hatsoff

I agree that Papias was talking about GMark.

Eusebius also talks about Matthew in book III:
In book VI he quotes Origen as saying: "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son.' And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John."

This is indeed evidence Mark used Matthew as a source, but it fails under scrutiny.

Yes, that is true.

That depends what you mean by "good." It's explicit, which in a sense is "good," but it ultimately fails to convince, which is not.

Johnny Skeptic

I do not understand all of these debates about genealogies. Even if we had an accurate genealogy from Adam though Mary, or Adam through Joseph, all that that would mean is that we have an accurate genealogy of Mary or Joseph, not of Jesus.

JoeWallack

JW:
Seeing as I Am currently the World's foremost authority on errors in the Genealogies I suppose I have some moral obligation to comment here. Chris has already indicated that the Greek word means "begat". This word has a priMary meaning of immediate physical procreation. This is not well known even among Skeptics and the Christians who know it don't make it known. I can provide you with a Lexicon entry (a Christian one) if you'd like. You've got many other "diffiCulties" here but for Starters try another one you've also probably never heard of:

The Early Church fathers (you know, the guys who decided what was Canon Vater in the First place) who cared enough to comment, all seem to demonstrate an understanding that "Matthew's" genealogy was intended to be complete. Here, I'll show you:

"Attitude of Early Church Fathers Regarding The Genealogies:

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf0...#P9609_2636820 (Tertullian)

" Chapter XXII.-Holy Scripture in the New Testament, Even in Its Very First Verse, Testifies to Christ's True Flesh. In Virtue of Which He is Incorporated in the Human Stock of David, and Abraham, and Adam.

They may, then, obliterate the testimony of the devils which proclaimed Jesus the son of David; but whatever unworthiness there be in this testimony, that of the apostles they will never be able to efface, There is, first of all, Matthew, that most faithful chronicler305 of the Gospel, because the companion of the Lord; for no other reason in the world than to show us clearly the fleshly original306 of Christ, he thus begins his Gospel: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."307 With a nature issuing from such fountal sources, and an order gradually descending to the birth of Christ, what else have we here described than the very flesh of Abraham and of David conveying itself down, step after step, to the very virgin, and at last introducing Christ,-nay, producing Christ Himself of the virgin? Then, again, there is Paul, who was at once both a disciple, and a master, and a witness of the selfsame Gospel; as an apostle of the same Christ, also, he affirms that Christ "was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh,"308 -which, therefore, was His own likewise. Christ's flesh, then, is of David's seed. Since He is of the seed of David in consequence of Mary's flesh, He is therefore of Mary's flesh because of the seed of David. In what way so ever you torture the statement, He is either of the flesh of Mary because of the seed of David, or He is of the seed of David because of the flesh of Mary. The whole discussion is terminated by the same apostle, when he declares Christ to be "the seed of Abraham." And if of Abraham, how much more, to be sure, of David, as a more recent progenitor! For, unfolding the promised blessing upon all nations in the person309 of Abraham, "And in thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed," he adds, "He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."310 When we read and believe these things, what sort of flesh ought we, and can we, acknowledge in Christ? Surely none other than Abraham's, since Christ is "the seed of Abraham; "none other than Jesse's, since Christ is the blossom of "the stem of Jesse; "none other than David's, since Christ is "the fruit of David's loins; "none other than Mary's, since Christ came from Mary's womb; and, higher still, none other than Adam's, since Christ is "the second Adam." The consequence, therefore, is that they must either maintain, that those (ancestors) had a spiritual flesh, that so there might be derived to Christ the same condition of substance, or else allow that the flesh of Christ was not a spiritual one, since it is not traced from the origin311 of a spiritual stock."


http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-06/anf06-48.htm (Africanus)

"I.-The Epistle to Aristides.

I.

