Jacob or Heli? (part 2)


#1

I was looking at an older thread on CA titled “Jacob or Eli?” about the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew’s & Luke’s Gospels. One poster suggested (according to Eusebius) that both genealogies were of Joseph’s: Matthew’s being Joseph’s biological descent through his natural father (Jacob) through King Solomon, and Luke’s being Joseph’s descent through his “legal” father (Heli) through Nathan (King David’s other son):

forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=11475402&postcount=6

Thus, both genealogies actually being Joseph’s. Here is a video that visually & verbally explains this:

youtube.com/watch?v=U3bsAMyRwbw

Although this is a very well put together video, which is based on Eusebius’ historical account, according to Julius Africanus, it bases it’s assumption that Jacob (Joseph’s biological father) & Eli (his father “by the law” of Moses) were actually brothers, which both Eusebius & Africanus assumed Eli was Joseph’s father “by the law” of Moses based on Deuteronomy 5:5-6.

However, another posted pointed out:

“In the ancient Middle East, family was counted in two ways: inheritance and blood. For Jesus to be the heir of David, he has to both legally inherit the throne, and be a direct descendant in the dynasty. The Gospel of Matthew traces Joseph’s lineage to show that Jesus is the legal heir of the throne of David, while the Gospel of Luke traces Mary’s lineage to show that he is indeed in the Davidic bloodline.

This also solves another mystery of the Bible, which is Jeremiah’s curse (Jer. 22:30). The curse is that no descendant of Coniah would ever sit the throne of David again. Jesus falls into that lineage through Joseph, but they are not blood relatives (thus not a descendant).”

forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=11479338&postcount=12

This would certainly bypass the “curse” of Coniah, since Jesus’ blood-line through Mary, through Luke’s Gospel, would not include Coniah, since Coniah (Jeconiah) is in Matthew’s genealogy (Matthew 1:11-12), not Luke’s. Therefore, the “curse” would have bypassed Jesus, since Joseph was not His natural father. Luke’s genealogy, being that of Mary (rather than Joseph’s), seems to have strong OT Scriptural support, that Joseph would have been the “son-in-law” of Heli by marriage – Heli being the representative of Mary’s generation. In fact, Moses himself established precedent for this sort of substitution in Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12.

So, if Luke’s genealogy is actually that of Mary’s & not of Joseph’s, based on Numbers 27:1-11 & 36:1-12, then that would make Heli, Mary’s biological father. If so, then “how” can Joachim also be Mary’s biological father, which is based on the non-canonical pseudoepigraphical false “gospel” of the Protoevangelium of James from the mid-to-late second century, which would contradict the canonical “real” Gospel of Luke that states that Heli is? And while we’re at it, why is Joachim “canonized” as a “saint,” if he really didn’t exist?

Thoughts?


#2

You may wish to research this by referencing Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary. Scroll down to Remarks on the Two Genealogies of Jesus Christ. It’s a bit long and complex (which is why I didn’t copy/paste it). I hope it sheds some insight onto your question. :slight_smile:


#3

Thanks for the link, which actually supports that Luke’s genealogy was of Mary’s & not of Joseph’s. One tidbit to share, is that the reason Matthew “omits” some of the generations in his genealogy is because the ones he omitted committed heinous acts of sin personally against God, including murdering His prophets. However, ALL the “begots” in Matthew’s genealogy are found in the OT, up to “Shealthiel begot Zerubbabel” (Matthew 1:12). The rest beyond that in Matthew’s genealogy, are not found since the OT ended at Zerubbabel. So, the “begots” seem to be natural right up to “Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary” (v.16). As far as Luke’s genealogy, the use of the word “son” doesn’t always mean literal, biological “son,” such as Jesus being the “son” (as supposed) of Joseph" (Luke 3:23). However, again, when we look into the OT, most of the other “sons” are found to be literal “sons.” The point in the article about the “second Cainan” in Luke 3:36, I did some research on this:

“The ‘Cainan’ in Luke 3:36 is most probably not the son of Arpachshad, but rather Shelah (Salah) in Genesis 10:24; 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:18 & 24 is the son of Arpachshad. The earliest copies of the Gospel of Luke & the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) do not include this ‘Cainan’ in either of their genealogies, nor does any Early Church Father in their writings of the Biblical genealogies from the 2nd Century forward mention this ‘Cainan.’ What most probably occurred was that a weary scribe ‘may’ have inadvertently copied the ‘Cainan’ in Luke 3:37,who lived before the Flood, to Luke 3:36, since his name would have been written at the end of v.37.”

