|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 5, 2007 20:48:41 GMT -4
Good link for those interested, about ancient manuscripts. www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/interp_mss.htmlIt's kinda cool to actually see some of them. See the Unintentional Variants section for interesting ways documents were altered.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 5, 2007 20:49:50 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. I thought the purpose was to trace Jesus back to David?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 5, 2007 21:00:21 GMT -4
Well, there's the problem again. The purpose is to trace Jesus back to David, so that Jesus can be shown to be the Messiah. But Jesus can't be the son of Joseph and also have had a virgin birth. Much creative thought was put into trying to get Mary in the lineage, but that just doesn't work. Jewish tradition is that tribal lineage is determined through the father. Both texts make a clear case that Joseph belongs to the house of David. Luke makes it doubly clear that Joseph belongs to the house of David. But then the lineage doesn't quite make it just at the last second.
Do we really think they did this for no reason?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 5, 2007 21:14:48 GMT -4
Oldest fragment of the NT? Magdalen Papyrus (P64) The papyrus scraps had been housed at the library of Magdalen College for more than 90 years, the gift of a British chaplain, Rev. Charles Huleatt, who bought them at an antiquities market in Luxor, Egypt. Using new tools such as a scanning laser microscope along with more conventional handwriting analysis, Thiede re-dates the fragments, previously dated in the mid- to late second century, to sometime between 30 and 70 A.D.www.biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html#P64oh, and a rebuttal of that dating: www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/210Thiede.htmlI just had to add this in - a table comparing the age of NT vs. other historical documents: Author Date Written Earliest Copy Time Span Copies (extent) Secular Manuscripts: Herodotus (History) 480 - 425 BC 900 AD 1,300 years 8 Thucydides (History) 460 - 400 BC 900 AD 1,300 years ? Aristotle (Philosopher) 384 - 322 BC 1,100 AD 1,400 years 5 Caesar (History) 100 - 44 BC 900 AD 1,000 years 10 Pliny (History) 61 - 113 AD 850 AD 750 years 7 Suetonius (Roman History) 70 - 140 AD 950 AD 800 years ? Tacitus (Greek History) 100 AD 1,100 AD 1,000 years 20 Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts) Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26) 1st century 50-60 AD co-existant (?) John Rylands (John) 90 AD 130 AD 40 years Bodmer Papyrus II (John) 90 AD 150-200 AD 60-110 years Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.) 1st century 200 AD 150 years Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) 1st century 200 AD 150 years Codex Vaticanus (Bible) 1st century 325-350 AD 275-300 years Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) 1st century 350 AD 300 years Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) 1st century 400 AD 350 years (Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies) (Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230) Added: found this explanation on the web - The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 established his legal lineage and right to the throne of David. It is Joseph's ancestry which constituted this Jewish requirement.
The genealogy of Jesus which is found in Luke 3:23-38 is the physical linage of Jesus - the ancestry of Mary. (Read Luke 3:23 carefully: Jesus was assumed to be the son of Joseph, but he was really the "son of Heli,..." Therefore, Heli was Mary's father.
Please note that these two lineages meet in King David: the legal descent of Jesus coming through King Solomon, David's son (Matt. 1:6-7), while the physical lineage of Christ came through Nathan, another son of David (Lk. 3:31).
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 5, 2007 21:53:16 GMT -4
Found this info:
Mary's Davidic ancestry
St. Luke (2:4) says that St. Joseph went from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be enrolled, "because he was of the house and family of David". As if to exclude all doubt concerning the Davidic descent of Mary, the Evangelist (1:32, 69) states that the child born of Mary without the intervention of man shall be given "the throne of David His father", and that the Lord God has "raised up a horn of salvation to us in the house of David his servant". [21] St. Paul too testifies that Jesus Christ "was made to him [God] of the seed of David, according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3). If Mary were not of Davidic descent, her Son conceived by the Holy Ghost could not be said to be "of the seed of David". Hence commentators tell us that in the text "in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God. . .to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David" (Luke 1:26-27); the last clause "of the house of David" does not refer to Joseph, but to the virgin who is the principal person in the narrative; thus we have a direct inspired testimony to Mary's Davidic descent. [22]
While commentators generally agree that the genealogy found at the beginning of the first Gospel is that of St. Joseph, Annius of Viterbo proposes the opinion, already alluded to by St. Augustine, that St. Luke's genealogy gives the pedigree of Mary. The text of the third Gospel (3:23) may be explained so as to make Heli the father of Mary: "Jesus. . .being the son (as it was supposed of Joseph) of Heli", or "Jesus. . .being the son of Joseph, as it was supposed, the son of Heli" (Lightfoot, Bengel, etc.), or again "Jesus. . .being as it was supposed the son of Joseph, who was [the son-in-law] of Heli" [23]. In these explanations the name of Mary is not mentioned explicitly, but it is implied; for Jesus is the Son of Heli through Mary. Her parents
Though few commentators adhere to this view of St. Luke's genealogy, the name of Mary's father, Heli, agrees with the name given to Our Lady's father in a tradition founded upon the report of the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Gospel which dates from the end of the second century. According to this document the parents of Mary are Joachim and Anna. Now, the name Joachim is only a variation of Heli or Eliachim, substituting one Divine name (Yahweh) for the other (Eli, Elohim). The tradition as to the parents of Mary, found in the Gospel of James, is reproduced by St. John Damascene [24], St. Gregory of Nyssa [25], St. Germanus of Constantinople [26], pseudo-Epiphanius [27], pseudo-Hilarius [28], and St. Fulbert of Chartres [29]. Some of these writers add that the birth of Mary was obtained by the fervent prayers of Joachim and Anna in their advanced age. As Joachim belonged to the royal family of David, so Anna is supposed to have been a descendant of the priestly family of Aaron; thus Christ the Eternal King and Priest sprang from both a royal and priestly family [30]. The hometown of Mary's parents
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 5, 2007 22:04:02 GMT -4
That again seems to be reading something into the text that is not there. There is possibly a much simpler explanation to all this.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 5, 2007 22:37:53 GMT -4
That again seems to be reading something into the text that is not there. There is possibly a much simpler explanation to all this. So where do we go from here? What is the simpler explanation? That the authors screwed up?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 6, 2007 8:47:24 GMT -4
I think that, given:
Both texts are drawing a clear line from Joseph to David and Jewish tradition holds that lineage must go through the father, it would seem like a good possibility that both genealogies originally did say that Jesus was the son of Joseph to show that Jesus could be the Jewish Messiah. The whole point of providing a genealogy would be to link Jesus to David.
Matthew breaks the flow of the text to put Mary into the line, as it changes from "Eleazar begot Matthan; and Matthan begot Jacob; And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." The text does not conclude with a double repetition of names, but rather disconnects Jesus from Joseph by inserting Mary into the mix and disrupting the links between all the twice-named males in the line before her.
Luke merely adds three words to disconnect Jesus from Joseph "being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph..."
So I would say that a very good guess here is that the genealogies at one point did show a specific lineage from David to Jesus. The genealogies then had to be amended to account for the virgin birth.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 6, 2007 11:03:22 GMT -4
So I would say that a very good guess here is that the genealogies at one point did show a specific lineage from David to Jesus. The genealogies then had to be amended to account for the virgin birth. Didn't you complain earlier about others reading things into the text that are not there? You could argue that Luke's genealogy once clearly referred to Mary but was later redacted by someone who thought the reference to Mary was unnecessary - exactly the opposite point - with equal validity. I think the simplest explanation is that Biblical scholarship is not simple, and, as in physics, what often appears obvious to armatures (which we all are) is not necessarily so. I think Ginnie has provided excellent evidence that scholars much more qualified than we are can disagree about exactly what the genealogies mean and who they are referring to. Given that, I would say that looking to them as evidence that the gospels are inaccurate is a useless exercise. Likewise they don't prove that Jesus really existed either. So, let the final word be "inconclusive" and let's try something else.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 6, 2007 11:28:25 GMT -4
You gave an argument as to why you thought Luke could actually have meant to show Jesus’ lineage through Mary and I gave a counter argument. I didn’t say, “don’t make an argument.” I know my argument doesn’t agree with theology, but what argument do you make against it?
If Luke had clearly shown his genealogy to run through Mary, he would have been denying that Jesus was the Messiah. Jewish tribal lineage runs through the father. Showing Mary as the mother of Jesus would only prove that Jesus was Jewish.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 6, 2007 12:03:09 GMT -4
And Luke's statement that "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli..." begs the question, "who was supposing this?" Were not there many signs that he was not Joseph's son?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 6, 2007 12:05:21 GMT -4
Joseph was Jesus' adopted father. If Joseph was of the House of David than by Jewish law so was Jesus. If the prophecies referring to the Messiah as coming from the House of David are meant in a legal sense then they are fulfilled by Joseph being Jesus' adopted father.
If the prophecies that the Messiah would come from the House of David were meant in a biological sense then Mary needs to have been from the House of David for the prophecies to be fulfilled.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 6, 2007 12:16:38 GMT -4
And Luke's statement that "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli..." begs the question, "who was supposing this?" Were not there many signs that he was not Joseph's son? Do you think Joseph and Mary told everyone they knew that Jesus wasn't really Joseph's son? In an age when adulteressess were somtimes stoned? Those who knew the family before they went to Bethlehem (and later Egypt) might know that Mary was pregnant before they were married, but then again they might not have. What other signs would there be, until Jesus himself began declaring that he was the son of God after his baptism?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 6, 2007 13:39:20 GMT -4
I could have been more clear -- who is Luke speaking to? Why would Luke use this praseology in the genealogy?
Psalms 89:35-36 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me.
Surely they are not talking in a legal sense.
This type of lineage does not go through the mother.
Numbers 1:18 "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"
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 6, 2007 13:50:31 GMT -4
So your position seems to boil down to "Jesus could not have both been the Son of God and been from the House of David." Mine is "Jesus was biologically born of Mary, which meant that he was a descendent of the House of David because she was, and was adopted by Joseph, who was of the House of David, and so was also of the House of David according to Jewish Law." So we disagree. Again, I think this line of inquiry is now stale. Ginnie has shown that scholars do not agree on why they are present and who they refer to. Inconclusive.
|
|