Layman

I don't have Bock with me. However, I'll try and remember to check him tonight to see if he gives any more information. I do not remember him giving scripture references, but he might have given secondary sources. I'll see what I can find.

Grumpy

It just occurred to me that it shouldn't matter what Jewish genealogical tradition was at the time, since the early Christians were in the process of overturning every tradition anyway. What's more, it might have been nice for the Holy Spirit or whatever inspired the Gospel writers to supply a genealogy of Mary, label it as such, and state that from now on females are just as worthy as males.

But that didn't happen.

Family Man

Aside from the fact that it is pure speculation anyway -- i.e. it is based on the need for an explanation and not anything in the text itself -- I never did understand how a levirate marriage solved the problem.

A levirate marriage, as I understand it, occurs when a one brother dies, and another brother marries the dead brother's wife. If so, the two brothers should have the same father and, hence, the same genealogy.

Of course, I suppose the two brothers could be half brothers -- with different fathers. But then, their mother probably would have been the beneficiary of a levirate marriage also, so the genealogy still would have been the same.

I suppose that in the grandfather's generation, the father (i.e. Jacob?) was the only male child. Then Joseph's mom managed to get herself married to Heli. But then I wonder what the ancient Jewish attitudes towards marrying widows were. Given the existence of levirate marriages, it seems that they must have been frowned upon.

You're right, Layman, this is awfully complex. Of course, I might not be remembering what a levirate marriage is. If so, perhaps you could kindly correct me.

offa

Luke 01:05 THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a
certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and
his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was
Elisabeth.

This is the prelim to the birth of John the Baptist. John was
Samaritan therefore his parents were Samaritan. And, St. Luke
was a Samaritan.


Luke 01:11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord
standing on the right side of the altar of incense.

This "angel" is a Samaritan priest. Angels are Samaritan, not Jewish.


Luke 01:19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel,
that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak
unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.


Luke 01:21 And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled
that he tarried so long in the temple.

Luke 01:22 And when he came out, he could not speak unto them:
and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the
temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless.


What I am setting up is this certain priest who happened to be the high
priest. The angel assisting him happens to be his brother Gabriel.

Oh, Zacharias can talk ... he cannot preach ... he had a conversation
with his wife.


Now, for a little bit of Josephus (book 17).


(165) Now it happened, that during the time of the high
priesthood of this Matthias, there was another person made priest for
a single day, that very day which the Jews observed as a fast.
(166) The occasion was this: - This Matthias the high priest, on
the night before that day when the fast was to be celebrated, seemed,
in a dream, to have conversation with his wife; and because he could
not officiate himself on that account, Joseph, the son of Ellemeus,
his kinsman assisted him in that sacred office.

Zacharias is Matthias. Joseph the son of Ellemeus, like Zacharias,
is the son of Ellemeus. Joseph is also Gabriel. The Virgin Mary's
spouse Joseph is also Clophas. These Joseph' are entirely different
people.

A dream really happened. You know, it is an alibi.


Luke 01:24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived,
and hid herself five months, saying,


Q. Why did Elisabeth hide for the last five months?

A. Because Samaritan women are Virgins and should not be seen
pregnant. If they are seen pregnant then the people will
realize that angels screw. John is designated to become a
future Samaritan priest so he must be born of a Virgin.


Luke 01:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent
from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
Luke 01:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph,
of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

Mary is his daughter and Galilee and Nazareth are cities in Judea
close to the shores of the Dead Sea.


Luke 01:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be,
seeing I know not a man?

She was talking to her daddy. Angels and Holy Spirits are classes
above lowly man. She will stay a Virgin as long as she screws
Angels and Holy Spirits.

A few notes. Josephus' day is a year. Apparently we are on the
eve of a Sabbatical year. You know, a Jubilee Day is a Year.

Luke is going out of his way to show that Elisabeth and Mary
are pregnant at the same time. His reason for doing this is to
show that Jesus is illegitimate, only, Jesus does not become
illegitimate until he is 25 years old when he chooses not to
be a Samaritan on his own will. In doing so Jesus rejects the
Samaritan Calender. It is just like, Jesus was crucified with
Simon Magus who was an angel before the crucifixion, and, even
though he was no longer an angel (excommunicated) he is still
referred to as an Angel even though he has been court-martialed
and is now a young man (naked).


Thanks, Offa

P.S. Now, I used King James and Josephus ... not Thiering. I
write my own stuff. I am a free thinker ... an infidel.

Fiach

I think this is much ado about nothing. I personally am not sure there was even a historical Jesus or not. The evidence is clearly lacking and relying on hearsay passed down two generation, orally.

But putting that aside, it is perfectly possible for a person to have several genaeologies, more of them the more generations you go back.

A man has a mother and father. We have two choices for the first name.

Ma and Da each had a Ma and Da or 4 people (Grandparents). So far we can have 4 different lists. Grandparents each had two parents or 8 people, and each of them had two parents or 16. So by this stage we can have 16 possibly different lists in a "line." Two more generations back and you have 64 people starting a separate line to you.

I think the Jesus Myth is 98% fantasy with much of it quite obviously borrowed (plagiarised) from Mithraism, the Sun Cult of Aten, Horus, Osiris, and Apollonius and others. But two or more separate ancestral lines is quite expected, perhaps excepting such places as Arkansas

Fiach

Layman

By the way, yes, I meant Joseph.

The Levirate marriage explanation is addressed in Appendix 1 of Raymond Brown's Birth of the Messiah. The Hebrew Scripture is Duet. 25:5-10. This explanation was first articulated by Julius Africanus in 225 AD.

Brown does not think it is a satisfactory explanation. Basically its an "explanation +" response. The Levirate marriage in and of itself does not solve the problem without some other assumptions that many find questionable.

CX

Are there any strong objections to this hypothesis that don't depend on inerrancy or fundamentalist literalism?

CX

On the basis that the claimant is a kook. I can think of no legitmate Gospel scholar who makes that claim. In fact consulting my intro text by Luke Timothy Johnson is see he passes over the differences in accounts pointing out what is essentially Bock's hypothesis #1 mentioned in a previous thread. The claim that Luke's genealogy goes through Mary is completely ad hoc.

diana

Thank you, Layman.

I'm looking at the scripture itself first. Then I'm going to look around on the internet for some explanations for this passage, as it intrigues me (particularly the "house of the man who's shoe was pulled off" bit ).

(That's from the New Living Bible, I think. They all pretty much read the same, except this is the only one that explicitly said "on the same property"--but I think it's inherent in the "living together" part, anyway.)

I just found the <a href="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/Genealogies_of_Christ.htm" target="_blank">The Genealogies of Christ</a>. It's an brief but interesting read. And yes...there are several built-in assumptions I can spot right away.

I will hand him this, though: he rejects the "Luke is Mary's genealogy" theory immediately.

From the article:
From Matthew 1, we get the following lineup:
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

1. Abraham begat Isaac
2. Isaac begat Jacob
3. Jacob begat Judas
4. Judas begat Phares
5. Phares begat Esrom
6. Esrom begat Aram
7. Aram begat Aminadab
8. Aminadab begat Naasson
9. Naasson begat Salmon
10. Salmon begat Booz
11. Booz begat Obed
12. Obed begat Jesse
13. Jesse begat David

1. David begat Solomon
2. Solomon begat Roboam
3. Roboam begat Abia
4. Abia begat Asa
5. Asa begat Josaphat
6. Josaphat begat Joram
7. Joram begat Ozias
8. Ozias begat Joatham
9. Joatham begat Achaz
10. Achaz begat Ezekias
11. Ezekias begat Manasses
12. Manasses begat Amon
13. Amon begat Josias
14. Josias begat Jechonias (Babylon)

1. Jechonias begat Salathiel
2. Salathiel begat Zorobabel
3. Zorobabel begat Abiud
4. Abiud begat Eliakim
5. Eliakim begat Azor
6. Azor begat Sadoc
7. Sadoc begat Achim
8. Achim begat Eliud
9. Eliud begat Eleazar
10. Eleazar begat Matthan
11. Matthan begat Jacob
12. Jacob begat (Heb: gennao) Joseph
13. of whom was born (Heb: gennao) Jesus, who is called Christ.

