Diogenes the Cynic

I think the early Christian assumption was that Joseph allowed everyone else the impression that Jesus was his own biological son. I don't think there is any early claim for anything like a formal adoption.

Chris Weimer

The 1st century Jews have a custom of formal adoption? I don't recall reading anything in the Torah about circumstances like this, where usually the women would be subject to a stoning, no?

Diogenes the Cynic

Wasn't there a custom for men to marry the widows of their brothers and take their children as their own? That might be something akin to formal adoption.

I'm pretty sure that cuckholded husbands did not make a practice of adopting the offspring of their unfaithful wives, though.

Chris Weimer

Yes Diogenes, but that referred to widows in particular, not women knocked up by gods. :P

John A. Broussard

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4474894
For anyone interested in Jesus' lineage, this may be of interest--if you can believe it.

JoeWallack

JW:
There are far more problems in the Genealogies than is commonly discussed in Polemics. Here is a sampling of "difficulties" based on either the quantity of manuscripts or quality. Keep in mind that there are exponentially more variations if you consider the differences in ALL manuscripts. Enjoy!:

Mark 1: (KJV)
11 “And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.�

When you take out “son of God� from Mark 1:1 which apparently was added to what was originally written there is no mention of Jesus being God’s son in any sense before the declaration of 1:11 at the baptism. The use of “son� in 1:11 appears to be a figurative expression similar to how it was used in the Tanakh for David. It appears to be the official anointing of Jesus for his commission. What “Mark� doesn’t have is any mention of a virgin birth of Jesus. Traditionally Christianity has explained that “Matthew� was written first and “Mark� was intended to be a supplement to “Matthew� and didn’t mention the virgin birth because “Matthew� had already described it. That’s why editors added “son of God� to Mark 1:1 implying that Jesus had already been described as such in “Matthew’s� gospel. Modern Bible scholarship has determined that “Mark� was written before “Matthew� though and if this is true then the author of “Mark� either had never heard of the virgin birth story of “Matthew� or others or had heard of it but didn’t believe it. Apologists claim that there is no contradiction here because “Mark� doesn’t say that there was no virgin birth. A force more powerful than apologists though, common sense, says that if “Mark� thought there was a virgin birth he definitely would have mentioned it in his Gospel because it would have been an incredible piece of evidence that Jesus was special and should be believed in which was the point of his entire Gospel. The fact that there is no mention of a virgin birth in “Mark� supports the conclusion that the original author didn’t believe there was one.


Matthew 1: (KJV)
"4 And Aram begat Aminadab"

According to I Chronicles 2:10 it was Ram that begat Aminadab, not Aram. The earliest extant Greek manuscripts have the Greek equivalent of the English "Aram" for Matthew 1:4. (so presumably the KJV is correctly translating Matthew's error). The NIV has changed "Aram" to "Ram" correcting Matthew's error. The LXX states that Aram begat Aminadab so it's likely that Matthew made his error by simply copying from the LXX as he apparently was not fluent in Hebrew and so could not check the original Hebrew language. Some Bible scholars do theorize that the LXX was changed in some places to conform to the Gospels and that this is one of those instances. In any case Matthew's apparent use of "Aram" does not agree with any known Hebrew
text and in the absence of any evidence that the Hebrew use of "Ram" was the result of any change would be an error by Matthew.


Matthew 1: (KJV)
"5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab"

The only Rachab mentioned in the Tanakh was the Rachab of the
Conquest who lived about two hundred years before Boaz. Every
significant Church Father who commented on Matthew 1:5 assumed that Matthew was referring to the Rachab of the Conquest.


Matthew 1: (KJV)
"7 Abia begat Asa; :8 And Asa begat Josaphat"

Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English "Asaph" instead of "Asa" who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:7 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English "Asaph". Most of the older Greek manuscripts indicating "Asaph" were unknown to the translators of the KJV.


Matthew 1: (KJV)
"8 Joram begat Ozias"

According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah so Matthew has omitted Ahaziah from his genealogy.


Matthew 1: (KJV)
"8 Joram begat Ozias"

According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah who begat Joash so Matthew has also omitted Joash from his genealogy.


Matthew 1: (KJV)
"8 Joram begat Ozias"

According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah who begat Joash who begat Amaziah so Matthew has also omitted Amaziah from his genealogy.


Matthew 1: (KJV)
"10 Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias"

Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English "Amos" instead of "Amon" who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:10 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English "Amos". Most of the older Greek manuscripts indicating "Amos" were unknown to the translators of the KJV.


Matthew 1: (KJV)
"11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:"

According to I Chronicles 3:15 (JPS), Josiah (Josias in KJV) begat
Jehoiakim who begat Jeconiah (Jechonias in KJV) so Matthew has
omitted Jehoiakim from his genealogy.


Matthew 1: (KJV)
"11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:"

According to the Tanakh Jechonias only had one brother.


Matthew 1: (KJV)
"13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim"

According to the Tanakh (JPS), I Chronicles, 3:19-20, Abiud was not one of the eight children of Zerubbabel ("Zorobabel" in KJV).


Matthew 1: (KJV)
"17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen
generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations"

Matthew has omitted four generations from his genealogy between David and the Babylonian exile. Even without them he still has fifteen chronological names.


Matthew 1: (KJV)
"17 and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."

Almost 600 years separate the birth of Shealtiel from the birth of
Jesus resulting in an average of 46 years per generation. This
average is contradicted by all known averages for this period outside of Matthew. Luke's average would be 27 years and Josephus' average would be 25 years.


Luke 3: (KJV)
23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"

Compare to Matthew 1: (KJV)
16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
The father of Joseph (not sure what the correct term is for the
father of the husband of the wife who virgin birthed you as I don't believe that Amy Vanderbilt ever addresses this issue) according to "Luke" is Heli and according to "Matthew" is Jacob. Just going by names "Matthew" seems to have picked names based on their significance and order in the Tanakh. Jacob was the father of Joseph who had Egyptian children and "Jesus" is remarkably similar in sound to the Egyptian "Iusa" which means "the ever coming one". Of course this is just rampant speculation on my part.


Luke 3: (KJV)
27 "Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel,"

Luke has 20 generations from Zerubbabel to Jesus (it goes without saying that some of these generations are missing in some manuscripts) while Matthew has 11. As mentioned previously, for the time period covered Luke's number of generations is more plausible. Most of the names Luke lists for this period are unknown outside of Luke. Where Luke got them, God knows.


Luke 3: (KJV)
27 "Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,"

Compare to Matthew 1: (KJV)
12 "And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat
Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;"
According to Luke Neri was the father of Salathiel while according to Matthew and the Masoretic text Jeconiah was the father of Salathiel.


Luke 3: (KJV)
31 "Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,"

Compare to Matthew 1: (KJV)
6 "And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;" According to Luke Jesus was descended through Nathan while according to Matthew Jesus was descended through Solomon.


Luke 3: (KJV)
32 "Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,"

The earliest extant manuscripts have "Sala" which is different
than "Salmon" from the Tanakh. A majority of modern Christian
translations have mistranslated "Sala" as "Salmon" to make it agree to the name from the Tanakh.


Luke 3: (KJV)
33 "Which was the son of Aminadab"

The earliest extant manuscripts lack Aminadab and there is tremendous variation in names at this point in manuscripts indicating a likely omission in the original.


Luke 3: (KJV)
33 "Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom"

The textual evidence is that "Aram" above should be "Arni"
so "Matthew" has "Aram" as the son of Hezron (Esrom) and "Luke" has "Arni". Aram by any other name.


Luke 3: (KJV)
37 "Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad"

There is no "Cainan" in the related genealogy of either the Masoretic text or Josephus' listing. "Cainan" is in most Greek (Christian) translations of the Tanakh but Augustine is the first Church Father to mention the name so it's likely that "Cainan" was added to Greek translations because it was in "Luke".


John 1: (KJV)
1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.�

More definite article games. “and the Word was with God� has a “the� before God indicating a god in a class by himself, God the father. In fact “the� normally precedes “god� in the Christian Bible when god the father is being referred to and is translated as “god the father�. I didn’t see a single English translation that had a “the� here. Obviously the Christians want to give a Trinitarian mistranslation here and avoid having the father in a class by himself. Apparently they took the “the� here and put it in the infancy narratives where it didn’t belong.

Looking at the different genealogies of the Gospellers we can see that the Later the Gospeller the Earlier the Genea:

1) "Mark" - Start at Baptism.

2) "Matthew" - Start at Abraham.

3) "Luke" - Start at Adam.

4) "John" - Start at "The Beginning".

All consistent with a Mythological story as a Subsequent Christianity claims to know what the basis of their Historical knowledge, Earlier Christianity, didn't.

If I was a nitpicking type of guy I'd list a lot more problems of a
more subtle nature.



Joseph

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there
appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Error...Christian_Bible

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/

JCS

Well according to aish.com & SimpleToRemember.com along with various other websites refuting the conclusion your site claims. Jesus maybe a christian messiah but he doesn't appear to qualify as a jewish one and since the concept comes from their book...........?

Dharma

Actually, I admitted that many presumptions on this site and other sites made by Christians were in fact due to incorrect translations of Hebrew verses. Frankly, noone knows who Jesus was, and his fake lineage from David is a fabrication of Christians trying to convert Jews. From a historical viewpoint, it seems Christianity was a Greek attempt to syncretize elements from major world cults at the time into this new Greco-Roman religion for the middle east.