original) handwritten copy of all four New Testament gospels written mostly from 66-74 A.D. They were each dated and signed with a logo (or seal). One main seal combined the names of Barnabas and Mark in a cross shape. It was the equivalent of today’s signature on a certified document.

More than that, each gospel appears to contain the signature-seal of the original gospel writer, often in more than one place to indicate additions to the gospels at later dates. These dates and notations were written in both Hebrew and Greek, often in tiny letters to the side, as if trying to hide the facts from the Roman authorities.

The dates are based upon the Roman calendar, called A.U.C. (Latin for anno urbis conditate). The Roman calendar dated from the founding of Rome in 753 B.C. (Rome’s Year 1).
The Gospel of Matthew

The main part of Matthew’s gospel is dated as 790 A.U.C., which is our 37 A.D. Woodard says on page 205 of First Century Gospels Found (2006),

“The earliest version of Matthew of Codex W probably had no genealogy, and maybe—or at least more abbreviated—infancy narratives (than are currently in our Chapters 1-2 of Matthew). The earliest expression of this manuscript was 790 A.U.C. (37 A.D.), perhaps expanded in 796 A.U.C. (43 A.D.), and certainly expanded somewhat in 820 (67 A.D.). The latter date is when the genealogy and portions of the infancy narratives were spliced into an already existing manuscript that had been without them.”

The first 18 verses that show the genealogy of Christ were added later, and these show that the final names on the list had been erased and replaced. It is likely that the original list was one of Jesus’ near relatives (perhaps John the Baptist), and that only the final names needed altering. The date is given as the equivalent of our 67 A.D., when Matthew’s gospel reached its final form.

Next to the first letter of the first word of the genealogy is written: “in Aun” (or “in On,”), which is the Egyptian city of Hieropolis, near where the manuscript was found. The intent was probably to tell us where that section was written.

The city of Aun, or On, is the old Egyptian city of Heliopolis. It was near a Roman outpost called “Babylon in Egypt.” Before I read Woodard’s introductory book, I had never heard that there was a Babylon in Egypt. Peter apparently was there with Mark when he penned his first epistle, saying in 1 Peter 5:13,

13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark.

Eusebius tells us that Mark was the reputed founder of the Church in Alexandria (Eccl. Hist. Vol. I, Bk. II, xvi). He mistakenly assumed that “Babylon” was a metaphor for Rome. But Codex W shows that Babylon was the location of a church in Egypt, probably comprising the Roman commander and some of his soldiers.

The title of Matthew’s Gospel appears to be squeezed into the top of the first page, as if it had not been titled earlier. Hence, the size of the letters in the title are actually smaller than the main text. And squeezed between the title and the first line is Matthew’s tiny autograph, shortened to three Hebrew letters (mem-tav-yod), not so different from modern initials validating document pages.

Woodard explains on page 211 of his book,

“Only an autographed First Century A.D. Greek original could display such forensically verifiable textual alterations and expansions.”

Matthew himself was a Levite and a former employee of Rome as a tax collector and record keeper at the Sea of Galilee. Not only was he highly literate, he was used to keeping records. As a Levite, he also was part of the class of people who were in charge of the Scriptures, seeing that copies were letter-perfect. Thus, it was only natural that he would be the first of the disciples to write a gospel.

Mark

[wmfinck]

Mark,

I spent some time this evening perusing a site I presume belongs to or is closely related to Lee Woodard, the author of the book which you are quoting.

http://www.washington-codex.org/washington_codex.htm

My opinion is that Woodard's claim that the Codex Washingtonensis dates to the first century is pure speculation. It is only based on his own interpretation of certain obscure marginal watermarks, and his interpretation is based on rather tenuous evidence.

My opinion is also that in this instance the archaeologists are correct in dating the Codex Washingtonensis to have been created in the 4th or 5th centuries AD, with some later emendations, which all of the codices suffer.

Additionally, an inspection of the critical apparatus of the Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition, reveals that the Majority Text is in agreement with the Codex Washingtonensis concerning the genealogy of Christ in Matthew chapter 1.

I cannot find a source which agrees with the claim that the genealogy of Matthew 1 in the Codex Washingtonensis is abbreviated, incomplete, or wanting.

The Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece is not a complete copy of each of the texts which it cites, but rather it is a clerical compilation of the differences among all the texts which it cites.

The Codex Washingtonensis may be viewed online here: http://www.csntm.org/manuscript/zoomify/GA_032?page=0

The Scripture Index available on that page also indicates that the manuscript contains the passages where the genealogy of Christ is found in Matthew chapter 1, as Nestle-Aland attest.

LATE EDIT: I have read parts of the manuscript in that section. Woodard has an agenda. He seems to be mistaken, or perhaps even dishonest.

[Kentucky]

LATE EDIT: I have read parts of the manuscript in that section. Woodard has an agenda. He seems to be mistaken, or perhaps even dishonest.

Thank you Bill for taking the time to look into this. If we were to conjecture what Woodard's agenda may be, where do you think that leads? I agree with your strict standard of agreeing with only the revealed and confirmed Word of God and not taking license to divine something which may correspond to personal pet doctrines. I've heard different takes on the two genealogies, but I think now it may be more controversial than I previously thought, which I may add, need not be if kept academic, but the termites love this kind of thing. What was the "peril" you referred to? Just the dangers of latching on to bad theology?

Mark

[wmfinck]

16 and Iakob begot Ioseph the husband of Maria, from whom was born Yahshua, who is called Christ.

23 And this was Yahshua, beginning at about thirty years old, being a son, as was believed, of Ioseph, the son of Eli, 24 the son of Maththat

There is no genealogy for Mary without contradicting the text. I basically said that my interpretation accepts the text, and it is also within the bounds of attested Hebrew custom. Blanchard and Comparet are contesting the text without basis. They do so to their own peril.

If there is a gloss in the text, or variant readings in the manuscripts, one may establish as much. However that is not the case in these passages.

There are places in the original-language manuscripts of scripture where there are evident glosses, and those glosses we have a duty to identify. However in those places where there are glosses we should be able to demonstrate why they are glosses.

The peril is that we should be careful not to emend the text, so as to insist upon reading things that the text does not inform us when the text itself is clear. If there is a demonstrable gloss, or if there are differences among manuscripts, we can imagine how we may correct it. But if there is no gloss and the manuscripts agree then we should accept the text as we have received it.

If both Matthew and Luke give a succesion of names down to Joseph, if both Matthew and Luke explicitly mention "Joseph", and there are no demonstrable glosses, how can we with any fairness imagine that either genealogy belongs to Mary?