Little Dot

I looked at your link and how can people still believe in a "Q" source when there is not one shred of documentary evidence that it ever existed. No manuscript or any version of it has ever been found. :huh:

spin

All you need do is explain the evidence for what appears to be a second written source a better way.

gupwalla

Biblical scholars, and even many non-scholarly but serious laystudents of the bible (such as myself), will gladly admit right up front that {Q}uelle is a hypothetical document. But that is not the same thing as saying that "not one shred of documentary evidence" exists for Q.

A significant plurality of serious bible scholars (from all faiths and no faith) might respond to your #51 with, "But we do have documentary evidence of Q. It is called 'manuscripts of Luke and Matthew.'"

And from a standpoint of biblical scholarship, they are not wrong. There are whole segments of early Christian writings that exist only through quotation by writers whose works managed to survive the ravages of time, while the quoted works did not. "Lost writings" are not uncommon when dealing with ancient literature -- sometimes they are the rule rather than the exception. Generally speaking, if a work was not in wide circulation as of about the 5th or 6th century then it is lost to us unless we find it in a buried jar or a cave somewhere. And if by that time the most popular versions of Q (if it existed) were circulated in the narratively superior Matthew and Luke, then it would not be surprising if an independent Q were no longer being copied and preserved outside of those versions.

(Regulars, please do not shoot me for what I am about to say...)

In your original post in this thread, you asked -- I think in earnest -- why skeptics seem to be interested in the differences between the various gospel traditions included in the canon. And I think the Synoptic Problem and the Q Hypothesis are actually excellent cases for you to study -- not glimpse over and dismiss, but really grapple with seriously -- because they hit at the heart of why various similarities and differences are interesting from a scholarly perspective.

So I'd suggest you check out Bart Ehrman's "New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings". If you have the cash and prefer an audio format, The Teaching Company also has a series of lectures by Ehrman with the same basic content.

Ehrman comes from an evangelical Christian background (such as your own) and might be a more comfortable starting point for your historical journey into biblical scholarship.

You don't have to accept the Q Hypothesis to be considered a serious student by serious people. But I do strongly think you have to understand Q and make intelligent arguments against it if you don't agree with it. You aren't going to win the hearts and minds of knowledgeable skeptics if you dismiss it out of hand after a 5-min skim of a wiki article.

Atheos

I've been watching this thread develop for a couple of days now. I'm wondering what the point is.

In the opening post we read the following question:

This question was answered almost immediately. It's not that important. But these differences give us clues as to how the documents developed. We can study these differences today (and reference other differences gleaned from documents that didn't past the gang's muster at Nicea in 325) and piece together a great deal about the development of early christian traditions. Because of the popularity of variants of christian religion throughout history these developments are inseparably intertwined in a rigorous study of world history and civilization.

The Judaeo/Christian bible contains many absurdities, atrocities and contradictions. So what? :huh: It also contains lots of noble and lofty thought. It is the product of sometimes unsophisticated and barbaric mentality consistent with the time periods in which it developed. Slave ownership (including guidelines for beating slaves) is unapologetically sanctioned right alongside passages that discourage adultery. It is what it is.

Don't get me wrong. We love debating these issues, and that's why we're here. I'd just like to point out that you're not going to win any converts here by appealing to "Matthew=Kingly / Mark=Servant / Luke=Man / John=God". Heard that, used to preach it myself, still have a ratty old Tee-Shirt. We know someone can waltz in here and start apologizing for all the absurdity in the bible. People also apologize for all the absurdity in the Book of Mormon, "Pearl of Great Price", "Truth that Leads To Eternal Life", the Koran and other religious documents. Big whoop.

Little Dot, I guess the question at hand is this: Are you an inerrantist? Is it your contention that the canonical gospels are the eyewitness testimony of four independent witnesses writing under the direct inspiration of God? How about we cut to the chase and quit dancing around like a bunch of ninjas in a B grade Kung-Fu movie?

