Who is missing?

Mat 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Urias; 7 And 1 Solomon begat Roboam; and 2 Roboam begat Abia; and 3 Abia begat Asa; 8 And 4 Asa begat Josaphat; and 5 Josaphat begat Joram; and 6 Joram begat Ozias; 9 And 7 Ozias begat Joatham; and 8 Joatham begat Achaz; and 9 Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And 10 Ezekias begat Manasses; and 11 Manasses begat Amon; and 12 Amon begat Josias; 11 And 13 Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, 14 about the time they were carried away to Babylon: Mat 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel 1 ; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 2 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; 3 and Abiud begat Eliakim; 4 and Eliakim begat Azor; 5 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; 6 and Sadoc begat Achim; 7 and Achim begat Eliud; 8 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; 9 and Eleazar begat Matthan 10 ; and Matthan begat Jacob; 11 16 And Jacob begat Joseph 12 the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 13 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David [are] fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon [are] fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ [are] fourteen generations. What do you guys think?

Here are the 2 theories I have ran across.1. Matthew is pointing out that this genealogy is not complete; there were not actually 14 generations between the landmarks he indicates the practice of skipping generations at times was common in the listing of ancient genealogies; Matthew is doing nothing unusual here 2 The organization around the number 14 was perhaps for the purpose of easy memorization

Hi everyone.I checked at Answersingenesis and found an article that said Matthew's genealogy was intended to be incomplete and stated rather, 3 groups of 14 names.I decided to check this out and put a list of the names together for us:1. Abraham 2. Isaac 3. Jacob4. Judas 5. Phares 6. Zara 7. Esrom 8. Aram9. Aminadab10. Naasson11. Salmon12. Booz 13. Obed 14. Jesse15. David the king 16. Solomon 17. Roboam 18. Abia19. Asa20. Josaphat21. Joram22. Ozias23. Joatham24. Achaz25. Ezekias26. Manasses27. Amon28. Josias29. Jechonias 30. Salathiel31. Zorobabel32. Abiud 33. Eliakim34. Azor35. Sadoc 36. Achim37. Eliud38. Eleazar39. Matthan40. Jacob41. Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born 42. Jesus, who is called Christ.Hope this is helpfull.

Thank you. Can you give me a link or the name of that article. I looked around on their site for a moment but must have overlooked it.

Thanks.

4. Judas
5. Phares
6. Zara
7. Esrom

AHHH.. Now I see why I was so confused by your list. I thought I was just miscounting. You counted Phares the generation before Zara when actually they are in the same generation.

Matt 1:3And [b]Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar;[/b] and [u]Phares begat Esrom[/u]; and Esrom begat Aram;

So the question still stands.. :-(

Hi Preachparsly and everyone else.

You counted Phares the generation before Zara when actually they are in the same generation.

The reason for this is that the article from AIG suggested that Matthew's Gospel intended to record 3 groups of 14 names and not a complete genealogy, so I just put the names in order as they appeared so we could verify that there were indeed 42.

As to each representing a different generation I do not know. Perhaps some of the generations overlaped?

Hope this helps some.

I understand that that it is not a complete genealogy, but it says in vs 17 there are 3 sets of 14 [u]generations[/u], not just 14 names. And it doesn't list 42 generations.

Someone asked me this question and I didn't have an answer...

I'm just looking for a sound answer. I am sure this question will come up again sometime.

EDIT:
By the way, thank you for the links and input.

I received this answer on another board... what do you guys think?

Irenaeus (~180 A.D.) and a few manuscripts of Matthew plus the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the 12th century have "Josiah begat Joakeim, Joakeim begat Joakein and his brethren..." This was probably a very early scribal error which happened because the names of these two kings sound alike. It makes sense for Joakein to be in the third set, since that begins the era of the exiles.

This also shows how an early copyist's error can become the "standard" for the canon, even when its obviously incorrect.

As I have pointed out in my own thread, the whole Matthean genealogy was the work of an Ebionite who did not believe that Jesus was the incarnation of God. This genealogy contradicts 1 Chronicles 3 (missing kings Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah) and Abiud/Abior is not listed among the sons of Zerubbabel (nor are any of the descendants of Abiud).

Nevertheless, Matthew 1:1 and 1:20 as well as Luke 1:27 and 2:4 leave no doubt that Joseph was descended from king David and thus of Messianic pedigree.

Hi everyone.

PreachParsly, something in this qoute raises my concern about this source

As I have pointed out in my own thread, the whole Matthean genealogy was the work of an Ebionite who did not believe that Jesus was the incarnation of God.

Is he saying that the genealogy that we have in our Bibles was written by someone other than Matthew; that this author did not believe in the deity of Christ?

When I read these sorts of claims I get the impression that those who are handling the Word of Life are approaching the subject of its inerrancy with very little fear and trepidation. To make such claims without the slightest suggestion that [b]you could be[/b] wrong, seems arrogant.

We should remember too that the Scripture warns

He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

The ancient and worn Anvil of God's Word is surrounded by the broken and rusty fragments of the once lofty hammers of the proud minds of men.

I don't mean to suggest that applies to you or anyone here, I was just musing a bit. :-D

Peace be with you all in Messiah Jesus

I agree, that answer didn't set well with me.

Here is a article I ran across also.

http://www.peshitta.org/bethgazza/Gabra.htm

It goes through and says that the word husband where is says Joseph was the husband of Mary is a mistranlation of the aramic (which some believe Mat was oringinally wrote in) to the greek.

The author believes that Mary's father was Joseph and also married a man named Joseph.

Hi PreachParsly and everyone else.

Preach,

The author believes that Mary's father was Joseph and also married a man named Joseph.

Hmm, everyone that we would include in the genealogy is mentioned with "begat", so it seems then that if this Joseph here mentioned refered to the father of Mary, and she, presumably? was to be included in the list, then this word begat would be absent? I would wonder why if she was to be included?

There may be other problems as well but this came to mind.

In the article, the author tries to bring out that in that aramic the word for father and husband was the same word, the interpretation was dependant on the context. The word means "man of" or something similar. So, the author believes when the text was traslated into greek the wrong word,meaning husband, was used.

Right now I'm lodged in between this theory and the one that recounts David or Jechonias (I've seen some do it both ways.

I'll find the right answer eventually. ;-)

I just can't believe most apologetics websites don't mention it. They will talk about why it's different than Luke's, but not why the numbers seemingly don't match.