EarlDoherty

Rather than as a postscript to the “Realistic Reading of Paul” thread, where it came up as a somewhat tangential item as the thread was winding down, I would prefer to start a new one, in the hope that someone can provide some enlightenment…

The point was raised that in Ignatius, there is an evident contradiction, in that he insists that Jesus was descended from David “kata sarka”, even though he immediately states that he was “born of a virgin”. He does seem to try to extricate himself from this by presuming that Jesus’ link to David is through Mary, a lead other ancient commentators followed, and even modern apologists. I suggested that this involves going against the ancient world standard of tracing lineage through the father. Certainly Jews would never have felt comfortable doing otherwise—unless, of course, they had to, which was the option some were compelled to follow once they possessed those two contradictory dogmas, descent from David and birth from a virgin.

There are a number of observations I would like to make.

The fallback descent-through-Mary position is taken only by Christian commentators who clearly subscribe to an historical Jesus, beginning with Ignatius. Paul never tries to qualify any “kata sarka” status of Jesus, from David or anyone else, by such a device.

Matthew and Luke seem reluctant to commit themselves. Both go to huge trouble to trace Jesus back to David (Luke beyond), but then disingenuously break the chain between Joseph and Jesus without actually stating that Jesus’ lineage is through Mary. Clearly, they didn’t know how to get out of the predicament, but would not state openly that Jesus’ descent from David is through the mother. This in itself would suggest that the very idea was less than acceptable. If it was acceptable—and accepted—why didn’t Matthew and/or Luke trace Mary’s lineage back to David? Neither Matthew nor Luke is providing Mary’s lineage. Both chains descend to Joseph, not Mary. A lineage of this sort, and this importance, hardly transfers across a marital contract—especially one that wasn’t consummated. If Jesus is descended from David through Mary, it would have to be through Mary’s ancestors, not her husband’s. Thus we can see that the ancient or modern apologetic device is unsupportable. (Perhaps that’s why neither Matthew nor Luke actually put the “through Mary” into words in the face of their genealogies.)

But how did Ignatius and Irenaeus, who actually spelled out the “through Mary” (without explaining it) resolve this conundrum? Did they even try, or did they simply live with the contradictions? If you look carefully at both those writers’ remarks, they don’t specify what the “through Mary” entails. Is it through Mary’s own ancestry? Or is it some other channel, vague and undefined because they had no way of defining it or making sense of it?

How did Matthew and Luke understand it? I have suggested they had no way of understanding it. It simply didn’t work. There was no way to reconcile those two conflicting dogmas. And Luke has got himself into even deeper trouble (a contradiction within a contradiction) by adding his Chapter 1. There, in verse 5, he specifies that Elizabeth was “a descendant of Aaron,” namely of the tribe of Levi. But this makes Mary also of the same tribe, for she is specified as Elizabeth’s “kinswoman” (1:36). Therefore any lineage of Mary cannot possibly go back to David, who was of the tribe of Judah. So in what way is Jesus “of the tribe of Judah” (something also stated elsewhere) and thus a descendant of David through Mary?

Did no ancient Christian ever ponder such contradictions? Does any modern Christian? Did Mary become “of the tribe of Judah” and inherit all of Joseph’s ancestors simply through marrying him? Through such ever-expanding marital links extending back through the past, any individual could become of any tribe, descended from everybody! Which is not to say that I doubt the religious mind could adopt such a ‘solution’ no matter how nonsensical. But what am I missing here? Or is there anything to miss?

I guess my ultimate point is that if a group of people were able to accept such a situation involving so much irrationality and contradiction, simply because it was seen as necessary dogma, I think we should have no trouble believing that any sort of irrational and contradictory dogma could be accepted by them. And that includes that an entirely spiritual being could be “of David’s seed” simply because it was a necessary dogma, since scripture said so (and helped along by the general mythology of the day); that normal understanding of words and phrases could go by the boards, even when those same words and phrases in other contexts by the same writers could be applied and understood in their “normal” ways. If Matthew and Luke and Ignatius and Irenaeus could live with a faith that entailed so much illogical daftness and sophistry, we should have no trouble accepting that Paul could have believed that his spiritual Christ was “of the seed of David” simply because he found it in scripture and “knew” it had to be true. If Ben or anyone else insists on rejecting that meaning in Romans 1:3 allegedly because it would go against Paul’s logic or understanding of natural meaning, then we must insist on the same for Matthew and Luke and Ignatius and Irenaeus: they could not possibly have believed in both the descent from David and the virgin birth, since this must have gone against their capacity for logic and understanding of natural meaning.

