Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

I Chron, Mt, Lk genealogy synopsis

Expand Messages
  • Chuck Jones
    All, I m at Hilton Head on vacation, so it says a lot about my biblical studies nerd factor that I ve spent several hours building a three column synopsis of I
    Message 1 of 42 , Jun 27, 2012
      All,

      I'm at Hilton Head on vacation, so it says a lot about my biblical studies nerd factor that I've spent several hours building a three column synopsis of I Chronicles, Luke and Matt's genealogies.  Some of the information I'll share below will suggest I have crow to eat, (this passage does not "clearly show independence"), so I'll let you know it's already in the oven and I'm setting the table.

      Also, I'll be happy to email the single-page word.doc to anyone who wants to send me a email off-list.

      Observations:


      1.  I Chronicles 1-3 has to have been the primary source for Luke and Matt.   Lk needed I Chron. because Matt does not contain Adam - Abraham.  Mt needed it because beginning with Solomon, Lk abandons I Chron. while Mt continues to follow it faithfully.  The only deviations from I Chron. by either author have the marks of copying errors.

      2.  From Abraham to David (the triple tradition [g]0, the three are identical with the exception of one extra name/generation (copying error?) in Lk.

      3.  Lk famously abandons I Chronicles when he begins to trace Jesus' lineage through David's son Nathan rather than Solomon, contra Chronicles and Matt.  Lk had no extant source for this list of names.

      4.  But later Matt also abandons I Chronicles.  Beginning with the son of Zerubbabel, Matt's list has no overlap with the final 10 generations of the I Chron. record--likewise, his list has not extant source.

      5.  In the sections with which Lk and Matt do not have I Chron. in common, there is no overlap in their lists of names with two exceptions: two "minor agreements," I kid you not. (1)  Both Lk and Mt have Shealtiel as the father of Zerubabel, when in I Chron., either Shealtiel is either Zerubbabel's grandfather or uncle (the grammar is not clear).  (2) Also the name Eliakim appears on both otherwise independent lists.  This could be a coincidence, since the name appears 20 generations apart, especially if Eliakim was a somewhat common name.  But still, Lk and Mt agree against or independent of I Chron. with Shealtiel being the father of Zerubbabel and the inclusion of the name Eliakim.

      So there you go.  The evidence shows Mt and Lk each being faithful to I Chronicles in creating their genealogies, until some authorial motive had them each abandon that source.  Their words show no knowledge of each other with two nagging exceptions:  Shealtiel and Eliakim.

      Maybe the genealogies are a microcosm for the entire synoptic problem.  In terms of a pure, unqualified explanation of the data, to quote Maxwell Smart, "Missed it by *that much.*"

      Chuck

      Rev. Chuck Jones
      Atlanta, Georgia

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Chuck Jones
      All, I m at Hilton Head on vacation, so it says a lot about my biblical studies nerd factor that I ve spent several hours building a three column synopsis of I
      Message 42 of 42 , Jun 27, 2012
        All,

        I'm at Hilton Head on vacation, so it says a lot about my biblical studies nerd factor that I've spent several hours building a three column synopsis of I Chronicles, Luke and Matt's genealogies.  Some of the information I'll share below will suggest I have crow to eat, (this passage does not "clearly show independence"), so I'll let you know it's already in the oven and I'm setting the table.

        Also, I'll be happy to email the single-page word.doc to anyone who wants to send me a email off-list.

        Observations:


        1.  I Chronicles 1-3 has to have been the primary source for Luke and Matt.   Lk needed I Chron. because Matt does not contain Adam - Abraham.  Mt needed it because beginning with Solomon, Lk abandons I Chron. while Mt continues to follow it faithfully.  The only deviations from I Chron. by either author have the marks of copying errors.

        2.  From Abraham to David (the triple tradition [g]0, the three are identical with the exception of one extra name/generation (copying error?) in Lk.

        3.  Lk famously abandons I Chronicles when he begins to trace Jesus' lineage through David's son Nathan rather than Solomon, contra Chronicles and Matt.  Lk had no extant source for this list of names.

        4.  But later Matt also abandons I Chronicles.  Beginning with the son of Zerubbabel, Matt's list has no overlap with the final 10 generations of the I Chron. record--likewise, his list has not extant source.

        5.  In the sections with which Lk and Matt do not have I Chron. in common, there is no overlap in their lists of names with two exceptions: two "minor agreements," I kid you not. (1)  Both Lk and Mt have Shealtiel as the father of Zerubabel, when in I Chron., either Shealtiel is either Zerubbabel's grandfather or uncle (the grammar is not clear).  (2) Also the name Eliakim appears on both otherwise independent lists.  This could be a coincidence, since the name appears 20 generations apart, especially if Eliakim was a somewhat common name.  But still, Lk and Mt agree against or independent of I Chron. with Shealtiel being the father of Zerubbabel and the inclusion of the name Eliakim.

        So there you go.  The evidence shows Mt and Lk each being faithful to I Chronicles in creating their genealogies, until some authorial motive had them each abandon that source.  Their words show no knowledge of each other with two nagging exceptions:  Shealtiel and Eliakim.

        Maybe the genealogies are a microcosm for the entire synoptic problem.  In terms of a pure, unqualified explanation of the data, to quote Maxwell Smart, "Missed it by *that much.*"

        Chuck

        Rev. Chuck Jones
        Atlanta, Georgia

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.