by Edip Yuksel

ISNET Homepage | MEDIA Homepage | Program Kerja | Koleksi | Anggota
| Indeks Antar Agama | Indeks Artikel |


Genealogy or Mythology?
"The genealogies of Jesus as they appear in the Gospels  may
perhaps  be  the subject that has led Christian commentators
to perform their  most  characteristic  feats  of  dialectic
acrobatics,  on   part  indeed  with  Luke's  and  Matthew's
imagination."  (The  Bible,  The  Quran,  and  Science,  Dr.
Maurice  Bucaille,  American  Trust,  Indianapolis, 1979, p.
In his book, Is the Bible God's Word?, A.  Deedat  tries  to
separate  the  wheat  from  the  chaff.  The following three
paragraphs are from Deedat.
                                       Only two commissioned
"Of the four Gospel writers, God 'inspired' only two of them
to  record  the  genealogy of His 'son.' To make it easy for
you to compare  the  'fathers  and  grandfathers'  of  Jesus
Christ in both the 'inspired' lists, I have culled the names
only, minus the verbiage. See page (37). Between  David  and
Jesus,  God  'inspired'  Matthew to record only 26 ancestors
for His 'son.' But Luke, also  'inspired,'  gathered  up  41
forefathers  for  Jesus.  The  only name common to these two
lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH  and  that,  too,  a
'supposed' father according to Luke 3:23 (AV). This one name
is glaring. You need no fine-tooth comb to catch him. It  is
Joseph  the carpenter. You will also easily observe that the
lists are grossly contradictory. Could both the  lists  have
emanated from the same source, i.e. God?"
                                        Fulfilling prophecy?
"Matthew and Luke are over-zealous in making DAVID the King,
the prime ancestor of Jesus, because  of  the  false  notion
that  Jesus  was  to sit on the 'Throne of his father David'
(Acts 2:30). The Gospels believe  this  prophecy,  for  they
tell  us  that  instead  of  Jesus  sitting  on his father's
(David's) throne, it was Pontius Pilate, a Roman Governor, a
pagan who sat on that very throne and condemned its rightful
(?)  heir  (Jesus)  to  death.  'Never   mind,'   says   the
evangelist,  'if  not in his first coming then in his second
coming he will  fulfill  this  prophecy  and  three  hundred
others  beside.'  But  with  their extravagant enthusiasm to
trace the ancestry of Jesus physically to David,  (for  this
is  actually  what  the Bible says 'THAT OF THE FRUIT OF HIS
(David's) LOINS, ACCORDING TO  THE  FLESH'  (literally,  not
metaphorically  Acts 2:30), both the 'inspired' authors trip
and fall on the very first step."
"Matthew 1:6 says that Jesus was the son  of  DAVID  through
SOLOMON,  but  Luke 3:31 says that he (Jesus) was the son of
David through NATHAN. One need not be a gynecologist to tell
that  by  no  stretch  of  the imagination could the seed of
David reach the mother of Jesus  both  through  Solomon  and
Nathan  at  the same time! We know that both the authors are
confounded liars, because Jesus was conceived  miraculously,
without any male intervention. Even if we concede a physical
ancestry through David, both authors would still  be  proved
liars for the obvious reason (p. 52-54)."
                                  "It is an artificial list"
Matthew,  lists  27 names for the "genealogy of Jesus." But,
this is one short than what he claims right after the list:
"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." (Matthew 1:17).
Obviously, Matthew pays a special attention  to  the  number
fourteen.  The New American Bible, published by the Catholic
Biblical Association of  America  in  1970  has  a  shocking
footnote for Matthew 1:17.
(The  diagram comparing the two different lists from Matthew
1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-31 is omitted)
"The genealogy is  artificially  constructed  out  of  three
groups  of  fourteen  names  each,  taken  principally  from
Genesis, Ruth, 1 Chronicles and 2 Kings. The list  of  names
beginning   with  Abiud  in  1:13  is  unknown  to  the  Old
Testament. The number 14 is undoubtedly a  mnemonic  device,
perhaps  chosen  because  the  numerical  value of the three
letters of David's name (DVD) yields in Hebrew  the  sum  of
After  this acknowledgement can anyone accept the geneology?
If so,  there is more...
                             Who are Perez, Zerah and Tamar?
