GENEOLOGY OF JESUS (page 3)

hmike

Thank you very much for the reference, Narkissos. I thought it was a reasonable explanation, and since it is supported by someone relatively close in time to when the Gospels were written, it has to be considered at least a good possibility. It's more reasonable to me than throwing out the texts just because we don't have all the pieces to the puzzle.

Narkissos

hmike,

As you may gather from my posts on the first page of this thread, I wouldn't draw the same conclusion; not that I am for "throwing out" any text or puzzle piece: but those pieces which imply no claim for Jesus to be David's descendent must be taken into account too, and they do put Matthew's and Luke's genealogies into a different light.

hmike

Hi Narkissos,

Isn't at least part of the reason for including the genealogies to show that Jesus, being in the line of David, was heir to the promise of 2 Samuel 7:12-14? Matthew, the most Jewish of the Gospels, often remarks how certain events fulfilled OT prophecy, and in Luke's account, Gabriel told Mary, "?the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.? (Luke 2:32b-33, KJV). Some people who approached Jesus addressed him as ?son of David.? Therefore, it seems that being in the line of David was understood to be a fundamental characteristic of the Annointed One.

I would be glad to check any references you give that are contrary to this.

P.S.: I like the way Eusebius brings Mary into the picture. It answers one of the other questions in this thread.

Narkissos

I would be glad to check any references you give that are contrary to this.

You will find them on the first page of this thread.

hmike

I am in the process of examining all the references from this thread (including the Testament of Benjamin) and the other one that is linked to it by peacefulpete.

This is my view on the issues so far:

GR Gaudreau, in the Fortunecity web page, devotes a considerable amount of space to deal with the phrase ?as was supposed? from Luke 3:23 (?And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli??). It looks to me that Luke is simply is saying that it was assumed among the people that Jesus was the physical son of Joseph (even if they did suspect that Mary was pregnant before the marriage). But Luke knows otherwise, as he has just given the account, so he preferred not to say ?being the son of Joseph.? (I?m sure Mary didn?t make a big deal about what Gabriel had told her??she kept these things in her heart.? Of course, very few would have believed it anyway.)

Mark 12:35ff:

While Jesus was teaching in the temple, he said, "How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared,
'The Lord said to my Lord,
"Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet." '
David himself calls him Lord; so how can he be his son?" And the large crowd was listening to him with delight.

I would say that this indicates the Messiah was expected to be the son of David. But Jesus catches them off guard when he quotes the Psalm. The Jews had an incomplete understanding of what kind of individual the Messiah would be, where the spirits of the departed went, the resurrection, and the future kingdom. (This statement by Jesus comes soon after the Sadducees confront him with the question of ?whose wife will she be at the resurrection??) On hearing Jesus ask this, the real question in their minds could be, ?If this was David speaking, how can he refer to a descendent, born long after his death, as his Lord?

The same is echoed in John 7:41ff:

Others said, "This is the Messiah." But some asked, "Surely the Messiah does not come from Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from , the village where David lived?"
So there was a division in the crowd because of him.

As Matthew explained, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but spent most of his life in Galilee. To me, this simply indicates that the people didn?t have accurate information about Jesus. To some, this issue was important, to others, it was not .

That Jesus was in the line of David seems fundamental to the proclamation to the Jews that Jesus was the promised Messiah, found not only in the Gospels, but also used by Paul. To refute that, it would be necessary to produce a genealogy in a historically reliable document that shows Jesus was not in the line of David, something which, to my knowledge, has not been done, even in the early 1 st century when the records were still available (there is no mention in Acts or anywhere else in the NT of any opposition based on this).

I understand the point of view that these accounts may have been doctored to force Jesus into the line of David, but in the absence of hard evidence for that, I think it is best to let the record we have stand.

(Sorry for so many edits, but I've had some trouble with this feature.)

Narkissos

To refute that, it would be necessary to produce a genealogy in a historically reliable document that shows Jesus was not in the line of David, something which, to my knowledge, has not been done, even in the early 1 st century when the records were still available (there is no mention in Acts or anywhere else in the NT of any opposition based on this).

I think you are unwarrantedly switching the burden of proof. The whole idea of Jewish centralised genealogical records of a Davidic line (the beginning of which is no doubt partly legendary to start with) subsisting throughout the (non-Davidic) Hasmonean and Herodian dynasties is highly unlikely and has never been substantiated yet afaik.

Admittedly, the texts I quoted have been included in the NT canon because they could be harmonised with "davidic" texts (cf. the Matthean and Lukan parallels to Mark 12). But how could they be understood whenever (or wherever) they were read independently of them?

In Mark as it stands, there is no link from Jesus to David (and no virgin birth in Bethlehem for that matter) except (if original) the honorific (Messianic to some extent) title "Son of David" in 10:47f, by an unknown blind man who had no personal knowledge of Jesus or his line of descent. That the sense of "Son of David" in this context has little genealogical meaning can be gathered from 11:9ff:

Then those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting,
"Hosanna!
Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!
Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!
Hosanna in the highest heaven!"

The reference to David here is obviously an apocalyptical and political one and has very little to do with genealogy.

However I agree that the assessment of evidence is a very personal thing and there is no problem in disagreeing.

hmike

Narkissos,

First of all, I want to say that I really appreciate your scholarly approach to these topics.

On the issue of "burden of proof," I think if this subject was approached objectively, the historical and circumstantial evidence, and lack of contradictory evidence equally supported, should allow the Gospel texts to remain as we have them now and to accept the eyewitness accounts of events at face value. Certainly, the interpretation of those events is open to speculation, and we may never have the tools to verify any particular position, which makes each person's opinion of the "truth" a matter of choice. Nevertheless, I believe there is an "absolute truth," and each person owes it to themselves to accept personal responsibility to do their best to determine what that is and align their view with it. To adopt any view simply because a charismatic person or group says, "Only I (we) have the truth," or because it is a tradition of the social group one is part of is, to me, morally and intellectually irresponsible.

Narkissos

hmike,

What part of the genealogies do you consider to be "eyewitness accounts"?

If there were any traditions about Jesus' birth available by the time the Gospel of Mark was written, then Mark's silence about them becomes quite puzzling, don't you think? What sort of Christian apologist writing a "Life of Jesus" wouldn't start with the nativity stories?

Edited to add a link to an interesting thread on the broader issue of nativity stories:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/82425/1.ashx

hmike

By "eyewitness accounts," I was referring to the Gospel texts in general, not specifically the genealogies.

I have been reading Geza Vermes's book Jesus in His Jewish Context, and this thread seemed to address the same kind of issues the author does, so I was making a generalization.

When I went back to review the chapter "Son of David" in F. F. Bruce's book New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes, I was reminded that Jesus didn't play the Davidic heritage card, instead referring to himself as the "son of man" (which I realize is, itself, controversial). Perhaps this is because he didn't see being a descendent of David by itself as significant, but the disciples, beginning with Peter at Pentecost, did. Maybe they had to bring in the genealogy when they began teaching about Jesus being an acceptable sacrifice because of the virgin birth, which would have brought up the issue "If he was not a biological son of Joseph, how could he be a descendent of David?"

The fact that Mark doesn't refer to a genealogy doesn't bother me because it is somewhat of an abbreviated account, which may actually speak against the idea that later scribes added genealogies to the original accounts. Why not put one in Mark and John, too?

googlemagoogle

matthew-luke contradicts enough, but when you compare both to the OT genealogies, it starts to get really funny.

GENEOLOGY OF JESUS

Share this