Amaleq13

In that context, the focus is on the specific motivation of the author (e.g. why this genealogy?) and on how the reader (believing and unbelieving) would have understood it.

I'm not sure I understand this question. It seems you are asking if, in the context of an assumed fabricated genealogy, the author fabricated the genealogy. As opposed to obtaining it from an unknown source?

Paul was dead by the time this genealogy was written and he exhibits no knowledge of any genealogy in his letters.

I believe your opponents in this thread have indicated several times that they have seen no evidence suggesting that this idea deserves any "respect".

For example, you quoted Juchasin as asserting that genealogy is through Mary despite his admission that "because of a rule with the Jews {d}, that "the family of the mother is not called a family." {d} Juchasin, fol. 55. 2. It is difficult to take such an assertion seriously when it is not supported by any offered evidence and seems to be directly contradicted by the stated rule.

Again, that Custance is willing to make this assertion is simply not enough to warrant respecting it. Where is the evidence specifically supporting the assertion? Where is the evidence that 1st century Jews considered it legitimate to trace genealogy through the mother?

Steven Avery

Hi Amaleq,

> Praxeus
> In their paradigm of analyzing a fabricated genealogy ...
> What does it all mean, what are they considering, what is the significance?

So your New Testament analysis is a type of psychological analysis of unknown authors of fabricated and fictional texts. Pretty arcane. May I ask .. why would you bother, if you really believe it was just a mental conception of an author fabricating ?

> Praxeus
> In that context, the focus is on the specific motivation of the author (e.g. why this genealogy?)
> and on how the reader (believing and unbelieving) would have understood it.
No, please consider this as folded into the dialog above.

There is so much presumption locked into this statement that it is almost mind-boggling :-) (Actually I don't even know if you consider Luke or Paul as real individuals, or Jesus.)
Question, what about Paul and Luke being together in Acts (with the Gospel of Luke written earlier than his book of Acts), or Paul mentioning Luke twice, or the verse where Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke as Scripture. (1 Timothy 5:18).

Anyway, overall, will you at least agree that there is no hard evidence for Paul being dead when the genealogy was written (your flat assertion), and there is direct textual evidence in reverse -- whatever your view of the matter.

Actually I really haven't seen such indication, although some on these threads will come out with rather strange broad-brushed assertions without evidence (and what I see in general is that a dozen such folks will have competing and contradictory theories) ..

Essentially you are saying that skeptics and errantists and mythicists and infidels cannot think "outside their box" even to trying to imagine an argument that takes the NT assertions as literally true, that the authors are who they say they are, to the people that are addressed, at the times indicated, and for the purposes indicated. Rather curious. They must assume their own presumptions of fabrication, myth, error and forgery, in order to prove their conclusions of fabrication, myth, error and forgery. Hmmmm.

Tis was given as the reason why Mary is not specifically named, however her husband, Joseph (Heli's son-in-law) is, even though the seedline came through Mary :-)

This is discussed in more depth by Lee Smith
http://www.arlev.clara.net/genealog.htm
THE GENEALOGY OF THE MESSIAH or ‘Whose line is it anyway?’
http://www.arlev.clara.net/genjesus.htm
Jesus, Joseph, Jacob and Heli

And its hard to say how much more we should thread this needle with folks who simply consider the genealogy as fabrications anyway :-) However, I will do some more, I like to learn.

Again, some of the evidence is very simple, such as Joseph having only one father. Or the special usage of "supposed".

Beyond that there are many considerations .. (sidenote: in Judaism today Jewish identity is considered as through the matriarchal line, and I won't go into the complex details of the Talmud reference of Mary arguably as sone of Heli) ..

As Micheal Brown put it in reply to the

Objection --
"If Yeshua is not Joseph's Literal son, then according to biblical and Jewish law, he is not Davidic".

Michael Brown
"Really? What is the Jewish law for determining the pedigree of a preexistent Messiah ? What is the halakha for virgin-born men ? Where does Jewish or biblical law even deal with such questions ?...... As stated, such matters transend--- not break! earthly laws and precedents."

Then Brown does show in Torah inheritance is passed on through through the daughters and their husbands (Numbers 36:1-12). And how in 1 Chronicles 2 Sheshan's genealogy continues through his daughter's childeren.

Overall we have a number of supporting citations in scripture and in Judaism.

Praxeus
> Custance puts it simply "according to the Jewish way of thinking -and
> indeed, according to the common practice of many other societies - the
> man who married could claim his wife's father as his own." Start with the Torah examples of Michael Brown, continue with the earlier rabbinic references, consider the overall unique paradox as pointed out by Brown, allow for the genealogies to be in harmony, and the evidence is actually between strong and overwhelming :-)

One of the nicest general summaries..
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modu...=3&itemid=1834
The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke - By Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Question:
Why would it be at all important or siginficant for you to have a genealogy that you consider to be a fabrication to have been theoretically fabricated in Luke's mind through Joseph rather than fabrciated through Miriam ? If it truly were a fabrication would you not be trying to squeeze a camel through a needle to make substance of such a nuanced and ethereal aspect. This type of skeptic viewpoint reminds me of Ronald Reagan claiming a "mental finding", only more arcane.

