GakuseiDon

It's an interesting point, and not one I'd thought about in relation to Ignatius. I'll have to look into that angle more. Thanks Rick!

CJD

Rick, it's called irony, and it's the point of the whole pericope. The author of gJohn is the ironic master (I mean, is this debatable?). Johannine irony is often left without explicit exposition (e.g. 7:35; 11:48; 13:38). Indeed, giving an explicit exposition on the heels of every ironic misunderstanding would kill the irony. Does anybody here think ancient writers knew how to write?

That apologetic being, "You've folks don't fully grasp what it means to be the Davidic son." Why is it 'weak'? You're totally presuming that Ps 110 factored in heavily to 1st century Jewish messianic expectations. Yet there's no proof of this. I assure you, if Jesus was saying in Mark that the Christ was not to be considered a descendent of David, the "great throng [would not have] heard him gladly." The plainest sense of this passsage suggests that despite the fact that the Christ is a descendent of David, his royalty and power will far exceed that of David. This falls right in line with the 2nd Temple expectation that the Davidic throne would be reestablished and would exceed the glory of the glory days.

Psalm 110 says precisely what I described, and as such demands that the pericope be read as a simple teaching on what it means to be both David's son and the Christ, not as an attempt to overturn messianic expectations with respect to Davidic descent. And I get this from the text and the tradition within which it is written, not from what I presume Mark would or would not do. The alternative would seem to be something akin to New Criticism, which in the end does little more than reveal the critic over against authorial intent, treating the text in a historical vacuum.

Of course you didn't; I understood you. But surely this view is alive and well? I mean, I'm not just addressing you, but anyone who cares to read.

Just because a reason is ill-founded, the result is not always so. Alternately, the reason of its use could indeed be "Paul's need to establish credibility with a church he has not previously had contact with," which says nothing of the poor interpretation offered by dichotomists or does this lend favor to treating it as an isolated passage attached loosely to a greeting in a letter. It still doesn't affect the interpretation proffered above.

Best,

CJD

Rick Sumner

Yet in your other examples of irony, the ironic element is explained elsewhere. In 7.42, it isn't explained at all. It is, in fact, the only mention of David in the entirety of the Johannine gospel. The problem isn't that there's "no explanation on the heels," it's that there is no explanation at all, and thus no reason to presume it's an effort at irony, except for convenience.

It is neither stated nor implied anywhere in John's gospel that Jesus is Davidic, there is thus no reason to presume that he was. For fuel to the fire, 7.42 also references the Galilean birth, another problem John was apparently aware of. Yet John's Jesus is unapologetically of Galilee. We don't get to view the absence of a Davidic lineage in a different light by fiat. If you would have it that John believed his Jesus of David, you might want to show me where he says so?

In either event, it really isn't relevant in the end, at least so far as the current thread is concerned. If John thought Jesus Davidic, then there is evidence of a concern about Davidic Messiaship (which, if you'll recall, was the original question being addressed). If he didn't, we're likewise left John's stated awareness of the problem, and the concern is still evidenced--it doesn't matter if it's irony or not, the interest in the pedigree is still expressed, and my point still holds.

It might be best to leave questions specific to what is being stated by the gospel authors in regard to the Davidic pedigree to another thread, if we can agree that there was a concern with it (which was the original question asked, and is the point upon which my argument from Irenaeus depends). I should think we should have no problem with this based on Matthew and Luke's genealogies alone.

[snipped for reasons outlined above--perhaps a split would be appropriate?]

Fair enough.

But if we take Irenaeus as using kata sarka to mean a figurative flesh--a means of obtaining birth through adoption, and then employ the same to Paul (again, it fits consistently, while a literal reading doesn't seem to--it surely doesn't fit Irenaeus, at any rate), then there is nothing inconsistent in Paul's use of sarx in Rom.1.3, and no reason to presume that anyone else wrote it--it collapses the chief pillar of the position that it's a pre-Pauline address (not to say that there aren't other elements--it's a peculiar Pauline introduction even without the absence of an unusual use of sarx).

Regards,
Rick Sumner

CJD

Rick, we agree insofar as this thread is concerned. No need for a split unless folks feel like arguing over various interpretations ad nauseum. Thanks for your response.

CJD

Steven Avery

How about very strong evidence, if not proof :-)

First, the NT itself, where Psalm 110 is given a special, unique place in Tanach exegesis. That is accepted as strong evidence by historians like David Flusser, although I understand not so much on this forum.

Then the fact that Psalm 110 still remained as Messianic even in rabbinical Judaism, despite the NT usages, one nice example being Midrash on Psalms

http://www.kolumbus.fi/hjussila/rsla/OT/OT14.html
THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF RABBINICAL
WRITINGS - Risto Santala

"The decree is that of the prophets, because Is. 52:13 says 'My servant will prosper' and Is. 42:1 adds 'Here is my servant whom I uphold'; It is the decree of the Psalms, as Ps. 110:1 says 'The LORD said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand', and Ps.2:7 says 'He said to me; You are my son'; and also elsewhere it is written (Dan.7:13), 'In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds'. The LORD said 'You are my son'. The decrees are those of the king, the king of kings, that this would be done to the Messiah-King... "

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Steven Avery

Hi Rick,
It appears you are superimposing your exegesis upon the actual words of Luke. And multiple posters simply quote your exegesis as fact :-)

What Luke actually says is what you said earlier..
-- thought the son of Joseph
not what you say here, your exegesis (or eisegesis)
-- thought the son of David.

Luke 3:3
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli .....

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Rick Sumner

The only genealogy Luke provides is that of Joseph, which is traced through David. It is the only genealogy provided in his gospel, and the only link provided with Jesus to David. I can think of only one reason for him to provide such a genealogy, without exceeding the bounds of the available evidence.

Unless you would care to suggest that when Luke states that he was "thought the son of Joseph" he meant to indicate that he was "thought" the son of David by extension, I don't see any problem with this.

The only other potential genealogy is, as already discussed, matriarchal. Lineage is patriarchal by default, that's simply how the culture worked. If he doesn't state that a matriarchal lineage is being employed, then we presume by default that one isn't.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Steven Avery

There seems to be a logic/syntax problem above, since my understanding is that Luke did NOT indicate anything in that geneology that goes against Jesus being the son of David -- and that any view that there is such a linkage that would carry "supposed" up the lineage chain (your view, unstated in the quote) is not logical, and must be viewed only as an interpretation, not as what Luke actually said. It is somewhat tacky to squeeze a questionable and disputed interpretation into the mouth of the Scripture writer as his actual words, and that is the point that I have been making.

Now I will just brush on the issues, since I by no means claim to be expert.

There are a number of ways to consider Jesus as fully the Son of David while born of the virgin Miriam -- definitely (to a NT believer) the virgin birth is what...
"(as was supposed) the son of Joseph"
refers, by any and all pshat reading of the text.

Some ways to also affirm the "Son of David" were mentioned above, such the Hebraic view of adoption.

And the lineage issue has many nuances, since there is royal lineage as well as tribal lineage, and even in Judaism today there are differences in patriarchal and matriarchal lineages. Your flat assertions about lineage appear to me to be quite one-dimensional, and this question of lineage was also discussed some in other posts above.

For simplicity we could probably use the discussion in Michael Brown's books as a starting point to discuss this, as, in my remembrance, he does one of the best overview of the issues, including a very nice debate that he did with an anti-missionary type in Messianic Times in the 90's. Are you familiar with his material discussing this ? Ironically, this is a topic for which I would also check a catholic author, William Most, if I was doing a refresher course, also John Gill, and a few others. Gill tends to be quite excellent on rabbinic references. Risto Santala as welll, I am not sure if he really touches the lineage question. From a more traditional Christian prespective, Arthur Custance of the Doorway Papers and Leslie McFall of UK come to mind (McFall's may be unpublished). It is rather a rich field of inquiry :-)

However, I am not saying that all this really is my interest or goal for today.

Simply I wanted to point out that it is not proper to place words in a gospel author's mouth that clearly are not his words, but your interpretation, one with which many honest exegetes would have 100% disagreement. This is the case whether your interp is 'right' or 'wrong'.

