Yuku free message boards

Dear Steve ~

If it seems like I am framing the answer in an open-ended way, it's because I don't want to be specific at the expense of being right. I have no way of telling if, when Matthew called Jacob the father of Joseph, if Matthew meant that Jacob was Joseph's father, or his stepfather.

But if, just to have a view to perch on, I was to speculate, I'd say that Matthew regarded Jacob as the physical father of Joseph.

SW: ... "If you didn't know what Luke said, would you have any doubt that Jacob was Joseph's father?"

No, but I /do/ know what Luke said. If we didn't know what Luke said, the whole harmonization-question would never have arisen. It wouldn't be a good approach to pretend that readily-available evidence (in this case, Luke's statement) doesn't exist merely for the same of preserving the simplicity of an answer.

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock

Dear Steve ~

SW: "So if you were "to speculate", you'd "say that Matthew regarded Jacob as the physical father of Joseph.""

Yes.

SW: "And if you didn't know what Luke said, you'd have no doubt about it at all."

Right.

SW: "But since you do know, you are forced to find another interpretation -- one that doesn't contadict Luke."

I'm not quite "forced" to do so; I could just assume that there is some yet-undiscerned way that both texts are right. But the levirate-marriage explanation practically suggests itself, and is a fairly ancient interpretation. (Julius Africanus proposed a form of it.)

SW: "When Matthew (1:5) says that Salmon begat Booz, do you worry that maybe Matthew didn't mean it? That maybe he meant that Salmon was the step-father or uncle or something of Booz?"

Frankly I've always thought there was something fishy about that. ... Matthew is just echoing II Chronicles 2:10-11 here. It wouldn't be problematic for "father" to mean some things other than "immediately preceding genetic male source" in any of the cases where such a relationship is not explicitly stated (like "his firstborn son was X, his secondborn son was Y"). Clearly, it was capable of other meanings -- grandfather, patriarchal leader, adoptive father through levirate marriage -- and these other possible meanings should be taken into consideration. When they are, the genealogy-lists can be harmonized in more ways than one.

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock