Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, wordsmyth,

OK, I'll take your suggestions in a positive spirit. So which parts of my article should I have toned down, in your view, and how? Please give me some specific suggestions.

And how do you, yourself, feel about our biblical studies guild? Do you think that they maintain high standards of quality and objectivity?

Yours,

Yuri.

Asha'man

I don’t think the genealogies ever went through Mary, despite the objections of the Christian apologists. I think they always were of Jesus via Joseph, partly because Jewish genealogies never follow the line of the mother, always the father. The ancient Jews had no knowledge of the female egg, only of the male “seed.” Current Christian apologists have no choice but to claim that the genealogies pass through the line of Mary, or their position becomes suspect.

But the genealogy problem is trivially solved by your very own evolutionary theory! They must have predated the whole idea of the virgin birth. Personally, I think it was shown that the first genealogy was flawed, so a replacement was written (by a competing faction?). Both were attempts to strengthen the claim of a Davidic descended Messiah.

For whatever reason, the Davidic Messiah claim became less important than the actual issue of Jesus’ birth. It might have been the Jewish claims of adultery, or it may have been other theological reasons. But when the virgin birth story was adapted, the genealogies lost their significance.

Since the story of Jesus was circulating before the virgin birth component, I would tend to think that the Jewish tradition of adultery also predated the virgin birth, rather than being a reaction to it. This ordering also provides a solid reason for adopting the virgin birth concept.

I don’t know if there is enough evidence to ever resolve this issue, but this way seems simple and logical, and therefore probable.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes, Asha'man, I agree that the genealogies always were of Jesus via Joseph. Thus, they seem to have been produced originally by two opposing groups of Jewish-Christians -- both accepting fully that Jesus was born in the course of normal human procreation, and had normal mother and father. So their dispute was probably only about which symbolic genealogy for Jesus was more appropriate -- whether it should be primarily Davidic, or perhaps more Northern-oriented.

Quote:

The ancient Jews had no knowledge of the female egg, only of the male “seed.” Current Christian apologists have no choice but to claim that the genealogies pass through the line of Mary, or their position becomes suspect. But the genealogy problem is trivially solved by your very own evolutionary theory! They must have predated the whole idea of the virgin birth.

Sure, I agree.

Quote:

Personally, I think it was shown that the first genealogy was flawed, so a replacement was written (by a competing faction?). Both were attempts to strengthen the claim of a Davidic descended Messiah.

Not necessarily. See my comments above.

Quote:

For whatever reason, the Davidic Messiah claim became less important than the actual issue of Jesus’ birth. It might have been the Jewish claims of adultery, or it may have been other theological reasons. But when the virgin birth story was adapted, the genealogies lost their significance.

Well, they still had their significance, surely, but the whole picture became hopelessly muddled because of these continuing updates in the gospel story.

Quote:

Since the story of Jesus was circulating before the virgin birth component, I would tend to think that the Jewish tradition of adultery also predated the virgin birth, rather than being a reaction to it. This ordering also provides a solid reason for adopting the virgin birth concept. I don’t know if there is enough evidence to ever resolve this issue, but this way seems simple and logical, and therefore probable.

Yes, I guess this particular issue will still remain mysterious for the foreseeable time.

All the best,

Yuri.