So, the issue still remains, if the genealogy of Matthew is actually Joseph’s, & Luke’s is actually Mary’s (based on Joseph being the “son*-in-law*” of Heli by marriage to Mary, again, supported by this “substitution” based on Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12), then “how” could Heli be Mary’s father (based on Luke 3:23, and at the same time, Joachim be Mary’s father (based on the false, pseudoepigraphical “gospel” of the Protoevangelium of James)? And “why” is Joachim “canonized” as a “saint,” if he actually didn’t exist? :shrug:

Also, is there any of Jesus’ genealogy - either on Joseph’s side or Mary’s side - in the 7 Apocrypa books or the “additions” to Esther & Daniel in the Catholic OT that records the remaining ancestors of Jesus that are not found in the Hebrew & Aramaic OT Scriptures (ie: the Protestant OT)? Since they were written during the Intertestamental Period, I can’t image God wouldn’t have mentioned them. :confused:


#4

Mary’s line is traced using Heli’s line to connect her and Joseph to David’s lineage. We have the name Joachim from a later source–it appears that Heli was Mary’s father-in-law but she was related to him and Joseph through the Davidic line. Family inter-relations were rather complicated for the Jewish people, since they generally married within their own tribes, especially if they were the scion of the family, male or female. At least, that how I understand it.


#5

Are you referring to the Protoevangelium of James from the mid-to-late second century, or a source later than that? If it’s later, than what is that source? If it’s later than Proto-James, then you’re talking at least third century, or later. And based on the genealogies of Matthew & Luke, unless otherwise specified in the OT or NT, “son” & “begat” means direct descendant or father. Have you thought that this “later source” was simply to “fill-in” the problem that Heli was Mary’s actual father, so they “reinvented” Heli as Mary’s father-in-law, in order to not contradict the false “gospel” of Proto-James to refer to Joachim as Mary’s father? I guess I’m looking for an EARLIER source, even if it’s in the Apocrypha.

Family inter-relations were rather complicated for the Jewish people, since they generally married within their own tribes, especially if they were the scion of the family, male or female. At least, that how I understand it.

Agreed. Scripture supports that. But that doesn’t mean we can take the liberty to make conjectures about “how” these relationships were, without early Scriptural or First Century Church support, which there doesn’t seem to be any until at least the third century, or even later.


#6

I’m sorry but I haven’t given it a moment’s thought, actually. I don’t think it matters. It’s fun to speculate, but being that the sources we have is all we’re going to have, it seems rather pointless to me. Perhaps others will want to go into it more. :slight_smile:

Agreed. Scripture supports that. But that doesn’t mean we can take the liberty to make conjectures about “how” these relationships were, without early Scriptural or First Century Church support, which there doesn’t seem to be any until at least the third century, or even later.

Well, for me what matters is what is stated in the Creeds, that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, etc. Her family relations were recorded for the benefit of the Jews and of Theophilus–to put Jesus’ parentage within a context with which they would be familiar. Unfortunately for us, it’s rather tangled since we have so few references to use, nor can we know exactly what the Gospel writers intended to convey to their readers by including their genealogies. Anyway, I hope you have a good discussion.