And I guess we'd have to say the same about any modern Christian, who would surely also recognize the illogic in this whole picture....Wouldn't we?

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

Even if that were the case, should we assume that Paul and other early Christians believed in both, though? Could they have believed that Jesus was descended from David and of the tribe of Judah via the father, and the virgin birth was a later adaption by non-Jewish Christians as a reaction to the Augustus cult?

Am I right to assume that this thread is against modern Christianity then, rather than trying to determine what the texts tell us? If this is another "Apologists claim...!" threads, then I will bow out now.

judge

If we read the most ancient semitic version of Matthew there is an alternate reading which indicates that Jesus lineage is through Mary.
The alternate reading being that Matthew 1:16 should read Joseph the husband of Mary.

figuer

That wasn't convincing at all.

John Kesler

Mary would not necessarily be a Levite just because she was Elizabeth's "kinswoman," since intertribal marriages took place. Even Aaron's own wife, Elisheba, was of the tribe of Judah.

aa5874

Apparently the Jesus of gMatthew also did not resolve the genealogy problem. This Jesus implied he was not the son of David, so no genealogy, whether of Matthew, Luke , Irenaeus or Ignatius can help.

Matthew 22.41-46, While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

42. Saying, 'What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

43. He saith unto them them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying.

44. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45. If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

46. And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him anymore questions

EarlDoherty

Perhaps you could tell us this: if a person has parents of two different tribes, to which tribe does he belong? If he has grandparents of four different tribes, to which tribe does he belong? (I'm not asking this as a trick question.)

Perhaps we could ask further: Does any Christian writer ever spell out the tribe of Mary?

If Mary were assumed to be of the tribe of Judah, it seems to me that this would be seized on by virgin-birth advocates as not requiring lineage through Joseph. It would also be a kind of 'double-boon' to the advocates of descent from David (we can assume from Mark 12:35f / Matt 22:41f that there was some dispute about it), as it would trace lineage through both parents. What a Godsend on both counts! But I'm going to go out on a limb (since I have not researched this particular point) and guess that no Christian commentator in any century ever makes a point of declaring Mary is of the tribe of Judah, which would bring her closer to possible descent from David.

Earl Doherty

John Kesler

I never said what tribe Mary belonged to. I merely pointed out that she did not have to be a Levite just because her "kinswoman" was also a Levite.

Doug Shaver

That is not how I understood the OP. I understood it to be a comment about the founding of Christianity.

I understood Earl's reference to modern Christianity to be simply that if modern Christians can ignore a certain nonsense in their dogma, then the founders of their religion could have ignored some other nonsense just as easily.

GakuseiDon

I worded that badly. I should have said that if this was another thread which argued against modern "apologist" claims or focused on the Gospel Jesus, then I would bow out. Certainly when framing his "contradictions" in the OP Earl hasn't taken into account that Paul and the early Christians may have had different beliefs to Ignatius and Irenaeus.

Yes, no doubt many Jesus mythers agree with such sentiments about both modern and early Christians, and nice of Earl to get a dig in along the way. The shame of this is that Earl pretty much misread or ignored what Ben wrote in the other thread.

What do you think of Earl's ultimate point? Having established that Christians accept irrationality and contradiction, he writes:

"I guess my ultimate point is that if a group of people were able to accept such a situation involving so much irrationality and contradiction, simply because it was seen as necessary dogma, I think we should have no trouble believing that any sort of irrational and contradictory dogma could be accepted by them. And that includes that an entirely spiritual being could be “of David’s seed” simply because it was a necessary dogma, since scripture said so (and helped along by the general mythology of the day)"

How far does his point rest on how "seed of David" and "in the flesh" was perceived by the early Christians? Is it worth finding other examples of those expressions, or is it enough to point out that Christians could accept irrationality and contradiction?