Juststeve

Apologies to Stephan, thanks to Spin.

Steve

Atheos

Not to sound argumentative, but I was unaware of this definition. Does "contradictory" really mean that it is impossible for both propositions to be FALSE? I thought it only meant both of them could not be TRUE.

As an example, I would consider these two propositions to be contradictory:

P1: I am a bachelor
P2: I am a married woman

It is my understanding that these two propositions contradict each other, because they cannot both be true. But it is possible that I am a married man which would mean that neither would be true.

[HR][/HR]

Anyway...

Little Dot is employing a centuries-old apologetic to get around the obvious contradiction, which I can't help feeling like everyone in this forum is intelligent enough to know. This is not meant as disparaging in any way. Just because an apologetic is old doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile.

However, an apologetic is only as good as the support for the apologetic, which is sorely lacking in this instance. Both internal and external evidence clearly fall on the wrong side of the fence for Little Dot's agenda.

Internally, the text leaves no ambiguity. Each account claims to be the lineage of Joseph. Nothing in the text of either document implies that the lineage is traced through Mary instead of Joseph.

Continuing with internal evidence, the listed genealogies give no indication that they in any way recognize the role of women in genealogies. This appears to be consistent with the culture of the day. GMatt includes the names of 3 women (Rahab, Ruth, Mary) and infers (but does not actually name) Bathsheba. In no instance does the genealogy follow a named woman. Each is mentioned only in passing. Similarly, GLuke follows a strictly male lineage. GLuke never even mentions the name of any of the women along the way.

The internal evidence, following strictly male lineages results in two glaring contradictions:

• Using only a male lineage it is impossible to begin with different sons of David and arrive at a single male descendant.
• Joseph's father is named as a different individual in each account. Even if one assumes that GMatt's Jacob was an alternative name or spelling of GLuke's Heli you still have to deal with the fact that it is impossible for a strictly male lineage to divert at one point and then re-converge later no matter how many generations are involved.

The external evidence is pretty simple. Traditions of the day did not in any way recognize the validity of using a woman as part of a genealogy. There is no example or tradition whereby a genealogy can maternally jump over to a different part of the family tree. It was "fathered by" or it was nothing. Children could certainly be adopted and adopted children could inherit things. But they could not and were not ever included in a genealogy, with obvious and good reason. They weren't part of that genealogy.

There is only one reason to give credence to the possibility that either GMatt or GLuke traced their genealogy back through Mary. That one reason is refusal to accept the fact that the two genealogies are contradictory.

It's one thing to argue that the bible is inerrant because it contains no contradictions. That proposition can be shot down quite quickly by demonstrating the existence of contradictions such as these two genealogies.

It's quite another to argue that the contradictions don't exist because the bible is inerrant. That's where we are now. It's an absurd pipe dream that matters only to the inerrantist. it's not scholarship, let alone bad scholarship. It's pure dogmatism perpetuated by an unwarranted and absurd belief that the bible has no merit if it contains even a single error. It contains plenty. Get over it already.

stephan huller

Atheos,

You're right about the strange dictionary definition. I just grabbed it assuming it would reflect what I thought contradictory meant

Stephan

Doug Shaver

It depends on how pedantic you want to be. In ordinary usage, two statements that cannot both be true are contradictory even if it's possible they could both be false.

In formal logic, two statements that cannot both be true but could both be false are contrary but not contradictory. If they cannot both be false but could both be true, they are subcontrary. The term contradictory is applied only to statements that cannot be either both true or both false.

Atheos

Well there you go. Sounds like Stephan inadvertently pulled up a specialized formal logic definition of 'contradictory', as opposed to the common-usage definition. Makes sense now.

aa5874

It is NOT the dictionary definition that is strange. You simply did not get your definition from a dictionary.

Where did you get your definition from?

From a strange place?

Tristan Scott

He may have gotten is here.

horhang

This certainty puzzles me. How do we know that mary is of Aaron? All we know is that her cousin is of Aaron. That Elizabeth is her cousin only says that they had a parent siblings. It could be that Mary's mother married into the house of Judah, making Mary of Judah, While Mary's mother's brother was the father of Elizabeth, making her of the house of Judah.

This seems a complicated reading, and the only extant evidence is that they are cousins; we know Elizabeth is of Judah, but how can we be certain of Mary? It seems the most rational conclusion, but why are you so certain?

spin

Blood lineage is patrilineal, as we see in all the biblical genealogies. Mary's relationship with Elizabeth is συγγενης, "of the same kin, descent, or family". This should mean that their male lineages unite, making Mary and Elizabeth both of Aaron, for a woman marrying outside the tribe means the children born to the male are of his extended family and would not technically be the same descent or family as the male lineage of the mother.

horhang

I get that blood lineage is patrilineal, hence my question about cousins. I do not read Greek, which I am assuming is what the word you are referencing is, so a question based on your answer.
The Greek word references familial lineage, not simply familial relationship? I have always assumed the most likely placement for Mary was in Aaron rather than Judah, based on the only evidence being her cousins liniage, but was not aware there was a stronger case. English is so lacking in conveying some of these finer points of familial realtionship concisely.