Who was Heli?

The Pixie

Well-known member
Who was Heli?

This guy gets a single mention in the Bible.

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai,

The Gospel of Luke clearly states he was the son of Jannai, the father of Joseph.

So how come so many Christians think he was the father of Mary, and not Joseph?

Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Since there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Click here for more information.

That would explain why you don't actually know what you're talking about.
Mary's ancestry goes back to David, through his son Nathan.

Hmm, so the argument appears to be that as there was "no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,”" it must be the case that the author of Luke meant that when he said "son... of". Got to admit, I am not clear why the author could not say Jesus was the son of Mary who was the daughter of Heli, if he believed that it was Mary who was the daughter of Heli rather than Joseph was the son of Heli.

Besides noting the fact that Mary is not even mentioned in Luke's genealogy, it is also worth pointing out that:


Descent Via the Male Line​

Jews used descent via the mother to decide if you were Jewish, but in all genealogies, and legal issue about descent, it was the male line that was important and only the male line.
  • In Luke's nativity story, it is to Joseph's family home that they go, not Mary's. Mary's family did not matter.
  • In Matthew 1 we see a long genealogy; a few women are mentioned, but none are in the line of descent
  • In Luke 3 we see another genealogy; women are not mentioned at all. They do not matter.
  • In the story of Noah, we know his name, we know his son's names. We know the names of none of the women. They did not matter
  • In Genesis 10 we can read about Noah's descendant. About sixty men are mentioned. Zero women.
  • Exodus 23:17 and 34:23, as well as Deuteronomy 16:16, has God demanding that all the males appear before him. As for the females, he is not interested.
  • Numbers 3:15 has God asking for a census of the Levites - but only the males, the females do not matter.

Requirement for Messiahship​

The reason Luke included the genealogy was to make clear that Jesus was qualified to be the Jewish messiah. All the ancient kings of Judah were direct male-line descendants of David. This was the requirement, and so become the requirement for any future king, i.e., the awaited messiah.

A genealogy via Mary serves no purpose because it does not support Jesus' claim to messiahship.


No Mention of Mary​

Just in case you were unsure, here are the verses again.

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai,

No mention of Mary. Hence, it is not saying Heli was the father of Mary.

When it says, "Joseph, the son of Heli," what is means is the Joseph, not Mary, who was the son of Heli.
 
Who was Heli?

This guy gets a single mention in the Bible.

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai,

The Gospel of Luke clearly states he was the son of Jannai, the father of Joseph.

So how come so many Christians think he was the father of Mary, and not Joseph?





Hmm, so the argument appears to be that as there was "no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,”" it must be the case that the author of Luke meant that when he said "son... of". Got to admit, I am not clear why the author could not say Jesus was the son of Mary who was the daughter of Heli, if he believed that it was Mary who was the daughter of Heli rather than Joseph was the son of Heli.

Besides noting the fact that Mary is not even mentioned in Luke's genealogy, it is also worth pointing out that:


Descent Via the Male Line​

Jews used descent via the mother to decide if you were Jewish, but in all genealogies, and legal issue about descent, it was the male line that was important and only the male line.
  • In Luke's nativity story, it is to Joseph's family home that they go, not Mary's. Mary's family did not matter.
  • In Matthew 1 we see a long genealogy; a few women are mentioned, but none are in the line of descent
  • In Luke 3 we see another genealogy; women are not mentioned at all. They do not matter.
  • In the story of Noah, we know his name, we know his son's names. We know the names of none of the women. They did not matter
  • In Genesis 10 we can read about Noah's descendant. About sixty men are mentioned. Zero women.
  • Exodus 23:17 and 34:23, as well as Deuteronomy 16:16, has God demanding that all the males appear before him. As for the females, he is not interested.
  • Numbers 3:15 has God asking for a census of the Levites - but only the males, the females do not matter.

Requirement for Messiahship​

The reason Luke included the genealogy was to make clear that Jesus was qualified to be the Jewish messiah. All the ancient kings of Judah were direct male-line descendants of David. This was the requirement, and so become the requirement for any future king, i.e., the awaited messiah.

