Duvduv

Apologetics nothwithstanding, doesn't the fact that Matthew and Luke have different genealogies bring into question the reliance of Luke on Matthew despite so many ostensible similarities?
Why would Luke bother to reject the earlier list of ancestral names especially if it had no material significance for Jesus from Joseph?
Furthermore, why would the authors bother to retain such lists even if they wanted to argue for a Davidic descent? Stating that he was descended from David would be sufficient for his claim to messiahship. And because of the virgin birth it would be totally unnecessary since presumably anyone having such a miraculous birth would be a messiah regardless of proven ancestry.

It makes sense to see the gospels therefore as composites from different sources.
By the time they were firmly canonized no one was in a position to correct them and reconcile them because they had each originated in a competing sect being integrated into the Byzantine Church.
Just my two cents.

Duvduv

On the other hand we always see the apologists saying that "the Church" only knows of four gospels. Why doesn't anyone ever argue that "the Church" only knows of two gospels or three gospels? Why are they only mentioned in a set?
Why doesn't any apologist condemn those who claim more than two gospels?
Certain writers like to say that this or that heretical sect liked this or that of the four?
What does that mean? They picked one they liked or they only knew one?
Since official propaganda claimed that all four gospels were sacredthey couldn't very well claim that one was more authentic while others were mere copycats.
So is it even remotely possible that they were composed simultaneously by different groups of writers to try to appeal to different groups within the empire and were updated several times to enhance that appeal even if based on a core boilerplate story shared by all??

sotto voce

Luke didn't reject them. He didn't select them. It's not either/or, it's both/and.

To emphasise to Jews that Jesus was descended through Abraham; and to emphasise to Gentiles that Jesus was descended through Abraham and also from Eve. David was king, as Jesus was to be, though not in the same sense. But that was not all. Abraham, having been accounted righteous because of his faith, was promised many 'descendants', who would likewise be justified by faith. Descent from Eve showed that Jesus was the Seed promised to crush the serpent, despite (or because of) a strike (crucifixion) from the latter.

Not necessarily. Lazarus being raised from the dead did not make him the Messiah.

Nothing has ever been canonised. All the lore that went into the gospels existed from before the church existed, was the efficient cause of the church, and was therefore regarded as divine revelation as soon as the church existed. There was nothing to correct or to reconcile.

James Brown

From Tom Flynn's The Trouble with Christmas:

Huon

No problem, the fathers of Joseph were two gays, and their marriage was legal at that time.

Duvduv

But James, this wouldn't really explain the need for or the existence of alternative genealogies, or the need of genealogies at all, 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).
And I don't understand the notion of the "hold the breath" whereby there is a genealogy for someone who didn't need the genealogy for his status as messiah son of a virgin. In other words, they surely could have been more creative and subtle to try to blend the two.

Duvduv

Sorry Soto. I don't follow. What do you mean it's "either/or"? If Luke followed Matthew surely he must have considered that the genealogy in Matthew was sufficient for the Judaically-oriented folks who wanted a Davidic messiah.....I don't see what difference it would make by creating a genealogy from David or Abraham. Once he was the Davidic messiah, that's all that counts.

And even if the lore existed before the official Byzantine church was born, they still had to confront contradictions when seeing it in writing. And Lazarus was resurrected by the messiah. That's not the same as the miraculous birth.

sotto voce

Luke may have followed Matthew in order of writing, but he did not follow him in any other way. Matthew wrote mainly for Jews, Luke for Gentiles, whose involvement was by virtue of descent from Adam, rather than Abraham.

What did heretics matter? What they knew was that they had to mimic the real church as far as they could; and the real church, as far as anyone knew, had neither disputed the gospel genealogies, nor had them controverted by Jews or Gentiles. They had more pressing issues on their minds.

There were no contradictions.

But there were OT resurrections. Messianic resurrection had very different significance.

There could, likewise, have been OT miraculous births. There is no logical necessity for a messiah to be born parthenogenetically. It just happened to be given as a sign, for identification of the messiah, along with birth in Bethlehem, descent through David and Judah, attendant star, use of parables and much more.

Toto

:notworthy:

:rolling:

Toto

Duvduv - Byzantine has a particular meaning for most people - it refers to the Eastern Orthodox tradition, as opposed to the Roman Catholic - but I think you are using it to refer to Constantine's church. It would help if you clarified exactly what you mean.