Doctor X

Mathetes:

I think so. What I mean by that is that if you believe a scholar such as Burton Mack, Mk may have simply "made up" the crucifixion. So . . . then he does not believe in it? I would argue that he believed in the "message" and that Junior clearly died. He gave an "ending" for his story. Now, I am not, personally, convinced that Mk made it all up--though the story has a lot of mythic aspects to it. I do not know. However, I would agree with belief in the "core" or "message." Indeed, in the examples of the hapless disciples: they do not believe in his divinity, and Mk clearly ridicules them for this. He probably "made up" the parrables and stories that show this--believing the overall message that Junior's followers "got it wrong."

Ooooo . . . I do not know if I can go that far . . . conclude that the author/redactor(s) believed in a world-wide flood. I just do not know. Again, they could be "loyal liars" that incorporated a popular myth--much like later Christians incorporating pagan practices--the over all goal--belief in the "message" is more important than belief in the actual truth.

Well . . . I would have to check the dating, but methinks much of Genesis is post-exilic. Anyways, I think your average Hebrew or Shebrew [Stop that.--Ed.] would believe in Exodus, even the Conquest and Samuel-Kings stories.

Would they believe in the Creation myth? I am not certain--myself--how certain worshippers considered their gods examples. What I mean by that is take the Greeks . . . please . . . the Greeks did not see Zeus as an example to live by. The stories were that. Did they believe in all of them? Probably not--especially since they retold them and reinterpreted them.

El and YHWH, especially, seem like such gods--they do what they do, you do not get to behave like them. Would people believe a flood actually happened or that it is a demonstration that gods do what they will?

I can only answer that I am sure some did and some did not.

Returning to the Flood Myth, I can see exiled Hebrews enjoying the myths such that writers decided to take over the myth--much like "Christians" trying to make the OT a "Christian story." Some felt this was legitimate.

Frankly, I think you had a diffusion of opinion--much like now--many who believed "word-for-word"--see the Jewish Gnostics who, if memory serves me correctly, were quite "literal"--and many who saw them as stories.

Discuss. . . .

"Write a letter to Jesus . . . ask him what he thinks about Noah and hemlines. . . ."

Anyways, leaving aside the whole "historical Junior" question, the writer at least expected his audience to recognize the reference. How much he believed in a "real" Noah and Jonah I do not know. I am trying not to be "modern" in assuming that "da silly ancients" swallowed everything without question. I am more inclined--to answer your question--that the writers did believe in at least the message of the story if not the substance.

Certainly, if you are dealing with an apocalyptic community, it does not take much to believe in Genesis!

--J.D.

Doctor X

Genealogies:

This all comes from a paper referenced below. Levin concentrates on the genealogies of the Chronicler. To begin with some interesting background:

Levin notes that modern research has taken two approaches: attempt to uderstand the literary and theological purposes "as they stand in the text," and concentration on the social, political, and historical uses of the genre through comparison with other genealogical material of the Near East, including present-day tribal societies.

Levin then discusses studies of genealogies of recent tribal societies. He identifies three basic formal characteristics:

Segmentation: person's status, rights, and obligations defined by kinship ties.

Depth: the number of generations counted in the genealogy.

Fluidity: genealogies adjust to reflect shifts in the familial and social ties between people and their status.

Levin also notices that genealogies will telescope: "Several people bearing the same name may be combined in memory into a single figure."

Levin cites R. R. Wilson's summary of the anthropological material reveals that, ". . . in no case has it been shown that preservation of a genealogy was intended purely for the purpose of transmitting historical information." Genealogies always have domestic, political, or religious function. Fluidity is lost when a genealogy is written down, thus there ". . . are clearly functional differences betwee oral and written genealogies." Finally, while some oral genealogies may have been based on existing narrative traditions and some narrative traditions seem to have been built on preexisting genealogies, none of the oral genealogies were created for the purpose of linkig preexisting narratives.

Thus, asks Levin, "Why did the different biblical authors, and in this case the Chronicler, choose to use the genre that combined segmented and linear genealogies in order to convey their messages?"

Uniqueess of the Chronicler's Genealogies:

Social and Ideological World of the Chronicler:

In the period of the Chronicler--postexilic 4th century B.C.E.--no monarchy existed, Judea was ruled by Persian-appointed governors, the priesthood became more and more powerful, assuming a political role, and the nothern kingdom was replaced by the usually hostile province of Samaria. Levin notes, "This was the reality known to the Chronicler's intended readers." Levin then notes that recent scholarship has rejected the assumption that Ezra-Nehemiah with parts of Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and "perhaps Trito-Isaiah and a few of the psalms, gives us a fairly accurate reflection of Judean society under Persion rule."

In writing his version of history, the Chronicler "chose to use the genealogical form in order to convey his picture of ancient Israel, its territory, and its place among nations."

Now, Levin will then discuss the units of Iron-Age Israelite society. I will spare the Readership with the nitty-gritty details . . . Let me move to his observation:

Levin notes an obvious "tension" between those left behind and those who returned. By the time the Chronicler started writing--"almost two centuries after the original restoration"--this tension probably lessened significantly.

[ZZzzzzZZZZZzzzZZZZzzzZZZZzzzzZZZZzzz--Ed.]

To make a long story short, the Chronicler designed his genealogies to match the situation of his day.

So . . . yes dear Mathetes . . . the genealogies served as a symbolic or metaphorical connection, much as they do now.

--J.D.

Reference:

Levin Y, "Who was the Chronicler's Audience? A Hint from his Genealogies," Journal of Biblical Literature, 122/2 (2003), 229-245.

Adora

That's because you pointed to the King James version, which is full of innacuracies and re-writes.

Real versions include Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba and Mary. All women who used their sexuality, were the focus of sexuality, or were somehow sexually wronged.

Edit:

Also, something that's always bothered me about geneologies. Does the Torah/ Jewish books list the descendants by their fathers or mothers? Because I was told by a Rabbi that the Jewish line is biologically matriachal, and this always bothered me about the Biblical geneologies.

thanks.

Doctor X

Here is the Revised Standard Version:

Now, to compare the King James Version:

seems both mention "da wimmen." It is still a "patrilineal" genealogy, which I only mention because some try to harmonize it with Lk by making one of them "matrilineal."

As for the OT genealogies, they are--as far as I know--"patrilineal." See the verbose post above for some details on genealogies. The Mattean and Lukan genealogies serve the purpose of connecting Junior to history.

--J.D.

Mathetes

Sorry for the delay in answering... You make a strong argumentation for the genealogies to be constructed. My doubt is whether they would indeed be percieved to be constructed later on, or rather as actual history. A bit of both, you suggest. I am not sure, but I do not know how to determine it.

Thanks for the detailed post and your contributions, Doctor X.

Mathetes

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought that you meant that the genealogy was given through the line of the women. The genealogy is given through the men, but the women you are listing are mentioned as spouses of some of the men. This happens in the KJV and the others.

Doctor X

Thank you.

I must admit I tended to skim over genealogies other than to recognize that the authors probably used them--as in Mt and Lk--to connect a figure to history. When I started studying these things, I wondered why an author and editors would want to preserve "the begats." It seems genealogies serve a particular literary purpose.

I also think you recognize a common apology to reconcile the genealogies of Junior by trying to declare that one of them is "matrilingual." I have seen a lot of bandwidth wasted on this and, frankly, apologists are just not reading the text. I am not sure Adora is raising that apology, however.

--J.D.