Jack the Bodiless

...Heh. I just logged on to post the same thought!

Yes, as far as I know, only Matthew's Herod is definitely Herod the Great. Luke could have been referring to Herod Junior.

JoeWallack

JW:
As far as I know the only Significant known Christian to date Jesus' age at his death based on a supposed chain of witnesses was Irenaeus who claimed that Jesus was 50 ish (you have to know Hebrew here to get it) when he died. Everyone else seems to try and guess Jesus' age at death from the bible (which Irenaues does also and is a strange thing to do if he had witness tell him) without any supposed witness testimony.

If Irenaeus, the only known person to claim a witness link to Jesus' age at death, was correct that Jesus was 50ish when he bought the Sower's Field, than Paul, based on the usual dating, would have been teaching about the Significance of Jesus' death while Jesus was still alive! (MJ, look out!).

And based on Robert's observations above, per only "Luke" Jesus may have died in the late 30's, after Paul was already teaching the Significance of Jesus' death. Quick, CC Doherty.

A similar observation is the different fathers of Joseph, Jacob vs. Heli. Presumably the marriage contract would have shown this. That there is no evidence anyone ever checked the marriage contract might indicate there wasn't one.

And of course "John" diagrees with the others on the most important day in the History of the world. Was it Passover day or the day before?

All indicating that MJ should be taken seriously.



Joseph

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

JoeWallack

JW:
In his related Legendary article here at II:

The Date of the Nativity in Luke (5th ed., 2006)

Richard Carrier writes:

"The second point is more forceful than the first: namely, that Luke is referring to Herod Archelaus, not Herod the Great, and I think this most likely (see 1.1.3 below).

Though I think Luke is certainly only referring to Archelaus, the other possibility deserves further discussion. Three months before John is born, Gabriel announces to Mary only that she will conceive (1:31, 36), not that she already has. In fact, Luke never says when Mary conceives. Instead, John appears to have already passed most of his childhood by the time Jesus is born (1:80). Given Jewish law at the time (Mishnah, Abot 5.21), which held that a man becomes subject to religious duties on his thirteenth birthday (which would be John's "day of public appearance to Israel"; we see that day for Jesus in 2:42ff.) and other parallels between Jesus and John (cf. 1:80 and 2:40), it would be reasonable to assume that Luke has in mind that John was nearly twelve when Jesus was born (since "in those days" from vv. 2:1 picks up the "day" of the previous vv. 1:80).[1.1.2] This would easily rescue Luke from charges of chronological error, since he reports that John's birth was foretold in a vision "in the days of Herod king of Judaea" (1.5), and if John was born around then, it would be an error to have Jesus born around the same time if Herod the Great were meant, since he was long dead by the time the census occurs. Of course, this is moot, since this Herod the King may well be Herod Archelaus, not Herod the Great, so if Luke did mean John was born only six months before Jesus, then Luke clearly meant Archelaus, who in that case would have been deposed between the two births, explaining why the census suddenly became an issue exactly then.[1.1.3] Still, we are not told how much time intervened between the annunciation and John's birth (1.22-24), but if we interpret Luke as describing a twelve-year interval, it is notable that he places the birth of John in exactly the same year that Matthew seems to place the birth of Jesus (6 B.C.)."

...

"1.1.3] Mark Smith has composed a good article explaining in his own terms why attempts to reconcile Luke and Matthew fail, while concluding with strong support for the accuracy of Luke as against Matthew: Mark Smith, "Of Jesus and Quirinius," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 62:2 (April, 2000): pp. 278-93. Smith argues that Luke may have meant by "Herod the King" not "Herod the Great" but "Herod the Ethnarch," in other words Archelaus, Herod's successor (ibid. pp. 285-6). Smith makes a good case for this. I originally decided against it because I thought Luke was otherwise very precise with the titles of men in power throughout Luke and Acts (a fact that Smith himself documents), but Luke fails to be precise in naming the office of Quirinius, too, and Archelaus only called himself Herod on his coins (Burnett, Roman Provincial Coinage 1992, nos. 4912-17) and the historian Cassius Dio also knows him only as such (55.27), while even Josephus, who otherwise refers to Archelaus as ethnarch, could still call him a king (AJ 18.93), facts that slipped my notice before. I believe Smith is right, and thus the date of John's birth is sometime in 5 A.D."


JW:
Thus Carrier, probably the protes Birth Dating Error authority the World has ever known, has changed his position to thinking "Luke" was referring to Archelaus. My own opinion is that "Luke" did want Herod the Great to be thought of. "Luke" was familiar with Josephus and therefore Herod the Great and in Josephus, since the entire Herod dynasty is given, Herod the Great is normally just referred to as "Herod" while his successors are distinguished with first names. Also, Archelaus was never a "King". Therefore, in a presentation during the Herod dynasty with the only relevant identification being "Herod the King of Judea" I think is indicative of Herod the Great, although the "of Judea" indicates Archelaus. I still think the evidence is good enough for Archelaus that there is sufficient Uncertainty for me to claim that "Luke" made the Error of combining Herod the Great with Quirinius.



Joseph

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

rhutchin

I raised this issue with some people who know Greek (I do not even read Greek much less know Greek).

This is how I phrased the issue to them--

"We have at Luke 3:23--

KAI AUTOS HN IHSOUS ARXOMENOS WSEI ETWN TRIAKONTA WN hUIOS WS ENOMIZETO IWSHF TOU HLI...TOU QEOU.

It seems that Luke has to deal with the touchy issue of Jesus not being the biological son of Joseph so he writes, WS ENOMIZETO.

If we could forget about Joseph altogether, then Luke could have written, KAI AUTOS HN IHSOUS ARXOMENOS WSEI ETWN TRIAKONTAWN hUIOS TOU HLI...TOU QEOU, and we could have many sermons from many pastors about Luke telling us that Jesus is hUIOS TOU QEOU.

However, it seems that we have hUIOS WS ENOMIZETO IWSHF...TOU QEOU so that we might think that Luke is telling us that Jesus was allegedly the son of Joseph and allegedly the son of God.

Is that what Luke is trying to tell the reader? I very strongly would like to understand that Luke intends for the reader to understand that Jesus is hUIOS TOU QEOU. However, that requires that I read the verse as, KAI AUTOS HN IHSOUS ARXOMENOS WSEI ETWN TRIAKONTAWN hUIOS [WS ENOMIZETO IWSHF] TOU HLI...TOU QEOU with [WS ENOMIZETO IWSHF] becoming an aside.

The only rationale for this might be that Luke writes WS ENOMIZETO IWSHF and not WS ENOMIZETO TOU IWSHF.

So, must I read this verse as, "Jesus was allegedly the son of Joseph, of Heli,..., of God?"

or

Can I read the verse as, "Jesus was the son (allegedly of Joseph) of Heli,..., of God."

What does the grammatical construction of the verse require that I do?"

I am waiting on responses.

rhutchin

Can you provide the background leading you to that conclusion? I have never heard of anyone drawing that conclusion (but that just means that I have not read everything on the subject).

rhutchin

I tend to believe that Luke refers to the number thirty because of its religious significance to the Jew. Jesus seems to have been crucified around 32-33 AD making Him 32 or 33 + 6 -1 = 37 or 38 years old when He was crucified so Luke says that he was "about" thirty.

The Evil One

I'm not quite sure I followed rhutchin's post #34? rhutchin, are you trying to argue that Luke 2 has Jesus as "son of God"? It doesn't, it has Adam as son of God. This is wholly unambiguous (and in itself a problem for trinitarianism).

Dean Anderson

Fair enough. Since you don't trust us, you can get as many translations as you like.

I dispute your phrasing here - you are assuming your conclusion before you start. The whole point is of the dispute is whether the geneaology is that of Joseph or of Mary's father.

By assuming that if the author of GLuke had missed out the clause about Joseph then he would have included the rest of the geneaology starting from Heli, then you are assuming that the geneaology from Heli onwards is independent of the earlier clause.

Indeed, in the two early Greek manuscripts that Julian has already mentioned - manuscripts '579' and 'W' - the mention of Joseph is indeed missed out, but unlike your hypothetical, the rest of the geneaology is missed out too; the geneaology does not appear without Josephs name.

Of course you would. That's what fits your theology. But once again, I dispute your phrasing.

But think about it for a minute - why on Earth would the author of GLuke need to put in a long geneaology stretching back through Noah to Adam in order to 'prove' or 'demonstrate' that Jesus is the Son of God? If this is the criterion used then, by definition, everyone is the Son of God - since both Noah and Abraham are everyone's anscestors.

As a way of indicating that Jesus is the Son of God, the geneaology is completely useless.

So that can't be the reason it is put in there.

Whether Jesus is the son of Joseph or not, if the criterion for being the Son of God is what you suggest then whoever Jesus's parents are then he is the Son of God. As am I.

So I think we can rule out your implication that if the geneaology in question belongs to Joseph, Luke is saying that Jesus is only allegedly the Son of God.

We all wait for the responses. (Responses which, I feel, you are leading by presenting your Greek speakers with false dilemma where they are led to either say that your second translation is acceptable or say that the author of GLuke thought that Jesus was only allegedly the Son of God - incidentally, are the people you have asked also Biblical inerrantists? In other words, before they even look at the grammar, do they already have the presupposition that this cannot be talking about Joseph since that would contradict GMatthew? In the interests of full disclosure of conflict of interest, we should be told...)

But I can tell you now that your second (and preferred) translation does not fit your apologetic.

As I mentioned in my earlier post - and Julian confirmed - whereas the rest of the geneaology is in the standard X-of-Y-of-Z format, the clause about Jesus being allegedly the son of Joseph uses different language, and it specifically uses the word γιος ("son") rather than εγγονός ("grandson").

The way you want to twist the verse, Jesus is being explicitly referred to as the γιος of Heli, not the εγγονός.

With this reading of the verse, the author of GLuke appears to be saying that although Jesus is supposedly the son of Joseph, we know he is actually the son of Heli - and Heli is descended from Adam and therefore Jesus is the Son of God.

There is no reason for the author to say this.

Actually, there is no reason for the author to even mention any Geneaology other than that of Joseph. If the point is to show that Jesus is the Son of God, then merely saying that he was supposedly Joseph's son but was actually concieved by the Holy Spirit would be much more appropriate. Giving a different human geneaology is a waste of time in this matter as it shows nothing.

aa5874

(KJV) Luke 4:23, 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'.

Mary is not mentioned at all in the genealogy of the book called Luke.

spin

Yes, that's basically correct as the story goes, but then we leave the story and attempt to break out into history...

But of course we have no historical record of Herod killing the babies in Bethlehem. Besides the conflict with the Lucan dating should put the honest reader on guard.

And I guess the other writers didn't use their language carefully.

The historian weeps at this slop.

Interesting of course because the Greek has no parentheses.

Thus nullifying the relevance of the Davidic lineage, as Jesus was not of that lineage at all according to the form of the text we now have, but, as we have these genealogies, we can assume that the early writers had a different view from the way the text ended up. The lineage shows that Jesus was a descendent of David and that later editors found the easiest way to strengthen Jesus's divinity was to make him directly sired by god, making the Jews laugh at such silliness.

Well, any time before Herod's death fits.

Well, any time before 14 CE fits that verse.

The people who get uptight about Cyrenius are those who want to invent earlier census, ie invent history.

As we know the governors of Syria for most of the period, the only people getting excited are those who want to stretch the evidence to create an earlier governorship by Cyrenius, when the dating is clearly specified by the nature of the census, ie that upon the absorption of Judea into the Roman provincial system, when it was taken away from Archelaus.

This is vain conjecture, as much of the post I'm responding to is, after it leaves the clarification about there not being any direct sign of Joseph being father of Jesus.


spin