Lugubert

I can't find a problem for Christianity/Christians here. I suppose that if the lineage problem had been pointed out to me when I was a Christian, I would have said, "Who cares if Jesus fulfills the criteria for the Messiah of the Jews? He's my Saviour, regardless of his human ancestors."

Vivisector

Good morning, Earl.

I'd suggest that this position was taken, instead, by those with the descent-from-David axe to grind. More specifically, it could have been taken as a reaction to those who questioned Jesus's bona fides as the seed of David. To me, this makes sense if we're talking about a situation involving an audience consisting of an appreciable proportion of Jews (or God-Fearers) and some decades removed from Jesus's death. I'm not sure I'd have expected the issue to be especially problematic for Paul, who presumably preached relatively soon after Jesus's death, to a largely Gentilic audience who may have been inclined - for the time being - to accept Paul's simple assertion of Davidic descent.

(snip)

Is it possible that Matthew and Luke were doing the best they could with a very difficult task - that being to (a) on the one hand, establish Jesus as descended from David, as apparently required by the "prophetic" texts (wouldn't it be ironic if Jesus really was descended from David), thus cementing his status as standing in the tradition of Jewish heroes, and (b) establish his origin as no less auspicious as those of pagan gods (or Roman emperors)? If so, is it then possible that later ancient Christian figures were more-or-less trapped by Matthew's and Luke's unfortunate efforts to merge mutually exclusive concepts?

As you state it, I think the point is a good one. What I find missing, though, is an accounting for the fact that this entire set of details (Davidic descent, genealogy, virgin birth) seems not to have been assembled in the beginning (e.g., in the times of Paul and even Mark), but could have instead evolved - over time and in different directions, depending partly on location - to what we see in Matthew and Luke. I think early Christians didn't have to eat the entire elephant at once, only a spoonful at a time.

It appears you're arguing that, if Person A could believe X, then Person B could believe Y. In this case, I think it's a valid argument, but only because it's a very broad argument. I don't think it's very helpful in terms of establishing that Person B (Paul) actually does believe Y (spiritual Christ). It seems the argument is along the lines of, "If Billy Bob can believe in Bigfoot, then his neighbor Jim Bob can believe in UFO abductions." True, perhaps, but it doesn't mean Jim Bob believes in UFO abductions.

I think the poor ancient Christians found this entire topic to be an albatross around their collective neck, or else they wouldn't have done quite so much handwaving. And if they themselves weren't convinced by the handwaving, they were advised to simply convince themselves of their own insufficient understanding.

Cheers,

V.

Toto

The Chili digression has been split off here

khalimirov

Why is Jesus' descent at all relevant? I don't think we have any reliable information concerning his descent, nor should we care.

gstafleu

Unless I misunderstood the OP, I don't think it "rests" on it. Rather, it tries to give an explanation for it.

Ben, in the original thread, posited that we should read "born from a woman" in a natural way, meaning a simple straightforward birth from a human woman. Earl has now shown (assuming for a moment he is right) that, in the early Christian community, there is a contradiction regarding Jesus' lineage (of which "born of a woman" is part): the virgin birth and descent from David do no fit together.

If the community of the time could manage to take such a contradiction in its stride, then that takes away from the argument that the reading of "born from a woman" necessarily has to be a "natural" one: apparently the community did have no problems holding one "unnatural" view (virgin birth + Davidian descent) regarding Jesus' lineage, so why should we then have to assume that all their other views regarding the lineage, specifically the "born from a woman" bit, are "natural"?

Gerard Stafleu

EarlDoherty

When I’m wrong, or overlook something, I don’t mind as much when I’m the one to discover and point it out. Justin does indeed openly state that Mary was of the tribe of Judah, or at least “of the family of David, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham.” (Trypho 100).

The ANF (I, p.249) offers this happy footnote to the verse: “Note this testimony to Mary’s descent from David.” I doubt very much that this is any kind of “testimony”. More likely it is Justin making up something to serve his purposes, or perhaps he borrowed from some previous innovator.

But considering that royal lineage was not traced through the mother, especially in Judaism, we can consider that Justin is just talking through his hat. (And apologists like the translator in the ANF have bought it.)

I’m still undecided as to what Luke may have intended about his implied lineage of Jesus through Mary. He had to imply it, because it’s the only reasonable alternative when he breaks the chain between Joseph and Jesus. Or…did Luke actually do that? I believe Price notes that some obscure manuscript has wording which directly has Jesus the son of Joseph. Logically, this would tend to be the original, as surely no scribe would change it in this direction after the virgin birth idea was established.

Perhaps Luke simply made Mary “kinswoman” to Elizabeth because he wanted to make Jesus and John related. But why specify that Zechariah and Elizabeth were both of the tribe of Aaron, make Mary their “kin,” but not specify that she was of a different tribe, since a natural association to make from this (as I have) is that Mary was of the same lineage?

Since Luke has made up the entire first chapter based on midrash, and since the parents of John (as far as I know) never surface anywhere else, it’s a good possibility that, writing a century later, he has simply made up everything, including the character and lineage of John’s parents, maybe even their names. Who knows? (We certainly can’t trust the Prologue, which with its claims of carefully researching history is immediately followed by this fanciful chapter 1 which is entirely derived from midrash on the Old Testament and contains not an identifiable scrap of tradition or history.)

The bottom line still remains. If early Christian commentators like Ignatius and Justin thought of both descent from David and the virgin birth as “true”, then they are thinking irrationally (or not thinking at all), because the two items cannot be rationally resolved. Except, of course, if one or the other is figurative/metaphorical/mystical, etc. Definitely by the time of Justin, however, I would opt for the former.

And in regard to “V”s comments (thanks). Of course, I was only making the basic point that if a group can be shown to accept illogical, contradictory positions in one area, they can do so in any number of areas of their doctrine. It then becomes invalid to argue, as Ben has done, that Paul couldn’t have meant such-and-such by a certain statement on the grounds that it would contravene what he sees (and we all agree) are rational and accepted standards in understanding what could possibly be meant by that statement. The details of the comparison are irrelevant, the principle still stands.

Earl Doherty

gstafleu

There is one thing to note, though: this contradiction only manifests itself in a community that holds both the views of Davidian descent and virgin birth. The epistle writers, however--and I'm sure this has been remarked on before--don't seem to mention the virgin birth, so the contradiction does not exist for them.

The contradiction only appears in the Gospel community, and while this does show that people of that general time did not have a problem with accepting such a contradiction, it does diminish the impact of the argument on the epistle writers, specifically Paul.

Gerard Stafleu

Clivedurdle

Is this also about the soul spirit distinction I am trying to elucidate? Jesus is "strange" because his father is a spirit and he did not have a soul because he was not conceived in sin as all souls are. I know this sounds chiliesque but think about how theology has developed here - the sinlessness of Mary is the only logical direction the church can take about this!

The gospels are stating Jesus is not an ordinary human!

Vivisector

I wish I had put it so succinctly. I think Earl's main point is valid, but at its strongest, it's not particularly strong. His analogy, furthermore, doesn't strengthen the point because of differences such as you have pointed out, and that I tried to point out.

V.

aa5874

Every time another version of the genealogy of Jesus is introduced, it only makes matters worse. Multiple versions of an event do not correlate to reliability, credibilty and actuality.