Perez, Zerah and Tamar can be seen in  Matthew's  artificial
genealogy  fabricated  for  Jesus Christ. Before looking for
their former misdeed in the Old  Testament,  let's  see  the
position of adulterous generation:
"A  wicked  and  adulterous generation asks for a miraculous
sign..." (Matthew 12:39; 16:4)
"If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this  adulterous
generation ..." (Mark 8:38)
"But  you  come here, you sons of a sorceress, you offspring
of adulterers and prostitutes!" (Isaiah 57:3)
No doubt,  both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament  condemn
adultery,  prostitution  and  incest. It is not considered a
good  credit  to  be  the  offspring   of   adulterers   and
However,  Matthew 1:3 claims that Jesus was the offspring of
a prostitute, namely Tamar. According to Genesis  38,  Tamar
has  relation with her father-in-law and gives birth to twin
boys: Perez and Zerah. The Bible labels the result  of  this
kind of relation as "bastard" or in some polite translations
as "one of illegitimate birth".
"A bastard shall not enter  into  the  congregation  of  the
Lord;  even  to his tenth generation shall he not enter into
the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2)
              Bastards with their prostitute mother enter...
Not only a bastard,  twin  bastards  with  their  prostitute
mother  sneak  into the genealogy of the "Lord"! They cannot
enter the congregation of  the  Lord,  but  they  obtain  an
honorable  place  in the blood-line of the "Lord"! According
to Matthew 1:3, David is the ninth generation of Perez,  the
Biblical bastard.
"All  these  characters are honored in the "Book of God" for
their bastardy. They became the great grandfathers and great
grandmothers  of  the  "only begotten son of God" (?) ... No
decent reader can read the seduction of Lot to  his  mother,
sister  or  daughter,  not  even  to his fiancee if she is a
chaste and moral woman. Yet you will come  across  perverted
people  who will gorge this filth. Tastes can be cultivated!
Read again and mark Ezekiel 23 ... The  "whoredoms"  of  the
two  sisters.  Aholah  and Aholibah. The sexual details here
puts to shame even the unexpurgated edition of  many  banned
books."  (Is The Bible God's Word?, A. Deedat, Durban, South
Africa, 1986, p. 48-51).
1.  Which genealogy is correct: the one in Matthew or
    the one in Luke?
2.  Why is Joseph one of the very few  common names between
    the two lists from David to Jesus?
3.  Jesus cannot be related to David, if he was conceived
    miraculously by a virgin. How can Gospel writers make
    a "genealogical" connection between Jesus and David,
    though Jesus refused it? Mt 22:42-45; Mk 12:35; Lk:20:41
4.  Jesus was born from Mary without a father (Matthew 1:23).
    The only genealogy he had should be from Mary, not from
    a "supposed" father (Luke 3:23), i.e. Joseph.
    Why do you refer to Jesus as "son of Joseph", instead
    of "son of Mary"? Where is the genealogy of Mary?
5.  Why do the ancestors of Jesus mentioned in Luke's list
    have a life span much shorter than the one in Matthew?
6.  Matthew who tries hard to fabricate 14+14+14 artificial
    ancestors between Abraham and Jesus falls one short;
    he mentions 41 names, instead 42 names (14 from Abraham
    to David, and 27 from David to Jesus). Which one of the
    ancestors of Jesus did Matthew dismiss in his
    "inspired" Gospel? Why?
7.  Considering the modern estimate that Abraham lived
    around 1850 B.C., according to the Old Testament,
    man's appearance on earth is less than 6 thousand
    years ago. Is this historical data correct?
8.  Why does Matthew honor Perez, Zerah and Tamar by
    presenting them as the ancestors of Jesus?
    Does it mean incest and adultery is justified?
9.  What does "wicked, adulterous generation" mean?
10. Considering Deuteronomy 23:2, how could David enter
    into the congregation of the Lord, since Matthew makes
    him the ninth generation of the Biblical bastard, Perez?

Moslem Questions on Christianity Edip Yuksel P.O. Box 43476, Tucson, AZ 85733-3476 U.S.A. Tel/Fax: (520) 323-7636

| Indeks Antar Agama | Indeks Artikel |
| ISNET Homepage | MEDIA Homepage | Program Kerja | Koleksi | Anggota |

Please direct any suggestion to Media Team