A. Uiet bhor

Why not started then and finished after? The gospels clearly have referances to the Judean Catastrophe, and the gospels bear many hallmarks of later tampering, and interpolations, mat could have taken 20 yrs to reach its later form. Tracing the date of the writings requares a great deal of academic despute of details, very dry stuff.

Chris Weimer

And someone accused me of ulterior motives.

Chris Weimer

What's your point? Yes, it may have been started before the Temple Destruction, but I doubt most of it was. And the remark about tracing the dates being "dry stuff" - well, the work has to be done. If you're not interested in taking scholastic work seriously, I've no interest in discussing the matter. If you are interested, I'd put the work at 85-90 CE as it's major form and well into the second century in it's 1st final form (leaving room for third century redactors and Byzantine tweaking).

Chris Weimer

And...?

No doubt your rage against Christianity propels your arguements against me, but I'm not arguing for modern ideologies. I'm arguing for the text of Matthew. I don't care about Christian theology, only about what Matthew thought.

Moxy

Wow, I certainly did not expect all this when I posted the OP, but it's good stuff!

If the genealogies are Joseph's and Mary's respectively, why do they both contain Salathiel--->Zorobabel? It's either a hell of a coincidence, or JC's family tree resembles a figure 8.

If they are both intended to be Joseph's lineage, why are they so different? Are one or both of them simply made up?

A. Uiet bhor

"And someone accused me of ulterior motives."

There not ulterior if they're declared.

"And the remark about tracing the dates being "dry stuff" - well, the work has to be done. "

I know, Ive been through all that myself, I was just hoping to avoid re hashing research I'm glad i got out the way, don't accuse me of being un-scholastic, i've paid by dues.

"No doubt your rage against Christianity propels your arguements against me,"

Not against u, but of a piece i regard as having a lot of blood on it's hands, again you take everything personaly, I know you're not defending xtianity, I'd be a lot more ruthless if you where. As to what mat thought, i don't think he did, of all the gospels that one annoys me the most as i see the same sloppy re-search, dishonest representations and theological double talk present in apolagetics and presups today. I least we can trace the source of xtianity inability to be truthful. As to my rage against xtianty, my ethics compel such an attitute, I suggest looking at the gospels in the light of rational and stark moral terms , you'll see what i mean.

A. Uiet bhor

"If the genealogies are Joseph's and Mary's respectively, why do they both contain Salathiel--->Zorobabel? "

Good one.

"If they are both intended to be Joseph's lineage, why are they so different? Are one or both of them simply made up?"

Bingo. They where using a literary tactic the OT used to create a sense of historical reality. As well as providing for Jewish audiances a case for Jesus legitamacy which is negated by not only the nativity but jesus own admitence that he was no son of david, pointess excersise really. Especially as there was no known list of decendance or recognised house of david after the line was lost, so where did the geneologies come from? Any expert in Judean families would know it was bunk, more proof that even the jewish slanted material was not really meant for jews but gentiles who took the septuagint too seriously. After all xtians even today see jesus' line from david as an important aspect of him, even though so much doctrine that counters it has developed, but that's compartmentalisation for u.

Anat

On the topic of maternity - I know Aristotles did not believe the mother contributed anything but the uterine environment to the newborn, but I also recall a Talmudic passage that states that there were 3 that contribute to the newborn: the father contributes its 'whiteness', the mother its 'redness' and God the soul. Does anyone have any idea when this idea could have first appeared and from where?

A. Uiet bhor

"Matthew was a narrative fiction, "

I agree with you on john and luke but claiming that mat just intended an innnocent narrative when he used so many cynical misquotes and warpings of the OT to bolster an untenable claim seems a bit naive.

All of the NT depended on a belief in the reality of their claims, Paul's authority depended on his convertion story etc. Both luke and mat intended to be taken as history, they just used differant tactics. luke used the gentile methods founded by the greek humanist historians Josephus utilised , as educated roman converts would recognise the use of it. mat used the Jewish method of tedious geneologies, and rediculously tenuous prophetic quotes. luke's work strikes us as more historian like due to our cultural background but to a jew what mat did was try to subvert the Tanach, using its myths told as history method, but with the aim of making his gospel the sequal to messianic prologues.

All gospels where part of a revisionist trend to historicalise what until then had been a non-localised phenomina, but playing to a differant crowd, so using what passed for authentic history to them. I know its trendy to make out the bible didnt mean any of its nonsense like talking donkeys seriously, but you give these cretins to much credit, xtain dogma depends on a literal understanding, and back then literal was all most understood. They knew a jesus parable was a lesson not literal, but when you go into so much detail about the life of jesus itself you clearly mean the narrative in general is history. It may have started as a pagan style ressurection cycle like Horus, but it's status as a single event, rather than a reflection of nature is what makes xtianity more "believable" for most, as it has the jewish linier timeline mind set, that we take more seriouly. The whole point is such a shift serves only 1 purpose, to foster grounds for belief, not a example or lesson but a supreme event that serves to justify a dogma, enfasising that it happened was everything, and they where very succsesfull, look at how many still believe it must have happened. That was the idea, a fictional life of jesus cannot be claimed by xtains to apply to everyone, anymore than a fictional adam.

Later jewish groups went down the metaphor route but thats due to interlectual development that now means they're onto metaphysical spins, but the original intent is what matters, not every changing interpretations. I've had people object to my "harsh" treatment of the bible writers before, as have many freethinkers but this is not the humble works of classical thinkers, doing their best, this is the exlusiveistic dictating of all meaning but raving zeolots, that spawn monsters to this day. It needs to be achknowlaged as what it is, to compensate for its deification as the one source of all ethics and truth.

I dont enjoy mocking the ancient writers, but their motives where far from innnocent, xtian doctrines are the most immoral and manipulative I've ever ancounterd, and all the NT writers are to blame, these werent polemical or parable excercises, but the fashioning of a myopic and inclosed world-view that created reality hating doomsayers and fanatics, the moral consequenses of mats works was to use the hopes of the jews to make a monster that would one day burn them from ghetto to ghetto.

Asha'man

No, I'm suggesting that the custom of maternal identification came much much later, generations after the destruction of the temple. (Or at least that's the answer I got when I asked a Jewish scholar.) It certainly didn't exist early 1st century, and probably didn't exist early 2nd century. It might have existed early 3rd century.

I'm suggesting that the custom of maternal identification is not a possible apologetic for the resolving genealogical conflict, since that would be a clear anachronism.

I tend to agree with the generally accepted dates for Matthew, late 1st to early 2nd century.