Ethics and Sacred Harp 2

Unethical editorial practices are real and widespread. When a reader recently noticed “undisclosed conflicts of interest in the peer review” of a paper, it set off a chain of events leading to the publisher Frontiers “retracting a batch of 122 articles across five journals.” Examples of other articles expressing such concerns may be found HERE, HERE, and HERE. The last demonstrates that the concerns are not just recent. Universities and/or their libraries such as those at Emory, Flagler, and West Georgia often provide resources about ethics and academic integrity.[i]

As we saw in the previous post yesterday, unethical means “not adhering to proper rules of conduct or standards of a profession.” In the Sacred Harp context, this raises the question, “What are the proper rules of conduct for or standards of revising The Sacred Harp tunebook?”[ii] For help in that regard, we might look at general ethical standards used in business, industry, and education, as well as specific accepted ethical standards used in editorial processes. Finally, considering that The Sacred Harp is a Christian book, reflect on Christian Bible-based ethical standards.[iii]  There is a lot of overlap in the three categories, but it might be helpful to sort them this way. Some general ethical standards may vary according to context, while biblical standards will be objective and absolute.[iv]

General ethical standards found in business, education, etc.

• Avoids any conflict of interest
• Exhibits fairness, impartiality, and neutrality
• Prohibits retaliation
• Provides honesty and integrity
• Refrains from undue influence of familial relationships
• Seeks no unfair advantage
• Shows respect and gains trust
• Shuns secret agendas that conflict with the publicly expressed agenda

Specific ethical standards used in editorial processes

• Allows for corrections and enhancements
• Applies the same standards equally
• Encourages toward improvement
• Maintains proper attribution
• Protects the original intent/substance
• Quashes plagiarism
• Rejects misrepresentation and lack of transparency
• Requires collaboration between parties
• Respects original content and intellectual property

Some Bible-based Christian ethical standards

• Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
• Leviticus 19:11 Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.
• Romans 12:9 Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.
• Romans 12:10 ...in honour preferring one another
• Romans 12:16 Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.
• Romans 12:17 Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
• Proverbs 16:3 Commit thy works unto the Lord, and thy thoughts shall be established.
• Proverbs 20:10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the Lord.
• Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
• Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths…
• Colossians 3:16 …teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

To answer the question “What are the proper rules of conduct for (or standards of) revising The Sacred Harp tunebook,” we can look for help by considering general ethical standards, specific editorial ethical standards, and Christian Bible-based ethical standards. What is past is past, but we can look to the future with hope. Looking to the future begins with acknowledging past problems, remediating those that can be remediated, and then firmly establishing a goal and will to proceed by nothing less than ethical standards going forward. Let us call for and expect only this.

---

[i] For example, Emory expects all employees to avoid actual or perceived conflicts between their personal interests and their responsibilities; to maintain the highest ethical standards in all conduct and decisions; and to avoid retaliation.
[ii] From the beginning of the revealing of the new 2025 Sacred Harp book, the main objections concerned questionable ethics, a premeditated agenda, and the lack of promised impartiality in how the revision played out. Noticeably, the committee denied having a preset agenda. “The committee has no preset agenda other than to produce the best possible revision that will satisfy the singing public for the next 25–30 years.” Revision-Music Committee Status Report, July 2020. At what point does the editing process change from ethical to unethical? Ethical editing allows for and includes minor corrections and enhancements (corrections of typos, errant notes, grammatical mistakes, for example), suggestions for improvement, respect of the original content and context, clarification, proper attribution, and/or informed consent. Unethical editing involves and includes misrepresentation, removing important content and context, lack of transparency, and/or falsifying information. A distinction between ethical and unethical may often depend on whether the editorial changes mislead the audience and distort the truth. One concerned party summed it up this way: “Don’t lie about who wrote the song. Don’t rewrite people’s work without their consent. Don’t treat certain composers with preference in the rewrite process.”
[iii] Speaking in principle, ethical behavior is right for everyone. Nevertheless, the ethical behavior of each one will be based on his or her standards of right and wrong. Acting in ways consistent with one’s view of right and wrong will (or should) for the Jew be based on the understanding of the Old Testament, on the Holy Bible (OT & NT) for the Christian, the Qur’an for the Muslim, the Bhagavad Gita for the Hindu, and so on. (These might have some problematic results when badly mixed!) Since the United States of America is neither Jewish, Christian, Muslim, nor Hindu, the ethics of the U. S. as a nation generally must be based on its Constitution, laws, community standards, etc. – proceeding in ways consistent with those. Since The Sacred Harp is a Christian songbook published in the United States, the ethics of the revising of the songbook should be consistent with not only U. S. standards, but especially consistent with a Christian worldview based on the Holy Bible.
[iv] For example, in a family business, it would not be unethical for the owner to promote his child to the highest-ranking position in the company, while it could be unethical for the CEO of large and diverse corporation to do so.
[v] Considering there was at the least perceived partiality toward insuring the inclusion of non-Christians, we might be reminded of the biblical standard, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers” 2 Corinthians 6:14.

