Saint
Matthew encourages us to count these generations. The traditional way of
dividing these generations is:
1 Abraham David Jechoniah*
2 Isaac Solomon Shealtiel
3 Jacob Rehoboam Zerubbabel
4 Judah Abijah Abiud
5 Perez Asa Eliakim
6 Hezron Jehoshaphat Azor
7 Ram Joram Zadok
8 Ammindab Uzziah Achim
9 Nahshon Jotham Eliud
10 Salmon Ahaz Eleazar
11 Booz Hezekiah Matthan
12 Obed Manasseh Jacob
13 Jesse Amon Joseph
14 David Josiah* Jesus
There is,
however, something not quite right about separating the generations in this
way. While in the second column we again calculate the generation of David, we
do not do so in the third column with the generation of Josiah. Since we
include both the first and the last generation when counting the 14 that go
from Abraham to David, should we not do the same when counting the generations
from David to the deportation to Babylon, and from the deportation to Babylon
to Jesus Christ? Following this logic gives us another division of these
genealogies:
1 Abraham David Josiah
2 Isaac Solomon Jechoniah
3 Jacob Rehoboam Shealtiel
4 Judah Abijah Zerubbabel
5 Perez Asa Abiud
6 Hezron Jehoshaphat Eliakim
7 Ram Joram Azor
8 Ammindab Uzziah Zadok
9 Nahshon Jotham Achim
10 Salmon Ahaz Eliud
11 Booz Hezekiah Eleazar
12 Obed Manasseh Matthan
13 Jesse Amon Jacob
14 David Josiah Joseph + Jesus
According
to this new division, Josiah marks the deportation to Babylon. Since there are
14 generations from Josiah to Joseph, and Saint Matthew says that there are 14
generations between Josiah and Jesus, Joseph and Jesus form part of the same
generation. How is this possible? This would be so if Jacob, Joseph’s father,
had Joseph from his first wife, and later, when Joseph reached adulthood, had
Jesus from Joseph’s wife. This would explain why this genealogy, although based
on the ‘father begat son’ principle, ends by saying: “Jacob begat Joseph, the
husband of Mary, of her was born Jesus who is called Christ.”
Reasons for and against
Since this
hypothesis contradicts the dogma of Jesus’ virgin birth, we should immediately
determine whether what we have discovered is what the Gospel of Saint Matthew
is really trying to tell us.
Arguments
against this new hypothesis:
1) It contradicts the most important
Christian dogma.
2) It is not clear how Saint Matthew wants
us to divide up the fourteen generations
Arguments
in favour of this new hypothesis:
1) It enables us to conclude that Jesus is
a descendant of David and Abraham.
2) It explains the enigma in the
genealogies of Saint Matthew.
3) Saint Matthew mentions four women and
all are adulterers.
4) It explains why Saint Matthew and Saint
Luke offer different genealogies for Jesus.
5) Saint
Luke mentions ancestors of Jesus who had relations with their daughter-in-law.
6) After what we have discovered in
Genesis, this secret does not surprise us at all.
Christianity’s
most important dogma
The first
reason for dismissing this new hypothesis is that the idea of a Jesus being
born out of a relationship between Mary and her father-in-law contradicts the
most important dogma of Christianity. Over the centuries Christians have become
so used to the idea that the founder of their religion was born of a virgin
that to now suggest that he was actually born out of a relationship between
Mary and her father-in-law seems outlandish and heretical. Yet whereas a virgin
birth is scientifically impossible, being born out of a father and
daughter-in-law relationship is possible; and whereas there are no recorded
cases of a virgin having given birth to a son, there are several recorded cases
of women who have given birth to a child from a relationship with their
father-in-law.
We should
not disregard the possibility of a child being born from a virgin just because
there are no cases which prove that this has already occurred in the past.
However, it is obviously much more realistic to assume that Saint Matthew is
trying to tell us that Mary had Jesus from her father-in-law rather than assume
that he is suggesting that Jesus was born of a virgin.
Christians
show little interest in the origin of this dogma. Therefore, they ignore the
fact that only two gospels –Saint Matthew and Saint Luke– refer to a mysterious
birth. If Jesus really was born of a virgin, then why do Saint Mark and Saint
John not mention such a miracle? And why doesn’t Saint Paul, whose books make
up half the New Testament, mention it either? ¿Doesn’t Saint Paul contradict the idea that Jesus was born from a
virgin by rermarking: “born a descendant of David, according to the flesh” (Rm1:3)?
The two evangelists
who do refer to a mysterious birth are those who offer genealogies for Jesus.
And these genealogies are extremely enigmatic, because up until now nobody has
provided a satisfactory answer to the following questions: why does Saint
Matthew end his by saying: “and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary; of her
was born Jesus who is called Christ”, followed by: “The sum of generations is
therefore: fourteen from Abraham to David; fourteen from David to the
Babylonian deportation; and fourteen from the Babylonian deportation to
Christ.”; and why do Saint Matthew’s and Saint Luke’s genealogies for Christ
not coincide?
Those who
defend Jesus’ virgin birth may argue that if Christ was born out of a
relationship between Mary and her father-in-law, it is very suspicious that
Saint Matthew does not make this explicit. But neither does Saint Matthew
explicitly state that Jesus was born of a virgin. He merely refers to a
prophecy about a virgin which, according to him, came true in Jesus. Saint
Matthew refers to a verse in Isaiah, one of the books of the Old Testament, and
it turns out that the original text in Hebrew does not mention a virgin, but
instead a young woman (Is7:14).
Moreover,
whereas in the case of Jesus being born of a virgin there is no reason for not
saying so openly, in the case of a relationship between Mary and her
father-in-law there are good reasons for keeping this a secret. One reason is
that people who had extramarital affairs in those days were stoned to death,
and another is that San Mateo proselytized for Jesus’ new religion and neither
Jews nor pagans would have paid much attention to a bastard.
How to
separate the fourteen generations
The second
reason for dismissing this new hypothesis is that it is not clear how Saint
Matthew wants us to count the fourteen generations from Abraham to David, from
David to the deportation to Babylon, and from the deportation to Babylon to
Christ. This is absolutely true, but there may be a way to solve this problem.
Apart from
encouraging us to count these generations, Saint Matthew seems to suggest that
every fourteen generations this special lineage, always from father to son,
produces someone very important. By starting Jesus’ genealogy with Abraham,
Saint Matthew encourages us to find out who is separated fourteen generations
from him going back in time.
As Saint Matthew’s genealogy for Jesus is based
on the ‘father begat son’ principle, we can complete his list with the
information that we find in Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament, since
it offers us genealogies that are based on the same idea. Whereas some go from
Adam to Noah (Gn5:3-32), others go from Noah to Abraham (Gn11:10-26).
1 Enoch Abraham David Josiah
2 Methuselah Isaac Solomon Jechoniah
3 Lamech Jacob Rehoboam Shealtiel
4 Noah Judah Abijah Zerubbabel
5 Shem Perez Asa Abiud
6 Arpachshad Hezron Jehoshaphat Eliakim
7 Shelah Ram Joram Azor
8 Eber Ammindab Uzziah Zadok
9 Peleg Nahshon Jotham Achim
10 Reu Salmon Ahaz Eliud
11 Serug Booz Hezekiah Eleazar
12 Nahor Obed Manasseh Matthan
13 Terah Jesse Amon Jacob
14 Abraham David Josiah Joseph + Jesus
Enoch is
the person who is separated fourteen generations from Abraham going back in
time and he is also very special. Genesis says of him: “Enoch walked with God.
After the birth of Methuselah, Enoch lived for three hundred years and he begat
sons and daughters. In all, Enoch lived for three hundred and sixty-five years.
Enoch walked with God, then was no more, because God took him.”
Enoch, Abraham, David and Jesus are all very
important figures: Enoch walked with God and God took him with Him when he was
365 years old; God offered Abraham a covenant; David founded a kingdom and God
said that the Messiah would be a descendant of him; Josiah imposed an important
religious reformation; and Jesus did something similar.
When
counting the 14 generations from Enoch to Abraham we included both the first
(Enoch) and the last generation (Abraham), just as we did when counting the 14
generations from Abraham to David. It therefore seems obvious that we should do
the same when counting the 14 generations from David to the deportation to
Babylon and those from the deportation to Babylon to Christ.
Although in
the Old Testament we find that the deportation to Babylon did not occur in the
days of Josiah, Saint Matthew says: “Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brothers
when the deportation to Babylon took place.” Therefore, he clearly associates
Josiah with the deportation to Babylon. We should bear in mind that Saint
Matthew refers to a deportation of Babylon, but not necessarily to the great
deportation that occurred much later.