A genealogy via Mary serves no purpose because it does not support Jesus' claim to messiahship.


No Mention of Mary​

Just in case you were unsure, here are the verses again.

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai,

No mention of Mary. Hence, it is not saying Heli was the father of Mary.

When it says, "Joseph, the son of Heli," what is means is the Joseph, not Mary, who was the son of Heli.
So it was thought.
 
Who was Heli?

This guy gets a single mention in the Bible.

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai,

The Gospel of Luke clearly states he was the son of Jannai, the father of Joseph.

Obviously the word translated "son" can also mean "grandson." Jesus was called "son of David." No one thought David was the biological father of Jesus.

Poor Pixie. It's so important to you that you find contradictions in the Bible (why?), and you fail every time.
 
But let's explore this a moment. Why IS it so important to you that you uncover contradictions in the Bible? Are you that fearful that the Bible may contain truths that if valid would be disturbing to you? Why WOULD the reality of Jesus' divinity cause you such consternation?
 
Obviously the word translated "son" can also mean "grandson." Jesus was called "son of David." No one thought David was the biological father of Jesus.
What is your point?

If you are saying they skipped some generations, then I have no problem with that. But what you say here does not make Luke's generalogy magically include Mary

Poor Pixie. It's so important to you that you find contradictions in the Bible (why?), and you fail every time.
Actually I was assuming the Bible is true. I am pointing out that the Bible says Heli was the father (or grandfather if you like) of Jpseph, and not of Mary as certain people would have us think.
 
But let's explore this a moment.
Oh, let's!

Why IS it so important to you that you uncover contradictions in the Bible? Are you that fearful that the Bible may contain truths that if valid would be disturbing to you? Why WOULD the reality of Jesus' divinity cause you such consternation?
In a general sense I have a genuine curiosity about what really happened. I have taken the trouble to research things like tis because it is interesting trying to piece together what happened.

In the more specific sense of this thread, it is more about looking at how Christians will believe any old nonsense if they want it to be true. The text in Luke has no mention of Mary, and yet a lot of Christians are convinced it is about Mary's family. Why? Because they are told to think that and they do so without thinking about it.

Seriously, when the rationale they offer is that "there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,” " it is clear they have not thought about whether that could be phrased differently to get around that. And that is pretty clearly because they want it to be true, and that overrides any concerns with whether it actually is.
 
What is your point?

If you are saying they skipped some generations, then I have no problem with that. But what you say here does not make Luke's generalogy magically include Mary


Actually I was assuming the Bible is true. I am pointing out that the Bible says Heli was the father (or grandfather if you like) of Jpseph, and not of Mary as certain people would have us think.

Looks like it says he's the grandfather of Joseph.

Nothing to see here; Move along, folks.
 
In a general sense I have a genuine curiosity about what really happened.

But why? Why in the world would you be curious about a subject that it would seem, SHOULD bore you, i.e. whether an obscure grandfather was on the mother's side or the father's side of the lineage of a person who lived two thousand years ago? Are you also interested in the name of Disraeli's great-great-great .........great grandfather?
 
It says that of the relationship between Joseph and Jesus, not Joseph and Heli. The text is clear that Heli was the father of Joseph, and not of Mary as you previously claimed.
Jesus’ genealogy is given in two places in Scripture: Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38. Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus to Abraham. Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies. For example, Matthew gives Joseph’s father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke gives Joseph’s father as Heli (Luke 3:23). Matthew traces the line through David’s son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), while Luke traces the line through David’s son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27).

Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regard to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel’s father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel’s father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah).

One explanation, held by the church historian Eusebius, is that Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of “levirate marriage.” If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man’s brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man’s name. According to Eusebius’s theory, Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15) were married at different times to the same woman (tradition names her Estha). This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) half-brothers. Heli then died without a son, and so his (half-)brother Jacob married Heli’s widow, who gave birth to Joseph. This would make Joseph the “son of Heli” legally and the “son of Jacob” biologically. Thus, Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy (Joseph’s), but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological.

Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Since there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Through either Mary’s or Joseph’s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).
Ref
 
Jesus’ genealogy is given in two places in Scripture: Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38. Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus to Abraham. Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies. For example, Matthew gives Joseph’s father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke gives Joseph’s father as Heli (Luke 3:23). Matthew traces the line through David’s son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), while Luke traces the line through David’s son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27).

Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regard to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel’s father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel’s father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah).

One explanation, held by the church historian Eusebius, is that Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of “levirate marriage.” If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man’s brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man’s name. According to Eusebius’s theory, Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15) were married at different times to the same woman (tradition names her Estha). This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) half-brothers. Heli then died without a son, and so his (half-)brother Jacob married Heli’s widow, who gave birth to Joseph. This would make Joseph the “son of Heli” legally and the “son of Jacob” biologically. Thus, Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy (Joseph’s), but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological.

Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Since there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Through either Mary’s or Joseph’s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).
Ref
For those who aren't aware, the source of the above unattributed plagiarism is here: https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-genealogy.html
 
Just so you know, CrowCross, I did read this article before starting the thread, so the points in it have already been addressed in the OP, but I will do so again.

Jesus’ genealogy is given in two places in Scripture: Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38. Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus to Abraham. Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies. For example, Matthew gives Joseph’s father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke gives Joseph’s father as Heli (Luke 3:23). Matthew traces the line through David’s son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), while Luke traces the line through David’s son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27).
Okay. Nothing here about Mary at all, so far so good.

Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regard to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel’s father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel’s father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah).
What evidence do we have that "the Jews were meticulous record keepers," for every single Jew? I do not doubt that they kept records for the kings, and likely other important families, but I am dubious they kept records for every farm labourer and carpenter.

One explanation, held by the church historian Eusebius, is that Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of “levirate marriage.” If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man’s brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man’s name. According to Eusebius’s theory, Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15) were married at different times to the same woman (tradition names her Estha). This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) half-brothers. Heli then died without a son, and so his (half-)brother Jacob married Heli’s widow, who gave birth to Joseph. This would make Joseph the “son of Heli” legally and the “son of Jacob” biologically. Thus, Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy (Joseph’s), but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological.
I do not think that works in this case because I do not think a “levirate marriage.” would have been considered good enough for claims of messiahship, but it is just about possible (and I will note the stiggy's solution works rather better). No mention of Mary here, though, and that is what is being disputed.

Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan.
So here we get to it. Let us see what their reasoning is:

Since there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter.
What? That is it?

There is no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,” therefore it must be Mary? Seriously? As Lucian has pointed out, this is just plain wrong, but even if it was true, the text could say Jesus was the son of Mary who was the daughter of Heli, if he believed that it was Mary who was the daughter of Heli rather than Joseph was the son of Heli.

Do these conservative Bible scholars explain that, CrowCross? I guess not. It is just faith, I guess.
 
... and I will note the stiggy's solution works rather better .........

I was not offering a solution, since I see no problem that needs solving. Your attempts at creating non-existent problems for a subject matter about which you are inexplicably (for an atheist) so "curious" might be of interest to a psychiatrist, in a "methinks thou dost protest too much" kind of way.
 
Dear mikeT,
If you looked you would have saw the word "ref"...short for reference in the post you called "unattributed plagiarism".

All you had to do was click on the word "ref" to go to the Got Questions page.

I trust you stand corrected.
I do, thankyou.

I missed the tiny link tacked onto a wall of text, at the very end, like the dozen other links in the article rather than as a link to the source / reference. A pretty easy mistake to make, considering the context, as well as your past history in posting unattributed material here.

But a mistake it was in this case, and I stand corrected.
 
That's the modern Greek. The ancient word, also Koine, is γαμβρός.
The link says it comes from the ancient word, γαμβρός. So I guess the question is, did the ancient word also get defined in the way the modern one does?
 
Back
Top