Ethics and Sacred Harp 1

unethical, adjective. Not adhering to proper rules of conduct or standards of a profession.

In past posts I have considered unethical practices that occurred in the 2025 revision process of the 1991 Sacred Harp. (For examples, see HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.) This brings up the questions, “What are the proper rules of conduct in revising a traditional shape note songbook” and “Have they been followed in the past?” We might question whether, in addition to the present, some things in the past were handled unethically.[i]

Three examples.

There are examples of past odd and/or unethical behavior that perhaps laid the groundwork for present excuse of unethical behavior. These seem to fall in a category of misattribution or false attributions.

A well-known and oft-repeated history of The Sacred Harp is the alto misattributions in the 1911 J. S. James Original Sacred Harp. This book adds alto to some 300 to 400 songs, and attributes them to someone other than the actual composers of these altos.[ii] Ironically, this long-standing affront was finally addressed in the 2025 edition by adding the correct names of alto composers.[iii] 

Another practice of misattribution was the arrangement of songs by old New England composers (such as Abraham Maxim, Samuel Holyoke, and others) either without acknowledgment of the composer or even attribution to Sacred Harp composers/singers.[iv]  

The third oddity is a deliberate misdirection or misattribution by the composer to some other person who did not write the song. This practice has been styled by some as “dedicatory attributions” – that is (evidently) that another person is credited as the composer as honor or dedication. In Makers of The Sacred Harp (p. 82), Warren Steel writes: “There is one additional form of authorship that I have rarely encountered outside the Sacred Harp tradition. A few songs are credited to an individual as a form of tribute or dedication, but are actually composed by another person, perhaps a well-known Sacred Harp composer who already has many tunes to his credit. This has the effect of recognizing a person for his or her service to the cause of Sacred Harp singing by transferring credit for a given song, while modestly reducing the share of songs credited to any one author.”[v]

In consideration.

Perhaps in the past some questionable situations were handled with “kid gloves” (at best, explained discreetly) because of respect for the tradition and respect for those persons who acted unethically.[vi] Into the early 21st-century the standard explanation for the 1911 alto misattributions was how easily two people might write the same alto for a song that already had three parts.[vii] To not straightforwardly deal with issues allows them to fester and get worse – which we see in the latest revision.

Also, we must carefully consider one thing that has changed dramatically in recent times. That one thing is the explosion of the number of people who composed and submitted what they believed were songs in the Sacred Harp style. In the past, to a great degree, the revisers of Sacred Harps have been composers who were adding their new songs to the book. “Our book, our songs,” so to speak. In the 20th century, the nature of the beast, so to speak, was that people who composed and submitted songs were small in number and somewhat limited in a tight circle. That changed a bit with the 1991 revision of the Sacred Harp Publishing Company. Then (I think) there were around 100 songs submitted, according to committee member Raymond Hamrick – from what was probably a pool of about two dozen composers. Contrast this with the 2025 edition, which had 1155 songs submitted that were written by over 200 composers (a large portion of those living composers). Because of this difference, the 2025 revision committee placed a great emphasis on the idea that none of the composers were known to anyone but the committee chairman.[vi]

Thoughts.

I do not think having a book and having a procedure of “it is our book and we will put our songs in it” is unethical. However, to make a pretense of neutrality, equality, and fairness but then actually proceed with “it is our book and we will put our songs in it, and do whatever we want” is unethical. To pretend that one’s agenda is not one’s agenda is unethical. To project that someone who did not write a song wrote the song is unethical. To steal someone else’s song or song idea and then claim it as one’s own is unethical. It is possible that how to revise a Sacred Harp has not been properly marinated in ethical thought.

• Past unethical practices should not provide a pattern for current, ongoing, or future unethical practices.
• Ethical guidelines should be thought out, agreed on, understood, and followed.

To be concluded, Part 2 tomorrow.

