Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 27, 2024, 6:28 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
#1
Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
Many people are aware that there exists a contradiction between “Luke’s” genealogy of Jesus and “Matthew’s”. Whilst “Matthew” records "42" generations from Jesus back to Abraham, (see "Matthew" 1:2-16 Vs “Luke” 3:23-38), “Luke” says there were 57 and many of these ancestors were different people. ("Luke" 3:23-38). Before getting to the contradiction which forms the basis of this Post, we should also be aware that “Luke’s” genealogy of Jesus is also in contradiction with 1 Chronicles 3:16-19 and "Matthew's" is also in contradiction with 1 Chronicles 3:9-15 (which lists 18 generations from David to Babylonian Exile, not 14 as "Matthew" errantly claimed).

At “Matthew” 1:17, the pseudonymous author asserts:

Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

Now, if we were to take him/her at their word, that every 14 generations, some big event takes place which alters the course of the nation of Israel, we might be led to believe that there is some divine plan behind this nation’s history, but why every 14 generations? What is, or was, significant about the number 14?

It could be that the number 14 numerologically represents the doubling of the “holy” 7, which frequently occurs throughout both the OT and NT, not to mention more ancient “Pagan” religions and philosophies and forms the basis of the septenary (7 primary planets), from which we derive our days of the week.

In the words of Aristotle:

Since the number 7 neither generates nor is generated by any of the numbers in the decade, for this reason they also said that it was Athene. For the number 2 generates 4, 3 generates 9 and 6, 4 generates 8, and 5 generates 10, and 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 are generated, but 7 neither generates any number nor is generated from any; and so too Athene was motherless and ever virgin. (1)

Or, it could be something more relevant to Hebrew and the “history” of Israel. Looking to the Hebrew language, we may find a probable answer to this riddle. Hebrew is an alpha-numeric language, meaning that the letters double as numbers, each letter carrying a specific numeric equivalent or value.



1= 1 א ALEPH
2= 2 ב BETH
3= 3 ג GIMEL
4= 4 ד DALET
5= 5 ה HE
6= 6 ו VAV
7= 7 ז ZAYIN
8= 8 ח HET
9= 9 ט TET
10= 10 י YOD
11= 20 כ KAF
12= 30 ל LAMED
13= 40 מ MEM
14= 50 נ NUN
15= 60 ס SAMEKH
16= 70 ע AYIN
17= 80 פ PE
18= 90 צ TSADI
19= 100 ק QOF
20= 200 ר RESH
21= 300 ש SHIN
22= 400 ת TAV
(2)

Further, if we take two other factors into consideration, we may get a clearer picture of the intentions of the pseudonymous author of “Matthew.”

(1) Hebrew did not use vowels in its manuscripts, so to give you an example, the name for one of their tribal gods, Yahweh, who henotheisticially became the sole god, into which the others were incorporated, appears in the Hebrew texts as, YHWH, with the vowels (AEIOU) omitted.

(2) The second being that the messiah was supposed to be descended from the House of David. (see; Isaiah 9:5-7, Psalms 89:3-4, 132:11 Jeremiah 23:5-6) The name David, in the Hebrew texts appears without vowels as ‘DVD’ or Dalet, Vav, Dalet. If you consult the chart I have supplied above and add together the value of David’s name, you will see that Dalet has a value of 4 and Vav, 6, giving a total of 14.

The pseudonymous author of “Matthew,” who seems to have been the most traditional out of the other 2 synoptic authors and the more Gnostic/Hellenistic “John”, in some regards, may have been attempting to allude to the fact that Jesus was the thrice great (see Hermes Trismegistus for a comparison, re: thrice great and numerological significance of 3) David, the divinely appointed messiah (3) from the House of David (14), so he made Jesus’ birth come after 3 lots of 14 generations.
With regards to this possibility, nay probability, Professor of New Testament Studies, Bart D Ehrman, said:

