Which contradicts the standard interpretation that Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience while Luke was writing for a gentile audience.
You also still didn't answer my question, did Luke really mean "Mary, daughter of Heli"?
The standard interpretation that Mathew was writing for a Jewish audience etc. goes far more than the scope of this thread and is based on far more than a single piece of evidence such as this.
For the question, I don't think I really understand what you mean as I thought I was being pretty clear. But as I understand it, yes I think Heli was Mary's father.
So your argument is that it MUST be Mary's because otherwise the Bible is wrong? And you expect that argument to impress who?
Similar response than to PaulK. It is not about the Bible being wrong or right. It is about it being a historical document, and you treat it just as you treat any other historical document. Doing otherwise is having a double-standard.
And I'm not expecting to impress anyone ... whatever that was supposed to mean lol
I don't know quite where to begin. First, Luke could not have been a direct witness to Jesus. Second, just because they made up their stores does not mean that they made them up together with the intent of trying to jive with one another. You one HUGE assumption is that they were even writing with knowledge of each other.
In fact we have direct evidence that Matthew and Luke were written a generation apart, in different regions, for different audiences, in support of different sects of Christianity. Luke is very much in the tradition of Paul and Matthew is not.
I'll try to analyse this by logical deduction, while supposing that the story was made up.
The similarities in the texts show that either:
A. They knew each other and made it up together, in which case my previous reasoning stands in that they would have written the same genealogy if they were both talking about Joseph.
B. They didn't know each other. In this case the similarities show that Luke had at least access to Matthew's account. In which case, if he was also writing Joseph's genealogy, he would have written the same as Matthew to avoid the contradiction.
Now this is assuming the story is made up. even accounting for every alleged contradiction in the Gospels, they are still widely similar in many aspects. This similarity is what forces these two options, which both lead to the conclusion that the two Genealogies are not of the same person.
But in the end, you are basically just arguing that the Bible can't be wrong therefore there must be another explanation. It doesn't matter how rediculous the explanation is, as long as it preserves inerrancy then its okay to invent explanations wildly without any evidence.
I'm afraid you are in the position of dichotomy in this situation. You want to, at the same time, claim the biblical Jesus never existed, that his story in the four gospel was made up and that this explains why they are similar in many aspects. But at the very same time claim that it is s full of contradictions a monkey would see through it, and at the same time claim that both genealogies are of the same person even though it brings a load of logical inconsistencies with the previous affirmation that it was made up.
Which brings me to my last point, you have still provided no evidence that expressing maternal lineages through the husband was even a so-called tradition.
There are probably about (at least) half a dozen genealogies in the Bible, all with exactly the same pattern. This alone puts the burden of proof on you to claim that this isn't how the ancient Jewish people recorded their genealogies ...
(And if I remember correctly there were genealogies in the Dead sea scrolls that showed once again this very pattern)
™ Version 4.2