Jesus: a
descendant of David
Saint
Matthew traces his genealogy of Jesus back to King David and Abraham in order
to demonstrate that he was the Messiah. And this was necessary, because God
offered a covenant to Abraham (Gn15:18 and Gn17:2) and the Jews expected the
Messiah to be a descendant of King David (2Sm7:9-17). But if that lineage ends with
Joseph and the son of his wife was born of an angel, Jesus had nothing to do
with those illustrious people. Retracing Jesus’ male lineage all the way back
to King David and Abraham only makes sense if he forms part of it, which would
be the case if Jesus were the son of Jacob, the father of Joseph, the husband
of Mary.
Some Bible
scholars assume that the Gospel of Saint Matthew originally said: ‘Jacob begat
Joseph, Joseph begat Jesus’ and that this was later changed to: ‘Jacob begat
Joseph the husband of Mary; of her was born Jesus who is called Christ’ when
Christianity adopted the idea of Jesus’ virginal conception. Yet the importance
that Saint Matthew gives to the 14 generations from the deportation to Babylon
to Jesus Christ demonstrates that this is not so, because in that case we would
have 15 generations.
Supposedly,
the main reason for including Jesus’ genealogy in his gospel was to prove that
Jesus was a descendant of King David, as this was something the Jews expected
of the Messiah. But if that was the only reason for offering Jesus’ genealogy,
then why does Saint Matthew start with Abraham? It seems obvious that he does
so in order to create an enigma. If Saint Matthew started with David and later
pointed out that there are 14 generations from David to the deportation to
Babylon and 14 generations from the deportation to Babylon to Jesus Christ, we
would not have to wonder how we should divide these genealogies, because there
would be no reason to question the division: David-Josiah and Jechoniah-Jesus.
The enigma
in Saint Matthew’s genealogies
At the end
of his genealogy Saint Matthew points out that: “The sum of generations is
therefore: fourteen from Abraham to David; fourteen from David to the
Babylonian deportation; and fourteen from the Babylonian deportation to
Christ.” What does this information contribute to the story? Saint Matthew
clearly encourages us to count these generations and thus find out which
generation marks the deportation to Babylon. He also encourages us to find who
is separated fourteen generations from Abraham going back in time. Whereas this
information is totally superfluous if Jesus was born of an angel, because it
then encourages us to count those generations for nothing, it does make sense
if he was born out of an extramarital affair between Mary and her
father-in-law, because then it holds an enigma.
Four women
and all are adulterers
In his
genealogy for Jesus, Saint Matthew mentions four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and
the woman who had been married to Uriah; and it turns out that they all had
extramarital affairs. Rahab was a prostitute (Jos2:1), Ruth slept with Boaz in
secret (Rt3:4), and David slept with Bathsheba when she was still married to
Uriah (2S11:2-5). But the woman that really interests us here is Tamar, because
she had Perez and Zerah from Judah, her father-in-law (Gn38). Whereas the
mention of these women does not fit in with the dogma of Jesus’ virgin birth,
it does fit in with our hypothesis of an affair between Mary and her
father-in-law.
Two different
genealogies for Jesus Christ
The
hipótesis that Jesus was born from an extramarital relation explains why Saint
Matthew and Saint Luke offer different genealogies for Jesus Christ. They
differ for the simple reason that because of extramarital relations some
lineages are real and others supposed. A
woman’s
husband is not necessarily her children’s father. Whereas Saint Matthew offers
the real lineage, by basing himself on the ‘father begot son’ principle, Saint
Luke offers the supposed lineage, by starting with: “being the son, as it was
thought, of …”
When Luke
points out that Jesus was ‘as it was thought’ the son of Joseph, the son of
Heli, the son of Matthat, etc., he suggests that people not only believed that
Jesus was the son of Joseph, but that they also thought that Joseph was the son
of Heli, and he the son of Matthat, etc. This explains why Saint Matthew and
Saint Luke name different fathers for Joseph. The fact that, according to Saint
Matthew, Jacob begat Joseph and that, according to Luke, Joseph was thought to
be the son of Heli, tells us that whereas Jacob was Joseph’s biological father,
Heli was the husband of the woman who gave birth to Joseph.
