Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akgub!usl!dkl
From: dkl@usl.UUCP (Dwayne K. Lanclos)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is Jesus son of David
Message-ID: <628@usl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 12:48:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: usl.628
Posted: Mon Aug 26 12:48:59 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Aug-85 08:28:38 EDT
References: <406@philabs.UUCP>
Organization: USL, Lafayette, LA
Lines: 76

This article is a continuation of the discussion comparing the separate
genealogies given for Jesus in Matthew and Luke.

In article <406@philabs.UUCP> jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) writes:
> > [Bill Jefferies writes:] 
> > The whole point of this argument (at least from my point of view) is that
> > people are approaching the quite evident problem of these two texts from
> > the point of view of (a) they must both be correct and (b) it's very 
> > important that they be reconciled.
> > What produces the attempts to "fix" the genealogies is starting
> > from the belief that the genealogies ARE correct.
> 
> They have to be.  They are the only evidence left.  If they are not correct,
> there is no reason to believe that these prophecies have been fullfilled.
> And they [are] correct, as far as they are traceable in the Old Testament
> records.

     This statement is incorrect.  Matt 1:8 says, "Joram was the father of
Uzziah".  According to the lineage in I Chr 3:10-14, there were three kings,
three generations, and sixty years separating Kings Joram and Uzziah (born
Azariah).  The pertinent section from Chronicles lists:

     Joram -> Ahaziah -> Jehoash -> Amaziah -> Uzziah (Azariah)

(The last king listed was born Azariah -- Uzziah was the name he took
upon being crowned king.)
     In a related slip, Matt 1:11 says, "Josiah was the father of Jechoniah
and his brothers".  Actually, Josiah was the *grandfather* of Jechoniah who,
as far as I Chr 3:16 tells us, had only one brother -- Zedekiah.  The listing
in Matthew would have been correct had he said, "Josiah was the father of  
*Jehoiakim* and his brothers."  This is not a translation slip since most
(if not all) of the ancient texts state this.

> It is obvious that these distinctly different genealogies apply to two sides
> of the family and not one.  The difference is traced back to which son of
> David continues the line.  Was it Solomon or Nathan?  Mary descended from 
> Nathan and Joseph descended from Solomon makes perfect sense.

     Sure, it makes sense, but that's not what the text says.  Appeals to
varying translations fail to address the main issue.  I have discussed this
in a previous article to the net, so I shall not repeat myself.  If your
site failed to receive it (since I have yet to see anyone on the net address
my points), I'll be more than happy to email you a copy.

> After all, it is widely
> believed that Luke's account of the Gospel can also be called "Mary's Gospel".
> That's why he was privy to all the background information that the other 
> accounts don't have.

     There are several problems involved in assuming that Mary was used as
an eyewitness source for Luke's Gospel.  For example, a reading of Matthew
gives one the impression that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem:  there is
no mention of a census that brought them there, the magi approached the
*house* (not a stable) where they were living, and Matt 2:22 makes it
clear that Joseph was intended on returning home to Judea (where Bethlehem
was located), but an angel warned him to stay away, resulting in the family's
residence in Nazareth.  This conflicts with Luke's account which states that
both Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth but were forced to travel to Bethlehem
for the census.  There was no room in the inn, so they had to take shelter
in a stable.  A week later, the child was presented in the Temple, after
which the family returned home uneventfully to Nazareth (Luke 2:39).  There
was no story of Herod's massacre of the infants or the prolonged flight into
Egypt.  Mary may indeed have told Luke the complete story, but it would
invalidate Matthew's account.
     There is also the problem of the presentation.  Luke 2:22 speaks of
"*their* purification", when the Jewish custom in Lev 12:1-3 referred only
to the mother's purification after childbirth.  In Luke 2:24, he describes
the doves or pigeons as a gift on the occasion of the presentation of the
firstborn male (Ex 13:1 and Ex 13:11-13), when according to Lev 12:6, the
gifts were prescribed for the purification of the mother.  It seems obvious
that Luke has confused two separate rites.
-----------
Come to the shell for answers.

dwayne
{akgua, ut-sally}!usl!dkl