Matthew 1:6

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Previous Verse < Matthew 1 > Next Verse

and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Uriah; (ASV)


Edit this section if you suspect error.

JW: Compare to Luke 3:31:

"the [son] of Melea, the [son] of Menna, the [son] of Mattatha, the [son] of Nathan, the [son] of David," (ASV)

Per "Matthew" the lyine goes through "Solomon".

Per "Luke" the line goes through Nathan.

Note that 1 Kings 11 (ASV) created uncertainty as to continuation of the Kingdom through Solomon:

"26 And Jeroboam the son of Nebat, an Ephraimite of Zeredah, a servant of Solomon, whose mother's name was Zeruah, a widow, he also lifted up his hand against the king.

27 And this was the reason why he lifted up his hand against the king: Solomon built Millo, and repaired the breach of the city of David his father.

28 And the man Jeroboam was a mighty man of valor; and Solomon saw the young man that he was industrious, and he gave him charge over all the labor of the house of Joseph.

29 And it came to pass at that time, when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; now Ahijah had clad himself with a new garment; and they two were alone in the field.

30 And Ahijah laid hold of the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces.

31 And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces; for thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee;

32 (but he shall have one tribe, for my servant David's sake and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel);

33 because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon; and they have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and mine ordinances, as did David his father.

34 Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand; but I will make him prince all the days of his life, for David my servant's sake whom I chose, who kept my commandments and my statutes;

35 but I will take the kingdom out of his son's hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes.

36 And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a lamp alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there.

37 And I will take thee, and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth, and shalt be king over Israel.

38 And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, and wilt walk in my ways, and do that which is right in mine eyes, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did; that I will be with thee, and will build thee a sure house, as I built for David, and will give Israel unto thee.

39 And I will for this afflict the seed of David, but not for ever."

JW: Nathan was the Head Prophet during David's reign:

2 Samuel 7 (ASV):

"1 And it came to pass, when the king dwelt in his house, and Jehovah had given him rest from all his enemies round about,

2 that the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains.

3 And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thy heart; for Jehovah is with thee.

4 And it came to pass the same night, that the word of Jehovah came unto Nathan, saying,

5 Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith Jehovah, Shalt thou build me a house for me to dwell in?"

JW: So we have possible reasons why "Matthew" and "Luke" place the line of Jesus through different sons of David:

1) Solomon was in the line of Kings but disloyal to God.

2) Nathan was in the line of Head Prophets and loyal to God.

"Matthew", with more of a Jewish outlook, may have preferred to stay with the Kingly line, while "Luke", with more of a Pagan outlook, may have preferred to change to the Head Prophet line. Once again, possible reasons for differences in the Genealogies are not explanations of defenses against error, they are explanations of the cause of the error.



Joseph, not only are you bringing up a ridiculous objection as an "error," with such comments as "possible reasons for differences in the Genealogies are not explanations of defenses against error, they are explanations of the cause of the error," you're poisoning the well.

The Genealogies in Luke and Matthew are two separate genealogies, traced through two different lines. Now, like you, I don't happen to feel that either one is terribly accurate, but if we were to assume that they were accurate (less the omissions in the Matthian genealogy, which I still feel results from a stylistic choice rather than an actual error), tracing two lines of ancestry to a common ancestor is not at all uncommon. Indeed, I have (rather distant) ancestors who I am related to from both my father's line and my mother's.

Most of your genealogy objections have been tempests in teapots: this particular one could be called "making a mountain out of a molehill," save for the fact that you didn't even have a molehill to start with.

--JustinEiler 11:40, 25 Nov 2005 (CST)


Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.

(Off-topic discussion moved to Joseph's Talk Page.)



Hebrew = ??????

WH = ?????

TR = ?????

LXX = ?????

What's curious here is why TR would use a "?" to represent the Hebrew " ?? ", vav which is the English "V" sound. If the Hebrew spelling was with a bet, TR would be understandable here as the basic bet letter is the "B" sound and the "bet" without the dot in the middle is the "V" sound. Here though, the Hebrew vav always has a "V" sound.



Matthew: ????????

Christian Bible: ???????

Josephus: ???????

Chronicles: ???????

--JoeWallack 08:50, 7 Jun 2006 (CDT)

External links