spin

Sorry PhilosopherJay, I don't think you've put forward any tangible arguments.

That's correct. You are making absurd statements on the issue because there is no other way of doing it.

Not when dealing with a bloodline. Did you look at the high priestly genealogy in 1 Chr 6 or Ezra 7? I guess you haven't had enough time. Because your "[m]ost genealogies" statement just doesn't match the tradition.

Please do.

Any comments from other members?


spin

spin

Yawn. Back trying to sell the GBR) error, trying to change the meaning of the Syriac word from "man" to "father". There is no reason to think that in Mt 1:16 "the man of Mary" must mean, as your source pleads, "the father of Mary". In fact Joseph is later (1:19) called B(LH "lord" (or "husband").

Here's a thread and my summary from it. GBR) simply means man and when used in the context of "her" man, it implies husband. There is nothing strange about the word GBRH "man" used in the same passage as B(LH "lord": look at 1 Cor 7:3-14. The translator does it frequently. (7:3 man {GBRH} to woman... woman to lord {B(LH}, ie "husband" and "wife" in both cases.) And of course a man can have a son (see Mt 7:9) and is therefore a father, but none of this changes the meaning of the word GBRH as "man".

This error of yours, judge, has been kicked to death.



spin

Johnny Skeptic

James Holding and Glenn Miller are not in the least bit deterred by seemingly contradictory genealogies. Holding's web site is at http://www.tektonics.org/. Miller's web site is at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Spin,


Thank you for pointing out 1 Chr 6 and Ezra 7. They are unique from the other genologies in the Old Testament and very relevent here. Here is 1 Chr 6. and Ezra 7:


1: The sons of Levi: Gershom, Kohath, and Merar'i.
2: The sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uz'ziel.
3: The children of Amram: Aaron, Moses, and Miriam. The sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abi'hu, Elea'zar, and Ith'amar.
4: Elea'zar was the father of Phin'ehas, Phin'ehas of Abishu'a,
5: Abishu'a of Bukki, Bukki of Uzzi,
6: Uzzi of Zerahi'ah, Zerahi'ah of Merai'oth,
7: Merai'oth of Amari'ah, Amari'ah of Ahi'tub,
8: Ahi'tub of Zadok, Zadok of Ahim'a-az,
9: Ahim'a-az of Azari'ah, Azari'ah of Joha'nan,
10: and Joha'nan of Azari'ah (it was he who served as priest in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem).
11: Azari'ah was the father of Amari'ah, Amari'ah of Ahi'tub,
12: Ahi'tub of Zadok, Zadok of Shallum,
13: Shallum of Hilki'ah, Hilki'ah of Azari'ah,
14: Azari'ah of Serai'ah, Serai'ah of Jehoz'adak;
15: and Jehoz'adak went into exile when the LORD sent Judah and Jerusalem into exile by the hand of Nebuchadnez'zar.
16: The sons of Levi: Gershom, Kohath, and Merar'i.
17: And these are the names of the sons of Gershom: Libni and Shim'e-i.
18: The sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uz'ziel.
19: The sons of Merar'i: Mahli and Mushi. These are the families of the Levites according to their fathers.
20: Of Gershom: Libni his son, Jahath his son, Zimmah his son,
21: Jo'ah his son, Iddo his son, Zerah his son, Je-ath'erai his son.
22: The sons of Kohath: Ammin'adab his son, Korah his son, Assir his son,
23: Elka'nah his son, Ebi'asaph his son, Assir his son,
24: Tahath his son, Uri'el his son, Uzzi'ah his son, and Sha'ul his son.
25: The sons of Elka'nah: Ama'sai and Ahi'moth,
26: Elka'nah his son, Zophai his son, Nahath his son,
27: Eli'ab his son, Jero'ham his son, Elka'nah his son.
28: The sons of Samuel: Jo'el his first-born, the second Abi'jah.
29: The sons of Merar'i: Mahli, Libni his son, Shim'e-i his son, Uzzah his son,
30: Shim'e-a his son, Haggi'ah his son, and Asai'ah his son.
31: These are the men whom David put in charge of the service of song in the house of the LORD, after the ark rested there.
32: They ministered with song before the tabernacle of the tent of meeting, until Solomon had built the house of the LORD in Jerusalem; and they performed their service in due order.
33: These are the men who served and their sons. Of the sons of the Ko'hathites: Heman the singer the son of Jo'el, son of Samuel,
34: son of Elka'nah, son of Jero'ham, son of Eli'el, son of To'ah,
35: son of Zuph, son of Elka'nah, son of Mahath, son of Ama'sai,
36: son of Elka'nah, son of Jo'el, son of Azari'ah, son of Zephani'ah,
37: son of Tahath, son of Assir, son of Ebi'asaph, son of Korah,
38: son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, son of Israel;
39: and his brother Asaph, who stood on his right hand, namely, Asaph the son of Berechi'ah, son of Shim'e-a,
40: son of Michael, son of Ba-ase'iah, son of Malchi'jah,
41: son of Ethni, son of Zerah, son of Adai'ah,
42: son of Ethan, son of Zimmah, son of Shim'e-i,
43: son of Jahath, son of Gershom, son of Levi.
44: On the left hand were their brethren the sons of Merar'i: Ethan the son of Kishi, son of Abdi, son of Malluch,
45: son of Hashabi'ah, son of Amazi'ah, son of Hilki'ah,
46: son of Amzi, son of Bani, son of Shemer,
47: son of Mahli, son of Mushi, son of Merar'i, son of Levi;
48: and their brethren the Levites were appointed for all the service of the tabernacle of the house of God.
49: But Aaron and his sons made offerings upon the altar of burnt offering and upon the altar of incense for all the work of the most holy place, and to make atonement for Israel, according to all that Moses the servant of God had commanded.
50: These are the sons of Aaron: Elea'zar his son, Phin'ehas his son, Abishu'a his son,
51: Bukki his son, Uzzi his son, Zerahi'ah his son,
52: Merai'oth his son, Amari'ah his son, Ahi'tub his son,
53: Zadok his son, Ahim'a-az his son.

Here is Ezra 7:

1: Now after this, in the reign of Ar-ta-xerx'es king of Persia, Ezra the son of Serai'ah, son of Azari'ah, son of Hilki'ah,
2: son of Shallum, son of Zadok, son of Ahi'tub,
3: son of Amari'ah, son of Azari'ah, son of Merai'oth,
4: son of Zerahi'ah, son of Uzzi, son of Bukki,
5: son of Abi'shu-a, son of Phin'ehas, son of Elea'zar, son of Aaron the chief priest --


The author of 1 Chronicles is apparently trying to hook up events in the Babylonian Exile -- 580 to events in the legendary time of Moses. The tops of the family trees that he gives is easily gotten from the Torah. Lines 4-15 are the real heart of the information as he zooms 19 generations to get from Eleazar, the son of the High Priest Aaron to Jehozadak who "went into exile." Lines 50-53 strangely repeat part of the geneology, but only up to the 11th generation. Why? It is apparent that lines 4-15 are an interpolation. The second, later, author took the information about the sons of Aaron down to the 11th generation which were already in the text and added on Azariah, Amaziah, Ahitub, Zadok, Shallum, Hilkiah, Azariah, Seraiah and Jehozadak ("who went into exile"). Thus by adding 9 more names to the 10 that were already in the text, he brought the story down to the time of the exile.

There is a strange duplication of the original names Amaziah, Ahitub and Zadok in the editor's additional 9 names. Also, he adds the name Azariah twice. He tells us there is an Azariah who was Solomon's priest. The editor apparently got the name Azariah from a Solomon story. He didn't want people to know he got the name from there, so he made Azariah, the Priest to Solomon, a grandson of his Azariah. Since he repeated 3 names from the original texts and repeated one new name twice, he only had to come up with 3 other names besides Jehozadak.

Now the Ezra 7 text is really interesting because he copies the interpolator who put in 4-15 but reverses the descending order and goes in ascending order. He leaves out the duplicated names Amariah, Anitub and Zadok and simply misses the name Ahijmaaz. So he only has 16 generations back to Aaron.

The writer of the Ezra text knows that the editor of 1 Chronicles has brought the geneology down to the time of exile and Jehozadek. So in creating a geneology for Ezra, he just has to repeat the geneology in 1 Chronicles and simply reverse it. Ezra thus becomes a brother of Jehozadak from 1 Chronicles, and shares his geneology back to Aaron.

The writer of Luke's geneology has reversed the geneology of Matthew in the same way that the writer of Ezra 7 reverses the genology of 1 Chronicles 6. We can't take it as a coincidence that the writer of Luke's geneology has used the same methodology as the writer of Ezra. Obviously the writer is imitating Ezra in his geneology, even using the same "son of" phrase that we find in Ezra 7.

So why didn't the writer of Luke's geneololgy simply copy Matthew's geneology and reverse it as the writer of the Ezra 7 geneology had done? Simple, he wanted to outdo Matthew's geneology.

Thanks for drawing these unique and important geneologies to my attention.
I hold to my statement that most geneologies do not match the long stark repetitive one-link chain style of Matthew and Luke. Most include extended families over several generations.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spamandham

heh, sometimes the simplest answers get overlooked. ...drum roll please....

they were written by two different authors. tuh duh!

Philosopherjay has the better detailed answer IMHO, but the bottom line is, there really is no reason to expect them to align.

spin

They aren't unique though, if you look around, especially in 1 Chronicles.

I know these genealogies very well. Try comparing these with AJ 10.8.6.

The reversal was necessary for the discourse, which deals with Ezra by giving his parentage briefly. When Ezra is introduced, a genealogy is inserted and that allows only to go backwards, giving father and father's father, etc.

Actually, these texts were written around the same time or perhaps Chronicles was written a little later, evincing the fullest evolution of the genealogy. You can find scraps of it scattered through the literature in various stages of the evolution.

I don't know why you assume what the relationship is between these texts. I don't adhere to any notion that Luke was written with Mt in hand.

You can't, but I don't see why the necessities of the discourse context can't independently require a similar solution in each case.

Sorry, PhilosopherJay, there's nothing obvious about your statement.

Because Luke's genealogy was an independent document.


spin

mountainman

Yes, since you've asked, Philosopher Jay states quite clearly
that he is guessing. He outlines the reasons for his guesses.

OTOH it appears you prefer to "call for evidence" ...


Sometimes educated guess are better than none whatsoever,
especially in fields were there exists no solid scientific evidence.

You must admit that the subject matter and historical chronology
of the NT area of BC&H is not at all conducive to the production
of this thing called "evidence". There is very little, if any of it,
that is scientifically and/or archeologically verifiable.

In fact, to demonstrate the potency of this observation, I will
allow you to present any single item you consider to be some
form of immutable "fact" concerning the NT Studies, for which
there is "a maximal degree of good and reasonable evidence".

Hence the place and importance of guesswork.




Pete Brown

JoeWallack

JW:
You had to ask. I Am reminded of the response The Creature gave Peter in the classic Fright Night when asked what he thought of Peter's Fictional Vampire Fighting TV show. The Real Vampire thought very carefully before he gave Peter an answer which avoided directly communicating what he really thought, was polite and could even be (mis)taken as a compliment, "I find your show...very amusing." Similarly, I find P-Jay's claim that "Luke's" genealogy is really "Matthew's" of Jesus' genealogy which is really John's genealogy...very creative.

