- Luke
- <
- 3
- >

Enter John the Baptizer—26 AD
3
1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, while his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Iturea and Trachonitis and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, 2 during the high priesthood of Annas (also Caiaphas),* Annas was the real high priest, which office was for life. But in an effort to diminish the political influence of the high priest (presumably) the Roman government obliged the Jews to name a different high priest each year, and the governor dealt with him—so that particular year it was Caiaphas. Notice how Luke emphasizes historicity. the word of God came upon† That's what the Text says, ‘upon’ not ‘to’; I take it that that Word compelled him to action. John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. 3 So he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins;‡ There are those who squirm at the plain meaning of the Text—John was offering forgiveness of sins. Well, throughout the Old Testament, if you brought an animal offering you were confessing to being a sinner, and expecting to be forgiven. As forerunner to the Lamb of God, who would provide the ultimate payment for sin, John represented a transition, from the old to the new. 4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying:
“A voice calling out:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord in the wilderness,
make His paths straight.§ The Hebrew text of Isa. 40:3 has “in the desert” here, making it overtly parallel to “in the wilderness”, so both are part of what the ‘voice’ is saying.
5 Every ravine will be filled up,
and every mountain and hill will be leveled;* That is, where the highway passes, not all over the place; just like modern superhighways.
the crooked parts of the roads will be straightened out,
and the rough parts will be smoothed out;
6 and all flesh† That's what the Text says. I resist the temptation to limit the reference to people, because the animals will also see it (Isaiah 11:6-9). In Genesis 6:17 “all flesh” clearly includes the animals. will see the salvation of God.’ ”
“Brood of vipers!”
7 Then he said to the crowds that were coming out to be baptized by him: “You sons of poisonous snakes!‡ We don't know the precise type of snake, except that it was presumably poisonous. The Text has ‘offsprings’, plural, which doesn't make very good English, so I put ‘sons’. From Matthew 3:7 we may conclude that he was mainly referring to Pharisees and Sadducees (who had come to evaluate what was happening, but did not themselves submit to the baptism; they would not want to admit that they had sin to confess). Who tipped you off to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Well then, produce fruits befitting repentance, and don't even begin to say among yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as father,’ because I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones!§ To be born into a Christian family is certainly an advantage, but does not guarantee your eternal destiny. God has no ‘grandchildren’; you must believe into the Lord Jesus Christ to become God's child. 9 But even now the axe is being laid to the root of the trees;* The Messiah was about to be introduced and to begin His public ministry; among other things He would condemn the Pharisees and other ‘snakes’—‘thrown into the fire’ refers to their eternal destiny. so then, every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
“What shall we do?”
10 So the people† The Text has ‘crowds’. started asking him, “What then must we do?” 11 In answer he said to them, “He who has two coats,‡ Literally, ‘tunics’. let him share with him who has none; and he who has food should do likewise.”§ The verb ‘share’ is an aorist imperative, implying a one time event—you give the extra coat, but get to keep one. The verb ‘do’ is a present imperative, implying a continuing action—food is to be shared all the time. 12 Well even tax collectors came to be baptized by him and said to him, “Teacher, what must we do?” 13 So He said to them, “Don't charge more than what was determined to you.”* Right on. The tax collectors were hated, among other things, because they usually added a percentage for themselves. 14 So the soldiers started asking him too: “What about us? What must we do?” He said to them, “Don't extort or harass anyone, and be content with your wages.”† Right on again. Soldiers would frequently try to ‘supplement’ their wages.
“A greater One is coming”
15 Now as the people were expectant and all were reasoning in their hearts concerning John, whether he just might be the Messiah, 16 John anticipated them all saying: “I indeed am baptizing you with water, but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal straps I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with Holy Spirit and fire;‡ I suppose that this was fulfilled at Pentecost, although it is also true that all our works will be tested by fire (1 Corinthians 3:12-15). 17 whose winnowing shovel is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor and gather the wheat into His barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”§ “Unquenchable fire” is a clear reference to the Lake; recall that there is always more chaff than grain, but the chaff is also part of the wheat plant. I suspect that most churches have more chaff than grain.