Juststeve

Avi:

This is from a Jewish Website called Messiah Truth and does a pretty good job of explaining the concept of the Messiah from a Jewish point of view. Although Jews are entitled to disagree I think the view expressed is pretty normative. It is consistent with what I was taught as a Jewish boy growing up.

If you read Christian sources you will be misled.

"Judaism, unlike the Christianity, does not believe that the Messiah is Jesus. The noun moshiach (translated as messiah) annotatively means "annointed one;" it does not, however, imply "savior." The notion of an innocent, semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought or scripture. In Judaic texts, the term messiah was used for all kings, high priests, certain warriors, but never eschatological figures. In the Tanach, moshiach is used 38 times: two patriarchs, six high priests, once for Cyrus, 29 Israelite kings such as Saul and David. Not once is the word moshiach used in reference to the awaited Messiah. Even in the apocalyptic book of Daniel, the only time moshiach is mentioned is in connection to a murdered high priest. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pseudepigrapha, and Apocrypha never mention the Messiah.

The man destined to be the Messiah will be a direct descendant of King David (Isaiah 11:1) through the family of Solomon, David's son (1 Chronicles 22:9-l0). He will cause all the world to serve God together (Isaiah 11:2), be wiser than Solomon (Mishnah Torah Repentance 9:2), greater than the patriarchs and prophets (Aggadah Genesis 67), and more honored than kings (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10), for he will reign as king of the world (Pirkei Eliezer).

Amongst the most basic missions that the Messiah will accomplish during his lifetime (Isaiah 42:4) are to:

* Oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Third Temple, in the event that it has not yet been rebuilt (Michah 4:1 and Ezekiel 40-45)

* Gather the Jewish people from all over the world and bring them home to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 11:12; 27:12-13)

* Influence every individual of every nation to abandon and be ashamed of their former beliefs (or non-beliefs) and acknowledge and serve only the One True God of Israel (Isaiah 11:9-10; 40:5 and Zephaniah 3:9)

* Bring about global peace throughout the world (Isaiah 2:4; 11:5-9 and Michah 4:3-4).

There are over a dozen additional prophecies which the Messiah will also achieve (there is no mention of any “second coming” in the Tanach or the New Testament). In order to avoid identifying the wrong individual as Messiah, the Code of Jewish Law dictates criteria for establishing the Messiah's identity (Mishnah Torah Kings 11:4):

"If a king arises from the House of David who meditates on the Torah, occupies himself with the commandments as did his ancestor King David, observes the commandments of the Written and Oral Law, prevails upon all Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and to follow its direction, and fights the wars of God, it may be assumed that he is the Messiah.

If he does these things and is fully successful, rebuilds the Third Temple on its location, and gathers the exiled Jews, he is beyond doubt the Messiah. But if he is not fully successful, or if he is killed, he is not the Messiah."

Over 1,000 years before the attributed birth of the historical Jesus, it was recorded in the Tanach:

* Numbers 23:19: God is not a man, that He should be deceitful, nor the son of man, that He should repent. Would He say and not do, or speak and not confirm?

* Psalms 146:3: Do not rely on princes nor in the son of man, for he holds no salvation."

Steve

Evad

Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David's line, and Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Luke 1:32, 35 / Romans 1:1-4)

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Luke 3:31 / Matthew 1:6-7) Luke follows the ancestry of Mary which shows Jesus' natural descent from David. Matthew shows Jesus' legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father. Both signify that Joseph wasn't Jesus' actual father, only his adoptive father and giving him legal right.

Matthew departs from his style when he comes to Jesus, saying: "Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16) He doesn't say that 'Joseph became father to Jesus' but that he was "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born." Luke says that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Luke 1:32-35) that "Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli." Luke 3:23.

Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit 1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: 'Genus matris non vocatur genus ( "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant")' ('Baba bathra,' 110, a)." Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

Both genealogies show descent from David - through Solomon and through Nathan. (Matthew 1:6 / Luke 3:31) They come together again in two persons; Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah, perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri - he was then the "son of Neri." or Neri's son-in-law. It is also possible that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his "son." ( Compare Matthew 1:12 / Luke 3:27 / 1 Chronicles 3:17-19)

So Acts 2:30; 13:23 / Romans 1:3 / 2 Timothy 2:8 / Revelation 22:16 all of which are used in support of Joseph being the father of Joseph and the seed of David are accurate in that Joseph was through David's line and legal father to Jesus.

Hebrews 2:16 which refers to Jesus as seed of Abraham refers to the covenant God had with Abraham, which was for a "seed" which many nations would bless themselves. (Genesis 22:17-18 / Galatians 3:8) The Jews were all of the seed of Abraham (John 8:39 / Matthew 3:9) but they rejected it when they rejected the Messiah. Even in Genesis 22:17-18 it mentions Abraham's seed as being a blessing to all the nations. A spiritual seed that would surpass the fleshly inheritance of the people of Israel.

Matthew 1:8 and Luke 1:31-35 is given as a contradiction but Mary was from the Davidic line and Joseph was Jesus' legal father, so there is no contradiction.

At Matthew 22:45 and Mark 12:35-37 Jesus quotes David in Psalm 110. Jesus never denied that he was a descendant of David, he only points out something the Pharisees were not aware of. Jesus existed in heaven as God's first born only begotten son before the earth was made and before Abraham. (John 1:1 / 8:58)

Explanation Of Difficulties In The Genealogies Of Matthew And Luke
The first chapter of Matthew the genealogy of Jesus runs from Abraham forward. In Luke chapter 3 the genealogy goes back to "Adam son of God." Part of Jesus genealogy also appears at 1 Chronicles chapters 1 - 3, running from Adam through Solomon and Zerubbabel. The books of Genesis and Ruth combined give the line from Adam to David.

The latter three lists - Genesis/Ruth, 1 Chronicles and Luke - agree fully from Adam to Arpachshad, with minor differences on certain names such as Kenan, which is "Cainan" at Luke 3:37. The Chronicles and Genesis/Ruth lists agree down to David while another "Cainan" is found in Luke's account between Arpachshad and Shelah. (Luke 3:35-36)

From Solomon to Zerubbabel the Chronicles record and Matthew agree though Matthew omits some names. One needs to address these as well as the differences in Luke's account from David to Jesus.

Genealogy involved private family records in addition to the public records of genealogies which chroniclers, such as Ezra, for example, had access to when they compiled their lists. To the registers that existed in the first century up until 70 C.E. the matter of the descent of the Messiah from Abraham through David was very important.

Matthew and Luke no doubt consulted these genealogical tables.

The question is why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listing of other chroniclers? For one thing it is not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. Ezra, for example, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, left out several names that were listed at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Matthew seems to have copied from the public register - leaving out some names not needed to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. Access of the Hebrew Scriptures would have likely been used as well. (Ruth 4:12, 18-22 and Matthew 1:3-6)

Both the lists made by Matthew and Luke would have been publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The Pharisees as well as the Sadducees - bitter enemies of Christianity didn't challenge these genealogies. They could have done so up until 70 C.E. when the records were destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Problems in Matthew's Genealogy?
Matthew divides the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus into three sections of 14 generations each. There is a name count of 41 rather than 42. By taking Abraham to David, 14 names, then using David as the starting name for the second 14, with Josiah as the last and finally by heading the third series of 14 names with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and ending with Jesus. Matthew repeats the name David as the last of the first 14 names and as the first of the next 14. Then he repeats the expression "the deportation to Babylon," which he links with Josiah and his sons. (Matthew 1:17)

There is an omission of three kings of David's line between Jehoram and Uzziah (Azariah) because Jehoram married wicked Athaliah of the house of Ahab, the daughter of Jezebel bringing this God condemned strain into the line of the kings of Judah. (1 Kings 21:20-26 / 2 Kings 8:25-27) Matthew named Jehoram as first in this wicked alliance, but left out the next three kings to the fourth generation - Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah.