#7

Well, what’s important to me is what the Bible says. And since it appears that Heli, not Joachim, was Mary’s father, based on evidence from Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12, then I don’t understand “why” Joachim is “canonized” as a “saint” if he really didn’t exist. He’s not even mentioned - at all - in Scripture - something I think God would have included if he was Mary’s actual father, much like he did when he mentioned Laban being Leah & Rachel’s father. Yet, he didn’t mention Mary’s father??? Please look into Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12, & cross reference that with Luke Ch.3 when considering that Heli is Mary’s actual father, not Joachim. Believing in “creeds” that say nothing about Mary’s father doesn’t help me. Hopefully, somebody will be able to provide some insight. God bless. :slight_smile:


#8

Well, Mary had to have had a father. :slight_smile: Joachim is as good a name for him as any. But seriously, merely because a source isn’t Scripture doesn’t mean it is useless/unreliable. The full canon of Scripture was not set until the Council of Trent in, I believe it was the 16th century. And the scriptural canon was determined by the same Church that canonized Joachim–through the guidance of the Holy Spirit which Christ promised to his Church. So, I’m fine with it.


#9

Yes, Mary had a father, & I don’t have anything against the name, Joachim, itself. However, the issue is since the earliest source of the name doesn’t even show up until the mid-to-late second century, and by a questionable source allegedly written by someone who had been dead for 100 to 150 years, I don’t how that can justify “canonizing” someone with that name as a “saint,” when that person most likely never actually existed.

BTW, the OT was canonized long before the time of Jesus. Around 400 B.C., Ezra led a council known as “The Great Synagogue” where they gathered all the Hebrew/Aramaic OT Scriptures, which is what is now referred to as the Protestant OT, canonized them & declared the Old Testament closed. According to CA apologist Jimmy Akin, this was the canon the Pharisees recognized when Jesus corrected them (“Have you not read…?” “As it is written…”), which Jesus referred to as three-fold-division (“the Law the Prophets and the Psalms”)(Luke Ch.24) that is now commonly referred to as the three-fold-division of the TaNaKh that both Jews & Protestants recognize as well. By the mid-first century, most of the NT was recognized as Inspired Scripture, which Peter affirmed ALL of Paul’s epistles, while Paul affirmed the Gospel of Luke. So, by mid-first century, the vast majority of the Bible - OT & NT - was recognized by the Church as Inspired Scripture. What you’re referring to are the councils of Hippo & Carthage which were late 4th Century, which more or less reaffirmed what the early first century Church recognized earlier. Plus, the NT canon was recognized much earlier before these councils. The Council of Trent had nothing to do with the canon of Scripture.

Thanks for your input, but it still doesn’t address the fact why Joachim who really seems to be a fictional character is canonized by name as a saint, when he most likely never existed. How can we justify canonizing someone & we don’t even know their name, esp. since Scripture appears support a different name - Heli (Luke 3)?


#10

How can Mary’s father be a fictional character merely because his name isn’t mentioned in the Gospels but in a later source? And why shouldn’t Mary’s father be canonized? Don’t you believe that the faithful are saints? I don’t see any real reason for your objection to his canonization–not based on what you have written. :confused: :slight_smile:

As you will recall, I wrote that the FULL canon of Scripture was finalized at the Council of Trent. :slight_smile: I never claimed that parts of the canon were not already set/authorized before that. The canon of Scripture is a complex, historical issue, but the basic truth is that we have the canon we have because the Church bothered to compile it.

The canon was compiled mainly to ensure that every diocese/parish would be using the same texts for the Church’s liturgies–the daily prayers of the Church, the Mass, etc. It wasn’t complied so we’d have Scripture–the Church already had Scripture, and was already deeply into studying it and teaching from it. The thing to remember is that the Church preceded the NT, not the other way around, and that the Church took on the task of compiling the canon for our benefit. You and I have the Bible because of the Church.


