mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/22/85)
In article <1293@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: >> [Mike Huybensz] >> Then how do you account for the fact that in Matt there are 26 generations >> between David and Joseph and that in Luke there are 41? Each with a >> "begat" or "son of" between? That can't be accounted for by name changes. >> Matt: Joseph, (9 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (14 ommitted), David. >> Luke: Joseph, (18 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (20 ommitted), David. >My posting was only a hypothesis. It seems to have been disproven by >another posting. However, I'll address the point of your remarks, >since they show your over-literalism. :-) >"Begat" and "son of" do not always mean "directly". It may mean, and >sometimes *does* mean, more distant descendants. This strikes me as really stretching. One normally goes one generation at a time when establishing a lineage. It's also not at all clear why it's really very important to establish that both lineages are correct (or indeed, that either is correct). Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "You want me to make a donation to the Coast Guard Youth Auxiliary!"
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/22/85)
In article <940@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > In article <1293@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > > >> [Mike Huybensz] > >> Then how do you account for the fact that in Matt there are 26 generations > >> between David and Joseph and that in Luke there are 41? Each with a > >> "begat" or "son of" between? That can't be accounted for by name changes. > > >"Begat" and "son of" do not always mean "directly". It may mean, and > >sometimes *does* mean, more distant descendants. > > This strikes me as really stretching. One normally goes one generation at a > time when establishing a lineage. It's also not at all clear why it's > really very important to establish that both lineages are correct (or > indeed, that either is correct). Thanks for the support, Charlie. I do wish more people would righteously point out and disown such piteous attempts. (In return, I might be persuaded to rebut Rosen here or there. Though I would only do it to substitute my own agnostic, sociobiological viewpoints.) The purpose of this discussion was to put another nail in the coffin of biblical inerrancy (at least literal inerrancy. It would be fun to hear some more rationalizations along the lines of figurative, metaphorical, or allegorical inerrancy.) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
glenn@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Glenn C. Scott) (07/25/85)
In article: <940@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >In article <1293@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: >>> [Mike Huybensz] >>> Then how do you account for the fact that in Matt there are 26 generations >>> between David and Joseph and that in Luke there are 41? Each with a >>> "begat" or "son of" between? That can't be accounted for by name changes. >>> Matt: Joseph, (9 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (14 ommitted), David. >>> Luke: Joseph, (18 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (20 ommitted), David. >>My posting was only a hypothesis. It seems to have been disproven by >>another posting. However, I'll address the point of your remarks, >>since they show your over-literalism. :-) >>"Begat" and "son of" do not always mean "directly". It may mean, and >>sometimes *does* mean, more distant descendants. >This strikes me as really stretching. One normally goes one generation at a >time when establishing a lineage. It's also not at all clear why it's >really very important to establish that both lineages are correct (or >indeed, that either is correct). I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Really stretching what ? There are other cases in the Old Testament of reciting a lineage and excluding individuals of no great importance. It's probably not good to automatically assume that if the geneologits books are not like yours that something is wrong. One of the criteria for being the Messiah is that the Messiah has to be a decendant of David. Therefore it's important to establish the geneology of Jesus to determine whether Jesus was or was not a descendant of David. The only reason I've been able to come up with for having both the lineage of Joseph *and* Mary recorded is to simply show that no matter which side of the parents you chose to establish ancestry Jesus' father and mother both qualify as decendants of David. Glenn
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (07/29/85)
> One of the criteria for being the Messiah is that the Messiah has to be a > decendant of David. Therefore it's important to establish the geneology of > Jesus to determine whether Jesus was or was not a descendant of David. > > The only reason I've been able to come up with for having both the lineage of > Joseph *and* Mary recorded is to simply show that no matter which side of the > parents you chose to establish ancestry Jesus' father and mother both qualify > as decendants of David. But the genealogies are both of *Joseph*. That's the point. There is no scriptural authority to ascribe one of them to Mary. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/31/85)
In article <2194@sdcrdcf.UUCP> glenn@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Glenn C. Scott) writes: >>>"Begat" and "son of" do not always mean "directly". It may mean, and >>>sometimes *does* mean, more distant descendants. >>This strikes me as really stretching. One normally goes one generation at a >>time when establishing a lineage. It's also not at all clear why it's >>really very important to establish that both lineages are correct (or >>indeed, that either is correct). > I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Really stretching what ? >There are other cases in the Old Testament of reciting a lineage and >excluding individuals of no great importance. It's probably not good >to automatically assume that if the geneologits books are not like >yours that something is wrong. The whole point of this argument (at least from my point of view) is that people are approaching the quite evident problem of these two texts from the point of view of (a) they must both be correct and (b) it's very important that they be reconciled. Which takes us to... > One of the criteria for being the Messiah is that the Messiah has to be a >decendant of David. Therefore it's important to establish the geneology of >Jesus to determine whether Jesus was or was not a descendant of David. Perhaps so, but this sort of argument leads in a completely different direction. What produces the attempts to "fix" the genealogies is starting from the belief that the genealogies ARE correct. The reasoning runs the opposite direction. > The only reason I've been able to come up with for having both the lineage >of Joseph *and* Mary recorded is to simply show that no matter which >side of the parents you chose to establish ancestry Jesus' father and >mother both qualify as decendants of David. Except that no genealogy is given for Mary (both are given for Joseph). Without editing the Bible, you can't get such a genealogy. Charley Wingate
glenn@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Glenn C. Scott) (08/02/85)
Sorry, sorry. I came into the discussion late and obviously missed some context. The question I was answering was why it is important to show the ancestry of Jesus. I gave an answer: Glenn > The only reason I've been able to come up with for having both the > lineage of Joseph *and* Mary recorded is to simply show that no matter > which side of the parents you chose to establish ancestry Jesus' father > and mother both qualify as decendants of David. Charlie > Except that no genealogy is given for Mary (both are given for > Joseph). Without editing the Bible, you can't get such a genealogy. Sorry about jumping into the discussion without checking out the context, etc. Let me explain my answer. There are two principal theories concerning these genealogies. (1) Both genealogies *Joseph's*; Matthew exhibiting him as the legal heir to the throne of David by naming succesive hiers of the kingdom from David to Jesus "the reputed son of Joseph"; while Luke gives Joseph's private genealogy or actual descent. (2) Matthew gives Joseph's and Luke, Mary's, genealogy. Preference is usually given to theory number (2) because: - Theory (2) seems supported by several early Christian writers, -- Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, and Justin Martyr. - It demonstrates in what way Christ was the "Son of David." If Mary was the daughter of Eli (cf. Luke 3:23), then Jesus was strictly a descendant of David, not only *legally*, through his reputed father, but actually, by direct personal descent, through his mother. - Since Mary had no brothers she was an heiress. Therefore her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her father's family as his *son*. So that Joseph was the actual son of Jacob (cf. Matt 1:16), and the legal son of Eli (cf. Luke 3:23). In other words, Matthew describes Jesus' right to the theocratic crown while Luke describes his natural pedigree. Luke employs Joseph's name instead of Mary's in accorodance with Israelite law that genealogies must be reckoned by fathers, not mothers. It doesn't matter which theory you prefer - they both answer the difficulty of the conflictng genealogies. I obviously prefer the second for the reasons I named. Glenn
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/02/85)
>> One of the criteria for being the Messiah is that the Messiah has to be a >>decendant of David. Therefore it's important to establish the geneology of >>Jesus to determine whether Jesus was or was not a descendant of David. >> >> The only reason I've been able to come up with for having both the lineage of >>Joseph *and* Mary recorded is to simply show that no matter which side of the >>parents you chose to establish ancestry Jesus' father and mother both qualify >>as decendants of David. > But the genealogies are both of *Joseph*. That's the point. There is > no scriptural authority to ascribe one of them to Mary. [JEFFERYS] Which leads me to ask the question: if in all this time we haven't been bothering to discuss Mary's lineage (just apparently contradictory lineages for Joseph), what the heck does that matter in determining Jesus' lineage!!!!! After all, *Joseph* wasn't Jesus' father, GOD was!!!!! Remember???? Or did you forget all about the "virgin birth", "son of God", and all that? *MY* lineage back to David would have as much bearing on Jesus being a descendant of David as Joseph's lineage would!!!! Or did I miss something? -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/02/85)
In article <2194@sdcrdcf.UUCP> glenn@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Glenn C. Scott) writes: > > [Mike Huybensz] > > Then how do you account for the fact that in Matt there are 26 generations > > between David and Joseph and that in Luke there are 41? Each with a > > "begat" or "son of" between? That can't be accounted for by name changes. > > > Matt: Joseph, (9 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (14 ommitted), David. > > Luke: Joseph, (18 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (20 ommitted), David. > > ... There are other cases in the Old Testament of reciting a lineage and > excluding individuals of no great importance... > > The only reason I've been able to come up with for having both the lineage > of Joseph *and* Mary recorded is to simply show that no matter which side of > the parents you chose to establish ancestry Jesus' father and mother both > qualify as decendants of David. Both these attempted rationalizations have major weaknesses. First, there is a limited amount of time for those generations to have occurred between David and JC. A rough chronology is 1000 years. 40 generations allows an average age at parenthood of 25, and 25 generations allows an average age of 40. Assuming (and it is far-fetched) that the different authors differed so very much (under the putative guidance of the holy spirit?) on who was important and who not, that would make a total of about 65 generations (minimum) which would allow an average age at parenthood of less than 16. Subtract 9 months of gestation, and you're getting below 15. That's starting to get rather improbable. The second rationalization has two major counts against it. There is NO biblical justification for interpreting the two as Joseph and Mary's geneologies. And why would the geneologies differ between David ... Shealtiel, Zerubbable? Again you would need to suggest that the Holy Spirit changed its mind about whether odd or even generations were worth recording. (<-sarcasm) Unless (of course!) you want to suggest that Shealtiel son of Zerubbable was as likely to be duplicated as Bob son of John. :-( On no evidence whatsoever. The plain, simple explanation is that one or both geneologies were made up, to satisfy the simple prophetic (in the sense of being predicted, and in the sense of being needed to be the next prophet) requirement that JC be descended from David. The contorted explanations might solve the problem, except that a little thought shows that they just don't work. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/06/85)
> There are two principal theories concerning these genealogies. > > (1) Both genealogies *Joseph's*; Matthew exhibiting him as the legal > heir to the throne of David by naming succesive hiers of the kingdom > from David to Jesus "the reputed son of Joseph"; while Luke gives > Joseph's private genealogy or actual descent. > > (2) Matthew gives Joseph's and Luke, Mary's, genealogy. Preference > is usually given to theory number (2) because: I find both theories unconvincing. Neither has any scriptural authority, and both are obvious attempts to get around the scriptural contradiction. To accept either one, you have to do violence to what is written. There is a third theory that is convincing to me: Scripture was written by men, and like all things written by men, it contains errors. There, now, that wasn't so bad, was it? -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
dkl@usl.UUCP (Dwayne K. Lanclos) (08/08/85)
In article <2222@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Glenn C. Scott offers two theories explaining the discrepancies between Matthew's and Luke's genealogies: > > (1) Both genealogies *Joseph's*; Matthew exhibiting him as the legal > heir to the throne of David by naming succesive hiers of the kingdom > from David to Jesus "the reputed son of Joseph"; while Luke gives > Joseph's private genealogy or actual descent. > > (2) Matthew gives Joseph's and Luke, Mary's, genealogy. He favors the second. This thesis runs afoul of two problems: the fact that Jewish descent is traced through fathers and not mothers, and that Luke makes it plain he is tracing descent *through Joseph*. To get around these two problems, Glenn offers the following rationale: > > - Theory (2) seems supported by several early Christian > writers, -- Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, and > Justin Martyr. > > - It demonstrates in what way Christ was the "Son of David." > If Mary was the daughter of Eli (cf. Luke 3:23), then Jesus was > strictly a descendant of David, not only *legally*, through his > reputed father, but actually, by direct personal descent, > through his mother. > > - Since Mary had no brothers she was an heiress. Therefore > her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her > father's family as his *son*. So that Joseph was the actual > son of Jacob (cf. Matt 1:16), and the legal son of Eli (cf. > Luke 3:23). In other words, Matthew describes Jesus' right to > the theocratic crown while Luke describes his natural pedigree. > Luke employs Joseph's name instead of Mary's in accorodance > with Israelite law that genealogies must be reckoned by > fathers, not mothers. I submit that there is no Biblical evidence for such an interpretation. To achieve such an interpretation, one would have to discard the clear interpretation of Luke 3:23 in favor of Glenn's hypothetical situation. If we did not have Matthew's Gospel, no difficulties would arise in supposing Joseph's father to be Eli, and there would consequently be no grounds for supposing such a situation as Glenn mentions. This appears to be a rather desperate attempt to salvage Biblical inerrency at the expense of Biblical literalism. Furthermore, although Jewish law insists on descent through the father, neither Luke nor his audience was Jewish. If Luke had wanted to state that Mary was the daughter of Eli, he would not have had to mention Joseph at all. After all, Luke did take pains to point out that Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph. Would not he have also pointed out that Joseph was adopted of Eli had that been the case? Finally, if Glenn is going to rely on the Fathers of the Church to support his argument, he should also keep in mind that tradition holds the father of Mary to be Joachim, not Eli. In conclusion, I feel that the first theory mentioned is a more defensible argument. ----------- Come to the shell for answers. dwayne {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!dkl
dkl@usl.UUCP (Dwayne K. Lanclos) (08/08/85)
In article <1390@pyuxd.UUCP> Rich Rosen asks: >Which leads me to ask the question: if in all this time we haven't been >bothering to discuss Mary's lineage (just apparently contradictory lineages >for Joseph), what the heck does that matter in determining Jesus' lineage!!!!! >After all, *Joseph* wasn't Jesus' father, GOD was!!!!! Remember???? >Or did you forget all about the "virgin birth", "son of God", and all that? >*MY* lineage back to David would have as much bearing on Jesus being a >descendant of David as Joseph's lineage would!!!! Or did I miss something? > The Babylonian Talmud states: "The family of the father is regarded as the proper family, but the family of the mother is not regarded as proper family." The reason both Matthew and Luke take pains to show that Jesus is descended of the House of David is to give legitimacy to the claim for Jesus being the Messiah. Since Jesus is taken as the adopted son of Joseph, this is equivalent to being the natural son of Joseph. Examples of "legal"=="natural" are to be found frequently in the Hebrew Bible. Perhaps the most obvious example would be that of Levirate marriages in which a surviving brother marries his widowed sister-in-law should she be childless. A child born of this union is considered to be the child of the deceased man. ----------- Come to the shell for answers. dwayne {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!dkl
cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) (08/09/85)
[] In article <498@utastro.UUCP> bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) addresses the issue of the conflicting family trees of Jesus: >There is a third theory that is convincing to me: Scripture was written >by men, and like all things written by men, it contains errors. There, >now, that wasn't so bad, was it? Nat bad at all. I incline to the view that these two incompatible passages are put there precisely to show us that we cannot take Scripture to be literally true down to the last irrelevant detail. Of course, this theory requires one to suppose that Somebody Up There has a sense of humor ... Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 758-7288
jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (08/09/85)
> > The whole point of this argument (at least from my point of view) is that > people are approaching the quite evident problem of these two texts from > the point of view of (a) they must both be correct and (b) it's very > important that they be reconciled. Which takes us to... > > > One of the criteria for being the Messiah is that the Messiah has to be a > >decendant of David. Therefore it's important to establish the geneology of > >Jesus to determine whether Jesus was or was not a descendant of David. Bravo! > Perhaps so, but this sort of argument leads in a completely different > direction. What produces the attempts to "fix" the genealogies is starting > from the belief that the genealogies ARE correct. The reasoning runs the > opposite direction. They have to be. They are the only evidence left. If they are not correct, there is no reason to believe that these prophecies have been fullfilled. And they correct, as far as they are traceable in the Old Testament records. It is obvious that these distinctly different genealogies apply to two sides of the family and not one. The difference is traced back to which son of David continues the line. Was it Solomon or Nathan? Mary descended from Nathan and Joseph descended from Solomon makes perfect sense. After all, it is widely believed that Luke's account of the Gospel can also be called "Mary's Gospel". That's why he was privy to all the background information that the other accounts don't have. > > > The only reason I've been able to come up with for having both the lineage > >of Joseph *and* Mary recorded is to simply show that no matter which > >side of the parents you chose to establish ancestry Jesus' father and > >mother both qualify as decendants of David. > > Except that no genealogy is given for Mary (both are given for Joseph). > Without editing the Bible, you can't get such a genealogy. Are you sure you've looked at every possible translation? I haven't looked yet, but I would think the Amplified, NIV or NAS versions would differ in sound and might lead to the suggested alternative. I seem to remember someone responding on this very point with a translation that could suggest that Luke's genealogical account is on Mary's side of the family. Julie A. Harazduk
dkl@usl.UUCP (Dwayne K. Lanclos) (08/26/85)
This article is a continuation of the discussion comparing the separate genealogies given for Jesus in Matthew and Luke. In article <406@philabs.UUCP> jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) writes: > > [Bill Jefferies writes:] > > The whole point of this argument (at least from my point of view) is that > > people are approaching the quite evident problem of these two texts from > > the point of view of (a) they must both be correct and (b) it's very > > important that they be reconciled. > > What produces the attempts to "fix" the genealogies is starting > > from the belief that the genealogies ARE correct. > > They have to be. They are the only evidence left. If they are not correct, > there is no reason to believe that these prophecies have been fullfilled. > And they [are] correct, as far as they are traceable in the Old Testament > records. This statement is incorrect. Matt 1:8 says, "Joram was the father of Uzziah". According to the lineage in I Chr 3:10-14, there were three kings, three generations, and sixty years separating Kings Joram and Uzziah (born Azariah). The pertinent section from Chronicles lists: Joram -> Ahaziah -> Jehoash -> Amaziah -> Uzziah (Azariah) (The last king listed was born Azariah -- Uzziah was the name he took upon being crowned king.) In a related slip, Matt 1:11 says, "Josiah was the father of Jechoniah and his brothers". Actually, Josiah was the *grandfather* of Jechoniah who, as far as I Chr 3:16 tells us, had only one brother -- Zedekiah. The listing in Matthew would have been correct had he said, "Josiah was the father of *Jehoiakim* and his brothers." This is not a translation slip since most (if not all) of the ancient texts state this. > It is obvious that these distinctly different genealogies apply to two sides > of the family and not one. The difference is traced back to which son of > David continues the line. Was it Solomon or Nathan? Mary descended from > Nathan and Joseph descended from Solomon makes perfect sense. Sure, it makes sense, but that's not what the text says. Appeals to varying translations fail to address the main issue. I have discussed this in a previous article to the net, so I shall not repeat myself. If your site failed to receive it (since I have yet to see anyone on the net address my points), I'll be more than happy to email you a copy. > After all, it is widely > believed that Luke's account of the Gospel can also be called "Mary's Gospel". > That's why he was privy to all the background information that the other > accounts don't have. There are several problems involved in assuming that Mary was used as an eyewitness source for Luke's Gospel. For example, a reading of Matthew gives one the impression that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem: there is no mention of a census that brought them there, the magi approached the *house* (not a stable) where they were living, and Matt 2:22 makes it clear that Joseph was intended on returning home to Judea (where Bethlehem was located), but an angel warned him to stay away, resulting in the family's residence in Nazareth. This conflicts with Luke's account which states that both Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth but were forced to travel to Bethlehem for the census. There was no room in the inn, so they had to take shelter in a stable. A week later, the child was presented in the Temple, after which the family returned home uneventfully to Nazareth (Luke 2:39). There was no story of Herod's massacre of the infants or the prolonged flight into Egypt. Mary may indeed have told Luke the complete story, but it would invalidate Matthew's account. There is also the problem of the presentation. Luke 2:22 speaks of "*their* purification", when the Jewish custom in Lev 12:1-3 referred only to the mother's purification after childbirth. In Luke 2:24, he describes the doves or pigeons as a gift on the occasion of the presentation of the firstborn male (Ex 13:1 and Ex 13:11-13), when according to Lev 12:6, the gifts were prescribed for the purification of the mother. It seems obvious that Luke has confused two separate rites. ----------- Come to the shell for answers. dwayne {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!dkl