Mat 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David [are] fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon [are] fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ [are] fourteen generations. (Good counting, there, buddy.)


Dang. I guess I have to do the chart breakdown of Luke, too. Hold on....

Here we go. For the purposes of comparison, I've clipped those names preceding Abraham, and put them in the same chronological order:

1. Abraham
2. Isaac
3. Jacob
4. Juda
5. Phares
6. Esrom
7. Aram
8. Aminadab
9. Naasson
10. Salmon
11. Booz
12. Obed
13. Jesse
14. David

(1) 15. Nathan
(2) 16. Mattatha
(3) 17. Menan
(4) 18. Melea
(5) 19. Eliakim
(6) 20. Jonan
(7) 21. Joseph
(8) 22. Juda
(9) 23. Simeon
(10) 24. Levi
(11) 25. Matthat
(12) 26. Jorim
(13) 27. Eliezer
(14) 28. Jose

(1) 29. Er
(2) 30. Elmodam
(3) 31. Cosam
(4) 32. Addi
(5) 33. Melchi
(6) 34. Neri
(7) 35. Salathiel
(8) 36. Zorobabel
(9) 37. Rhesa
(10) 38. Joanna
(11) 39. Juda
(12) 40. Joseph
(13) 41. Semei
(14) 42. Mattathias
(15) 43. Maath
(16) 44. Nagge
(17) 45. Esli
(18) 46. Naum
(19) 47. Amos
(20) 48. Mattathias
(21) 49. Joseph
(22) 50. Janna
(23) 51. Melchi
(24) 52. Levi
(25) 53. Matthat
(26) 54. Heli
(27) 55. Joseph
(28) 56. Jesus

(And from Abraham unto David there were 14 generations, and from Nathan (son of David) unto Jose (son of "Can you see?") there were 14 generations, and from Er (son of Jose) unto Jesus people bred like ants.)

Sorry folks. I'm getting giddy, I guess.

So if Shealtiel has two daddies (genealogically), that would make the "generations" from David to Jeconias number 15--at least. This creates additional math problems for the well-meaning priest who wrote the Matthew geneology. He wasn't doing well in the counting department to begin with, and now this.

The "(biological)" comment is an assertion that is not supported by Deut 25 and blatantly contradicts the Onan story we all know and love. We have no reason to believe children spawned through levirite arrangements were distinguished in any way from the biological children of the original father.

Also, Jeconiah himself had sons (1 Chron 3:16-18). This automatically precludes a "levirite marriage" after his death.

To clear up the "Joseph has two daddies" discrepancy, the author (James Akin) says:
(It doesn't help his case, either, that he's quoting Eusibus as an authoritative source.)

Again, this argument is based on the assertion that the children of a levirite marriage were differentiated from biological children.

The very reason for the levirite marriage was to allow the deceased brother's bloodlines (i.e., genealogy) to continue.

Yes, the levirite marriage explanation is very weak, indeed.

d

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

CX

Your personal feelings in the matter are not material to the discussion. Furthermore you are obviously making a number of assumptions without clarifying what they are and defending their validity.

But when one text says, Schlomo, who was the son of Schecke, who was the son of Cosmo and the other says Schlomo, who was the son of Schecke , who was the son of Matthias, isn't it clear that we aren't looking at different valid family lines but two family lines that disagree?

I'm quite happy for you. I can't say I agree with the 98% bit but since you've offered no arguments I expect that is just a throwaway number. That being said you cannot have two ancestral lines based on blood relations were the first two people are the same and the next one is different. A person can have only one blood related paternal grandfather, period. A careful reading for the Greek text makes this patently clear and only dilletantes such as you and myself and rabid fundamentalists even bother arguing about it.