Also, in ancient Hebrew no vowels were used. So the name David was spelled D-V-D. In Hebrew, the letter D (daleth) is the number 4 and the V (waw) is 6. If you add up the letters of David’s name, it equals 14. That may be why Matthew wanted there to be three groups of precisely fourteen generations in the genealogy of the son of David, the Messiah, Jesus.
Unfortunately, to make the numbers work he had to leave out some names. I might also point out that if Matthew was right in his fourteen-fourteen-fourteen schema, there would be forty-two names between Abraham and Jesus.(3)



Here is where we get to the error made by “Matthew”. Remember, in chapter 1 verse 17 he asserted, 3 generations of 14, now I will leave you with his own version of the genealogy of Jesus and see if you can spot the mistake:


1. Abraham begat
2. Isaac;
3. Jacob;
4. Judas
5. Phares and Zara
6. Esrom;
7. Aram;
8. Aminadab
9. Naasson
10. Salmon;
11. Booz
12. Obed
13. Jesse;
14. David the king

1. Solomon
2. Roboam
3. Abia
4. Asa;
5. Josaphat
6. Joram
7. Ozias;
8. Joatham
9. Achaz
10. Ezekias;
11. Manasses;
12. Amon
13. Josias
14. Jechonias

1. Salathiel
2. Zorobabel
3. Abiud
4. Eliakim
5. Azor
6. Sadoc
7. Achim
8. Eliud
9. Eleazar
10. Matthan
11. Jacob
12. Joseph
13. Jesus
Matthew 1:2-16


1. Jonathon Barnes & Gavin Lawrence. The Complete Works of Aristotle. Vol. 2. Fragments. Princeton University Press, (1984), Pg. 71.

2. http://www.smontagu.org/writings/HebrewNumbers.html

3. Bart D Ehrman. Jesus Interrupted. Harper Collins (2005) Pg. 38
You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL

http://michaelsherlockauthor.blogspot.jp/
Reply
#2
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
So am I to take it you're not a huge fan of the number fourteen?

All joking aside thats pretty solid and I have definitely learnt a valuable lesson from your input;
michaelsherlock makes long posts... oh and the number fourteen is provably not sacred.
Reply
#3
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
(April 9, 2012 at 10:03 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: So am I to take it you're not a huge fan of the number fourteen?

All joking aside thats pretty solid and I have definitely learnt a valuable lesson from your input;
michaelsherlock makes long posts... oh and the number fourteen is provably not sacred.

your cool man. I like you.

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL

http://michaelsherlockauthor.blogspot.jp/
Reply
#4
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
Interesting stuff. I had never realised that even the genealogies were so mucked up.. or that they were forcing it to be something that it most likely wasn't.

Good read, thanks for that.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Reply
#5
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
(April 9, 2012 at 10:36 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Interesting stuff. I had never realised that even the genealogies were so mucked up.. or that they were forcing it to be something that it most likely wasn't.

Good read, thanks for that.

No prob. Plenty more to come.

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL

http://michaelsherlockauthor.blogspot.jp/
Reply
#6
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
(April 9, 2012 at 10:36 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Interesting stuff. I had never realised that even the genealogies were so mucked up.. or that they were forcing it to be something that it most likely wasn't.

Good read, thanks for that.

There not, the two genealogies are about two different people, one being Joseph, the other Mary.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
Reply
#7
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
(April 9, 2012 at 9:57 pm)michaelsherlock Wrote: Many people are aware that there exists a contradiction between “Luke’s” genealogy of Jesus and “Matthew’s”. Whilst “Matthew” records "42" generations from Jesus back to Abraham, (see "Matthew" 1:2-16 Vs “Luke” 3:23-38), “Luke” says there were 57 and many of these ancestors were different people. ("Luke" 3:23-38). Before getting to the contradiction which forms the basis of this Post, we should also be aware that “Luke’s” genealogy of Jesus is also in contradiction with 1 Chronicles 3:16-19 and "Matthew's" is also in contradiction with 1 Chronicles 3:9-15 (which lists 18 generations from David to Babylonian Exile, not 14 as "Matthew" errantly claimed).

