|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 5, 2007 17:01:36 GMT -4
Can you provide an explanation of that position?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 5, 2007 17:16:14 GMT -4
Ginnie's post yesterday - #79.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 5, 2007 17:22:45 GMT -4
Luke might have done the same thing, but can be interpreted as tracing Mary's lineage by reading the line as: And himself was Jesus beginning about thirty years (being the son as it was being thought of Joseph) the son of Heli, The problem being that Mary is not even mentioned in between Jesus and Heli, but you would have to presume that Mary is the mother of Jesus and the daughter of Heli. This part of post #79?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 5, 2007 17:26:12 GMT -4
It may seem a little odd to us that he didn't specifically mention Mary then, but possible.[b/]
Actually not all that odd at all, considering that at the time women had no legal status and so to have used Mary as the first step would have not carried the message he was trying to convey because she essentially had not legal position.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 5, 2007 17:30:10 GMT -4
Yes, that part. If the "being supposed the son of Joseph" section is read as paranthetical and "son" does not necessarily mean a direct paternal relationship but instead indicates descent (which would make Matthew's much shorter genealogy more plausible) then Heli can be read as Jesus' maternal grandfather. Not the simplest reading of the text, perhaps, but a possible reading.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 5, 2007 17:33:16 GMT -4
It may seem a little odd to us that he didn't specifically mention Mary then, but possible.Actually not all that odd at all, considering that at the time women had no legal status and so to have used Mary as the first step would have not carried the message he was trying to convey because she essentially had not legal position. Right. Odd to us, perhpas, but not odd to the Jews of the time, especially when we are discussing a patriarchal royal line, in which the eldest male was the heir, regardless of how many sisters may have preceeded him.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 5, 2007 18:04:13 GMT -4
There's a problem with that interpretation, however.
Numbers 1:18 tells us that "And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls"
While Jewish religious identity passes through the mother, Jewish tribal lineage must pass through the father. For Jesus to be of the House of David, the lineage must pass through Joseph.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 5, 2007 19:06:52 GMT -4
Ah, yes, interpretation... I remember growing up as a Catholic and being told that Jesus's 'brothers' in the NT actually meant 'cousins'. Whaaa? And good Catholics believe that to this day. Us folks read something and there seems to be conflict or contradiction and some scholar says , "No, it means this because..." I look at the Greek and it seems to say something, but in the English translation it comes out something else - or ten different ways depending on your Bible. We, as amateurs fight an uphill battle sorting out this.
On the other hand, you have 'qualified expert scholars' who say that Jesus existed and also 'qualified expert scholars' who deny his existance. So if they can't even agree on this, maybe we can provide good insight among ourselves at least enough to stimulate our intellectual curiosity.
One part of the NT I have a problem with: Okay, the Messiah is supposed to be descended from David. Got that. (Joseph or Mary?). But even if Jesus was the Messiah. How does the Messiah become God? Jews don't believe that.
And has anyone at anytime ever convinced any Jewish scholar that the Messiah is God?
I don't mean to get off track, but I had to mention it while it was in my head...
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 5, 2007 19:12:32 GMT -4
One part of the NT I have a problem with: Okay, the Messiah is supposed to be descended from David. Got that. (Joseph or Mary?). But even if Jesus was the Messiah. How does the Messiah become God? Jews don't believe that. And has anyone at anytime ever convinced any Jewish scholar that the Messiah is God? I don't mean to get off track, but I had to mention it while it was in my head... I think that is very much on the track here.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 5, 2007 19:20:06 GMT -4
By Jewish tradition, it can't be through Mary. The text does not say Mary and it takes quite a bit of imagination to arrive at the conclusion that this is what the author of Luke intended.
Luke 2:4 states "And Joseph also went from Galilee out of the town of Nazareth into Judea to the town of David, which is called Bethlehem -- because he was of the house and family of David." Note here that Luke does not say that Mary is of the house of David, he specifically states that it is Joseph.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 5, 2007 19:32:10 GMT -4
I once read a book about Jesus written by a Jewish Rabbi. He was fairly gentle and polite in his writing, but you could still sense his outrage and frustration that his religion, history and culture was twisted and pillaged, turned into something else and then turned against him. And they suffered for two thousand years because of it.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 5, 2007 19:49:34 GMT -4
A note: It seems the point of divergence between Matthew and Luke's genealogies is David himself. Matthew traces it through David's son Solomon. Luke traces it through David's son Nathan. So Joseph's father Jacob goes back to Nathan. Or Joseph's father Heli goes back to Solomon. Or stretching our interpretation, Mary's father Heli leads back to Solomon. Three possibilities, therefore I conclude that the genealogy does not provide any evidence for the existence of Jesus. May we move on, or is there more to explore on this aspect
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 5, 2007 20:05:58 GMT -4
I think there is still something important here. Both texts clearly begin the genealogy with Joseph. We can make a great leap of the imagination and put Mary into the text, but the only reason to do so is for purely theological purposes.
The question remains -- what is the purpose of these genealogies?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 5, 2007 20:22:58 GMT -4
Just switched the TV channel and came across 'Imperium: The Rise and Fall of an Empire'. Omar Sharif is Peter, and is thanking Claudius (the future emperor) who is a lawyer for bringing up Paul's case to the Emperor Nero. Claudius say that he is not a Christian. And Omar, I mean Peter says 'I thank you all the more'. I know this is nonsense to interject in but it sure is timely. I'll immerse myself visually into the times of (or shortly after) Jesus for an hour.
This about it I just found: Liberation has also secured the broadcast and Internet rights from Rai Trade to Imperium: The Rise and Fall of an Empire, which the company is presenting at NATPE Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Charlotte Rampling and Paul Marcus star in this $45-million production of three 4-hour mini-series: Augustus: The First Emperor, Nero: The Obscure Face of Power and St. Peter: Persecution of Christians.. I guess I must be watching the St. Peter:Persecution of Christians episode.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 5, 2007 20:29:50 GMT -4
The question remains -- what is the purpose of these genealogies?
To be honest, only the Authors and likely those they wrote too can answer that question, We can only speculate.
|
|