Where Matthew indicates that Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel (Matthew 1:12) it coincides with other references (Ezra 3:2 / Nehemiah 12:1 / Hagai 1:14 / Luke 3:27) but at 1 Chronicles 3:19 Zerubbabel is listed as the son of Pedaiah. This is because Zarubbabel was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage or possibly after Zerubbabel's father Pedaiah died Zerubbabel was brought up by Shealtiel as his son and so legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.

Problems With Lukes Genealogy?
Available manuscript copies of Luke list a second "Cainan" between Arpachshad (Arphaxad) and Shelah. (Luke 3:35 Compare Genesis 10:24 / 11:12 / 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24) Most scholars take it to be a copyist's error. "Cainan" is not found in this position in the Hebrew genealogical listings in the Hebrew or Samaritan texts, nor in any of the Targums or versions except the Septuagint. It doesn't seem to be in earlier copies of the Septuagint because Josephus - who almost always uses the Septuagint - lists Seles (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxades (Arpachshad) - (Jewish Antiquities, I, 146 [vi, 4]) Africanus, Irenaeus, Jerome and Eusebius all rejected "Cainan" in Luke's account as an interpolation.

Bible Lists Of Jesus' Genealogy
Genesis And Ruth - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jered, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram (Abraham), Isaac, Jacob (Israel), Judan (and Tamar), Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz (and Ruth), Obed, Jesse, David.

1 Chronicles chapters 1, 2, 3. - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon (Salma, 1 Chronicles 2:11), Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah (Uzziah), Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Amon, Josiah, Jehoiakim, Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), Shealtiel (Pedaiah) (See Footnote # 1), Zerubbabel (see Footnote # 2).

Matthew Chapter 1 - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah (and Tamur), Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon (and Salmon Rahab), Boaz (and Ruth), Obed, Jesse, David (and Bath-sheba), Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah (Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekia, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Jusus (foster son).

Luke chapter 3 - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Cainan, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Arni (Ram?), Amminadab, Nahshon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Nathan (See Footnote # 3), Mattatha, Menna, Melea, Eliakim, Jonam, Joseph, Judas, Symeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Jesus, Er, Elmadam, Cosam, Addi, Melchi, Neri, Shealtiel (See Footnote # 4), Zerubbabel, Rhesa, Joanan, Joda, Josech, Semein, Mattathias, Maath, Naggai, Esli, Nahum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Jannai, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli (father of Mary), Joseph (Heli's son-in-law), Jesus (Mary's son).

Footnote # 1. Zerubbabel evidently was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage; or he was brought up by Shealtiel after his father Pedaiahs death and became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel (1 Chronicles 3:17-19 / Ezra 3:2 / Luke 3:27).

Footnote # 2. The lines meet in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, afterward diverging. This divergence could have been through two different descendants of Zerubbabel, or Rhesa or Abiud could have been a son-in-law.

Footnote # 3. At Nathan, Luke begins reckoning the genealogy through Jesus maternal line, while Matthew continues with the paternal line.

Footnote #4. Shealtiel the son of Jeconiah possibly was the son-in-law of Neri. (1 Chronicles 3:17 / Luke 3:27).

Evad

The problem I see with most skeptical effort is that it doesn't give enough attention to the root source. It makes the bold unsubstantiated assumption that the Bible is a collection of writings by a group of ancient people with the intention of perpetuating a myth, when in fact "God coming to earth and getting nailed to a cross" isn't implied in the text at all, but was later added on as the myth was popularized.

Toto

Evad: your first post was copied from A Response To The Skeptics Annotated Bibile - Was Joseph The Father Of Jesus?

Is that your website? Are you David Henson?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Evad,

You say that it is "an unsubstantiated assumption that the bible is a collection of writing by a group of ancient people with the intention of perpetuating a myth" You then state that a group of ancient people collected the bible and perpetuated a myth.

In old movie Westerns, the old Indian chief would at some point generally say the line, "White Man speak with forked tongue." I feel like that character.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Evad

Yes and yes.