In regards to the two separate genealogies in Matthew and Luke: The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when the large majority of Christians believe that Jesus had/has no human father??

For that matter the Bible contradicts itself even on the virgin birth as well:

ACTS 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

(There's a ton of information on this concept, but I don't have it in me to get into another unending debate with one of our local sheep.)

The truth is, there was a time when to be king, you had to show that you were of the correct royal lineage. It means little today, but once upon a time, it would've been important to prove that Jesus was worthy of the crown. It's all bull shit. The fact that people still believe this gobbledegook shows how far behind we still are as a species.

[Image: Evolution.png]

Reply
#8
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
(April 9, 2012 at 11:48 pm)Godschild Wrote:
(April 9, 2012 at 10:36 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Interesting stuff. I had never realised that even the genealogies were so mucked up.. or that they were forcing it to be something that it most likely wasn't.

Good read, thanks for that.

There not, the two genealogies are about two different people, one being Joseph, the other Mary.

I have heard this apology before, but I thought it was now extinct.

Ok, many apologists used to claim that the list of ancestors provided by "Luke" relate to Mary and those provided by "Matthew" pertain to Joseph. So what do the texts themselves say regarding this issue?

"Luke" Chapter 3 specifically traces Jesus' ancestors through Joseph:

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,[a] the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathiah,...Yadda, yadda, yadda!

And "Matthew" also traces Jesus' ancestors from Abraham to Joseph (see "Matthew" 1:1-16).

Where are you getting your information from?


(April 10, 2012 at 12:02 am)Cinjin Wrote:
(April 9, 2012 at 9:57 pm)michaelsherlock Wrote: Many people are aware that there exists a contradiction between “Luke’s” genealogy of Jesus and “Matthew’s”. Whilst “Matthew” records "42" generations from Jesus back to Abraham, (see "Matthew" 1:2-16 Vs “Luke” 3:23-38), “Luke” says there were 57 and many of these ancestors were different people. ("Luke" 3:23-38). Before getting to the contradiction which forms the basis of this Post, we should also be aware that “Luke’s” genealogy of Jesus is also in contradiction with 1 Chronicles 3:16-19 and "Matthew's" is also in contradiction with 1 Chronicles 3:9-15 (which lists 18 generations from David to Babylonian Exile, not 14 as "Matthew" errantly claimed).

In regards to the two separate genealogies in Matthew and Luke: The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when the large majority of Christians believe that Jesus had/has no human father??

For that matter the Bible contradicts itself even on the virgin birth as well:

ACTS 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

(There's a ton of information on this concept, but I don't have it in me to get into another unending debate with one of our local sheep.)

The truth is, there was a time when to be king, you had to show that you were of the correct royal lineage. It means little today, but once upon a time, it would've been important to prove that Jesus was worthy of the crown. It's all bull shit. The fact that people still believe this gobbledegook shows how far behind we still are as a species.

I don't know how to express how strongly I agree with all you have written here.Clap
You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL

http://michaelsherlockauthor.blogspot.jp/
Reply
#9
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
(April 10, 2012 at 2:38 am)michaelsherlock Wrote:
(April 9, 2012 at 11:48 pm)Godschild Wrote:
(April 9, 2012 at 10:36 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Interesting stuff. I had never realised that even the genealogies were so mucked up.. or that they were forcing it to be something that it most likely wasn't.

Good read, thanks for that.

There not, the two genealogies are about two different people, one being Joseph, the other Mary.

I have heard this apology before, but I thought it was now extinct.

Ok, many apologists used to claim that the list of ancestors provided by "Luke" relate to Mary and those provided by "Matthew" pertain to Joseph. So what do the texts themselves say regarding this issue?

"Luke" Chapter 3 specifically traces Jesus' ancestors through Joseph:

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,[a] the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathiah,...Yadda, yadda, yadda!

And "Matthew" also traces Jesus' ancestors from Abraham to Joseph (see "Matthew" 1:1-16).

Where are you getting your information from?