Shalom,
Praxeus

PS. For the background of Sepher Juchasin (Yahassin), from Rabbi Abraham Ben Samuel Zacuto (some of this material used to be on the net in English, and is a major Jewish history)
.
The "Sepher Juchasin" or " Book of Families," written in unpointed Hebrew, and attributed to the pen of one of the Sephardim or Spanish and Portuguese Jews, the Rabbi Abraham Zacuth or Zacuto..... The book is said to have been written about the year 1502 of our chronology. - Edwin Johnson

Diogenes the Cynic

Of course the bloodlines were fabricated. They claim descendency from people who never existed. Leaving aside the debate about whether David and Solomon ever existed, these genalogies also include such incontrovably mythical characters as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Luke even goes all the way back to Noah and Adam.

It's not like anyone actually had any genuine, documented genealogies going back to David even by the 1st Century CE (or probably the 7th Century BCE for that matter). So what was Luke's source for the bloodline of this peasant artisan, Joseph, from up in the Galileean boondocks? Divine inspiration? The fact that they were fabricated goes without saying. As should the fact they are both intended to trace the bloodline of Joseph, not Mary. There simply isn't any genuine textual, historical or theological (relative to the author) reason to think so and the only reason to attempt to make any such case at all is if one is motivated by the completely unfounded belief that the gospels can't contradict each other.

Steven Avery

Diogenes..please.. where do you get your knowledge of how good oral genealogies were in the 1st century ? Or the written genealogies in the Jerusalem Temple and in Israel ? I'm curious...How do you know what they had in the 1st Century CE or the 7th Century BCE ? Genealogies are a far more significant issue in some cultures than we have today. And of course you do understand that Luke would have considered Tanach a proper and trustworthy written source as well, which may especially help with the earlier times.

In some middle eastern cultures today, I don't think you would have great difficulty finding individuals giving you a genealogy going back a good ways, I've heard of about 30-40 generations, but it would be interesting to get an "oral history" expert to discuss this, which I do not claim to be.

Even within Judaism today it is an interesting question, genealogy claims, one that I occasionally try to research (whether any exact lineage is claimed from before the time of Maharal of Prague in the 1500's or whether the detailsl of the modern claims stops there, and then take a jump).

Honestly, Diogenes, this cuts both ways. Your reasons for tracing the bloodline through Joseph ignore a lot of aspects, based on your believing (or unbelieving) in fictional gospels. Of course on this forum, that is the majority :-)

However, I will be the first to happily and completely grant that if the gospels and genealogies and biblical personages are fictional, fabrications.. it does not make one hoot of a difference whether they go through Joseph or Mary. Or if the inventive writer changed his view each day after a nights sleep. Or the inventive readers.

What I am trying to figure out is why the skeptics/infidels would care, and get involved in such a secondary analysis, involving such "mental findings" (Reagan). That really puzzles me some, and I wonder if there really isn't more going on than the external air.

Shalom,
Steven
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Amaleq13

It is all that is possible absent the magical power of faith which is arguably the more truly arcane path to an understanding of the evidence.

I enjoy the mental exercise of attempting to solve a puzzle with an incomplete supply of pieces and questionable reliability attributable to those extant.

Why do you bother discussing such trivial details given the power of faith to make all such mundane matters ultimately irrelevant?

I'm surprised your mind is so easily boggled.

With regard to Luke, I certainly assume that a real person wrote the Gospel and Acts. I do not find the "we" passages nor tradition sufficient to conclude that the author was an actual associate of Paul.

With regard to Paul, I tend to assume he is historical and the author of at least some of the letters attributed to him.

With regard to Jesus, I would say I remain open to all possibilities though mythical seems far more likely and reliable to me than some sort of harmonized extraction from the Gospel stories. I do not see that anything reliably historical can be obtained from that collection of tall tales.

No, I would say that is a completely backwards way of approaching the problem. I would say, instead, we have no evidence whatsoever that the Gospel attributed to Luke was written while Paul lived and only evidence that it existed long after he was dead.

No, I'm saying that you have given them no good reason to do so in this thread.

It is not so much that it is important or significant as it is consistent with my understanding of how genealogical connections were established at the time.

Steven Avery

While I don't see how you are trying to solve a puzzle of what you feel are fabricated stories and genealogies, I will let that pass and comment... Simple... I don't consider any Scripture items as trivial. This thread alone has been a great learning experience and has given me insight into the harmony and beauty of the Scripture that I was lacking earlier. It is the Dvar Elohim, the Word of God. Also, maybe some others will have their heart and mind touched a smidgen as to the beauty therein.

Please comment on the earlier reference.. "Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke as Scripture. (1 Timothy 5:18)."

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Diogenes the Cynic

Paul didn't write 1 Timothy. It's a 2nd century pseudoepigraphal letter.

GLuke dates to the mid-90's at the absolute earliest. Paul was dead before a single canonical gospel was ever written.

Amaleq13

I don't believe Paul wrote any of the "Pastorals".

Chris Weimer

Of course Paul didn't write the Pastorals. Peter near proved that through his statistical analyses of the Pauline corpus. I think that it was the author of Luke-Acts who also wrote the Pastorals, not only given the Luke quote, but also the shared mentality that is exclusive to only Luke and the Pastorals, and especially not Paul.

Toto

This would mean that the author Luke, writing as Paul writing to Timothy, quoted his own words as Scripture. Neat!

But there is some dispute as to whether the author of 1 Tim is actually quoting "scripture." Here

Early Doherty notes:

Strange indeed.