John is imprisoned—an historical aside
18 (Indeed, with many other exhortations as well he kept on preaching to the people; 19 but Herod the tetrarch—being reproved by him concerning Herodias, his brother's wife, as also about all the wicked things that Herod perpetrated* A coward John was not!— 20 added this also to them all: he actually locked John up in his prison.)
Jesus is baptized
21 Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus, having been baptized also, was praying, when the heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove and rested upon Him, and a Voice came out of heaven saying, “You are my beloved Son; in you I am always well pleased.”† The Trinity is manifested here, which would be an important confirmation for Jesus.
Mary's genealogy‡ The genealogy interrupts the chronological sequence of the narrative, which resumes at 4:1.
23 (Beginning His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (so it was supposed) a son of Joseph,
Jesus Himself§ There are several unusual grammatical features in the Greek text of this verse, which has been badly translated by every version I have seen; resulting in contradictions and errors of fact. Here is the Greek, for those who can read it: Και αυτος ἦν ὁ Ιησους, ὡσει ετων τριακοντα αρχομενος, ων ὡς ενομιζετο υἱος Ιωσηφ, του Ηλει, του Ματθαν, του Λευι, του Μελχι,… There are four words here that invite special attention: και, αυτος, ἦν and ὡς. Since verse 22 ends with a statement from the Father at Jesus' baptism, it is clear that verse 23 begins another section. But the conjunction that signals the transition is και and not δε, as one would expect—this means that ‘Jesus’ continues as the topic. But in that event, how does one explain the personal pronoun αυτος, the more so in such an emphatic position? If the author's purpose was simply to register Jesus as a son of Joseph, as many suppose, why did he not just write και ὁ Ιησους ἦν υἱος Ιωσηφ, etc.?
But then, why write ὡς ενομιζετο? It seems to me that the normal meaning of “as was supposed” is to affirm that Jesus was in fact Joseph's son; but that is precisely what Jesus was not. Luke has already made clear that Jesus' real Father was the Holy Spirit—1:34-35, 43, 45; 2:49. So what Luke is really saying is that although the people supposed Jesus to be Joseph's son, He actually had a different lineage—we should translate “so it was supposed”. (Recall that a faithful and loyal translation seeks to transmit correctly the meaning intended by the author.)
The verb ἦν is the only independent one in the whole paragraph, verses 23-38. Is it working with the participle αρχομενος in a periphrastic construction? That appears to be the tendency of the eclectic text that places the participle right after ‘Jesus’ (following about 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality), which makes Jesus out to be in fact Joseph's son. It seems to me to be far more natural to take the participial clauses as being circumstantial: “beginning at about thirty years of age” and “being (so it was supposed) a son of Joseph”. Setting those two clauses aside, the independent clause that remains is ἦν ὁ Ιησους του Ηλει, “Jesus was of Eli”.
The participle ‘beginning’ requires an object, that the Text leaves implicit; from the context it seems clear that we may supply ‘His ministry’, or some such thing, which is why most versions do so. I suggest the following rendering: “Beginning His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (so it was supposed) a son of Joseph, Jesus was actually of Eli, of Mathan, of Levi…” I take it that the emphatic pronoun αυτος heightens the contrast between what the people imagined and the reality. Jesus was a grandson of Eli, Mary's father—Luke gives the genealogy of Jesus through His mother, while Matthew gives it through His stepfather.
The eclectic text gives our verse a different wording: και αυτος ἦν Ιησους αρχομενος ὡσει ετων τριακοντα, ων υἱος, ὡς ενομιζετο, Ιωσηφ του Ηλι του Μαθθατ του Λευι του Μελκι,… The RSV translates it like this: “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,…” Is not the normal meaning of this rendering that Jesus was in fact the son of Joseph? However, every version that I recall seeing has “Joseph, the son of Heli”, which directly contradicts Matthew, “Jacob begot Joseph”. The word ‘son’ (without the article) occurs only with Joseph, although most versions supply it on down the genealogy. But Luke is precisely correct in not using it, because it would not hold for the first and last names in the list—Eli did not beget Jesus (nor Joseph) and God did not beget Adam. So then, properly understood Luke does not contradict Matthew (with reference to Joseph's father), nor does he affirm an error of fact (with reference to Jesus' father). was of Eli,* All published Bibles that I have seen add ‘son’ or ‘the son’ to each prepositional phrase in the genealogy, but Luke did not write that—from ‘Eli’ to ‘God’ there is no ‘son’. Why not? I do not know, I was not there, but with both Eli and God the word would have a different meaning than with the rest of the names in the list. Adam could be called a ‘son’ of God by creation, but not procreation. I take it that Eli was Mary's father, and thus the maternal grandfather of Jesus, so here also ‘son’ would have a different meaning. For all that, through Mary and Eli Jesus received some of David's genes, so He was literally a descendant of David, through his son Nathan.
