Ted Hoffman

How can we know which one was written first while examining the genealogies and birth narratives of Jesus in Luke and Matthew?

aa5874

There is another problem with regards to writings of antiquity, with respect to scripture, that I have not seen discussed much, it is the time of circulation of a writing versus the actually time of writing.

If scripture was regarded as sacred, isn't it likely that only a limited few had access to to these writings and it was in the interest of this elite few to conceal or prevent the public at large to scrutinise or peruse without hindrance their so-called sacred writings.

To me, the time of circulation may be easier to determine than the actual time of writing of the genealogies and the birth narratives.

spin

You know my view, but I'll just add one possible insight.

The notion of Davidic lineage of the messiah (and the notion of messiahship itself) is intrinsically Jewish, whereas the notion of virgin birth is fundamentally foreign to Jewish thought. If the christian religion is, as it appears to be, primarily based on Jewish religious thought, then Jewish religious ideas will have entered the tradition before others. This should mean that the Davidic connection, being of Jewish origin, is earlier than and non-Jewish ideas.

This becomes more complex a debate though, if christianity is in its origin not from the Jewish heartland but the diaspora. If Paul is from Tarsus he may be the bearer of non-Jewish content in the religion. If Mark was written in Rome, then it may also carry non-Jewish content. But I would think that Jewishness is still a strong indicator of earliness, for as time went by the relationship between the two religions -- as christianity drew away from Judaism -- soured.

(This should lead to an analysis of the anti-Jewish content in the gospels, most notedly in John, but also to a lesser degree in Matt and perhaps glimpses in the others. At what stage in the redaction process of John did the anti-Jewish tendencies emerge? and at what stage was it tempered to anti-Pharisaic? After all, the Pharisees were great proselytizers in the early centuries and the Romans made laws against Jewish proselytism. This would have brought them into conflict with the early proselytizing christians.)


spin

Ted Hoffman

Thanks spin and aa5874

Solo

It looks to me also that the genealogies are older. There is in Mark a polemic about J's Davidic descent (Mk 12:35-37) but no hint of virgin birth. But I think (sort of tentatively still) that the Messianic nature of Jesus really derives from Paul, and that Yeshu of the Nazorean church had originally a smaller function of apostle (Hebrews 3:1) and priest after the order of Melchizedek who was ushering (through intercession) the Davidic return.
In my scenario, Jesus as Davidic Messiah became a figure in the Jewish Christianity through frictions in Diaspora with the Paulines after James the Just's death. The profile of Yeshu had to be raised to compete for converts, and the claim of Davidic descent for Jesus looks like the strategy. (Remember, Paul insisted Jesus was "nobody" on earth). The pseudo-Clementines are an important witness that the Nazorean (,or better, Petrine,) resistance to Pauline Church endured after the first Jewish war. Pauline's Cross was acknowledged universally as the Messianic symbol, but the Petrines won huge concession in that the proto-orthodox tradition now accepted Jesus crucifixion was a "lawless" act.

Jiri