#11

I didn’t say Mary’s father was a fictional character. I was referring to the “Joachim” from the Protoevangelium of James is a fictional character. It’s like saying that the Jesus of Islam, who believes that Jesus was the son of the Virgin Mary, is the same “Jesus” as that of Scripture. He’s not, because the “Jesus” of Islam isn’t God, & therefore the “Jesus” of Islam is fictional. Likewise, the “father” of Mary in Proto-James isn’t the same father of Mary of that of Scripture. Heli is. Plus, the Mary of Proto-James technicallly lost her virginity by her mid-wife (which is also not mentioned in Scripture) by “checking” to see if she was a virgin.

As you will recall, I wrote that the FULL canon of Scripture was finalized at the Council of Trent. :slight_smile: I never claimed that parts of the canon were not already set/authorized before that. The canon of Scripture is a complex, historical issue, but the basic truth is that we have the canon we have because the Church bothered to compile it.

It doesn’t really matter “when” the canon of Scripture was recognized or by who. It was Inspired the moment is was penned. God was the One Who guided the individuals who “recognized” all those Scriptures as being God-breathed anyways. God could have chosen “anybody” to reveal it to. So, “who” God revealed this to through the Holy Spirit is less important as “what” writings are Inspired & what are not. I noticed that in many Christian groups there is too much “credit” given to the “who” & not the “Who” & “what.”

The canon was compiled mainly to ensure that every diocese/parish would be using the same texts for the Church’s liturgies–the daily prayers of the Church, the Mass, etc. It wasn’t complied so we’d have Scripture–the Church already had Scripture, and was already deeply into studying it and teaching from it. The thing to remember is that the Church preceded the NT, not the other way around, and that the Church took on the task of compiling the canon for our benefit. You and I have the Bible because of the Church.

Israel “preceded” the writing of the OT Scriptures too, including the Torah. But that wasn’t the reason Israel was God’s chosen people, anymore than the Church is. Remember, the Jewish leaders in Jesus’ time taught the OT Scriptures, regarding themselves as the “true” children of Abraham, & were referred by the NT writers as keeping the “oracles of God.” But what did John the Baptist say, “God could rise up sons of Abraham out of these rocks.” The same could be said about the Church. The Scriptures - not the Church - are God-breathed. And God-breathed Scripture does not support Joachim being the father of Mary. Based on God-breathed OLD Testament Scripture, as well as NT Scripture, Heli - not Joachim - is more likely to be Mary’s father. Therefore, why is Joachim “canonized” as a “saint,” based on the fictional “Joachim” of the false pseudoepigraphical “gospel” of the Protoevangelium of James?


#12

Joachim wasn’t canonized because his name is given in the Protoevangelium of James. He was canonized because Joachim is the name traditionally given to Mary’s father.

You can spiritualize the origins of the Bible until it becomes meaningless, if you wish, but it doesn’t alter the facts of history–that the Church, the one founded by Christ, compiled the books into a canon. Accept it or reject it, but that’s the simple truth of the matter. I’ve answered your question about Joachim. If you wish to get into the canon of Scripture, that’s another subject for another thread. :slight_smile: Good-bye and all the best to you.


#13

And that “traditional” name of Joachim is originally based on the Proto-evangelium of James. That is where that “tradition” came from - not Scripture, nor any earlier source. So, I’m afraid that his name was canonized “traditionally” from that false ‘gospel.’

You can spiritualize the origins of the Bible until it becomes meaningless, if you wish, but it doesn’t alter the facts of history–that the Church, the one founded by Christ, compiled the books into a canon. Accept it or reject it, but that’s the simple truth of the matter. I’ve answered your question about Joachim. If you wish to get into the canon of Scripture, that’s another subject for another thread. :slight_smile: Good-bye and all the best to you.

I agree that this subject belongs on another thread. But if you recall, you - not me - was the one that brought it up. I was originally asking about how Joachim could be canonized as the father of Mary, when in reality, Joachim is a fictional name attributed to Mary father, and the “Joseph” & “Mary” aren’t the same ones depicted in Scripture. So, it’s not “spiritualizing” anything - it’s recognizing a discrepancy. Thanks for replies, but they didn’t actually answer my questions posted in my OP. Blessings to you, though. :slight_smile:


#14

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.