Ted Hoffman

Sanders argues in the Historical Figure of Jesus that Jesus being "son of god" was purely in the adoptionist sense, not in the sense Zeus had intercourse with Leda and sired Helen and Polydeuces. He argues that "Son of God" designated one standing in a special relationship to God.
He argues against the idea that Jesus was a hybrid/mangod by stating that "Matthew and Luke, in their birth narratives, do sow the seeds of this view, but even these accounts do not systematically suppose that God directly sired Jesus, since the genealogies trace Jesus' descent from David through Joseph" p.245

WTF? Dont they state that Joseph was betrothed to Mary? Dont they state that angel Gabriel told Mary that she would be pregnant? Dont they state that Joseph wanted to dump Mary but the angels prevailed upon him?

WTF? Does Matt state that God made Mary pregnant or not?

spin

Have you ever thought why the genealogies were put there in the first place? Why does each genealogy contain a statement that invalidates it?

Lk 3:23
He was the son (as it was thought) of Joseph.

Mt 1:16
and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born

Oh, and the angelic visits which so the same thing, constradicting the value of the genealogies.

So let me ask once more, what was the original purpose of the genealogies? (It's not a trick question.)


spin

Zeichman

Some scholars hold that Luke did not believe Mary conceived virginally. And what of pre-Matthean and Lukan uses of sonship Christology (e.g. Q 10:22, Mark) that does not even suggest it was in a conception type of way?

That said, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. It's a popular work, if he's "apologizing" for anything, it's for historical criticism against faith-based theism. Why would he even be considering mythicism, if that's what you're suggesting?

aa5874

The birth of Jesus, as described in Matthew and Luke, are non-events. That is, even if Matthew and Luke had the exact genealogy for Joseph, that genealogy would never explain or confirm the birth of Jesus in the NT.

Now, it is known that the birth of Jesus did not occur, as described in the NT, therefore information about the entire event is suspect.

Anyhow, I have managed to find a character named Jesus, the son of Caiphus, who lived in the 1st century according to Josephus. This Jesus was a leader or part of a band of robbers. This group, according to Josephus, consisted of [b]mariners and poor people, and this Jesus wanted to have Josephus himself killed.

See, section 12 and 57 of the Life of Flavius Josephus, for more details at http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...s/autobiog.htm

Ted Hoffman

To establish Davidic Kinship. Matthew 1:6-7 traces Joseph to David's son Solomon and Luke 3:31 traces him to Nathan.
But no matter. The contradicting genealogies aside, it is more probable that the genealogies and virgin births were written by different people with different theological agendas, as Helms suggests in Gospel Fictions, p. 45.
What riles me is Sanders trying to wish away one part of the gospels using another that he is more comfortable with. Isnt it more reasonable to argue that the virgin births were grafted onto the birth narratives later and that the original traditions may have had Joseph as the father of Jesus?
What do you think spin?

Dean Anderson

I'm at work, so I don't have my books with me - but I seem to remember Ehrman arguing that the "as it was thought" clause is not found in some of the earliest manuscripts and therefore might be an anti-adoptionist redaction. If that is the case, then the original purpose of the genealogy may not be what it would appear to be given its current wording.

Or am I just going senile in my old age and misremembering things..?

spin

I'd agree.

Right, though the detachment of Jesus from the Davidic line does invalidate its significance. Hence...
...this doesn't seem to me to be a fair indictment of Sanders, unless of course he's trying to have it both ways -- I haven't read him. (I usually tend to avoid secondary sources. :blush: ) I wouldn't think so though. It should be obvious by the inclusion of the genealogies that their purpose was the Davidic connection which would not exist without a line that reached Jesus.

You cite him as saying "these accounts do not systematically suppose that God directly sired Jesus, since the genealogies trace Jesus' descent from David through Joseph". The virgin birth stuff breaks the line at Joseph.

I would think so and it would seem that Sanders is giving priority to the genealogies that the virgin birth stuff nullifies. Has Sanders given you indications of another approach?

(Of course the texts themselves don't have god directly siring Jesus either.)


spin

spin

I don't have any modern work with which to check this, but I couldn't find any indicators in Tischendorf's apparatus to suggest it.

You still may be correct, so don't fall back on the senility line just yet. :wave:


spin

Ted Hoffman

spin,
No, he is not trying to have it both ways. He is arguing that Matt and Luke, through the genealogies are themselves telling us not to "systematically suppose that God directly sired Jesus." He is basically faulting Matt and Luke for sowing seeds of the view that Jesus was a hybrid but vindicating them for quickly nipping that seed in the bud by using the genealogies.
I think this is what apologists do.

spin

It's interesting then if he sees that the principal gospel writers were responsible for adding the genealogies to the stories to reduce the effect of the virgin birth stuff. The latter seems to be imposed on the genealogical importance, ie the genealogies had sense in their support of a Davidic messiah and the virgin birth kills that support. That's the inverse of what you describe of Sanders' thought.


spin