P-Jay's argument about the supposed birth of Jesus reminds me too much of the Christians' supposed argument about the birth of Christianity. To get to the key Christian Assertians you have to do the following with your only PriMary source, the Hebrew Text:

1) Assume it doesn't mean what it says.

2) Assume that it's creators ("The Jews") didn't understand what it meant.

Instead of using your only Primary Source you use something called (the) holy spirit and Faith. Similarly, in explaining that P-Jay's Primary Source, the Christian Text, doesn't mean what it says and it's creators don't understand what it means regarding Genealogy, that P-Jay can "figure out how the two geneologies fit together with the surrounding text and how they came about pretty easily." "Mark's" Jesus would find "quite Amazing."

Normally when one Concludes that the only available Source consists of Lying about Lies one is forced to Doubt any conclusion based on this Source. Yet P-Jay can confidently conclude that the Genealogy means what it doesn't say based on, based on, based on...what was that again?



Joseph

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

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

PhilosopherJay

Hi Spin,


I claim that 1 Chronicles 6 is unique in its long straight line one to one descending structure. To see if it is unique, lets look at the structure of the first, last and a geneology picked at random in 1 Chronicles.

Chronicles 1.1:

1: Adam, Seth, Enosh;

2: Kenan, Ma-hal'alel, Jared;

3: Enoch, Methu'selah, Lamech;

4: Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

5: The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras.

6: The sons of Gomer: Ash'kenaz, Diphath, and Togar'mah.

7: The sons of Javan: Eli'shah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Ro'danim.

8: The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan.

9: The sons of Cush: Seba, Hav'ilah, Sabta, Ra'ama, and Sab'teca. The sons of Ra'amah: Sheba and Dedan.

10: Cush was the father of Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

We are able to derive from this that Nimrod's brothers were Seba, Havilah, Sabta, Raama and Sabteca. Raameh, Sheba and Dedan would have been his nephews born from his borther Raama. Nimrod's uncles were Egypt, Put and Canaaan. We are able to see uncles and nephews in this family structure.

Now let us look at the last geneology in Chronicles: 1:9.35-44.

35: In Gibeon dwelt the father of Gibeon, Je-i'el, and the name of his wife was Ma'acah,

36: and his first-born son Abdon, then Zur, Kish, Ba'al, Ner, Nadab,

37: Gedor, Ahi'o, Zech-ari'ah and Mikloth;

38: and Mikloth was the father of Shim'e-am; and these also dwelt opposite their kinsmen in Jerusalem, with their kinsmen.

39: Ner was the father of Kish, Kish of Saul, Saul of Jonathan, Mal'chishu'a, Abin'adab, and Eshba'al;

40: and the son of Jonathan was Mer'ib-ba'al; and Mer'ib-ba'al was the father of Micah.

41: The sons of Micah: Pithon, Melech, Tahr'e-a, and Ahaz;

42: and Ahaz was the father of Jarah, and Jarah of Al'emeth, Az'maveth, and Zimri; and Zimri was the father of Moza.

43: Moza was the father of Bin'e-a; and Rephai'ah was his son, Ele-a'sah his son, Azel his son.

44: Azel had six sons and these are their names: Azri'kam, Bo'cheru, Ish'mael, She-ari'ah, Obadi'ah, and Hanan; these were the sons of Azel.




Here, the author gives us Jeiel and his wife' Maacah's nine sons. He gives us the son (Shimean) of one of those sons (Mikloth). He switches to a second son Ner and gives us his descendents Kish, Saul, Jonathan, Mal'chishu'a, Abin'adab, and Eshba'al. He then goes back up three generations to Jonathan and gives us his son Merib-Baal and Merib-Baal's son Micah. Then he gives us the three sons of Micah. He takes one of the sons of Micah, Ahaz and gives us his son Jarah. He gives the three sons of Jarah: Alemeth, Azmaveth and Zimri. He takes one of the sons of Jarah, Zimri and hives us his son Moza. He then switches back to the one-one descendent pattern and gives us Bin'e-a; Rephai'ah, Ele-a'sah, and Azel his son. He then switches back to the multiple sons pattern and gives us Azel's six sons. We thus see a switching back and forth between giving the names of all the sons and a listing of only single descendents.