---

[i] If so, it does not excuse or erase what recently happened.
[ii] A large portion of the alto came especially from the 1902 Revised Sacred Harp by W. M. Cooper. Cooper sued James over the theft, but lost the suit. The loss seems to come over a bad technicality imposed by the judge – yes, James did take altos from Cooper, but the alto part is not so important as to matter legally. Also, the trial was carried out on what might be considered James’s “home turf.”
[iii] In 1991, the revision deleted the references to names of alto composers. Warren Steel acknowledged some of this and recognized some of the composers in Makers of the Sacred Harp.
[iv] Some of the 19th-century cases – particularly the writing down of melodies that were passed along orally – exhibit a different concept of authorship (that is, the person who was capable of putting it in music on paper was considered the author). A few cases seem to be an accidental attribution to the person who submitted (rather than composed) the song. Most of these historical misattributions have been corrected.
[v] Steel notes a few of those in the “Biographical Sketches of the Composers” section of his book (pp. 119, 141, 171). David Wright discusses some of this in “The Variety of Influence: Forms of Craftsmanship in the 1960 Edition,” as does Jesse Karlsberg in “Raymond C. Hamrick’s Contributions to Sacred Harp Singing and Scholarship.”

[vi] None of us are guiltless, generally. The best of men are men at best. All have sinned

[vii] A few close calls, yea. Hundreds of times? No way, Jose! Only the wide-eyed enthusiasts could actually believe that. Or perhaps the ostrich with head buried in the sand.
[viii] Until 1991 there was no pretention of neutrality (as far as I am aware, in other words, “our book, our songs”). In 1991, at the public singing and recording of the songs, all reference to the names of composers was removed. However, it is clear that only the public and not the committee were operating under this constraint, since a committee member mentioned the deliberate intent “to give our northern and western singers an interest in the book to be published.” Additionally, a composer shared with me that one of the committee members told him (at the public singing) that he recognized his songs by his writing style.

Yetzer to Boyce

Below is a response of Christopher Yetzer to Stephen Boyce (used by permission).

It is in response to Boyce’s video here. https://www.youtube.com/live/Y3jGB8X1Oss?si=MJU4KFSyPK85xJlT. I think there are 2 major errors which run through the entire video.

1. Boyce tries to set up the Puritans as an example Baptists should look to for their stance against the KJV. But Puritans at large did not disagree with the KJV. Recent studies into the printing, sales and the general book trade concerning Bibles in the early 1600s show “the sheer number of editions indicates strong demand to own a copy... If we put the rapid sale of the smaller formats of the King James bible against the slow and uneven dissemination of folio or church bibles, then it may well be that for many the new translation became familiar in the home before it was heard in church, and that its broad acceptance by 1640 owed as much to personal use as it did to hearing it in public worship.” [Fincham, Kenneth. “The King James Bible: Crown, Church and People.” in Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 2018. pp. 15-16.] From his study of sermons and quotations, Feingold concludes, “scholars and the reading public more widely began engaging seriously and approvingly with the KJV from the start.” [M Feingold (ed.), Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord: Scholarship and the Making of the King James Version of the Bible. Scientific and Learned Cultures and Their Institutions, Brill, Leiden, p. 27.] Feingold, who is one of the most recent scholars to do work on this, says, “Puritan preachers did embrace what quickly became established as the better translation, irrespective of their sentiments regarding the Geneva notes.” He says the separatist John Traske commented, “the last Translation is followed, as that by the which the Writer hath often confessed, that he hath received more benefite, then by all the Expositors that ever hee read. And thou art desired withall to esteeme that translation highly, and make it one cause of heartie thanksgiving to God...” [Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord page 24.] In that 1645 preface it says, “the people complained that they could not see into the sense of the Scripture so well as they formerly did by the Geneva Bibles because their spectacles of annotations were not fitted to the understanding of the new text, nor any others supplied in their stead.” It seems some of the lasting popularity of the Geneva was not the translation, but footnotes. Either way, we should correct our impressions of the immediate reception of the KJV to reflect the current data. How many Puritans can you quote who said they didn’t like it because it was high church? As a side point, the KJV was brought over with the Pilgrims on the Mayflower by John Alden. It is in the Pilgrim Hall Museum in Plymouth, MA. Look it up. That doesn’t mean that the Pilgrims overall agreed or defended it, but it does show that his history is not quite accurate.

2. He seems to be inserting doctrine into the translation. I have seen this erroneously done even in interpretation of the title page. He is trying to retroactively hijack terms and claim that they only pertain to Anglicans. I actually love telling people, “This Bible wasn’t translated by my guys for my perspective, it is simply accurate.” I think it is a stronger apologetic for dealing with this modern anti-God world.

Ghost: Tyndale used “goost” before the CoE ever separated from Rome. It is not an Anglican term (or at least is not allowed to be claimed only by them).

1 Corinthians 10:16 Communion: Diodati (who was not an Anglican) translated this as “communion” in 1607. Possibly you misunderstand the meaning of the word “communion” or are inserting your theology into the translation. It is the same Greek word translated “fellowship” in Acts 2:42 in the NET and the ESV. Communion is defined by Webster’s as “Fellowship”. The translation is accurate.

2 Corinthians 3:7 Ministration: The Geneva translation used “ministration of death”. If the Puritans loved the Geneva and hated the KJV because of these High-Church terms than I think you need to search for other terms to use as examples.

Hebrews 12:23 church of the firstborn: Again Diodati in Geneva in his 1607 Italian translation said “Church of the firstborn”. The KJV is not unique here and neither can it be highjacked as pertaining only to the Anglican church.

“want” NKJV and MEV continue to use that in Psalms 23.

Luke 19:44 visitation: Tyndale, Geneva and Diodati’s Italian all have “visitation”.

1 John 2:20 unction: Unction actually comes from the Latin, so if anything the Anglican’s would have to say it is a Catholic term not Anglican. But in this case Diodati’s 1607 Italian also used it. He was not Catholic nor Anglican.

1 Timothy 3:1 Bishop: The Word Study Dictionary says, “the public office of an overseer”. The KJV does not use italics in every instance. They generally held to a principle that if it was understood in the context than they left it in. Diodati in Geneva used “Bishop” and he was not an Anglican and did not even have “Bishops” in their church structure and he did not believe in Apostolic succession.

Acts 14:22 Confirmation: In Vulgate, Geneva, Diodati. Not Anglican.

Acts 2:38 Remission of sins: In Vulgate, Tyndale, Geneva, Diodati. Not Anglican.

Hebrews 8:2 Sanctuary: In Vulgate, Geneva and Diodati. Not Anglican.

Baptism: Tyndale used Baptism. It is also in pretty much every translation known to man. There is nothing wrong with the word. It is not owned by the Anglicans.

Notes.

---

Christopher Yetzer is a native Ohioan, a Baptist missionary preaching in Milan, Italy. In addition, he does excellent research and writes concerning the Traditional Texts and King James translation of the Bible. In 2022, Mark Ward dubbed Christopher Yetzer “my best opponent.” He was such a good opponent that Mark had to block Christopher from posting on his YouTube videos so that he would not have to take time to answer him – and Mark’s followers would not be able to see a clear presentation of an opposing viewpoint.

Stephen Boyce is an ex-Independent Fundamental Baptist turned Anglican. (Anglican at the time this took place; he has since become Roman Catholic.) Boyce has a YouTube program called “FACTS.” Boyce says, “The primary focus of this program is to cover historical and biblical content about the early church Fathers, the Apocryphal accounts, the biblical canon, textual criticism, and the scripture itself. The acronym “FACTS” derives from Fathers, Apocrypha, Canon, Text, Scripture. Despite the name, Boyce often plays fast and loose with the facts!

The relevant video is: The KJV Is Not A Good Translation For Baptists (Friday, November 15, 2024). The description of the episode runs thusly:

“In this episode, we delve into the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, examining why it may not be the ideal choice for Baptist believers. Though revered for its majestic language and historical influence, the KJV carries distinct ecclesiological and theological elements rooted in its high church Anglican origins. We explore how these aspects can conflict with Baptist principles of church governance, sacraments, and congregational independence. Join us as we unpack the historical context of the KJV, highlight theological nuances within its translation choices, and discuss why Baptists may find other translations more compatible with their beliefs and traditions.”

“I’m not interested in long theological debates on social media anymore.” Boyce cries and waves his hand.

Stephen claims he has been misrepresented. Stephen cries that his position has been butchered, strawmanned, and those doing so will “not take correction.” Notice, however, his premise is based on certain claims, such as “the KJV carries distinct ecclesiological and theological elements rooted in its high church Anglican origins…we unpack the historical context of the KJV, highlight theological nuances within its translation choices.” It is his job to prove his claims, and push back directly against those claims should be addressed, not waved off in an high-handed manner. Christopher Yetzer addressed every word that Boyce used to prove his high-church thesis, showing that these words are not unique to the KJV, as Boyce insinuates.

Stephen at 3:51: The language itself is very high church … Much of what we find early on in the publishing of the King James: it was not accepted in fact it was not taken in by a lot of the Puritans.

Stephen at 4:06: [Its high church] terminology comes into play and they go, we want the Geneva Bible instead; so the Geneva Bible actually became the predominant Bible used by most of the Puritans.

See also My Former DEBATE OPPONENT (Stephen Boyce) SWIMS THE TIBER.

Affusion is no baptism

“Under no circumstances could we be induced to sprinkle or pour water upon a subject in the name of the Trinity and call it baptism. It is not only not commanded by Christ, but it is positively forbidden to be done by him for the act he commanded. If he did not specify the action of baptism, he did not enact a law for baptism, and it has no place in the Christian system. If Christ did specify the act, he did thereby prohibit any other than that act. If immersion be that act, and I have no more doubt of it than I have that the author of Christian baptism is ‘the Christ of God,’ then affusion is no baptism, but the counterfeit of, or human substitute for Christian baptism, and whenever performed for baptism is in contravention of the expressed will of Christ.”

J. R. Graves

The Baptist, Saturday, July 24, 1875, p. 6

Pisgah

Awhile back, I looked at my email inbox and noticed I had 58 unread emails. The number 58 made me think of Pisgah, the tune on page number 58 in The Sacred Harp (all of ’em). The tune appears there with the old standard hymn by Richard Burnham, “Jesus, thou art the sinners friend.” As much as I love and have sung this song in The Sacred Harp, my mind actually associates this tune more with the hymn beginning “When I can read my title clear,” by Isaac Watts. That is the hymn that was attached to the tune in a church song book we used when I was growing up. It has been my go to tune for singing any common meter hymn for which I did not have a tune.

When I was growing up, I was a bit confused by the first line, as to just what it meant. This began to clear up when I discovered the original title of the hymn. These words are titled “The Hopes of Heaven our Support under Trials on Earth,” and first appeared in Isaac Watts’s Hymns and Spiritual Songs in 1707. Just to restate Watts’s title, the Christian’s hope of heaven is what supports us when we go through trials on earth. That is a great comfort.

1. When I can read my title clear
To mansions in the skies,
I’ll bid farewell to every fear,
And wipe my weeping eyes.

2. Should earth against my soul engage,
And fiery darts be hurled,
Then I can smile at Satan’s rage,
And face a frowning world.

3. Let cares like a wild deluge come,
And storms of sorrow fall!
May I but safely reach my home:
My God, my heaven my all.

4. There shall I bathe my weary soul
In seas of heavenly rest,
And not a wave of trouble roll
Across my peaceful breast.

“A clear title is a title without any lien from creditors or other parties and poses no question as to legal ownership. An owner of a car with a clear title is the sole undisputed owner, and no other party can make any legal claim to its ownership. Born again Christians who have had their debt of sin blotted out by Christ’s redemptive work have a clear title indicating that God in Heaven has redeemed his soul and is the sole owner of the child of God.” -- Bob Swisher

I have read that the tune Pisgah was first published in the 1817 2nd edition of The Kentucky Harmony, by Ananias Davisson. I have not seen that book and cannot confirm the accuracy of the statement. However, the 3rd edition of A Supplement to The Kentucky Harmony is online. I can confirm that not only is it in that book but it does indeed appear with the words “When I can read my title clear.” The tune is credited to Lowry. In the 1819 Tennessee Harmony, the publisher, Alexander Johnson, takes credit for a different arrangement of the same melody.

The tune is named for Pisgah, a mountain mentioned in the Bible as being on the east side of the Jordan River. From Pisgah, God showed Moses the Promised Land. See Deuteronomy 34:1ff. Note that in stanza two Isaac Watts’s original has “hellish darts.” Most hymn books have instead “fiery darts,” probably to bring it to match the adjective describing darts in Ephesians 6:16.

Charles S. Nutter and Wilbur F. Tillet in The Hymns and Hymn Writers of the Church: An Annotated Edition of the Methodist Hymnal (p. 231) notes how William Cowper alludes to this hymn by Watts.

Cowper in his poem titled “Truth” compares the lot of the infidel Voltaire with that of a poor and believing cottager who

Just knows, and knows no more, her Bible true—
A truth the brilliant Frenchman never knew:
And in that charter reads, with sparkling eyes,
Her title to a treasure in the skies.

Sarah’s nursing of Isaac

“[Henry Smith] preached a sermon on Sarah’s nursing of Isaac, and thereupon ground that general doctrine, that it was the duty of mothers to nurse their own children, allowing dispensation to such who were unsufficienced by weakness, want of milk, or any avouchable impediment. He pressed the application without respect of persons, high or low, rich or poor, one or other; taxing them with pride, or laziness, or both, who would not do the office to the fruit of their own womb.”

The Works of Henry Smith: including Sermons, Treatises, Prayers, and Poems. With life of the author, Vol. I, Thomas Fuller, editor. Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1866, p. ix.

Henry Smith, an English Puritan minister, lived circa 1560 to circa 1600, preached in London, and was considered one of the best orators of his day.

William Kiffin answers Robert Poole

QUERIE V. How can you vindicate by the Word of God, your Anabaptisticall way, from the sinfull guile of notorious Schisme, and disection from all the Reformed Churches?

Ans. They that run may reade what fire this pen and heart was inflamed withall in the writing and inditing this querie; but first of all, if by Reformed Churches, you mean those Churches planted by the Apostles in the Primative times, which are the platforme for all Churches in all ages to look unto, to be guided by these Apostolicall Rules left them; wee then shall vindicate by the Word of God our Anabaptisticall way, as you are pleased to call it, from that guile; and first, although wee confesse our selves ignorant of many things, which we ought to know and desire, to waight daily for the further discoveries of Light and truth, from him which is the only giver of it to his poor people, yet so far as we are come, we desire to walke by the same Rule they did, and first of all, wee Baptize none into Christ Jesus, but such as professe faith in Christ Jesus, Rom. 6.3. by which faith they are made sonnes of God, and so having put on Christ, are Baptized into Christ, Gal. 3.26, 27. and that Christ hath commanded this, and no other way of Baptisme, See Matth. 28.19. Mark. 1.4, 5. Luke 3.7, 8. and that this also was the Practise of the Apostles, See Acts 2.41. and 8.12.36, 37 and 10.47, 48. and that being thus baptized upon profession of Faith, they are then added to the Church, 2 Act. 41. and being added to the Church, wee conceive our selves bound to watch over one another, and in case of sinne, to deale faithfully one with another according to these Scriptures, Levit. 19.17, 18. Matth. 18.15. and if they remain obstinate, to cast them out, as those that are not fit to live in the Church, according to that Rule, 2 Cor. 5.4, 5. Matth. 18.19, 30. by all which, and many other parteculars I might name, it appears through Mercy, we can free our selves from that guile; and truely, if your eyes were opened to peruse your own practises and wayes, you would then see wee could better free our selves from that notorious guile of Schisme from those Reformed Churches, then you can free your selves from the notorious guile of Schismying from Rome; For 1. You hold their Baptisme true, their Ordination of Ministers true, their maintenance by Tythes and Offerings true, their people all fit matter for a Church, and so true, and yet you will seperate from them for some Corruptions; now for our parts, wee denie all and every one of these amongst you to be true, and therefore doe seperate from you; so then, when you have made satisfaction for your notorious Schisme, and returne as dutifull Sonnes to their Mother, or else have cast off all your filthty Rubbish of her abominations which are found amongst you, we will returne to you, or shew our just grounds to the contrary.

Pages 12-13 of A briefe remonstrance of the reasons and grounds of those people commonly called Anabaptists, for their seperation, &c. Or certaine queries concerning their faith and practice, propounded by Mr. Robert Poole; answered and resolved by William Kiffin. London: 1645.

The genealogies of Jesus

The inspired authors were giving the theology and redemptive history of Jesus Christ. They had neither interest in nor reason for answering skeptics. There is obvious intentional difference, with no concern about contradictions. Perhaps that should guide us in our approach. The most obvious distinction is that the trees trace two different lines from David forward. Also Shealtiel and Zerubabbel are in both lines.

Different Timing – Matthew gives the genealogy first, before he relates the virgin birth; Luke gives the genealogy later, after he relates the baptism of John.

Different Types - ascending and descending; Matthew begins in the past and descends to the present; Luke begins in the present and ascends to the past.

Different Trees - Solomon versus Nathan; Matthew traces the line via David’s son Solomon; Luke traces the line via David’s son Nathan (1 Chronicles 3:5; Zechariah 12:12)

Different Terminal -Abraham versus Adam; Matthew begins with Abraham and ends with Joseph; Luke begins with Joseph and ends with Adam.

Different Theological Purpose - Royal Messiah lineage (from Abraham and David) versus Universal Saviour/Creation lineage (from God and Adam).

Different Target - Matthew gives a truncated genealogy of three groups of 14 generations. Luke gives an expanded genealogy of 77 generations, 7 X 11.

• A descending genealogy begins with a person and traces forward to their descendants. (Who came from that person)
• An ascending genealogy begins with a person and traces backward to their ancestors. (Where did that person come from)

Different Explanations:

• 1. Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph and Luke the genealogy of Mary.
• Objection:
• Mary is not mentioned in Luke.
•         Answer:
• Biblical genealogies follow the line of the men, not women.
• 2. Matthew is the genealogy of Mary and Luke the genealogy of Joseph.
• 3. Both genealogies are about Joseph
• “Sextus Julius Africanus, a Christian historian from the early 3rd century, gave an explanation for the differing genealogies of Jesus which he claimed he had received from the descendants of James, the brother of Jesus. According to this claim, Heli died childless, and Jacob married Heli’s widow in accordance with levirate law. The firstborn son of Jacob and Heli’s widow was Joseph, and he was considered the legal son of Heli, though the biological son of Jacob. (For this to be so these brothers, Jacob and Heli, were uterine brothers, having the same mother but different fathers.) Africanus’s letter to Aristides is not extant, but the church historian Eusebius cited it.”
• Objection:
• Nathan’s genealogy is 13 generations longer than David’s son Solomon.
• In itself somewhat immaterial, for anyone who spends much time doing genealogical research. The timing of different lines can get way off. Some grandchildren can be older than some children, for example.
• 4. Joseph was adopted as a child, and thus had both a “natural” genealogy and an “adopted” genealogy. 
• 5. Both genealogies are for Joseph, and the contradictions between them are a matter of poor record keeping in those days. (Often held by those who reject the inspiration of Scripture.)
• 6. The people in the genealogies had multiple names; the two genealogies refer to the same people by different names. 
• 7. Luke is the genealogy of Joseph, and Matthew is the record of the succession of kings from the throne of David, through Solomon, to Christ. That is, Matthew presents a royal genealogy to affirm Jesus’ claim to David’s throne; Luke provides an actual biological lineage through Joseph.
• 8. Augustine emphasizes the different placement – Matthew before the birth of Christ, and Luke after his baptism. He took this as Matthew relating ordinary biological generation, but that Luke highlights the priestly lineage.

Liberal/critical

• 1. Neither genealogy is an actual historical family lineage. They are rather literary constructs shaped by each Gospel’s theological purpose.
• 2. Both genealogies are for Joseph, and the contradictions between them are a matter of poor record keeping in those days.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John circulated as a collection of the Gospels shortly after they were written; then as part of the canon of the New Testament. Why would the two genealogies continue to be circulated together if they were contradictory and unreliable? Maybe there’s something we’re missing that earlier readers got!

Matthew Henry: The difference between the two evangelists in the genealogy of Christ has been a stumbling-block to infidels that cavil at the word, but such a one as has been removed by the labours of learned men, both in the early ages of the church and in latter times, to which we refer ourselves. Matthew draws the pedigree from Solomon, whose natural line ending in Jechonias, the legal right was transferred to Salathiel, who was of the house of Nathan, another son of David, which line Luke here pursues, and so leaves out all the kings of Judah. It is well for us that our salvation doth not depend upon our being able to solve all these difficulties, nor is the divine authority of the gospels at all weakened by them; for the evangelists are not supposed to write these genealogies either of their own knowledge or by divine inspiration, but to have copied them out of the authentic records of the genealogies among the Jews, the heralds' books, which therefore they were obliged to follow; and in them they found the pedigree of Jacob, the father of Joseph, to be as it is set down in Matthew; and the pedigree of Heli, the father of Mary, to be as it is set down here in Luke. And this is the meaning of hos enomizeto (Luke 3:23), not, as it was supposed, referring only to Joseph, but uti sancitum est lege--as it is entered into the books, as we find it upon record; by which is appeared that Jesus was both by father and mother's side the Son of David, witness this extract out of their own records, which any one might at that time have liberty to compare with the original, and further the evangelists needed not to go; nay, had they varied from that, they had not gained their point. Its not being contradicted at that time is satisfaction enough to us now that it is a true copy, as it is further worthy of observation, that, when those records of the Jewish genealogies had continued thirty or forty years after these extracts out of them, long enough to justify the evangelists therein, they were all lost and destroyed with the Jewish state and nation; for now there was no more occasion for them.

The rest below is just a mish-mash of stuff I copied. I am leaving it as is, just to have access to it.

https://www.oneforisrael.org/jesus-genealogies-contradictory-or-complimentary/

the son of Joseph, 

which was the son of Heli, 

which was the son of Matthat, 

which was the son of Levi, 

which was the son of Melchi, 

which was the son of Janna, 

which was the son of Joseph, 

which was the son of Mattathias, 

which was the son of Amos, 

which was the son of Naum, 

which was the son of Esli, 

which was the son of Nagge, 

which was the son of Maath, 

which was the son of Mattathias, 

which was the son of Semei, 

which was the son of Joseph, 

which was the son of Juda, 

which was the son of Joanna, 

which was the son of Rhesa, 

which was the son of Zorobabel, 

which was the son of Salathiel, 

which was the son of Neri, 

which was the son of Melchi, 

which was the son of Addi, 

which was the son of Cosam, 

which was the son of Elmodam, 

which was the son of Er, 

which was the son of Jose, 

which was the son of Eliezer, 

which was the son of Jorim, 

which was the son of Matthat, 

which was the son of Levi, 

which was the son of Simeon, 

which was the son of Juda, 

which was the son of Joseph, 

which was the son of Jonan, 

which was the son of Eliakim, 

which was the son of Melea, 

which was the son of Menan, 

which was the son of Mattatha, 

which was the son of Nathan, 

which was the son of David, 

which was the son of Jesse, 

which was the son of Obed, 

which was the son of Booz, 

which was the son of Salmon, 

which was the son of Naasson, 

which was the son of Aminadab, 

which was the son of Aram, 

which was the son of Esrom, 

which was the son of Phares, 

which was the son of Juda, 

which was the son of Jacob, 

which was the son of Isaac, 

which was the son of Abraham, 

which was the son of Thara, 

which was the son of Nachor, 

which was the son of Saruch, 

which was the son of Ragau, 

which was the son of Phalec, 

which was the son of Heber, 

which was the son of Sala, 

which was the son of Cainan, 

which was the son of Arphaxad, 

which was the son of Sem, 

which was the son of Noe, 

which was the son of Lamech, 

which was the son of Mathusala, 

which was the son of Enoch, 

which was the son of Jared, 

which was the son of Maleleel, 

which was the son of Cainan, 

which was the son of Enos, 

which was the son of Seth, 

which was the son of Adam, 

which was the son of God.

Abraham begat Isaac; 

and Isaac begat Jacob; 

and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

and Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; 

and Phares begat Esrom;

and Esrom begat Aram; 

and Aram begat Aminadab; 

and Aminadab begat Naasson; 

and Naasson begat Salmon; 

and Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; 

and Booz begat Obed of Ruth;

and Obed begat Jesse; 

and Jesse begat David the king; 

and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 

and Solomon begat Roboam; 

and Roboam begat Abia; 

and Abia begat Asa; 

and Asa begat Josaphat; 

and Josaphat begat Joram; 

and Joram begat Ozias; 

and Ozias begat Joatham; 

and Joatham begat Achaz; 

and Achaz begat Ezekias; 

and Ezekias begat Manasses; 

and Manasses begat Amon; 

and Amon begat Josias; 

and Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

and after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; 

and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 

and Zorobabel begat Abiud; 

and Abiud begat Eliakim; 

and Eliakim begat Azor; 

and Azor begat Sadoc; 

and Sadoc begat Achim; 

and Achim begat Eliud; 

and Eliud begat Eleazar; 

and Eleazar begat Matthan; 

and Matthan begat Jacob; 

and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, 

of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

---

Africanus taught that one genealogy reckons by nature (Matthew) and the other by law (Luke). Heli and Jacob are uterine brothers (i.e., having the same mother but different fathers). Heli died childless, and his brother Jacob by levirate marriage raised up seed to him – Jacob was the father of Joseph by nature, but Joseph was the son of Heli by law. Therefore, Joseph was properly the son of both, one physically and one legally.

The Epistle to Aristides

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-06/anf06-48.htm#TopOfPage

page 139-140

The opinion that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary was unknown to Christian antiquity. In the fifteenth century it was first propounded by Latin divines to do honour (as they supposed) to the Blessed Virgin. It was first broached by Annius of Viterbo, A.D. 1502. Christian antiquity is agreed that: —

1. Both genealogies are those of Joseph.

2. That Joseph was the of Jacob or of Heli, either by adoption, or because Jacob and Heli were own brothers or half-brothers; so that, m—

3. On the death of one of the brothers, without issue, the surviving brother married his widow, who became the mother of Joseph by this marriage; so that Joseph was reckoned the son of Jacob and the son of Heli.

4. Joseph and Mary were of the same lineage, but the Hebrews did not reckon descent from the side of the woman. For them St. Luke’s genealogy is the sufficient register of Christ’s royal descent and official claim. St. Luke give his personal pedigree, ascending to Adam, and identifying Him with the whole human race.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, Volume VI, Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, A. Cleveland Coxe, editors. Buffalo, NY: The Christian Literature Company, 1886

Commentaria Breviarium de Temporibus in Commentaria super opera diversorum auctorum de antiquitatibus loquentium, by Annius, Joannes [Nanni, Giovanni ; Annio da Viterbo], 1498

https://archive.org/details/bib_fict_4102734/page/n17/mode/2up

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt11.html#FN_25

What is a “normal” genealogy, when dealing with a miraculous virgin birth?

Acts 2:30 fruit of David’s loins

https://thecripplegate.com/is-lukes-genealogy-through-mary/

Levirate marriage, Mary’s genealogy, Legal Adoption, Consanguinity, Historical reservation (i.e. they are quoting others’ genealogy)

Bart Ehrman: “it differs from Matthew’s in numerous ways, many of them irreconcilable”

John Gill: “It is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli, and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord.”

https://thecripplegate.com/is-lukes-genealogy-through-mary/

Jesse Johnson, objecting to Luke’s genealogy being the line of Mary: “come together in Zerubbabel, then divide again at Shealtiel, then unite again at David. Identifying Luke as Mary’s doesn’t help this problem.” I’d say that identifying it as Joseph’s does not solve that problem either!