How did they find out the genealogy of Jesus like they write in the bible?

Question

Most people nowadays cannot trace their ancestors back 40 generations. Especially if they're not their own ancestors. Was Matthew sitting there saying "Who was your father's father? And his? and his?" and writing this down? Come on now... they made this up.

Answer 1

Ask yourself what was the point of providing Joseph's lineage when Joseph was -not- the father of Jesus ;-)

Furthermore, since every person listed was de facto inheritors of David's crown, why was Joseph nothing more than a carpenter and forced to sleep in a stall for animals rather than treated with greater respect?

The need to link Jesus to David was essential for the 'fulfillment' of prophecy, even if the 'connection' didn't truly exist.

It also helps to keep in mind the Gospels were written a century or more after the crucifixion (by the disciples of the original disciples), when the Christ cult was being persecuted by just about everyone.

Bad enough they were persecuted by the Romans and the Jews, they persecuted each other over which books and words they held to be holy writ. So don't be surprised that certain groups inserted claims to substantiate their own claims of being the 'true believers' in Christ. After the crucifixion, it was all about who had the power to lead the flock.

Hope that helps.

Answer 2

Interesting point here. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are supposed to prove that Jesus is a descendant of David. These are there so the reader will accept the lineage of Jesus as a fulfillment of prophesy, but they are the genealogies of Joseph, not Mary.

If Jesus was descended from David through Joseph, that would make Joseph the father of Jesus not God, invalidating the virgin birth myth. Paul realized that, and in a typical bait-and-switch tactic, he later writes that Christianity lives or dies in the resurrection in an attempt to draw peoples attention away from the lie of the virgin birth.

-SD-

Answer 3

Apparently it wasn't very clear cut as there are two different geneologies given in the Bible. Matthew 1: 1-16 and Luke 3:23-38.

These lists are identical between Abraham and David, but they differ radically from that point onward. Many scholars today accept that one or both Gospels are not presenting literal history in their genealogies, though scholars are divided on which is more likely to be accurate, if either is accurate at all.

Answer 4

You have to remember, family was very much more important then than it is now. Different culture, different values. Records were kept and carefully handed down from one generation to the next.
That being said, is the genealogy the thing that is keeping you from believing in Jesus? If it is, you must be seriously looking for reasons not to believe. Funny how many people seem to be doing that these days. I wonder how the writers of the NT knew THAT was going to happen?

Answer 5

In the 'old days' most history by most people was handed down by word of mouth as well as the written word by the elders in the clans. And is still very much so today in some parts of the world such as Africa. While not 'infallible' the old manuscripts, tablets etc. bear a very strong truth of fact when cross-referenced between cultures who lived in different places but at the same time.
So your...Matthew sitting there saying "Who was your father's father? And his? and his?" and writing this down? Is in reality probably right on the money.

Answer 6

Back then, writing history was less about putting down actual facts and more about making up whatever the hell you wanted and then getting other people to believe it (or not).

There's not much else you can do when you're writing down a story about a guy who died decades ago -- while using no primary sources or even any good secondary sources.

Of course, all the magic tricks really happened the way the appear in the gospels. According to Church logic, we have to accept all the really strange stuff as fact even though the writers couldn't get the mudane details correct. That makes all sorts of sense.

Answer 7

Of course people can't do it now. We don't find that kind of thing as important anymore. As others have said, back then, it was the be all and end all to know your lineage. So, because of who Jesus was (a direct descendant of King David, who DID live, it's recorded in history), of course they would keep track. You take any royal bloodline, and they can trace it back hundreds, and perhaps thousands of years.
The people who keep saying "God did it" are just a little off. While man is fallible and God is not, geneology was very important back then. Jesus had to be the descendant of David, because that is what the prophesy foretold.
The lineage was included as proof that the prophecy had been fulfilled. Six hundred years or so of a royal bloodline is not hard to follow, and any scholar who studied royal bloodlines (or normal people, as they did back then), would be able to do so.

Answer 8

A very good question as genealogy requires sourcing. They do not give references as to how this genealogical line occurs. Genealogists are obsessive with documenting information from more than one source - anything less is here say. Since the bible does not do that there is no way of knowing the validity of the claim.

Answer 9

Did you mean Mary's or Joesph's genealogy? Cause Jesus always was. He was with God in Heaven when Man was first created. But you can trace Mary since she was the mother. This is all recorded in the Old testment is how Mary's line is traced.

Answer 10

Back then peoples memories were in very shape. Much more then today because they didn't have the technology we have to store information in. Therefore, their memories we spectacular. With that said, the family line was just about the most important aspect of their lives back then. And from generation to generation they would teach their children the family blood line to memorize. And this teamed up with their already immense memorization skills the learning of the family line was faithfully passed on generation to generation.