gregor

In John 7:41 - 42, the text reveals a disagreement in an audience listening to Jesus. Some believed him as the "prophet," others said he was the "Christ," but others disbelieved, saying the Christ had to come from Bethlehem and from the seed of David, which Jesus had not.

What apologist explanation exists for this unfortunate inconsistency with Romans 1:3, Matt and Luke's birth narratives, and other NT versus? The only thing I've ever heard in response is that the audience may not have heard of Jesus' provenance, and the audience was mistaken. This is hardly acceptable, and why would the author include this?

Doug Shaver

The author is implying that the people were unaware of Jesus' ancestry and the place of his birth. That is not inconsistent with any statement about his ancestry or place of birth. It would only be inconsistent with an allegation that his ancestry and place of birth were common knowledge.

RUmike

Some consider it Johannine irony, because it is assumed the reader knows Jesus in fact did come from such a place and ancestry. More realistically, however, the fourth evangelist probably had not heard any such stories about Jesus' birth and ancestry, or having heard any, did not believe them.

nygreenguy

I know Jesus wasnt exactally the physical seed, but Joseph, mary's husband was of that line. Many other quotes of the bible claim Jesus is from the line. (i wont list them unless you want me to)But if no one knew he wasnt divinly created, they could assume he was joseph's son, making him the seed of david.

Asha'man

Joseph's status as 'seed of david' is quite questionable, given that two conflicting geneologies exist for him. Two different men are named as his father, indicating that one or both genealogies are most likely fabrications. Given the theological need for a connection to the line of David, it seems most likely that both are theological fabrications after the fact, not common knowledge.

nygreenguy

Well, i have heard another expliantion for this story. Mary was of the seed of david. Now, we all know, that because of moses, females could have inheritance if their were no offspring in the family (mary's father Heli had no other childeren we know of, and her and joseph had no other) and that they married within the tribe. Well, Joseph is from the same tribe as mary, so she fullfills the requirements. Or it could be all bullshit, but it seems "legally" binding. They say luke 31 is proof of HER lineage.

Diogenes the Cynic

1. Both Matthew and Luke explicitly identify their genealogies as running through Joseph. Luke explicitly and unambiguously identifies Heli as Joseph's father, not Mary's.

And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,(Lk. 3:23)

Please don't try to tell me that Luke was really tracing Mary's bloodline (for some unfathomable reason) through her husband. There was no such genealogical convention. When X was identified as the father of Y, that's exactly what it meant. The hypothesis that either genealogy runs through Mary is utterly ad hoc and reaching and completely unsupported by the text.

2. Mary's bloodline was legally irrelevant anyway. The heir to David's throne had to be a direct biological descendant of David through the father, period. That is what "seed of David" means. The Mother's bloodline didn't count and maternal genealogies were not even kept.

3. Adoption doesn't count either, so even Joseph's bloodline was irrelevant if he wasn't Jesus' biological father.

4. These are made up genealogies anyway. There were no genuine genealogies traceable to any histoical David in the first century and the fact that both genealogies include purely mythical characters (like Adam and Abraham) should be a tip-off that they have no relationship to any genuine history.

jjramsey

I'm inclined to see it as dramatic irony. The accusation is simply left hanging, which would be a bit damaging if the audience was not expected to believe that the accusation was wrong or misleading. If the author of the Gospel of John did not have reason to expect that his audience to have such knowledge, I'd expect the author to have written an aside that would say either that Jesus really did come from Bethlehem or that it didn't matter whether he did or not. Further, the Gospel of John is rather late, so there was certainly opportunity for legends of the birth in Bethlehem to circulate to his readers.

As dramatic irony, it works. The "bad guys" make an accusation that the readers would see as clearly false, and the audience gets to snicker at their ignorance. It's a well-staged scene.

gregor

I just cannot by the intentional irony claim. There is no indication that te author wanted to high-light the mistake. The two options are to deal with the follow-along statement "as a result there was a disagreement amongst the people." Option 1: There was a disagreement, although it was all a misunderstanding based upon 1/2 of the audience not realizing the truth. There's virtualy no teaching point for this scenario.

Option 2: There was a disagreement because it was known that Jesus was not of Bethlehem, and was born to common folk in Nazareth, but the true believers didn't have to stand on this prophesy.

This second option seems the more reasonable.

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, I think John knew that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem (but didn't regard this as important: after all, the expectation that he should be born in Bethlehem is based on a rather dubious interpretation of Micah 5:2).

Luke was apparently aware of a "birthplace problem" too, because he invents a fictional "census" as a plot device to move Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem. The only author who unequivocally places Jesus in Bethlehem is Matthew, the least reliable gospel author, the one most willing to simply invent stuff (e.g. the bogus "prophecies" he has Jesus fulfilling).