I randomly generated some numbers and the first one that was a number of a chapter in Chronicles was 8. Here is the geneology at the beginning of chapter 8:


1: Benjamin was the father of Bela his first-born, Ashbel the second, Ahar'ah the third,

2: Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth.

3: And Bela had sons: Addar, Gera, Abi'hud,

4: Abishu'a, Na'aman, Aho'ah,

5: Gera, Shephu'phan, and Huram.

6: These are the sons of Ehud (they were heads of fathers' houses of the inhabitants of Geba, and they were carried into exile to Mana'hath):

7: Na'aman, Ahi'jah, and Gera, that is, Heglam, who was the father of Uzza and Ahi'hud.

8: And Shahara'im had sons in the country of Moab after he had sent away Hushim and Ba'ara his wives.

9: He had sons by Hodesh his wife: Jobab, Zib'i-a, Mesha, Malcam,

10: Je'uz, Sachi'a, and Mirmah. These were his sons, heads of fathers' houses.

11: He also had sons by Hushim: Abi'tub and Elpa'al.

This geneology only lists sons. We get the five sons of Benjamin. Then we get the nine sons of his son Bela. We then get the three sons of Ehud. One of these three sons, Gera/Heglam is the father of two sons Azza and uhud. He then gives the seven sons of Shaharim and his wife Hodesh. Here we have no single descendent pattern at all. In this case all the sons of a father are listed and even the particular wife of the father.

We thus see that geneologies can follow a multitude of patterns: descending, ascending and re-descending through another line or giving mulitple sons of a father then single sons for several generations, then multiple sons again.

The similarity of the strictly ascending, one to one, "son of" relationship to the same structure in Ezra 7 suggest strongly that the author of the Luke geneology is copying the style of the author of that Ezra passage. Surely, this is more likely than a coincidence of style. The fact that the Lucan style is the reverse of the descending one-one style that we find in so much of Matthew also cannot be reasonably put down to coincidence.

As far as AJ 10.8.6. is concerned, it fits in rather well. We may suspect that the author of Luke, for example, knowing about the census of Quirinus, was a reader of Josephus. This passage is giving the same geneology of Jehozadak that we find in 1 Chronicles 6. However, Josephus has for some unknown reason added about eight names in the middle and cut out some of the names in the middle. We may suspect that author of the Luke chronology was led from AJ 10.8.6 to 1 Chronicles 6 and then, in trying to figure out the differences between Josephus and 1 Chronicles, looked in Ezra 7. He was so pleased with the clear, straight-forward style of Ezra 7 that he borrowed it to create his geneology.

Warmly,

Philosopher-Jay

PhilosopherJay

Hi Joe,

I don't claim to have any insight into any secret messages that the text might be saying. I accept that the text says what it says. I am only examining how it might have been constucted to say what it says.

Sometimes, I will get a student paper on a subject where the student has copied a paragraph from wikipedia and changed a few words. The rest of the paper is taken from another website with free essays with a few sentences changed here and there. Now I could say that this student has somehow, independently of wikipedia, come up with almost the same facts in the same order and even more amazingly the student has somehow channeled the spirit of the person who wrote the free essay and come up with the same ideas. But the truth is, despite my great desire to have faith in the honesty of the student, I have to conclude that the paper was plagerized from the two sources and cut and pasted together. I do this without any interpretation of the paper whatsoever and whatout being an expert in the subject matter of the paper. In a similar way, I am able to detect with a reasonable degree of probability how certain ancient text were put together.

I attribute this ability partly to my misfortune of having to correct nearly 10,000 student papers over the last 10 years.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay