James Brown

The existence of alternative genealogies could be from original error, copyist error, conflicting sources, etc. Any genealogist will tell you that they know of others who freely graft family tree branches where they don't belong for various reasons, be it pride, shame, vanity, etc.


Your sentence is a fragment, so I don't know what you're trying to say. "Since the claim...." what?

The need for genealogies is obvious, since Jews require their Messiah to be a direct descendant of David. If Jesus wasn't a descendant of David, then he can't be the Messiah.

I still can't understand your wording. "Held their breath" is just a figure of speech that comes from writers who need their product to appeal to two different markets. One focus group needs their product to have a strict lineage spelled out, entirely human, or else it's damaged goods. The other focus group needs their product to be sired directly from divinity as a virgin birth. One product can't satisfy both test markets--the two characteristics are mutually contradictory.

A wise editor might see the inherent conflict and choose to excise one or the other aspect, but that option wasn't available. So the authors "held their breath" and kept both aspects in. Jesus was the union of a woman and a god, and at the same time Jesus was the latest son in a long line of Jewish sons. For many, the absurdity of the contradiction is somehow a selling point, in that it adds to the mystery of the religion and makes it more inaccessible to the unenlightened (I'm speaking from experience here.)

But for cooler heads, the whole thing is absurd as marketing a soft drink to kids as "New and Improved" and to seniors as "The Original Classic," and hope that sales take off strongly enough before Grampa and the Kids see that the same soft drink can't possibly be both.

Again, the answer is obvious. Proof. For those who take genealogies seriously as Jews did, the claim of a Messiah is stronger if he can spell out precisely how he's descended from David.

Nope. Non-Jews had no concept of a Messiah, so anyone claiming to be a Messiah wouldn't get traction. For pagans, what they need is demi-gods sporting with nubile females and miraculous births, along with the threat of kings and the adoration of commoners. And that's exactly what they got with Jesus, provided they were willing to ignore that he's the genetic descendant of two human parents.

That's the contradiction pointed out by Tom Flynn. One group needs one thing; another group needs another thing. No one human being can satisfy both conditions, so the product developers just "held their breath," offered Jesus up as satisfying both needs, and hoped that the product would stick long enough to gain market share. And it did, handily.

Duvduv

Yes, you're right. I used it referring to the Constantinian church.

Duvduv

James, are you suggesting that the Judaic/Hellenist contrast was an original intention of the gospels or was the product of a cut and past job?

Sorry. My sentence below had a verb "was" and was missing a "that". Otherwise I follow your drift pretty well. Thanks. It's interesting that for the epistles any details other than his Christ being of "the seed of David" were unnecessary, although I realize we are not talking about the same thing if "Paul" was simply arguing that his celestial Christ as Savior was of David in a mystical way.

since the very claim that Jesus was of the house of David as the messiah in the original Davidic Judaic world view (as opposed to the gentile virgin birth world view).

Duvduv

Looking at the genealogies again (and again) it struck me that the simple difference of opinion between GMatt and GLuke rests on a dispute as to whether Jesus was a "descendant" of SOLOMON or of NATHAN.

It is rather interesting that according to normative Jewish tradition, the Davidic messiah is a descendant through Nathan and not Solomon.

In any case the presence of genealogies definitely shows that one "branch" believed Jesus to be a legitimate son of Joseph before the virgin story was inserted. Possibly along the lines of what James was suggesting, there were two competing groups, one of Judeophile gentiles (I am not totally pursuaded these included any actual Jews), some who adhered closely to Jewish beliefs. and the other group of gentiles who although accepted monotheism, still adhered to pagan birth stories. But this would suggest that either there were two completely different birth stories of the messiah/savior that were pasted together so to speak, or the story was written in this manner to begin with in deference to the beliefs of both groups. I sort of tend toward the former rather than the latter.

mountainman

All was rosy and harmonious until the appearance of things like The Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Then there were problems of all sorts, since it depicts the Child Jesus as a malevolent trickster wizard. The important historical question therefore is WHEN did the Gnostic reaction first commence?

Duvduv

James, if you believe that the birth story was meant to reconcile two different beliefs, that means that either the Luke and Matthew groups faced the same challenge independently or someone felt the Matthew version was totally unsatisfactory. Note that the Matthew version takes place at the beginning but in Luke it comes later on. One wonders why GLuke didn't think it necessary to introduce it in the beginning especially if they were disagreeing over whether Joseph was descended from Nathan or Solomon

aa5874

The presence of the genealogies does NOT show what you claim at all.

In fact, we have an apologetic source, Justin Martyr, that mentioned the virgin birth story and did NOT at all mention any genealogy of Joseph.

We have a non-apologetic source, Celsus, that also mentioned the Jesus story and also did NOT mention any genealogy.

Justin and Celsus show that up to the mid-2nd century there were stories of the Virgin Birth of Jesus WITHOUT any genealogy.

Duvduv

Further to my question, was there ever a so-called church writer in ancient times to challenge the acceptance of four gospels? I have never heard of it but if none exist does that suggest that they were always known only in a set of four?
Especially since no evidence exists aside from claims of heresiologists that other sects accepted less than four.
And even in that case it is always as ONE gospel and no more.

Duvduv

If so, then who added them and why? And why the dispute over descent from Solomon versus Nathan?

Chili

I do not think it matters much what is says or in the order of who is who, but more in when it says.

In Matthew it was as recorded rigidly as the record said it was, while in Luke it emerges spontaneously after the 'father and son became one,' and so the dove might as well descend because the trinity collapsed. So in Luke it was a matter of insight that goes past all records and past all Jewish greats in history, past Adam direct to God.