Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 05-17-2005, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I think it is clear that Ignatius (or whoever wrote 'to the Smyrnaeans') knew Matthew's gospel. In Matthew Jesus is clearly regrded as the son of David by virtue of the legal paternity of Joseph.

ie as Joseph's recognised son he is a son of David in the same way as Joseph is.

IIUC this is good Jewish law Mishnah Baba Batra 8:6 'He who says "this is my son" is believed' with Tosefta 7:3 'If people took for granted concerning someone that he was not his son and at the time of death he said "He is my son" he is believed' imply that recognition as son by your putative father is irrefutable by any other evidence.

But whether it is good Jewish Law or not, it is what Matthew believes. He emphasises that Jesus is humanly speaking son of David while also saying he is not Joseph's biological son.

Ignatius IMO is just saying the same.

How is this different from what Rick is saying?

IOW, "humanly speaking" is not the same as "biological son" so Ignatius uses the phrase in question to describe how Jesus could be considered both a son of David and the Son of God.

Toto · 05-17-2005, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

It's also the way that someone would describe King Arthur, Odysseus, or the Buddha. Doherty's position is that Paul's Jesus is different that such figures in that he is a spiritual being, a god that acts (only) on a heavenly plane.

Did people who would describe King Arthur, Odysseus, or the Buddha as such believe that they were spiritual beings? If not, then Doherty's suggested difference is a rather large one.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Substitute "mythical" for "spiritual".

Clivedurdle · 05-17-2005, 12:40 PM

Quote:

For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh

Why does anyone take this as a serious statement? Isn't it formulaic superstitious credal goobledegook, being quoted from somewhere, probably a standard part of xian communion services?

Does anyone seriously think this is evidence of a historical Jesus? I'm sorry, Pontius Pilate and Herod are obvious standard phrases to make goobledegook look real!

So the question is, why shoudn't Matthew be a fictional expansion of this credal statement?

Rick Sumner · 05-17-2005, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Substitute "mythical" for "spiritual".

Did people believe Arthur, Odysseus, and the Buddha were mythical? That creates a bit of a problem when we look at people claiming to have the ear of the Buddha and the like.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner · 05-17-2005, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

How is this different from what Rick is saying?

IOW, "humanly speaking" is not the same as "biological son" so Ignatius uses the phrase in question to describe how Jesus could be considered both a son of David and the Son of God.

I'm a little confused by what Andrew is saying that's different from my post as well. . .it seems that both of us are suggesting that the phrase has something of an apologetic purpose--a way of equating the son of God with the son of David.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

GakuseiDon · 05-18-2005, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Doesn't it seem that the reason nobody clearly employs this apologetic before Justin is that. . .Justin made it up?

Maybe he did make it up, but I'm not sure why that is relevent. I'm not arguing for the historicity of the Virgin birth.

It seems that both Ignatius and Justin has Jesus as the literal descendent of David, through Mary. That's what the literature appears to suggest, anyway. Ignatius says here: Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary. No use of "according to the flesh" here.

Irenaeus mentions Ebionites who believed that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary. Perhaps Justin is making a leap once Mary achieved "Virginhood". But my original question stands: did any early apologist believe that Jesus being "born of a virgin", and "descended from David kata sarka" was impossible?

andrewcriddle · 05-18-2005, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

I'm a little confused by what Andrew is saying that's different from my post as well. . .it seems that both of us are suggesting that the phrase has something of an apologetic purpose--a way of equating the son of God with the son of David.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

I'm not sure if we are differing.

What I think Ignatius is saying is that Jesus is legally entitled by normal human standards to be regarded as Son of David although he is not the biological son of Joseph.

I thought you were saying that Ignatius regards Jesus as Son of David in a rather more esoteric sense.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon · 05-18-2005, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Clement (1Clem.31-32) informs us that a great many people descended from Jacob, the twelve tribes, the priests and Levites, the kings and princes, and of course, Jesus. Yet Jesus is the only one described as descended "according to the flesh." Why?

AFAICS, descended "according to the flesh" is often contrasted with "Son of God according to the spirit". In 1 Clem, we see "You are my Son, today have I begotten You.", which would contrast with "descended according to the flesh".

Quote:

Luke, another confirmed believer in the virgin birth, also uses the phrase to described Jesus' lineage (Acts 2.30). Yet, as noted above regarding Ignatius, virgins don't give birth to Davidic heirs.

But is this really a problem for early apologists? Is there any evidence that anyone particularly had problems with this? Origen, for example, tried to find reasons for discrepencies, but I haven't seen anyone listing this as a problem. No-one seems to have expected Jesus to be David's legalistic heir in terms of an earthly kingdom.

Did it matter to any early writer if Jesus was a descendent of David via Mary, as expressed by Justin? Irenaeus, in his attack on heretics, says:
Jesus Christ our Lord, who was of the seed of David according to His birth from Mary; and that Jesus Christ was appointed the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness...

Rick Sumner · 05-18-2005, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Maybe he did make it up, but I'm not sure why that is relevent. I'm not arguing for the historicity of the Virgin birth.

Because if he made it up there's no reason to presume Ignatius was familiar with the same apologetic.

Quote:

It seems that both Ignatius and Justin has Jesus as the literal descendent of David, through Mary. That's what the literature appears to suggest, anyway. Ignatius says here: Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary. No use of "according to the flesh" here.

Perhaps because there is also no mention of the virgin birth, and thus no immediate reminder of the need for a qualifier? This certainly offers nothing to your suggestion that Ignatius believed Mary the son of David, and provides absolutely no reason to presume that Ignatius would favor matriarchal lineage.

Lineage is patriarchal by default. Unless Ignatius explicitly states that he is tracing it thorugh the mother, there is absolutely no reason to presume that he is, and every reason to presume that he isn't. Again, patriarchal lineage is the default position.

Quote:

Irenaeus mentions Ebionites who believed that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary. Perhaps Justin is making a leap once Mary achieved "Virginhood". But my original question stands: did any early apologist believe that Jesus being "born of a virgin", and "descended from David kata sarka" was impossible?

I suppose that depends on what is meant by kata sarka. I think your question might be more accurately phrased as whether they thought it was impossible to be both born of a virgin and a literal son of David, and on that note, at least one clearly indicates that he did. Luke informs us that Jesus was thought the son of Joseph, not that he was literally of the Davidic line.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner · 05-18-2005, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I'm not sure if we are differing.

What I think Ignatius is saying is that Jesus is legally entitled by normal human standards to be regarded as Son of David although he is not the biological son of Joseph.

This is exactly what I think Ignatius is saying. Jesus is the son of David by worldly standards, in the "sphere of the flesh," in whatever metaphorical wording one cares to attach to kata sarka. What he is not saying is that Jesus is the literal and earthly descendent of David by virtue of a direct lineage. I think Ignatius is saying something very much akin to what Luke says--that Jesus was thought the son of David, or accorded a Davidic pedigree by virtue of adoption, but could not actually be the son of David, since his father was God.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.