Father of St. Joseph

[Flame4]

In Matthew’ s Gospel, the genealogy says St. Joseph (foster father of Christ) father was named Jacob, while in Luke’s Gospel he is called Heli. What are possible reasons for this difference. I’m curious, b/c one of my friends brought this up. Thank you and God Bless.

 

[NHInsider]

I’ve seen several explanations, ranging from “it’s evidence that the Bible is a fairy tale” to “one is his actual father and one is the uncle/stepfather.” My own favorite is that this is another example of someone who had multiple names (Simon Peter, Saul/Paul, maybe Alphaeus/Clopas, etc, etc.) Since that’s pretty common even today* I think it’s the simplest and most plausible explanation.

*(I have a couple of cousins whom everyone in the family calls by their middle names and everyone they know professionally or through school has only known by their first names.)

 

[Flame4]

Ah, I see, Thanks

 

[bnbkaine]

books.google.com/books?id=0XOl6ie8CU0C&pg=PA411&lpg=PA411&dq=joseph’s+dads+name+heli+or+jacob&source=bl&ots=i_qy-ZHw5r&sig=ILkK5NtkTmsS1t4ZWy8M47XjYyg&hl=en&ei=N-LlS6vWBor0sQPqjMjRCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Pretty interesting although text is small. Basically, it posits that Jacob and Heli were brothers, but Heli married and had no offspring. His wife became the levirate wife of the brother, Jacob, and they had Joseph. This would mean that Joseph was the carnal son of Jacob, but the legal son of Heli. The Levites were the only tribe allowed to be priests, so it was important to carry on the line.

I don’t know if it is right, but it certainly makes sense.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .The Levites were the only tribe allowed to be priests, so it was important to carry on the line.

. . .

Note that Joseph was of the tribe of Judah, not Levi. However, the same necessity to carry on the line applied to all tribes.

 

[NHInsider]

Leviterite marriage was not restricted to the tribe of Levi, however, it was required of all the tribes - so another viable theory.

 

[LilyM]

The ‘two names’ theory is one explanation I’ve heard.

The other is that Luke’s genealogy is actually meant to be the genealogy of Mary rather than Joseph - but I’m not sure such a grievous mistake would’ve been allowed to remain in scripture.

A third, of course, is that scripture isn’t meant to be a history textbook, and genealogical records at the time were doubtless sketchy. So scripture makes the crucial point from a salvific point of view, which is that Jesus, one way or another, was descended from David and fulfilled Messianic prophecy in so being.

 

[NHInsider]

The ‘two names’ theory is one explanation I’ve heard.

The other is that Luke’s genealogy is actually meant to be the genealogy of Mary rather than Joseph - but I’m not sure such a grievous mistake would’ve been allowed to remain in scripture.

A third, of course, is that scripture isn’t meant to be a history textbook, and genealogical records at the time were doubtless sketchy. So scripture makes the crucial point from a salvific point of view, which is that Jesus, one way or another, was descended from David and fulfilled Messianic prophecy in so being.

Well what is really interesting from a theological perspective is the fact that Matthew traces Jesus’ lineage back to Abraham at the beginning of a book that is heavily focused on showing how Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Covenant, while Luke traces Jesus’ lineage back to Adam at the beginning of a book that repeatedly shows that Jesus’ mission reaches beyond the confines of the Old Covenant and extends to all of humanity.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Someplace I read that one genealogy gives Jesus’ biological descent from David; the other His succession in kingship from David.

Only saw this once; so feel some doubt about it. However, it is an interesting speculation.