24 of Matthan,† There is considerable confusion among the Greek manuscripts as to the spelling of all these names. I have generally just followed the spelling we are used to (since the meaning is not affected), but not always. of Levi, of Melchi, of Janna, of Joseph,
25 of Mattathiah, of Amos, of Nahum, of Esli, of Naggai,
26 of Maath, of Mattathiah, of Semei, of Joseph, of Judah,
27 of Joannan, of Rhesa, of Zerubbabel,‡ For more on this man see the whole book of Haggai and Zechariah 4:6. of Shealtiel,§ The Greek form is actually ‘Salathiel’. of Neri,
28 of Melchi, of Addi, of Cosam, of Elmodam, of Er,
29 of Jose, of Eliezer, of Jorim, of Matthat, of Levi,
30 of Simeon, of Judah, of Joseph, of Jonam, of Eliakim,
31 of Melea, of Menan, of Mattatha, of Nathan, of David,
32 of Jesse, of Obed, of Boaz, of Salmon, of Nahshon,
33 of Amminadab, of Aram,* Rather than “of Aram”, a variety of modern versions have “the son of Admin, the son of Arni”, and they do so following the eclectic text that has been in vogue for several generations (UBS/N-A). As is their habit, the editors of that text follow the so-called ‘Alexandrian’ witnesses, but at this point those witnesses are scattered all over the back side of the desert—almost no two agree. One would have thought that this would give the UBS editors pause, but not at all. They were so intent on doing despite to Christ's genealogy that they actually concocted a ‘patchwork quilt’ and intruded the fictitious Admin and Arni into that genealogy. UBS has presented the evidence in their apparatus in such a way as to obscure the fact that no Greek MS has the precise text they have printed (the same holds for N-A). In Bruce Metzger's presentation of the UBS Committee's reasoning in this case he wrote, “the Committee adopted what seems to be the least unsatisfactory form of text”. Is this not a good candidate for ‘chutzpah’ of the year? The UBS editors concoct their own reading and proclaim it “the least unsatisfactory”! And just what might be “unsatisfactory” about the reading of 95% of the Greek manuscripts except that it does not introduce any difficulties?
There is complete confusion in the Egyptian camp. That confusion may have commenced in the second century, resulting from several easy transcriptional errors, simple copying mistakes. The total confusion in Egypt does not surprise us, but how shall we account for the text and apparatus of UBS3/N-A26 in this instance? And whatever possessed the editors of NASB, NRSV, TEV, LB, Berkeley, etc. to embrace such an egregious error? ‘Admin’ and ‘Arni’ have no more place in Christ's genealogy than does Idi Amin, although he at least is not a fiction. of Joram,† ‘Joram’—Luke 3:33 X Matthew 1:3, Ruth 4:19, 1 Chronicles 2:9. I follow 80% of the Greek manuscripts, including the best line of transmission, in placing Joram between Aram and Hezron. However, since both the Textus Receptus and the eclectic text currently in vogue follow the 20%, mine is the first version that I have seen that includes Joram. The obvious difficulty with this proceeding is that it goes against Matthew 1:3, Ruth 4:19 and 1 Chronicles 2:9, that have no ‘Joram’. The apparent disagreement with Matthew, Ruth and Chronicles would be an obvious inducement to omit ‘Joram’. But what possible motivation would there be to invent and insert an unknown name? And if someone did, how could it come to dominate the stream of transmission, to the tune of 80%? But wherever could Luke have come up with ‘Joram’? I understand that Luke obtained the information about Joram from records existing in his day, and being correct information was led by the Holy Spirit to include it in his Gospel. Just like Jude, who quoted Enoch—Enoch's prophecy must have been in existence in Jude's day, but we have no copy in Hebrew today (though Jews are reported to have used one so recently as the 13th century ad); similarly we have no copy of Luke's source. Recall Luke's stated purpose in writing: “It seemed good to me also, most excellent Theophilus, having taken careful note of everything from Above, to write to you with precision and in sequence, so that you may know the certainty of the things in which you were instructed” (Luke 1:3-4). Given his stated purpose in writing, Luke's account needs to be historically accurate (cf. 2:2 and 3:1). So then, I take it that the Holy Spirit guided Luke to include Joram. So then, Aram (Ram) was actually a grandson of Hezron; Hezron fathered Joram, who fathered Aram. While I am on this tack, my solution to the ‘Jeremiah’ problem in Matthew 27:9-10 is similar. Daniel (9:2) refers to “the books” (plural) in connection with Jeremiah the prophet. So I assume that Matthew had access to other writings of Jeremiah, of which no copy survives. of Hezron, of Perez, of Judah,