If you still don't receive this rather clear issue of integrity-quoting of Luke, which I will call point "A" in the discussion, then on points "B" "C" "D" lineage, adoption, etc.... I would simply pass and return to lurk mode on the thread.

Shalom,
Praxeus

Rick Sumner

There seems to be some confusion.

None of this indicates anything other than what I've already said. "Supposed," in the instance of Luke, does not mean that Jesus does not carry Davidic legal rights--such a thing would defeat the purpose of creating the genealogy in the first place. What "supposed" indicates is simply that he is not the literal descendent of David (a position that none of your points seems to take any contention with, hence my confusion about what you're disagreeing with). You can't start with Jesus and trace your begats back in the sense you can with Joseph, because--to Luke at least--Jesus was begat by God, the end.

Thus it's not "putting words into a gospel author's mouth" to suggest that Luke meant exactly what Luke says--that Jesus isn't the literal son of David.

Davidic legal rights, or "fully the son of David" by adoption, or tribal customs, or anything else of the sort aren't at issue here--they have nothing to do with the thread topic. The point of contention, at least in the current thread, is whether or not kata sarka refers to a literal bloodline, or a sonship achieved through another means. The question isn't whether or not Luke (or Irenaeus, for that matter), thought Jesus was David's son in a legal sense, or in the sense that he qualified as the Messiah--of course they did. The question is whether or not they thought a bloodline could be traced back from Jesus, through Joseph, and so on down the line to David. Neither of them did--the virgin birth precludes such a bloodline.

Using any of your suggested meanings of "son" to Luke, we find a scenario in perfect accord with what I've outlined--a non-literal sonship, not achieved through a progression of "begats" in the sense that most genealogies are occurring.

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Steven Avery

Lost my long response, let's try again.

Luke's 'as supposed' is simply and only an affirmation of the virgin birth of Messiah. No more, no less :-)

Yet you repeatedly misquote/misrepresent Luke to support your idea that Luke did not believe that Jesus is the 'literal' son of David. Even if we allow 'literal' to equate to 'biological', and/or 'bloodline', one simple refutation of this would be if Luke accepts Matthew's genealogy of Mary as bestowing both 'biological' and 'literal' 'son of David' status upon Jesus. While this may not fit your personal paradigm of descent, it is clearly defensible and consistent.

Sidenote: the fact that you consider the genealogies as fabrications may prevent you from really 'getting' this -- I view Luke and Matthew as simply complementary.

And a Lukan view of 'literal/biological' through Mary would not have any contradiction with his "supposed" vis a vis the son of Joseph. None whatsoever... not one iota. Your private ideas of lineage give you no right to mis-quote Luke as claiming an un-literal son of David, when Luke never addresses "son of David" with any equivocation whatsoever, and in fact states "son of David" often , with much positive affirmation.

My understanding is that the usage in..
Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Is fulfilled fully in His being born of the woman Miriam, "made of a woman", and in that context refers to a literal bloodline.

Your mileage may vary, but Luke is not in any way a witness against this, despite your claims.

Wrong. See above. You mix 'literal' with 'bloodline' , but even allowing for your mixture it is simply 100% false to claim that Luke states that the virgin birth precludes a Davidic bloodline. The weakness of your position is shown by your taking "supposed" away from its place in Luke's verse, where it refers to the virgin birth, and presumptively moving it down to "son of David".

Text tampering .. however, I will make allowance since you consider the whole geneology a fabrication anyway, so from that position you may feel you can change a fabricated text.

Only if you negate Lukan and Matthean harmony can you make this argument.

Also secondarily you have to consider non-biological (e.g. adoption) as 'non-literal'. Fathers by adoption might be quite offended if you tell them they are not the literal father.

However, your first presumptions
a) That Luke rejects (or rejects by ignorance) Matthew .. or ..
b) could not consider Jesus a literal son of David through Mary

Are what most clearly disallows your making a conclusion for Luke that he simply never makes, "putting words in his mouth".

I'll try to give you the last say on this, as my objection should by now be duly noted.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/