Diogenes the Cynic

Matthew wasn't writing for the early church, he was writing for late 1st century Hellenistic Christians. And the argument that knowledgable Jews would have corrected him on an improper claim of succession is undermined by the fact that Matthew made so many patently false claims about Jewish scripture and Messianic expectations. If he was writing for a predominantly Jewish audience, they would have known that Isaiah 7:14 was not a Messianic prophecy, for instance.
On the basis of Jewish laws of succession as stipulated in the Torah and Rabbinic tradition,
Neither maternal succession nor adoption are legitimate avenues for inheriting the throne of David.

pharoah

This fallacy deserves its own name if it doesn't already have one. The vast majority of Jews did not join the early church precisely because they saw that Paul and other authors were playing fast and loose with their scriptures.


We know it from Deutoronomy 23:2:
Nice try there Lee. You set up a stray man and beat it pretty good. No one is claiming that Jeremiah said that Coniah would be childless. As the passage makes very clear, it says that his offspring would not prosper or rule in Judah.

What proof do you have that either line was supposed to be Mary's line? She's not mentioned in either geneology. What probably happened is that Luke took a look at Matthew's geneology, concluded that it was completely unacceptable, and wrote his "corrected" version. After all, that's what he did with the birth narrative.

Redactors and copyists tended to be much more reluctant to remove text from scriptures than to insert new text.

Johnny Skeptic

Even if Matthew's genealogy was correct, why should anyone believe that Jesus was a part of it all of the way back to Adam, or even back to Micah 5:2? Matthew referred to Micah 5:2 in order to try to convince people that God can predict the future. Most Jews had the good sense to reject Micah 5:2 as being fulfilled prophecy, as well they should have since there was not any credible evidence at all that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and the prophecy predicted that Jesus would be ruler in Israel, which of course did not happen, and might not ever happen.

Kosh

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Mathew was BSing, didn't expect GMk to be around, and didn't think he'd get caught.

End of story.

hatsoff

So what? I have no idea; you're the one who asked about it!

For the geneaologies, yes. How are you connecting the healing stories to them?

hatsoff

Who knows? And what in the world does this have to do with genealogies?

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Are you saying the early church was not predominately Jewish? Why then the question as to whether Gentiles should be circumcised, and obey the law of Moses?

Well, these are lots of assertions here! Some evidence would be nice, too. But let's not open lots of other topics just yet. I would only reply that even Gentile converts would probably want to understand the genealogies, if they were divine Scripture, and what was meant by them, not to mention what was meant by the claims.

I don't understand why even some scholars do seem to assume that people, on seeing a claim to Scripture, were invariably gullible, and couldn't see any of the questions we can see.

You must know that my next question will be which laws of succession! And the tradition I would not consider as carrying such weight, but such quotes would be pertinent, too.

Actually, I meant both lines as paternal!

And we conclude this on what basis? But the point was that there were mostly Jewish people in the early church. That would seem odd, if they were all so gullible, at such a risk. Why sign up for death when you see tons of obvious errors in what is said to be Scripture? This seems to me, improbable.

That would apply if Jesus' birth was by a human father.

John 8:46 Which one of you convicts me of sin?

That challenge would indicate support for a person different than anyone else. As would Jesus' miracles. As do Jesus' miracles. I've had healing, on several occasions.

I did miss that. In reply here, I would say that this expression does not necessarily mean "any more forever":

Exodus 9:29 "As soon as I go out of the city, I will spread out my hands to the Lord ... there will be hail no longer..."

Which need not mean that there would never be any hail again in Egypt, rather it must mean that this current hailstorm would stop. And similarly here:

Nehemiah 2:17 Then I said to them ... "Come and let us build the wall of Jerusalem, that we may no longer be a reproach."

Inserting new text would fix it too, though, just interleaving the names as necessary, would do...

Regards,
Lee

Diogenes the Cynic

That depends on what you mean by "the early church." There were many Christian sects. Some were Jewish, some were not. I'm assuming you were referring to the earliest Jesus movement in Jerusalem (the "Pillars"). I'm saying that Matthew was not part of that community, that he wrote some time later after the destruction of Jerusalem, after the Jewish Jesus movement in Palestine was obliterated and probably after the expulsion of Christians from synagogues in the diaspora. I'm saying the Jewish Jesus movement was dead by the time the Gospels were written and that the movement had become essentially gentile (perhaps along with some Hellenistic Jews, but these would have been heretics by Rabbinic standards).
Gentile converts probably would have bought the adoption story. It was not considered remarkable in the Greco-Roman world for kings to acquire thrones through adoption (several emperors came to power that way) and they probably never would have thought to question it.
It was not a culture that lent itself to religious skepticism or scientific analysis, but more to the point with the audience for the gospels, they weren't stupid so much as just uneducated about Jewish Scripture. They believed what they were told by Christian preachers because they had never been exposed to anything contrary.