34 of Jacob, of Isaac, of Abraham, of Terah,‡ The Greek form is actually ‘Tharra’. of Nahor,
35 of Serug, of Reu,§ The Greek form is actually ‘Ragav’. of Peleg, of Eber, of Shela,
36 of Cainan,* Cainan2—Luke 3:36 X Genesis 11:12. There are several spelling variations that together are attested by almost 1% of the Greek manuscripts; 99% have Καιναν. Apparently only two omit, 𝕻75v and D, but no printed text follows their lead. So there is no reasonable doubt that Luke in fact wrote that Shelah was fathered by Cainan, not Arphaxad. This Cainan has been widely used to justify treating the genealogies in Genesis like accordions—if one name was demonstrably left out in the Genesis account, then who knows how many others were also left out. This Cainan is also used to deny the validity of constructing a strict chronology based on the time spans given in the genealogies.
But where did Luke get this information? The LXX contains Cainan in Genesis 11:12, but is so different from the Massoretic text here that it looks like fiction. Recall that the LXX we know is based on codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, produced centuries after Luke. It is more likely that our LXX is based on Luke than vice versa. Where then did Luke get it? I understand that Luke obtained the information about this Cainan from records existing in his day, and being correct information was led by the Holy Spirit to include it in his Gospel (see my discussion of ‘Joram’ above).
This brief note was inspired by the discussion of the subject given by Dr. Floyd N. Jones in Chronology of the Old Testament (which book comes close to solving all the alleged numerical discrepancies in the OT, at least as I see it). However, the explanation that follows is original with me (if anyone else has proposed it, I am unaware). Consider the exact wording of Genesis 11:12-13. “Arphaxad lived thirty-five years and begot Salah; after he begot Salah, Arphaxad lived four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters.” The verb ‘begot’ requires that Salah be a blood descendant of Arphaxad, not adopted. He could be a grandson, the son of a son of Arphaxad, or even a great-grandson, etc., except that in this case the time frame only has room for one intervening generation. The plain meaning of the formula in the Text, ‘W lived X years and begot Y; after W begot Y he lived Z years,’ is that W was X years old when Y was born, is it not (and Y was Z years old when W died)? It follows that this formula destroys the ‘accordion’ gambit. There were precisely 130 years between Adam and Seth, 105 between Seth and Enosh, 90 between Enosh and Cainan1, etc., etc. (To argue that the years were based on lunar months will not save the gambit.) I take the clear meaning of the Hebrew Text to be that Arphaxad was 35 years old when Salah was born, whatever we may decide to do about ‘Cainan’.
Let us try to imagine the situation in the years immediately following the Flood. After the Flood the ‘name of the game’ was to replenish the earth. Indeed, the divine command was: “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 9:1). So, whom could Noah's grandsons marry? Obviously their cousins, Noah's granddaughters. There would be an urgency to reproduce—thus, the girls would be married off at puberty, and the boys would not be wasting around either. The women would be giving birth as often as they possibly could. Really, the absolute top priority would be to increase the number of people. Arphaxad was born two years after the flood, but his wife could have been born a year or two earlier. (The Sacred Text is clear to the effect that only eight souls entered the ark, but some of the women could have conceived during the Flood, since they were in the ark for a full year.) Thus, Arphaxad could have fathered “Cainan” when he was 17/18. Similarly, Cainan could have fathered Salah when he was 17/18. In this way Arphaxad could be said to have “begotten” Salah when he was 35. Cainan could have died early or been passed over in Genesis because the time span did not constitute a ‘generation’, or both. Or, as things got back to normal, culturally speaking, the haste with which Arphaxad and Cainan procreated might have been viewed as unseemly. The expedient of omitting Cainan would make the account more ‘normal’ while preserving precision as to the elapsed time. But Luke would be correct in saying that Salah was “of” Cainan who was “of” Arphaxad. Salah was Arphaxad's grandson. In any case, the Messianic line was passed on by Salah. Without Luke's record I, for one, would never have stopped to consider what must have happened immediately following the Flood—the absolute priority must have been to increase the number of people. of Arphaxad, of Shem, of Noah, of Lamech,
37 of Methuselah, of Enoch, of Jared, of Mahalaleel, of Cainan,
38 of Enosh, of Seth, of Adam, of God.)

- Luke
- <
- 3
- >

*3:2 Annas was the real high priest, which office was for life. But in an effort to diminish the political influence of the high priest (presumably) the Roman government obliged the Jews to name a different high priest each year, and the governor dealt with him—so that particular year it was Caiaphas. Notice how Luke emphasizes historicity.

†3:2 That's what the Text says, ‘upon’ not ‘to’; I take it that that Word compelled him to action.

‡3:3 There are those who squirm at the plain meaning of the Text—John was offering forgiveness of sins. Well, throughout the Old Testament, if you brought an animal offering you were confessing to being a sinner, and expecting to be forgiven. As forerunner to the Lamb of God, who would provide the ultimate payment for sin, John represented a transition, from the old to the new.

§3:4 The Hebrew text of Isa. 40:3 has “in the desert” here, making it overtly parallel to “in the wilderness”, so both are part of what the ‘voice’ is saying.

*3:5 That is, where the highway passes, not all over the place; just like modern superhighways.

†3:6 That's what the Text says. I resist the temptation to limit the reference to people, because the animals will also see it (Isaiah 11:6-9). In Genesis 6:17 “all flesh” clearly includes the animals.

‡3:7 We don't know the precise type of snake, except that it was presumably poisonous. The Text has ‘offsprings’, plural, which doesn't make very good English, so I put ‘sons’. From Matthew 3:7 we may conclude that he was mainly referring to Pharisees and Sadducees (who had come to evaluate what was happening, but did not themselves submit to the baptism; they would not want to admit that they had sin to confess).

§3:8 To be born into a Christian family is certainly an advantage, but does not guarantee your eternal destiny. God has no ‘grandchildren’; you must believe into the Lord Jesus Christ to become God's child.

*3:9 The Messiah was about to be introduced and to begin His public ministry; among other things He would condemn the Pharisees and other ‘snakes’—‘thrown into the fire’ refers to their eternal destiny.

†3:10 The Text has ‘crowds’.

‡3:11 Literally, ‘tunics’.

§3:11 The verb ‘share’ is an aorist imperative, implying a one time event—you give the extra coat, but get to keep one. The verb ‘do’ is a present imperative, implying a continuing action—food is to be shared all the time.

*3:13 Right on. The tax collectors were hated, among other things, because they usually added a percentage for themselves.

†3:14 Right on again. Soldiers would frequently try to ‘supplement’ their wages.

‡3:16 I suppose that this was fulfilled at Pentecost, although it is also true that all our works will be tested by fire (1 Corinthians 3:12-15).

§3:17 “Unquenchable fire” is a clear reference to the Lake; recall that there is always more chaff than grain, but the chaff is also part of the wheat plant. I suspect that most churches have more chaff than grain.

*3:19 A coward John was not!

†3:22 The Trinity is manifested here, which would be an important confirmation for Jesus.

‡3:22 The genealogy interrupts the chronological sequence of the narrative, which resumes at 4:1.

§3:23 There are several unusual grammatical features in the Greek text of this verse, which has been badly translated by every version I have seen; resulting in contradictions and errors of fact. Here is the Greek, for those who can read it: Και αυτος ἦν ὁ Ιησους, ὡσει ετων τριακοντα αρχομενος, ων ὡς ενομιζετο υἱος Ιωσηφ, του Ηλει, του Ματθαν, του Λευι, του Μελχι,… There are four words here that invite special attention: και, αυτος, ἦν and ὡς. Since verse 22 ends with a statement from the Father at Jesus' baptism, it is clear that verse 23 begins another section. But the conjunction that signals the transition is και and not δε, as one would expect—this means that ‘Jesus’ continues as the topic. But in that event, how does one explain the personal pronoun αυτος, the more so in such an emphatic position? If the author's purpose was simply to register Jesus as a son of Joseph, as many suppose, why did he not just write και ὁ Ιησους ἦν υἱος Ιωσηφ, etc.? But then, why write ὡς ενομιζετο? It seems to me that the normal meaning of “as was supposed” is to affirm that Jesus was in fact Joseph's son; but that is precisely what Jesus was not. Luke has already made clear that Jesus' real Father was the Holy Spirit—1:34-35, 43, 45; 2:49. So what Luke is really saying is that although the people supposed Jesus to be Joseph's son, He actually had a different lineage—we should translate “so it was supposed”. (Recall that a faithful and loyal translation seeks to transmit correctly the meaning intended by the author.) The verb ἦν is the only independent one in the whole paragraph, verses 23-38. Is it working with the participle αρχομενος in a periphrastic construction? That appears to be the tendency of the eclectic text that places the participle right after ‘Jesus’ (following about 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality), which makes Jesus out to be in fact Joseph's son. It seems to me to be far more natural to take the participial clauses as being circumstantial: “beginning at about thirty years of age” and “being (so it was supposed) a son of Joseph”. Setting those two clauses aside, the independent clause that remains is ἦν ὁ Ιησους του Ηλει, “Jesus was of Eli”. The participle ‘beginning’ requires an object, that the Text leaves implicit; from the context it seems clear that we may supply ‘His ministry’, or some such thing, which is why most versions do so. I suggest the following rendering: “Beginning His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (so it was supposed) a son of Joseph, Jesus was actually of Eli, of Mathan, of Levi…” I take it that the emphatic pronoun αυτος heightens the contrast between what the people imagined and the reality. Jesus was a grandson of Eli, Mary's father—Luke gives the genealogy of Jesus through His mother, while Matthew gives it through His stepfather. The eclectic text gives our verse a different wording: και αυτος ἦν Ιησους αρχομενος ὡσει ετων τριακοντα, ων υἱος, ὡς ενομιζετο, Ιωσηφ του Ηλι του Μαθθατ του Λευι του Μελκι,… The RSV translates it like this: “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,…” Is not the normal meaning of this rendering that Jesus was in fact the son of Joseph? However, every version that I recall seeing has “Joseph, the son of Heli”, which directly contradicts Matthew, “Jacob begot Joseph”. The word ‘son’ (without the article) occurs only with Joseph, although most versions supply it on down the genealogy. But Luke is precisely correct in not using it, because it would not hold for the first and last names in the list—Eli did not beget Jesus (nor Joseph) and God did not beget Adam. So then, properly understood Luke does not contradict Matthew (with reference to Joseph's father), nor does he affirm an error of fact (with reference to Jesus' father).

