Jesus' Royal Genealogy
From Abraham to David
From Solomon to Jechonias
From Salathiel to Jesus
12. Joseph (the father-not the husband)
This so called 'theory' of the Matthew genealogy being that of Mary is but held by a minority. To some who 'follow the pack' that is grounds for dismissal of it without any real thouoght on the matter at all. What is not considered is the question of who is it that is dictating the the majority point of view and why. A great amount of 'religious supposed fact' has been based upon those who were in charge of the history books right or wrong. What is being protected here is the dogma that supports a flawless scriptural record. From another point of view, 'he that states his is without sin, the truth is not in him.' And they which suppose no human errors over the ages of human handling of the Jewish and then Catholic skewed records is equally standing upon the shakey ground of an obvious falsehood. Even the Book of Mormon states the truth that though it is the Word of God, that if there are errors to be found in it they are attributed to the weaknesses of men. And certainly the weaknesses of men have handles the Bible in it retention, processing, editing, copying, countless translations, and many skewed and even biased selective commentaries and subjective editings. A prime example is the care taken demote the connection of Jesus with being the God of the Old Testament Jehovah played out upon the scenes of the Jewish kept and Jewish handled scriptural record. And saddly as it is the same, if not more, processing by the handling of a history and scripture in hand monopoly of a 'universal' Church to maintain its own dogma and stressed flawless Canonized record has thwarted many a lost truth and doomed it to planned obscurity. One such 'fantasy lie' held to is that of the mythical Unicorn condoned was reality dispite the mountain of evidence that it but lay in a mistranslation of the past.
The short of it is that there are 'errors' in the compiled, man handled and translated scriptures. When a majority dogma supporty the perfection of human maintained scripture is to blame for the majority opinion when faced with evidence of truth, then it is time to reconsider the position of the minority who has the evidence over the false majority of the persistant dogma which is not true. Enough on that.
Now, from the two genealogies to Mary and to Joseph, it would be nice to sort out just what was the relationship between Joseph and Mary is, as they are considered to be cousins by many. And to this end we are now 'free' of the burden of two different father of Joseph being Jacob and Heli and can begin with the treatment obvious remaining consideration that Matthat and Matthan are one and the same person with the 'royal genealogy' there again jumping to the necessity of bridging a family line with the next closest of kin and or Liverite marriage. And though the precise father to son biological ancentry of Luke does differ from that of Matthew's genealogy of the royal in more than one such point of divergence with Jechonias have not surviving male heir as so set forth by the prophet Jeremiah and having to also so united and settled upon Salathiel as the suitable heir, there by uniting the two genealogies once before in Salathiel and Zorobabel before again parting due to such a crossing manner caused by 'royal heirship' and defunct continuous lines of the royal house and the heir's right to the throne, for whatever various other reasons and purposes on that point going back on both Matthew's and Luke's accounts. Such are needed to be so accepted by such as what they are. Even Matthew's 14 generation sets may in themselves hold some flaws of Matthew's manipulations to arrive at them, but when one removes Matthew's 14 generation count as does the double use of Jechonias as in today's resulting King James Bible, an examination and determination of that faulty 14 generation count needs to be reviewed and reworked based upon fact and not some contrived innovation of men. Here now then is the interesting relationship of Joseph and Mary with Joseph having but a more distant claim to the trone than did Mary, for Luke does give us the biological parenatage of Joseph back to Nathan the other son of David who was the brother of Solomon. And in truth even the 'royal line' does so follow that biology but for the need of accounting for the 'royal line' back through the kings.
Matthat/Matthan | __________________|_____________ | | | Jacob Heli Joseph of Arimathea* | | Joseph | | | God the Father Mary = Joseph |______________| _ _ _ _ | | | Jesus * Some pedigrees include, such as found in the Harral MS In British Museum, Joseph of Arimathea as another son of Matthat and thus related to Jesus, which may give reason why he would have felt to yield his tomb unto the burial of Jesus.
Now the logic here is that Matthat/Matthan held the heir decent of the house of David. Jacob was the eldest son of Matthat/Matthan and therefore the royal heir. Heli was a younger son of Matthat/Matthan. Both Jacob and Heli had sons named Joseph. Joseph the son of Jacob as the proper heir to the house of David. But this Joseph passed with only the suriving daughter Mary as his heir. Therefore she was a female heir and the right to the house of David would pass to her to her first born son and so shared in by her husband in this regard. Now Joseph the son of Heli was older than Mary but due to him being born or Heli a younger brother of Jacob, he and Mary were matchable in a marriage of an older cousin to a younger cousin of generation difference and it seemedto be a good marriage in order to protect the right to the house of David that had been invested in the family. Then Jesus was the first born son of Mary and thus the heir of the house of David and it was further solidified by the marriage to Joseph and his common adoption of Jesus as his son though Jesus in truth was the divine Son of God. What help Joseph to this determination was the influence of the visitation by the angel Gabriel
Here is a picture of that text of Matthew 1:16-17:
And in another more modern Aramaic/English Interliner New Testament an even looser translation gives the word as 'kinsman', but still not 'husband' as the Aramaic is NOT the word 'husband' but a word that could also be properly translated as 'father' as already so stated. But modern pressure are such the we are about to lose that understanding due to the propagated dogma of a flawless Latin Cannonized Bible to match the concept of a flawless 'Word of God' dispite the handle of men which had proliferated such nonsence as of 'unicorns' from another mis-translation from the original Hebrew text by a Greek Translator in Alexandrea when all these texts were being compiled into the 'first Greek Bible.' These are the Alexandreans we can also thank for the concept of the 'Holy Trinity Doctrine' opposed by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea in 325 A.D.
While they give a 'lesser' translation than 'Father' which would be acceptable, they do not translate their Aramaic as 'husband'. And 'guardian' reflects a parental position, which Joseph is the parent or father of Mary to make it 14 generations according to Matthew's intent and statement which followed as of the 14 - 14 - 14 generation sets. As set out above, that break down does not occur except by including this Joseph as Mary's father.
In conclusion, if it were not for the false claim of a 'errorless' Latin Biblical Canonized text and the so majority position that nothing in the book can be changed, the man made error of assuming that there was but one Joseph and not understanding that there were two Josephs, that the false translation of an Aramaic word should have been translated as 'Father' and not as 'husband' in the first Greek translation from the Aramaic text of Matthew, we would be back to were Matthew properly intended for his Hebrew audience to have been, with 3 sets of 14 generations in the ancestry which he presented as the Royal Ancentry of Mary. Dogmaticly maintaining the Latin Bible translation a 'perfect,' though it is not, has purpetuated a number of errors in the English Bible today. The evidence that this is an error is in Matthew's own stated intent that there were 3 sets of 14 generation groups in the ancesntry of Mary, NOT Joseph the carpenter. His paternal genealogy is set out in Luke.
Mary's father was Joseph and her grandfather was Jacob the brother of Heli. Heli and Jacob were brothers. Mary and Joseph were cousins but one generation removed. Joseph was about a half generation older than Mary. Joseph the carpenter was the son of Heli, who was the younger brother of Jacob as most accept. Joseph the carpenter did become the adoptive father of Jesus, who was the Royal heir through his mother Mary, she being the only daughter of the other Joseph, who was heir and son of Jacob as the previous simple pedigree presents. Without Joseph, Mary's father in the generation count, there is not 14 generation in the last set of there, with him there is. And Matthew was adamant that there were 14 generation in each group. What else needs to be said?
rev. December 22, 2015