hatsoff

I think you mean Peter, not Matthew. In c.150 Justin linked Mark to Peter, and Irenaeus did so once again in c.170. In the fourth century, Eusebius quotes Papias (c.130) as linking them. Despite this evidence, however, Peter's direct involvement remains unlikely.

Also, it is hypothesized that Mark was written prior to Matthew, who drew from its predecessor for material. I can't say how likely or unlikely that is, however. It is a product of Syoptic Problem discussion, and rooted deeply in speculation.

Diogenes the Cynic

Then you're talking about Pauline Christianity, which was a predominantly gentile movement, which began in opposition to the Jewish movement in Palestine and which was the stream which eventually produced the NT.
You've got that backwards. Matthew copied Mark and Mark was also writing for gentiles.
What is your evidence that Matthew's audience was likely to face a tortuous death?
The discrepency was unknown to the audience. They did NOT have any knowledge of Judaism. That's the point.
What is your evidence that Matthew's audience had any likelihood of being thrown to lions? Why would that matter anyway? People die for usupported beliefs all the time.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: May I ask how you intend to place Jesus in either or both of the geneologies that are given? If Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, he didn't have a genealogy, and thus, he couldn't possibly have been descended from the house of David. Maybe that is one reason why most Jews rejected him, and have done so to this very day. So-called messianic prophecies give every indication of a blood relative of David. Of course, there isn't any evidence at all that Mary or her husband Joseph were from the house of David.

NOGO

This is total nonsense.
Matthew states that there are 14 Generations between David and the exile.
We are definitely not talking about highlights.
This 14 member list contradicts the OT which has 18 generations for the same period.

NOGO

This strikes me as fanciful.
Just look what is happening right here in this thread.
Speaking up and showing believers that something is wrong goes absolutely nowhere.

Let me try again...
How do you explain that Matthew gives 14 names between David and the exile and also says that there are 14 generations while the OT gives 18 generations?

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

No, actually, I meant Matthew:

"Does the word translated above as 'sayings' (logia) mean that or 'gospel'? That it could mean the latter is implied by Papias' use of the word in the title of his work, Interpretation of the Lord's Logia: it is arguable that Papias means 'gospels' by logia. This is strengthened by the fact that Papias claimed (as quoted previously) that Mark made an arrangement of the logia of the Lord, the result of which is the Gospel of Mark. Clearly, the logia includes not only what Jesus said but also what he did ('the things said or done by the Lord') (H.E. 3.39.15)." (from this page, though I first read of this elsewhere).

Also, this site says "Origen (185-254) (as quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6. 25.3-4): 'As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that a first was written that according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language.'"

Well, that would be evidence that Matthew's gospel was written for Jewish people!

And another quote from the same site:

"Irenaeus (130-200) (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; also quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2): "Now Matthew brought forth among the Hebrews a written gospel in their language, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church."

And that would be good evidence of an early gospel, "while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church," and not a predominately Gentile movement, even under the leadership of Paul.

It seems there was persecution of the early church, as described, for instance, here...

Not casually, though, not like people nodding the head in the audience on Oprah.

What I meant is that they would have noticed the differences in the genealogies, though. Surely they would have noticed this...

Unless descent was reckoned through the father, even in such circumstances!

Romans 4:16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring-- not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

That would seem to indicate that paternal descent was held to, even in regard to those not born in the family, as in, for instance, adoption:

Ephesians 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will...

Galatians 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

I would think that the Jewish acceptance of the claim that Joseph was descended from David would be evidence of that, though...

But this would be quite plain that Matthew is skipping some generations! He leaves out several names from the list of 18, as you mention.

Well, Jesus was said to be "The son of David." That skips all 14 names.

And as above, believers are said to be "sons of Abraham," it really was not a problem to say "X was the father of Y" and mean forefather. It's sort of (as I understand it) a Hebrew idiom...

Regards,
Lee

hayahtowb

It is through Christ that the "king line" and "priest line" would come together, making Him: King and High priest of GOD. Both of the genealogies given are correct.

Kosh

Well here's your problem right there in bold. To anyone with a half a brain's worth of reading comprehension, the Gospels ARE questionable, not only on facts (like bad geography) but contradictions between themselves. So the statement you hold as evidence is already easily falsifiable. If he hadn't given that part much thought, why should we believe the claims about Mathew? It's so late, he's quoting tradition.

That Mathew copied Mark is undeniable when you read it in greek, and that is why the sholarly concesus views it as such.

Johnny Skeptic

How utterly absurd. The Jews could not possibly have known beyond a reasonable doubt who begat who back through David. Genealogical records might have been miscopied or made up. Do you accept all genealogies as readily as you accept Bible genealogies? Well of course you don't. If it's in the Bible, you believe it, even a talking donkey, and even the claim of a flying pig if the Bible said so.

Chris Weimer

Not quite. Tradition is no evidence, especially when it directly conflicts modern research.

But Matthew doesn't say "son of" - he says "begat" εγεννησεν, and begat implies a direct connection.

Origen also thought that Genesis was entirely allegorical. Do you also feel that way?