*3:23 All published Bibles that I have seen add ‘son’ or ‘the son’ to each prepositional phrase in the genealogy, but Luke did not write that—from ‘Eli’ to ‘God’ there is no ‘son’. Why not? I do not know, I was not there, but with both Eli and God the word would have a different meaning than with the rest of the names in the list. Adam could be called a ‘son’ of God by creation, but not procreation. I take it that Eli was Mary's father, and thus the maternal grandfather of Jesus, so here also ‘son’ would have a different meaning. For all that, through Mary and Eli Jesus received some of David's genes, so He was literally a descendant of David, through his son Nathan.

†3:24 There is considerable confusion among the Greek manuscripts as to the spelling of all these names. I have generally just followed the spelling we are used to (since the meaning is not affected), but not always.

‡3:27 For more on this man see the whole book of Haggai and Zechariah 4:6.

§3:27 The Greek form is actually ‘Salathiel’.

*3:33 Rather than “of Aram”, a variety of modern versions have “the son of Admin, the son of Arni”, and they do so following the eclectic text that has been in vogue for several generations (UBS/N-A). As is their habit, the editors of that text follow the so-called ‘Alexandrian’ witnesses, but at this point those witnesses are scattered all over the back side of the desert—almost no two agree. One would have thought that this would give the UBS editors pause, but not at all. They were so intent on doing despite to Christ's genealogy that they actually concocted a ‘patchwork quilt’ and intruded the fictitious Admin and Arni into that genealogy. UBS has presented the evidence in their apparatus in such a way as to obscure the fact that no Greek MS has the precise text they have printed (the same holds for N-A). In Bruce Metzger's presentation of the UBS Committee's reasoning in this case he wrote, “the Committee adopted what seems to be the least unsatisfactory form of text”. Is this not a good candidate for ‘chutzpah’ of the year? The UBS editors concoct their own reading and proclaim it “the least unsatisfactory”! And just what might be “unsatisfactory” about the reading of 95% of the Greek manuscripts except that it does not introduce any difficulties? There is complete confusion in the Egyptian camp. That confusion may have commenced in the second century, resulting from several easy transcriptional errors, simple copying mistakes. The total confusion in Egypt does not surprise us, but how shall we account for the text and apparatus of UBS3/N-A26 in this instance? And whatever possessed the editors of NASB, NRSV, TEV, LB, Berkeley, etc. to embrace such an egregious error? ‘Admin’ and ‘Arni’ have no more place in Christ's genealogy than does Idi Amin, although he at least is not a fiction.

†3:33 ‘Joram’—Luke 3:33 X Matthew 1:3, Ruth 4:19, 1 Chronicles 2:9. I follow 80% of the Greek manuscripts, including the best line of transmission, in placing Joram between Aram and Hezron. However, since both the Textus Receptus and the eclectic text currently in vogue follow the 20%, mine is the first version that I have seen that includes Joram. The obvious difficulty with this proceeding is that it goes against Matthew 1:3, Ruth 4:19 and 1 Chronicles 2:9, that have no ‘Joram’. The apparent disagreement with Matthew, Ruth and Chronicles would be an obvious inducement to omit ‘Joram’. But what possible motivation would there be to invent and insert an unknown name? And if someone did, how could it come to dominate the stream of transmission, to the tune of 80%? But wherever could Luke have come up with ‘Joram’? I understand that Luke obtained the information about Joram from records existing in his day, and being correct information was led by the Holy Spirit to include it in his Gospel. Just like Jude, who quoted Enoch—Enoch's prophecy must have been in existence in Jude's day, but we have no copy in Hebrew today (though Jews are reported to have used one so recently as the 13th century ad); similarly we have no copy of Luke's source. Recall Luke's stated purpose in writing: “It seemed good to me also, most excellent Theophilus, having taken careful note of everything from Above, to write to you with precision and in sequence, so that you may know the certainty of the things in which you were instructed” (Luke 1:3-4). Given his stated purpose in writing, Luke's account needs to be historically accurate (cf. 2:2 and 3:1). So then, I take it that the Holy Spirit guided Luke to include Joram. So then, Aram (Ram) was actually a grandson of Hezron; Hezron fathered Joram, who fathered Aram. While I am on this tack, my solution to the ‘Jeremiah’ problem in Matthew 27:9-10 is similar. Daniel (9:2) refers to “the books” (plural) in connection with Jeremiah the prophet. So I assume that Matthew had access to other writings of Jeremiah, of which no copy survives.

‡3:34 The Greek form is actually ‘Tharra’.

§3:35 The Greek form is actually ‘Ragav’.

*3:36 Cainan2—Luke 3:36 X Genesis 11:12. There are several spelling variations that together are attested by almost 1% of the Greek manuscripts; 99% have Καιναν. Apparently only two omit, 𝕻75v and D, but no printed text follows their lead. So there is no reasonable doubt that Luke in fact wrote that Shelah was fathered by Cainan, not Arphaxad. This Cainan has been widely used to justify treating the genealogies in Genesis like accordions—if one name was demonstrably left out in the Genesis account, then who knows how many others were also left out. This Cainan is also used to deny the validity of constructing a strict chronology based on the time spans given in the genealogies. But where did Luke get this information? The LXX contains Cainan in Genesis 11:12, but is so different from the Massoretic text here that it looks like fiction. Recall that the LXX we know is based on codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, produced centuries after Luke. It is more likely that our LXX is based on Luke than vice versa. Where then did Luke get it? I understand that Luke obtained the information about this Cainan from records existing in his day, and being correct information was led by the Holy Spirit to include it in his Gospel (see my discussion of ‘Joram’ above). This brief note was inspired by the discussion of the subject given by Dr. Floyd N. Jones in Chronology of the Old Testament (which book comes close to solving all the alleged numerical discrepancies in the OT, at least as I see it). However, the explanation that follows is original with me (if anyone else has proposed it, I am unaware). Consider the exact wording of Genesis 11:12-13. “Arphaxad lived thirty-five years and begot Salah; after he begot Salah, Arphaxad lived four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters.” The verb ‘begot’ requires that Salah be a blood descendant of Arphaxad, not adopted. He could be a grandson, the son of a son of Arphaxad, or even a great-grandson, etc., except that in this case the time frame only has room for one intervening generation. The plain meaning of the formula in the Text, ‘W lived X years and begot Y; after W begot Y he lived Z years,’ is that W was X years old when Y was born, is it not (and Y was Z years old when W died)? It follows that this formula destroys the ‘accordion’ gambit. There were precisely 130 years between Adam and Seth, 105 between Seth and Enosh, 90 between Enosh and Cainan1, etc., etc. (To argue that the years were based on lunar months will not save the gambit.) I take the clear meaning of the Hebrew Text to be that Arphaxad was 35 years old when Salah was born, whatever we may decide to do about ‘Cainan’. Let us try to imagine the situation in the years immediately following the Flood. After the Flood the ‘name of the game’ was to replenish the earth. Indeed, the divine command was: “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 9:1). So, whom could Noah's grandsons marry? Obviously their cousins, Noah's granddaughters. There would be an urgency to reproduce—thus, the girls would be married off at puberty, and the boys would not be wasting around either. The women would be giving birth as often as they possibly could. Really, the absolute top priority would be to increase the number of people. Arphaxad was born two years after the flood, but his wife could have been born a year or two earlier. (The Sacred Text is clear to the effect that only eight souls entered the ark, but some of the women could have conceived during the Flood, since they were in the ark for a full year.) Thus, Arphaxad could have fathered “Cainan” when he was 17/18. Similarly, Cainan could have fathered Salah when he was 17/18. In this way Arphaxad could be said to have “begotten” Salah when he was 35. Cainan could have died early or been passed over in Genesis because the time span did not constitute a ‘generation’, or both. Or, as things got back to normal, culturally speaking, the haste with which Arphaxad and Cainan procreated might have been viewed as unseemly. The expedient of omitting Cainan would make the account more ‘normal’ while preserving precision as to the elapsed time. But Luke would be correct in saying that Salah was “of” Cainan who was “of” Arphaxad. Salah was Arphaxad's grandson. In any case, the Messianic line was passed on by Salah. Without Luke's record I, for one, would never have stopped to consider what must have happened immediately following the Flood—the absolute priority must have been to increase the number of people.

© 2016 Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM, PhD