When we
study these two genealogies we see that on several occasions the real genealogy
in Saint Matthew and the supposed genealogy in Saint Luke diverge from each
other before converging again several generations later. An incorrect link in a
genealogy (when the husband of a woman is not the father of her son) makes us
follow the wrong lineage. However, several generations going back in time, this
false lineage may again coincide with the real lineage, since two sons may have
the same father. After Joseph, instead of offering the real genealogies through
Jacob, Saint Luke offers the genealogies of Heli, the husband of Joseph’s
mother. But that false lineage coincides again with Joseph’s real lineage due
to the fact that Nathan (an ancestor of Heli) and Salomon (an ancestor of
Jacob) are both sons of David.
Saint Luke mentions
ancestor of Jesus who had relations with their daughter-in-law
When we compare the genealogy in Saint Luke with the genealogies in Genesis
and Saint Matthew we find two two of Jesus’ ancestors who
had a relationship with their daughter-in-law, which means that the relationship
between Jacob and Mary should not surprise us. It only means that it is true
that history repeats itself.
Saint Luke
offers an additional generation between Noah and Abraham. Whereas Saint Matthew
says: “Arpachshad begat Shelah”, Saint Luke indicates: “son of Shelah, son of
Cainan, son of Arphaxad”. This comes as a great surprise, because we can assume
that Saint Luke was familiar with the genealogies in Genesis. Therefore, we
must wonder what he is trying to tell us by including this additional generation
between Noah and Abraham.
By starting
his genealogies with: “When he began, Jesus was about thirty years old, being
the son, as it was thought, of Joseph son of Heli, son of Matthat…”, Saint Luke
lets us know that people not only thought that Jesus was the son of Joseph, but
also that Joseph was the son of Heli, etc. Whereas Saint Matthew says that
Arpachshad begat Shelah, Saint Luke indicates that people thought Selah was the
son of Cainan and that Cainan was the son of Arphaxad.
By starting
his genealogies with: “When he began, Jesus was about thirty years old, being
the son, as it was thought, of Joseph son of Heli, son of Matthat…”, Saint Luke
lets us know that people not only thought that Jesus was the son of Joseph, but
also that Joseph was the son of Heli, etc. Whereas Saint Matthew says that
Arpachshad begat Shelah, Saint Luke indicates that people thought Selah was the
son of Cainan and that Cainan was the son of Arphaxad. And what can this mean
if not that Arpachshad (Saint Matthew and Saint Luke often offer different
spellings for the same name) first had his son Cainan and later, when he became
an adult, had Shelah from his daughter-in-law, Cainan’s wife?
Saint Luke
offers an additional generation not only between Henoc and Abraham, but also
between Abraham and David. Whereas Saint Matthew says that Hezron begat Ram and
Ram begat Amminadab, Saint Luke indicates that people thought that Amminadab
was the son of Admin, son of Arni, son of Hezron. It seems obvious that Arni
and Aram are two versions of the same name. Therefore, just as Arphaxad begat
Selah from the wife of his son Cainan, Aram begat Amminadab from the wife of
his son Admin. We thus see that also
Saint Luke seems to have known who Jesus’ real father was.
The
genealogies in the gospels are similar to those in Genesis
The different cases of extramarital relations,
endogamy and incest that we discovered while studying the genealogies in
Genesis make that it is not such a surprise that Saint Matthew indicates that
Jesus was born from a relation between Mary and her father-in-law. The
genealogies in Genesis for Seth and Cain have a lot in common with the
genealogies for Jesus in the gospels of Saint Matthew and Saint Luke: that of
Seth and Saint Matthew’s genealogy for Jesus are real, because they always base
themselves on the ‘father begot son’ principle, and that of Cain and Saint
Luke’s genealogy for Jesus are supposed, because they do not. One starts with
“Cain knew his wife and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch” and the other
with: “being the
son, as it was thought, of Joseph, son of Heli…”
Conclusion
After
analyzing the arguments in favour and against this new hypothesis regarding
Jesus’ real father, there is no longer any doubt that the Gospel of Saint
Matthew indeed tells us that Mary had Jesus from her father-in-law. However,
what this gospel tells us does not necessarily have to be the truth. Even
though it is a sacred book, it is at the same time a book like all the others
and, therefore, what it says may be true or not. What should however be clear
is that there is no reason for assuming that we have discovered is not what its
authors tries to convey.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario