There are two different genealogies of Jesus. Which one is the earliest? Why are they different?
|
There are two different genealogies of Jesus. Which one is the earliest? Why are they different?
One is through Mary's line. The other is through adoptive father Joseph's line. I don't know which is earlier. I'll put on my librarian hat and do some research. I'm guessing Mary's is.
Thank you - I know the Joseph/Mary thing, but why are they separated?
The authors had different purposes in mind. Matthew played with the genealogy a lot to make into sets of 14. Opinions differ as to why, but it's clear that he saw some significance in the number. Robert Gundry suggested he was doing a gematria-type thing, but evangelical scholars at least have rejected that idea. I don't know what critical scholars think of it, I didn't see anything in the literature when his book appeared. Still, I have yet to see a better theory. His commentary on Matthew caused quite a stir in the evangelical community, though. It's worth taking a look at.Quote:
Athos
Thank you - I know the Joseph/Mary thing, but why are they separated?
Luke, on the other hand, was tracing Jesus' human lineage and traced it all the way back to Adam to emphasize that this was a real guy with a real lineage, he's not a made-up character, or a deity appearing in a form that only seems to be human. He was a real dude, and this stuff really happened. The Roman Empire had tons of stories of gods coming to people in human form, usually Zeus and usually for somewhat less than honorable purposes. Luke is saying yes, this guy is divine. But he's also thoroughly human and experienced all the things that we humans do. A great older out-of-print book on that subject, if you can get your hands on it, is A. T. Robertson, Luke the Historian in the Light of Historical Research.
I checked WorldCat, Athos. Five college/university libraries in your state own this title. If you have a valid library card with your home library, that library can do an interlibrary loan (ILL) and get the book for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Dwashbur, this book by Gundry?
Matthew : a commentary on his literary and theological art / Robert H Gundry
1982
English
Book xviii, 652 pages ; 24 cm.
Grand Rapids, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.
Athos, seven libraries in your state own this title.
That's the one. His analysis of the infancy narrative got him kicked out of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). I was at that annual meeting and watched it happen. That was when/where I lost all respect for Norm Geisler.
Thank you, WG and dwashbur.
Are these genealogies evidence that the story of Mary being impregnated by a spirit is from an author who did not know of the descent line from Joseph? Or was it the author of Joseph's descent line who was unaware of the pregnancy story of Mary? Does it indicate a multiplicity of authors? It would be difficult to believe that one author wrote both stories – one story through Joseph and the other through divine intervention by a spirit.
Could it have been added later to conform to the then current tales of virgin births from deities such as are found in Greek, Roman, and Egyptian religions, among others?
All good questions. Matthew played with the genealogy to make everything come out in 14s, and that may have something to do with why he traced the line that he did. We still don't fully understand what was in his head.Quote:
Athos
Thank you, WG and dwashbur.
Are these genealogies evidence that the story of Mary being impregnated by a spirit is from an author who did not know of the descent line from Joseph? Or was it the author of Joseph's descent line who was unaware of the pregnancy story of Mary? Does it indicate a multiplicity of authors? It would be difficult to believe that one author wrote both stories – one story through Joseph and the other through divine intervention by a spirit.
Could it have been added later to conform to the then current tales of virgin births from deities such as are found in Greek, Roman, and Egyptian religions, among others?
Luke probably consulted written genealogies in the temple and/or synagogues. I don't think anything was done to conform to the mystery religions. I'm not sure I follow the question about multiple authors. We know different people wrote the two books. Please develop that thought for me a bit more.
I found this article very interesting. Here's part of it:
[Matthew's] genealogy also mentions some kickass women by name. First Tamar, who is nearly killed for becoming pregnant out of wedlock but then praised for her cleverness and resourcefulness. (Check out her story in Genesis 38). Then there’s Rahab, a Cananite prostitute whose shrewdness saves Joshua and his soldiers. Then Ruth, a Moabite who shows tremendous dedication and love to her mother-in-law. Both Tamar and Rahab could be condemned by a patriarchal society, but they are held up as models. Both Rahab and Ruth are foreingers (sic) coming to nations thought to be condemned by God. Their presence in Jesus’ lineage reinforce God’s love for the immigrant and foreigner and are part of a trajectory of understanding God from exclusion to full inclusion.
And, of course, there’s Mary. Pregnant by the Holy Spirit before she is married to Joseph, she might have received a lot of grief and scorn from her contemporaries. But in referencing other women whose sexuality is not condemned but praised in scripture, Matthew’s Gospel subtly begins to subvert some the patriarchy.
https://www.ravenfoundation.org/the-...ustful%20rages.
Perhaps I am somehow missing the point here, but that would seem to be a pretty questionable statement. Their sexuality not only is not praised in Matthew, it is not even mentioned. There is certainly no endorsement of prostitution there. Ruth is a woman of great character to be sure, but that, again, had nothing to do with sexuality. Strangely missing from the author's list was Bathsheba. She was an adulteress, but that would hardly be an endorsement of adultery.Quote:
in referencing other women whose sexuality is not condemned but praised in scripture,
Being named is a far cry from being held up as a model. Ahaz and Manasseh are named, yet they could scarcely be called models of Godly behavior. The positive side of the stories of the named women is not that they are praised for sinning, but that they were used by God in spite of their sin.Quote:
but they are held up as models
As was Mary, a sinful creature like each of us is.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
What was Mary's sin?
Being human ("like each of us is" as I pointed out).Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You entered the "like each of us is" after I had responded. At any rate, I don't recall seeing that, so my bad. Still, being human is not a sin.
We're going too far afield. My primary observation was simply this. "Perhaps I am somehow missing the point here, but that would seem to be a pretty questionable statement. Their sexuality not only is not praised in Matthew, it is not even mentioned. There is certainly no endorsement of prostitution there." I think the author was reading his/her own beliefs into the text by saying, "... in referencing other women whose sexuality is not condemned but praised in scripture, Matthew’s Gospel subtly begins to subvert some the patriarchy." I don't see where their "sexuality" is praised in the Bible. Do you?
I wouldn't say "praised" so much as "not considered a problem". Judah was ready to have Tamar put to death until she revealed who the father was and what he had done, so she was considered a sinful woman. Rahab was a known prostitute in a pagan city but she's never even slightly bad-mouthed about it.Quote:
I don't see where their "sexuality" is praised in the Bible. Do you?
And Mary was born a person prone to sin just like all of us. Even Joseph considered her a fornicator until God used some extreme means to get his attention. Samson spent the night with a prostitute in Gaza and neither is condemned for it. The list goes on and on.
And Bathsheba was essentially raped. Even if she submitted, she knew she had no choice. It's funny; here in the sex-obsessed west we see the story of David and Bathsheba as one of adultery. The rest of the world sees it as abuse of power.
True, but she has no specific sin listed in Matthew.Quote:
And Mary was born a person prone to sin just like all of us
Speculation. It is also possible she was a willing partner. She certainly never seemed to hold any bitterness against David. Still, there is evidence to point towards at least an improper use of force. The way Nathan described the situation with the lamb parable could point in that way, but it's just hard to say.Quote:
And Bathsheba was essentially raped.
I don't know if this is actually being suggested or not, but I think it's really going far out on a limb to suggest that prostitution is fine since, after all, Rahab and Tamar are included in the lineage of Christ. You would also have to conclude that extreme idolatry is OK since Ahaz and Manasseh, two prominent idolaters, are also mentioned. Solomon was a major violator of the Law during his time, but that's not OK either. Jeconiah was a very ungodly man, but that's not being endorsed in the passage. Naming someone is far removed from endorsing their lifestyle. Rahab married and it is safe to assume her sex trade days were over with. Tamar was really never a prostitute to begin with.
The mystery religion question referred to the source of Mary's pregnancy, not the genealogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
I'll try.Quote:
I'm not sure I follow the question about multiple authors. We know different people wrote the two books. Please develop that thought for me a bit more.
Both Gospels have Joseph as the father of Jesus, but they both also have the Spirit as the father of Jesus. It doesn't seem possible that was never questioned at the earliest times when the Gospels were initially being read. If not, does that indicate that one of the stories (genealogy or impregnation) is a later addition to the Gospels? Both stories in one Gospel would have been seen as a contradiction, ultimately leading to one or the other being added to the narrative.
I don't think there's any direct way of checking this since the earliest complete manuscripts are dated much later, time enough to create the Virgin birth story by the theologians to offer a way to explain the two stories being shown side by side in a Gospel.
This connects to the other question about deity-birth in other religions. In the above scenario, the Virgin birth (and the pregnancy announcement by the angel) was needed to assure a pagan world awash in unusual birth stories of famous men.
This gives me a segue to WG's comment on Mary's sin. That one will bring me to modern times.
Quote:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images...post-right.png
What was Mary's sin?
from WG
Being human ("like each of us is" as I pointed out).
Mary was sinless.
The Catholic Church declared this on December 8 in 1854 when Pius IX promulgated the doctrine in Ineffabilis Deus. It is called The Immaculate Conception, not to be confused with the Virgin birth of Jesus.
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
Ten years later, partly to ensure acceptance of the Immaculate Conception, Pius IX convoked the First Vatican Council where, on July 18 in 1870, the doctrine of infallibility was declared and accepted.
This is binding only on Catholics, but many non-Catholics are in general acceptance of Mary's sinlessness.
If Mary was sinless, then her mother Anne was sinless, and her mother was also and her mother too and back through the generations until we get to Eve, who was sinless before the Fall and must have had a sinless daughter then too who was at the beginning of that line of sinless women that ended with Mary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Yeah. The "sinless Mary" idea is pretty much a Catholic invention. It has virtually no support in the protestant world, and no support at all that I'm aware of in the Bible.
Pretty good reasoning. And so far as I know, no one has any idea what her mother's name was. The "Anne" name was pretty much a Catholic invention based upon a questionable second century manuscript.Quote:
If Mary was sinless, then her mother Anne was sinless, and her mother was also and her mother too and back through the generations until we get to Eve,
Martin Luther would have been proud of you, WG! I finally finished plowing through the biography of his life. It was a good read.
Why would God have to make Jesus' mother sinless? Jesus, as one Person in the Trinity, is sinless all on His own.
Very well said.
No, only Mary was sinless. If the others had been sinless, the Pope would have said so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
So that Mary could bear Jesus. Jesus could not have been born from a sinful mother.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Also, as St. Augustine told us, original sin is transmitted via the sperm of the male partner. Mary had the Spirit as the inseminator and spirits do not have bodies: hence, no sperm, no sin.
And how did the pope know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
God couldn't have managed that?Quote:
So that Mary could bear Jesus. Jesus could not have been born from a sinful mother.
The Pope, as God's vicar on earth, knows many things that come directly from God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Of course, he could. But he didn't. God has free will.Quote:
God couldn't have managed that?
I edited my answer to include the definitive reason that St. Augustine promulgated. As we all know, St. Augustine was a great saint and holy churchman.
Sooooo, I was sinless before I got married.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
No, you're not getting it. YOUR sinfulness came from your parents. That's true of everybody - except Jesus. He was born without sin as was his mother. Get it, now? I know it's a little confusing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Mary had parents. Thus, she was sinful because of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
We women need to stop allowing men to bless us with their sperm. That will greatly reduce population totals and after, say, 100 years, this world will be populated only by sinless women.
Ok, good, you're learning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Now, let's go to the visit of the angel to Mary. The angel told Mary she would be Jesus' mother. Since Jesus could not be born from a sinful mother, Mary was preserved from all sin. You may then ask, "But, Mary was conceived before Jesus was born". Ah, good. We're getting there. As revealed by Pius IX, the Immaculate Conception took place when Mary was conceived.
Mary's conception was IMMACULATE meaning perfect in every way without stain.
Ok?
God the Father had no power to cause Jesus to be born from a sinful woman? This is starting to sound like a chapter from Greek mythology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
No! How could it be immaculate if Mary had earthly, sinful parents?Quote:
You may then ask, "But, Mary was conceived before Jesus was born". Ah, good. We're getting there. As revealed by Pius IX, the Immaculate Conception took place when Mary was conceived.
Mary's conception was IMMACULATE meaning perfect in every way without stain.
Ok?
A completely non-biblical idea. In no place in scripture does it say that Mary was sinless or, for that matter, free from original sin.
God is All-powerful. He can do anything he wants. For Mary, God wanted her to be born sinless because she would be the mother of his son. Of course, you may now be asking, "Jesus was God's son AND Mary's son?" Does that make God and Mary married? At this stage, it does get a little like Greek mythology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
It's a great mystery which has not yet been revealed by the Pope. There is some speculation that the answer to the mystery lies in the three secrets given to the children at Fatima by the Blessed Virgin Mary. The secrets have not yet been totally revealed.
I already answered this. The angel Gabriel came to Mary and said, "Greetings Mary. The Lord is with you". The Lord is with you means Mary is without sin. Gabriel was sent by God to deliver this message.Quote:
No! How could it be immaculate if Mary had earthly, sinful parents?
So Mary had no choices in life, no free will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
The Lord is with me every day. I haven't seen Gabriel yet.Quote:
"The Lord is with you". The Lord is with you means Mary is without sin. Gabriel was sent by God to deliver this message.
Mary had plenty of choices in life including Gabriel's offer. She could have refused, but instead, she said, "Be it done unto me according to thy word".Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
That doesn't mean Mary did not see him. It's right there in the Bible.Quote:
The Lord is with me every day. I haven't seen Gabriel yet.
That's really a stretch. The expression is used on four other occasions in the Bible. It certainly does not have that meaning at those times.Quote:
"The Lord is with you". The Lord is with you means Mary is without sin.
- Judges 6:12
The angel of the Lord appeared to him and said to him, “The Lord is with you, O valiant warrior.”- 2 Samuel 7:3. Nathan said to the king, “Go, do all that is in your mind, for the Lord is with you.”
- 2 Chronicles 15:2 and he went out to meet Asa and said to him, “Listen to me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: the Lord is with you when you are with Him. And if you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.
- 2 Chronicles 20:17
You need not fight in this battle; station yourselves, stand and see the salvation of the Lord on your behalf, O Judah and Jerusalem.’ Do not fear or be dismayed; tomorrow go out to face them, for the Lord is with you.”
And that's not to mention the many other times where the same basic message is conveyed in slightly different language, such as when it ("the Lord was with him") was said of Phinehas, Hezekiah, Joseph, David, and Samuel.
No specific sin is listed for Simon either, but when he meets Jesus he cries that he's a sinful man. It doesn't matter.Quote:
True, but she has no specific sin listed in Matthew.
More precisely, they have Joseph as the ostensible father, but both make it clear that the Spirit was the real father of Jesus.Quote:
Both Gospels have Joseph as the father of Jesus, but they both also have the Spirit as the father of Jesus.
Matthew came before Luke, at least that's my conclusion (I don't buy the Mark-and-Q hypothesis). Matthew focused on the wider picture, which is why his account goes straight to the magi, Herod, and all the rest. Luke zeroes in on Mary and her experience. But both make it clear that Joseph hadn't yet touched Mary.
Athos, I admit I'm really enjoying what you're doing here.
ARGH! I wrote that as a separate post. This thing is weird!
Agreed. My point was simply that she had no sin listed in the Matthew passage we were looking at. I have no problem at all agreeing that Mary had sinned, no doubt many times,Quote:
No specific sin is listed for Simon either, but when he meets Jesus he cries that he's a sinful man. It doesn't matter.
