Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcrdcf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!glenn
From: glenn@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Glenn C. Scott)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is Jesus son of David
Message-ID: <2222@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 12:40:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.2222
Posted: Fri Aug  2 12:40:52 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 10:33:45 EDT
References: <2194@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <1050@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: glenn@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Glenn C. Scott)
Organization: System Development Corp. R+D, Santa Monica
Lines: 52


  Sorry, sorry.  I came into the discussion late and obviously missed some
context.  The question I was answering was why it is important to show the
ancestry of Jesus.  I gave an answer:

Glenn >  The only reason I've been able to come up with for having both the
      > lineage of Joseph *and* Mary recorded is to simply show that no matter
      > which side of the parents you chose to establish ancestry Jesus' father
      > and mother both qualify as decendants of David.

Charlie > Except that no genealogy is given for Mary (both are given for
	> Joseph). Without editing the Bible, you can't get such a genealogy.


Sorry about jumping into the discussion without checking out the context, etc.
Let me explain my answer.

  There are two principal theories concerning these genealogies.

	(1) Both genealogies *Joseph's*; Matthew exhibiting him as the legal
	heir to the throne of David by naming succesive hiers of the kingdom
	from David to Jesus "the reputed son of Joseph"; while Luke gives
	Joseph's private genealogy or actual descent.

	(2) Matthew gives Joseph's and Luke, Mary's, genealogy.  Preference
	is usually given to theory number (2) because:

		- Theory (2) seems supported by several early Christian
		writers, -- Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, and
		Justin Martyr.

		- It demonstrates in what way Christ was the "Son of David."
		If Mary was the daughter of Eli (cf. Luke 3:23), then Jesus was
		strictly a descendant of David, not only *legally*, through his
		reputed father, but actually, by direct personal descent,
		through his mother.

		- Since Mary had no brothers she was an heiress.  Therefore
		her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her
		father's family as his *son*.  So that Joseph was the actual
		son of Jacob (cf. Matt 1:16), and the legal son of Eli (cf.
		Luke 3:23).  In other words, Matthew describes Jesus' right to
		the theocratic crown while Luke describes his natural pedigree. 
		Luke employs Joseph's name instead of Mary's in accorodance
		with Israelite law that genealogies must be reckoned by
		fathers, not mothers.

  It doesn't matter which theory you prefer - they both answer the difficulty
of the conflictng genealogies.  I obviously prefer the second for the reasons
I named.

Glenn