Confused by the start of the new testament

[ConfusedNT]

Hi I'm confused by Matthew chapter 1. It starts by saying:

Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

But then when it goes through all the begats it ends up with Joseph not Mary. If Jesus was the son of God, and not Joseph's son, how was Jesus related to David and Abraham?

Or does it mean it in the familial sense (e.g. Joseph raised Jesus as his father) rather than the genetic sense?

Or am I misunderstanding the first part altogether?

I'm reading the King James version of the new testament if that makes a difference.

And there in lies the rub.

Son of means "descendant of".

You do realise that it’s a work of fiction?

If you subscribe to redaction criticism, then Matthew's gospel was written intended for a Jewish audience, so much of what is written in there is aimed at trying to convince the Jewish audience that Jesus was the messiah. Two prophecies about the messiah are that the messiah would be descended from David and would be born in Bethlehem. So many scholars argue that the purpose of the genealogy is there to show Jesus was descended from David, and so could be the messiah.

But, then there's the problem of the virgin birth.... how do you reconcile this genealogy with Jesus not actually being Joseph's son? Obviously Christians don't worry about the prophecy side, but it's interesting from an academic viewpoint. Also the genealogy in Matthew is totally different to the genealogy in Luke.

Yes but that's my point. Because if Jesus is the son of God, then he is not the descendent of David or Abraham

That's interesting and then I suppose also explains why it specifies 'they will call his name Emmanuel' when in fact he is called Jesus. Because that ties in with the prpofecy is Isaiah, that the son of God would be called Emmanuel

I can see why Jews are not convinced Jesus was the messiah (as I understand it at a simplistic level, I've not studied their actual arguments) when the first chapter of the new testament tries to pull it in light with prophecy and essentially doesn't do a good job of it

I will be interested to compare it to the genealogy in luke

I'm reading it from an academic perspective (it feels a bit grandiose to put it that way but that's the only word that fits that I can think of at this time of night) not a religious one.

When reading the bible for textual meaning in detail, I find it useful to use more than one translation. I love the KJV but some words or passages can be problematic - there have been massive advances in scholarship since that translation was produced!; i've mainly used RSV for study in the past but NRSV is pretty good too. (one day I'm going to learn some greek, started working through a primer once when I was still a student but had too many other things going on in my life at the time!) I think you can find parallel texts on the internet now enabling easy direct comparison.

But back to your question. I've seen it suggested that Matthew's gospel may hae been written more for those with a Jewish background, so for them tracing through the male line, even if only "apparent", was meaningful in terms of the legalistic heritage. Luke's gospel also includes a genealogy, though different, and efforts to explain these differences sometimes suggest one or the other list may actually be Mary's line (there seems to be a good summary on wikipaedia). In both cases the point is to establish Jesus's Messianic heritage as a descendant of David.

Luke wrote in a manner perhaps more fitting our modern expectations of "journalism" if you like, seeking to find our what happened and write a coherent narrative (also writing Acts, the next bit of the story). But it is important to remember that, at that time, how truth was determined and evidence interpreted could be quite different to how we think we like to do things now.

One or two previous posters could do well to note what forum this is.

Having cross posted with your later posts (perils of looking things up while writing), if you are interested from an academic perspective then I would strongly recommend working from parallel translations, or an edition with commentary on sources/translation choices.

I presume you know that a group of blokes sat round a table and decided which stories were in and which were out? Can't remember which film it was thar highlighted that St Thomas was chucked out as it said the church was in your heart not buildings which of course went against people getting rich. The story of the borgias highlights the bonkersness of the papacy and that modern depictions of christ are based on Cesare Borgia. I also find out odd the Pope divided the new world between Spain and Portugal (who did he think he was) but I digress!

I don't understand all the Abraham begat Kevin stuff when I though Judaism was matrilineal. That would solve everything because then it would be all Anne begat Mary. And she was his mum so it's all good.

That is really interesting @Pythonesque , I appreciate both you and @cotsma writing such detailed posts.

I will definitely look at those versions you suggest and do some comparisons

It became through the mothers line due to persecution of Jews including rape.

I had heard about the books being decided on but I only recently found out that the Catholic NT contains more books than the Protestant one which I thought was fascinating

I guess it also depends on how they viewed adoption and Patri-/matrilineal descent (which may have been different at different times in history,

Hmmmm I wonder if you would have the balls to post that if this was about a text from another religion?

Go and look at some of the books designed for A-Level RS students. There is an excellent 'introduction to NT' from the old Hodder range about £2-3 on Abe books atm.
Or for a really really good guide try and pick up John Drane's guides to old and New Testament.
Have been teaching NT and OT exegesis for years at school and currently studying MA in Theology, happy to ping some 'light' reading you way if you want.

@ballonsinhightrees

What MA are you doing?

I'm doing my EdD atm, but in education. Have my eyes on doing an MA in Xian Theology when I finish.

Want to do one that fits the Eduqas board as that's what I teach.

Here's something to get your teeth into en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

@ConfusedNT

These are the two genealogies

I would definitely love recommendations for reading and I will see if I can get hold of the two you have mentioned in the post thank you
Your MA sounds fascinating!

That's really helpful to view side by side thank you, I can see it totally diverges from David onwards.

Thank you I will have a read

Hmmmm I wonder if you would have the balls to post that if this was about a text from another religion?

No other religion is forced on children in state schools. In the form of worship, not education. I'm much happier to criticise Christianity because I was made to participate in a way that no other religion has tried with me.

Christians can't have it both ways. Force religiosity in schools, government and other areas of life and then say that non-believers have no say in it. If we are all 'culturally Christian' a phrase so often used to dismiss concerns, then we all get to have a go at the religion we are subsumed into.

I can see why Jews are not convinced Jesus was the messiah (as I understand it at a simplistic level, I've not studied their actual arguments)

I believe the main argument that he's not the messiah is that he's a very naughty boy.