If I may draw an analogy, Deepak Chopra has made quite a good living selling a westernized brand of Hindu thought to American housewives and trendy new agers acroos the country. Chopra's "Eastern" ideas seem just exotic and mystical enough to intrigue Chopra's audience, but most of the people watching him on Oprah don't really know anything about Hinduism or Buddhism and don't recognize exactly how Chopra is using and packaging some of those ideas specifically to sell them to an audience. They wouldn't know the difference if he twisted something or even outright lied about it. He can even cite the Mahabarata or the Ashtavakra-Gita and few people are going to seek out the text to verify it or determine the original context.

Christianity was a movement among gentiles which used the allure of an exotic scripture to sell what was really an unrelated mythos to its target audience. Those who were interested were led only in specific interpretations of cherry-picked Jewish scripture. They were not educated about Judaism or about how Jews read those same scriptures.
Well the requirement for the Messiah to be of "the seed of David" is Tanakhic but I will try to find a linkable source for how Jewish laws of succession are derived from Hebrew scripture.

pharoah

Now you have me completely confused. How could Joseph possibly have two different fathers? :huh: It's just physically impossible that both lines are paternal.


What do you mean by "sign up for death"? Christians were persecuted because they refused to worship the emperor. Jews also refused to worship the emperor. So a Jewish convert to Xianity didn't increase his chance of dying.

I'll retract the Deuteronomy reference. Apparently a bastard was considered by the Isrealites as someone born as a result of incest. So that wouldn't apply to Jesus.

In the examples you gave, once the people changed the conditions, it was true to say that such-and-such condition no longer applies. There is no way that you can do the same thing with the Coniah prophecy. Once a descendent of Coniah ascends to the throne, that prophecy is violated. Notice also that it says "none will sit on the throne of David". None means NO ONE. You're also being disingenous here Lee. You read the same type of prohecies against Tyre and Babylon and assert that THEY mean forever and ever.

Possibly, but I think that the problems with the geneologies are so widespread that the only real solution would have been to scrap them entirely.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, I'm referring to the New Testament sect! Which devoted a whole chapter in Acts and practically the whole book of Galatians to the question of whether Gentiles had to become circumcised Jews in order to belong. Not to mention the book of Hebrews...

Well, we may say that this is possible, the other alternative would be possible, too. Mark was, however, recorded to have used in his gospel the "sayings" of Matthew, as I recall, so I would consider a Jewish audience more probable for both gospels.

I wonder why they are thought so gullible, though. Especially when the cost was, at this time, very likely a tortuous death...

But the point at issue here is a plain discrepancy! Any reader may see it, and knowledge of Jewish ways, in and of itself, does not resolve it.

He would have to be a good salesman, though, if it was known that those who believed him were then mostly to be taken to the arena, for the lions to eat. They would then perhaps inquire most carefully, and insist on extraordinarily convincing evidence. Even then, that might not carry the day...

A traveller in a wood espied a road
Which he discerned to be the Way of Truth.
Seeing it thickly overgrown with weeds,
"Ah!" said he, "I see no one has passed this way
In many a year."

On closer inspection, he perceived each blade
Was a singular sword.

"Well," said the traveller at length,
"Doubtless there are other ways."

- Unknown (from memory, wish I could find the poem again)

Adoption! A biological father, and an adoptive one...

Unless the persecution was more specifically of Christians, than of Jews, which indeed it seems it was. And even granting your point, then that would tend to make people choose not to be either Jewish or Christian. Certainly this would make people consider very carefully becoming either, especially if they were (exempt) Gentiles.

Yet the verb is also a present tense participle! "No one will continue sitting on the throne," which would again be satisfied by a breaking of the succession of rulers, yet this need not mean no descendant could ever rule.

Actually, the Tyre prophecy has the same exact expression, which I take also to mean that there would be a complete halt, and then rebuilding could resume:

Ezekiel 26:14 "I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more [or "not be built more"], for I the Lord have spoken," declares the Lord God.

Yet there are also clear ways to say never ever again:

Ezekiel 26:21 "I will bring terrors on you and you will be no more; though you will be sought, you will never be found again," declares the Lord God.

This is the above expression, but with an extra word, "to-forever," so "not found again to-forever," which then I would hold means a halt, and also never ever again.

Isaiah 13:19-20 Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Babylonians' pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah. She will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations...

Well, that's pretty clear! And the "never be inhabited" is the same above expression, which could go either way, yet it is followed by "never lived in" phrased in a way meaning "from now on," so this would be never again, I would agree.

Unless people are just so extremely gullible that they will believe anyone who says they have a real copy of a gospel! I expect people back then were more diligent, though.

Regards,
Lee