[Africanus ON The Genealogy IN The Holy Gospels.]1 -Some indeed incorrectly allege that this discrepant enumeration and mixing of the names both of priestly men, as they think, and royal, was made properly,2 in order that Christ might be shown rightfully to be both Priest and King; as if any one disbelieved this, or had any other hope than this, that Christ is the High Priest of His Father, who presents our prayers to Him, and a supramundane King, who rules by the Spirit those whom He has delivered, a cooperator in the government of all things. And this is announced to us not by the catalogue of the tribes, nor by the mixing of the registered generations, but by the patriarchs and prophets. Let us not therefore descend to such religious trifling as to establish the kingship and priesthood of Christ by the interchanges of the names. For the priestly tribe of Levi, too, was allied with the kingly tribe of Juda, through the circumstance that Aaron married Elizabeth the l sister of Naasson,3 and that Eleazar again married the daughter of Phatiel,4 and begat children. The evangelists, therefore, would thus have spoken falsely, affirming what was not truth, but a fictitious commendation. And for this reason the one traced the pedigree of Jacob the father of Joseph from David through Solomon; the other traced that of Heli also, though in a different way, the father of Joseph, from Nathan the son of David. And they ought not indeed to have been ignorant that both orders of the ancestors enumerated are the generation of David, the royal tribe of Juda.5 For if Nathan was a prophet, so also was Solomon, and so too the father of both of them; and there were prophets belonging to many of the tribes, but priests belonging to none of the tribes, save the Levites only. To no purpose, then, is this fabrication of theirs. Nor shall an assertion of this kind prevail in the Church of Christ against the exact truth, so as that a lie should be contrived for the praise and glory of Christ. For who does not know that most holy word of the apostle also, who, when he was preaching and proclaiming the resurrection of our Saviour, and confidently affirming the truth, said with great fear, "If any say that Christ is not risen, and we assert and have believed this, and both hope for and preach that very thing, we are false witnesses of God, in alleging that He raised up Christ, whom He raised not up? "6 And if he who glorifies God the Father is thus afraid lest he should seem a false witness in narrating a marvellous fact, how should not he be justly afraid, who tries to establish the truth by a false statement, preparing an untrue opinion? For if the generations are different, and trace down no genuine seed to Joseph, and if all has been stated only with the view of establishing the position of Him who was to be born-to confirm the truth, namely, that He who was to be would be king and priest, there being at the same tune no proof given, but the dignity of the words being brought down to a feeble hymn,-it is evident that no praise accrues to God from that, since it is a falsehood, but rather judgment returns on him who asserts it, because he vaunts an unreality as though it were reality. Therefore, that we may expose the ignorance also of him who speaks thus, and prevent any one from stumbling at this folly, I shall set forth the true history of these matters.]"


http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf0...#P5237_1583017 (Clement of A)

"Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years.

Of others, counting from Inachus and Moses to the death of Commodus, some say there were three thousand one hundred and forty-two years; and others, two thousand eight hundred and thirty-one years.

And in the Gospel according to Matthew, the genealogy which begins with Abraham is continued down to Mary the mother of the Lord. "For," it is said,298 "from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon till Christ are likewise other fourteen generations,"-three mystic intervals completed in six weeks.299"


JW:
All Fathers above indicate an attitude that they considered the Genealogies Historical and Accurate and Intentional and I'm not aware of any Early Church Father who said otherwise (Africanus has some implication though above that there were).

Would you care to comment on their comments Lee?



Joseph

Church Tradition. N. A mysterious Entity that, unlike Jesus who apparently was only able to Incarnate once, can be magically Incarnated at an Apologist's whim when needed to support Christian assertion and then can be Dis-Incarnated just as fast, as merely the opinion of men, when it goes against Christian assertion.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

hatsoff

Is that a joke?

Regardless, you're very, very mistaken. Even if you're a "scholar," you're still not an "authority."

Sure, *hehe* go on.

hatsoff

Is that the OP's fault?

JoeWallack

JW:
Hat's Off, you should have noticed by now that this isn't the Place for Truth challenged Advocates for that guy from the Christian Bible whose name escapes me at the moment but I think starts with a "J" or "Y" to trade brief snipes of criticism at Skeptical persons and positions and Avoid the Evidence. Apparently your brain was attached to your hat when you took it Off. In addition to being Entertaining and Witty I also presented Serious problems for Lee to consider such as the Greek word for "Beget" and Church Father opinion that the Genealogies were Complete, issues which also appear to be currently residing with your brain, over your head.

It's okay here to be wrong or have an attitude but it's not okay to be both. Then you sound like Balaam's ass looking for holey ground.



Joseph

"Remember Jerry, it's not a Lie if you really Believe it's True." - George Costanza.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Johnny Skeptic

The OP says the following:

The more sophisticated among Christians do not have any problems at all with what some people consider to be discrepancies. One such Christian is James Holding. He normally debates at the Theology Web. He has an extensive web site at www.tektonics.org. If you go to his web site and type genealogy of Jesus with quotation marks, you will find five articles on the genealogy of Jesus.

Regarding the OP, what difference does it make whether or not we have an accurate genealogy for Mary, Joseph, Jesus, or for that matter anyone else in history?

smokester

Originally posted by Johnny Skeptic
me
Since I started the thread I will comment.
1. I was amazed at my lack of knowledge about a seemingly obvious contradiction. I wanted to see if this was common or just me. Sorry, should have 'googled' before posting.
2. It is only a problem in light of those I know of the faith who have consistently informed me of the 'literal' truth of scriptures and its 'inerrancy'.
I realize that the early Church Fathers and others of the faith could have/had a different interpretation of what 'literal' means than contemporary fundamentalists.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Let's give him the whole quote, though! "Unquestionable in the Church of God" would imply believers being in view, and of course, when you have believed, you can be said to have stopped questioning.

Well, I've read them in Greek, and I deny it! Or at least I, er, question it...

Unless they kept careful records? They may well have, this was important to them, for David's line was to bring the promised Messiah.

Certainly, now we need to ask what is most probable. Does it seem they were conscientious and responsible?

Some of these modern scholars seem to be the ones who hold pigs flying, though!

"In what is already a very old commentary I read that the Fourth Gospel is regarded by one school as a 'spiritual romance', 'a poem not a history', to be judged by the same canons as Nathan's parable, the Book of Jonah, Paradise Lost 'or, more exactly, Pilgrim's Progress'. After a man has said that, why need one attend to anything else he says about any book in the world? ... I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage -- though it may no doubt contain errors -- pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this has simply not learned to read."

"Here, from Bultmann's Theology of the New Testament (p. 30) is another: 'Observe in what unassimilated fashion the prediction of the parousia [2] (Mk. viii, 38) follows upon the prediction of the passion (viii, 31).' What can he mean? Unassimilated? Bultmann therefore wants to believe -- and no doubt does believe -- that when they occur in the same passage some discrepancy or 'unassimilation' must be perceptible between them. But surely he foists this on the text with shocking lack of perception. Peter has confessed Jesus to be the Anointed One. That flash of glory is hardly over before the dark prophecy begins -- that the Son of Man must suffer and die. Then this contrast is repeated. Peter, raised for a moment by his confession, makes his false step; the crushing rebuff 'Get thee behind me' follows. Then, across that momentary ruin which Peter (as so often) becomes, the voice of the Master, turning to the crowd, generalizes the moral. All His followers must take up the cross. This avoidance of suffering, this self-martyrdom. You must stand to your tackling. If you disown Christ here and now, He will disown you later. Logically, emotionally, imaginatively, the sequence is perfect. Only a Bultmann could think otherwise." (C.S. Lewis)

Or as C.S. Lewis said elsewhere of another writer, "I respect his learning, but not his judgment." Such writing as what was quoted here I take to be the light-weight on the balances!

Usually it does! Yet that same word is used here:

Hebrews 11:12 So in fact children were fathered by one man--and this one as good as dead--like the number of stars in the sky and like the innumerable grains of sand on the seashore.

Which must mean all his descendants...

That's a little different than reporting what people said and did, though! What you mention is interpretation, not recounting an incident. And no, I don't believe everything Origen wrote, but I do take his comments seriously.

But Mark using Peter doesn't mean he didn't also use "sayings" from Matthew! The two could have been brought together, so Mark would be (a favorite critical word) didacting.

But the only good evidence is evidence that convinces Hatsoff? I object, your honor...

"conveying itself down, step after step, to the very virgin..." (Tertullian)

But this doesn't insist that Matthew's genealogy had no gaps. I see no other statement in what you quoted that would imply this, either. Could you focus your quoting a bit more, by the way? Most of each quote was unrelated to the question at hand...

Yes, I also believe this. And "accurate" need not mean every generation is specified, it seems, according to Jewish minds.

Regards,
Lee

hatsoff

Hi everyone!

I agree. This does not, however, seem to be what happened.

Not at all! I say only that there is insufficient evidence to assume Mark drew from Matthew as a source.