The Bible of coarse, using the same verses you quoted. First we must take a look at the times when these were written, they would not have used a wife's name to directly trace a genealogy, that would never do in those days. If you will notice as far as we're concerned tracing back to David is the important part of the genealogy. Notice that in each account Joseph has different fathers, this is a split in the genealogy on Jesus end, on the other end the split happens with David's sons, Nathan (in Luke) and Solomon (in Matthew). There is no way that such a mistake would have gotten by anyone, these writers may have lived long ago, but that doesn't make them stupid. Even if no one had compared the two letters until the time the Bible was put together, the mistake would have been caught there and rewritten. In my opinion the early Christians had access to both letters and understood through their traditions the two genealogies represented Joseph and Mary, simple really.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
Reply
#10
RE: Jesus and the Number 14 cockup
(April 10, 2012 at 3:51 am)Godschild Wrote:
(April 10, 2012 at 2:38 am)michaelsherlock Wrote:
(April 9, 2012 at 11:48 pm)Godschild Wrote:
(April 9, 2012 at 10:36 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Interesting stuff. I had never realised that even the genealogies were so mucked up.. or that they were forcing it to be something that it most likely wasn't.

Good read, thanks for that.

There not, the two genealogies are about two different people, one being Joseph, the other Mary.

I have heard this apology before, but I thought it was now extinct.

Ok, many apologists used to claim that the list of ancestors provided by "Luke" relate to Mary and those provided by "Matthew" pertain to Joseph. So what do the texts themselves say regarding this issue?

"Luke" Chapter 3 specifically traces Jesus' ancestors through Joseph:

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,[a] the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathiah,...Yadda, yadda, yadda!

And "Matthew" also traces Jesus' ancestors from Abraham to Joseph (see "Matthew" 1:1-16).

Where are you getting your information from?

The Bible of coarse, using the same verses you quoted. First we must take a look at the times when these were written, they would not have used a wife's name to directly trace a genealogy, that would never do in those days. If you will notice as far as we're concerned tracing back to David is the important part of the genealogy. Notice that in each account Joseph has different fathers, this is a split in the genealogy on Jesus end, on the other end the split happens with David's sons, Nathan (in Luke) and Solomon (in Matthew). There is no way that such a mistake would have gotten by anyone, these writers may have lived long ago, but that doesn't make them stupid. Even if no one had compared the two letters until the time the Bible was put together, the mistake would have been caught there and rewritten. In my opinion the early Christians had access to both letters and understood through their traditions the two genealogies represented Joseph and Mary, simple really.

If what you are saying is true, then we should expect to find such a tradition recorded in the works of the ante-nicene fathers, and as I have read all of the earliest ones and find no trace of this tradition, it seems like one of many errors, contained within the Gospels.
You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL

http://michaelsherlockauthor.blogspot.jp/
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. vorlon13 14 3076 August 1, 2017 at 2:54 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  Why did god only make exactly the number of talking animals that he needed? godlessheatheness 41 8553 March 26, 2017 at 10:04 pm
Last Post: The Industrial Atheist
  William Lane Craig denies the number zero. Jehanne 63 7332 October 30, 2016 at 4:54 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  The number one reason not to follow Christianity Aegon 43 8944 March 11, 2016 at 10:56 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Halloween special: what if... Number 2 Drich 20 4060 October 26, 2014 at 2:54 pm
Last Post: Drich
  In Christianity, Does Jesus' Soul Have Anything To Do With Why Jesus Is God? JesusIsGod7 18 7243 October 7, 2014 at 12:58 pm
Last Post: JesusHChrist
  It's just a goddamn number! Doubting Thomas 15 5144 November 7, 2013 at 10:56 am
Last Post: Doubting Thomas
  The Gospel of John and the number 153 Ziploc Surprise 3 2897 January 17, 2012 at 9:04 pm
Last Post: KichigaiNeko
  Jesus the Spiritual Warrior vs Jesus the Sacrificial Lamb Dosaiah 8 7387 December 5, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Last Post: Minimalist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)