If, as you write, the spirit was the real father of Jesus, then that supports a sinless Mary. Since, as previously mentioned, according to Augustine, original sin is transmitted via the sperm of the male partner, and the Spirit, being a spirit and not a body, had no sperm. Therefore no sin was transmitted to baby Mary. To assume without evidence, as some have, that Mary sinned later in life is ungallant, the mark of a cad.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Further proof is evidenced by Pope Pius XII declaring in 1950, ex cathedra, that Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul, without passing through purgatory. No one gets past purgatory with sin on their soul. Even a venial sin. Unless, of course, they've been granted a plenary indulgence.
Hmmm... interesting. I think that hypothesis has some value.Quote:
Matthew came before Luke, at least that's my conclusion (I don't buy the Mark-and-Q hypothesis).
Also interesting. It touches on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Marital relations are certainly not sinful within the marriage bond. By use of the term "yet", are you implying Mary did have relations with Joseph? If Mary, according to the Gospel, was a virgin before the birth of Jesus, it is equally possible she remained a virgin afterwards. I think that is the position of the mainstream Protestant churches, the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox.Quote:
Matthew focused on the wider picture, which is why his account goes straight to the magi, Herod, and all the rest. Luke zeroes in on Mary and her experience. But both make it clear that Joseph hadn't yet touched Mary.
Thank you. I, you. Yes, Roel has created an excellent and very easy website to navigate in, but sometimes it gets a bit weird. Usually, it's my own fault when that happens.Quote:
Athos, I admit I'm really enjoying what you're doing here.
ARGH! I wrote that as a separate post. This thing is weird!
I think you mean baby Jesus. I haven't seen anybody claim the Spirit was Mary's father.Quote:
Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
More precisely, they have Joseph as the ostensible father, but both make it clear that the Spirit was the real father of Jesus.
If, as you write, the spirit was the real father of Jesus, then that supports a sinless Mary. Since, as previously mentioned, according to Augustine, original sin is transmitted via the sperm of the male partner, and the Spirit, being a spirit and not a body, had no sperm. Therefore no sin was transmitted to baby Mary.
The notion of Mary being immaculate grew out of flawed logic.
1. Jesus, it was reasoned, was sinless.
2. So he couldn't have been born of a normal, sinful woman.
3. So she must have been born sinless.
But how? Wouldn't that require her mother to be immaculate, and her mother before her, ad infinitum?
The flawed logic comes in the second step, because there is no real reason why Jesus couldn't have been born from a perfectly normal woman. The flaw in logic happened when someone slipped an emotion-based opinion in when nobody was looking. There is no good theological reason why he couldn't.
As I'm sure you know, not many active participants here follow papal decrees. The most fascinating thing about that one to me is how long it took someone to think it up.Quote:
Further proof is evidenced by Pope Pius XII declaring in 1950, ex cathedra, that Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul, without passing through purgatory. No one gets past purgatory with sin on their soul. Even a venial sin. Unless, of course, they've been granted a plenary indulgence.
I don't know about Eastern Orthodox, someone else please chime in on that one, but mainstream protestant churches, definitely not. Perpetual virginity is another one based on a logical fallacy. The reasoning there was simply that the vagina that expelled the Son of God couldn't possibly be defiled by anything else, that would just be too icky to contemplate. (I paraphrase.) That's what that one boiled down to. The Catholic Church also teaches that she wasn't just a perpetual virgin, but a virgo intacta even after she gave birth. Pushing Jesus out didn't break her hymen, which leads me to believe we should be building space ships out of whatever it was made of. (Sorry, I can't help myself. If anyone is offended I sincerely apologize.)Quote:
Also interesting. It touches on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Marital relations are certainly not sinful within the marriage bond. By use of the term "yet", are you implying Mary did have relations with Joseph? If Mary, according to the Gospel, was a virgin before the birth of Jesus, it is equally possible she remained a virgin afterwards. I think that is the position of the mainstream Protestant churches, the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox.
I assume it's my fault until proven otherwise. At the same time, I worked on computers for 15 years and I can attest that gremlins are real. I have scars.Quote:
Usually, it's my own fault when that happens.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:02 PM. |