Anonymous Rebuttle

excavation at Nazareth


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Jesus geneaology":

Joe: >>you have no documentation that most scholars think Luke's geneology was Jo's. that;s crasy when the names stck up with the Talmudic passage. so document your point please proving what schoalrs think.<<

I have lots of documentation.

you haven't listed any of it. Just showing one or two is not "most scholars."

You might notice what the Catholic Encyclopedia article you quote says about the Lk=Mary theory: “few commentators adhere to this view of St. Luke's genealogy.” The entire article is here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

that source has been discredited. Didn't you see my series no the Tomb of Christ?

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on The Genealogy of Christ argues against your position here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm

you just said that. that doesn't count as "most scholars" becasue it's three and one of them is listed twice.

The position you are advocating is rejected by Lukan commentators of all theological stripes.

do they have names? are we supposes to read your midn to know how you know this?

I’ll quote five authors of major works that argue against your position; there are many more. The first three are moderately conservative Catholic scholars; the last two are conservative evangelicals.

Raymond Brown, S.S.: >>There have been many attempts to solve this problem. The most simple and best –known is the attempt to treat them both as family records, with Matthew giving us Joseph’s record, and Luke giving us Mary’s. What influences this suggestion is the centrality of Joseph in Matthew’s infancy narrative, as compared with the spotlighting of Mary in Luke’s. Even at first glance, however, this solution cannot be taken seriously: a genealogy traced through the mother is not normal in Judaism, and Luke makes it clear that he is tracing descent through Joseph.

that's because of the adopting thing. JO was adopted into the line and it becomes his. This was the custom with families that didn't have a son.

Moreover, Luke’s genealogy traces Davidic descent and, despite later Christian speculation, we do not know that Mary was a Davidid<< (The Birth of the Messiah, 1977, 89).

that is begging the question. how can you argue against it ion the basis of "we don't' know?"

Luke Timothy Johnson: >>The two NT genealogies for Jesus are simply different and cannot be reconciled, not even by making Luke’s a line traced through Mary; Luke emphatically connects Jesus to David’s line through Joseph (1:27; 2:4). The question of historicity in this case is futile and even fatuous<< (The Gospel of Luke, Sacra Pagina Commentary, 1991, 72).

Brown and Johnson are fine scholars but they are not OT. So they re not experts on Jewish famly law. I still think we have to Edersheim because he was trained as a rabbi.

Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J.: >>Another solution was to maintain that the Matthean genealogy was Joseph’s and the Lukan Mary’s; this has been suggested because of the prominence of Joseph in the Matthean infancy narrative and of Mary in the Lucan. The view was made popular by Annius of Viterbo (ca. AD 1490) and used in modern times by J. M. Heer. Though tradition has at times thought of Mary’s Davidic descent, there is no basis for this in the NT; and Luke has traced the genealogy of Jesus specifically through Joseph<< (The Gospel According to Luke, Anchor Bible Commentary, 1981, vol. I, 497).

again begs the question. no basis for Mary's non David decent either, and perhaps this the basis , this is in the NT. Just question begging. so far all three have done nothing but beg the question. As much as I admire ;Brown and Johnson, they aren't always right. besides this last quotes doesn't really take sides and it contradicts what came before, because it establishes a body of scholarship that sees it differently.

I. Howard Marshall: >>The theory of Annius of Viterbo (AD 1490) was that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke that of Mary (cf. Hauck, 51-58). On this view, Eli (3:23) was really the father of Mary, and v.23 must be interpreted to mean either that Joseph was the son in law of Eli, or that Jesus was supposedly the son of Joseph but in reality the grandson of Eli (Geldenhuys, 151f.). Neither of these interpretations of the verse is at all plausible, and the theory does not fit with 1:27 where the Davidic descent of Joseph is stressed<< (The Gospel of Luke, New International Greek Testament Commentary, 1978, 158).

That one makes no sense at all. Look the reasnos he gives the only reasons are:

(1) not plausible (doesn't say why)

(2) doesn't fit Jo's Davidic decent?

that makes not sense at all because they go through different lines. It unfathomable why Mary can't be from Nathan and Jo from Solomon which is what the genealogies say. What's so implausible? They meet up a long tmie back. they would not even be 6th cousins.

Darrel Bock [from Excursus 5, The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke, in which he surveys six positions on the issue]:

>>1. Most [scholars] opt for a literary and theological approach to this material, regarding any attempt at harmonization as impossible. In this view, both writers relate Joseph to Jesus without any recourse to historical material other than the existing biblical materials from 1 Chronicles and Genesis…

this just says the two can't be one geneaology, we know that so what?

2. Another common approach is to argue that Matthew gives the genealogy through Joseph, while Luke gives the genealogy through Mary (Hendriksen 1978: 222-25; Godet 1875: 1.201). Dating back to Annius of Viterbo in 1490, the view argues that Joseph is not really in view in 3.23, where Luke says that Joseph was “supposed to be” (enomizeto) Jesus’ father. In addition, the absence of the particle tou before Joseph’s name is shows that he is not part of the genealogy. It is also argued that seeing Joseph in the genealogy puts Luke in a double contradiction in that he disagrees not only with Matthew, but also with himself, since he already made clear that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary (1:27). Finally, it is argued that rabbinic tradition know of the connection between Heli (also spelled Eli) and Mary. There are many problems with this approach. First, it is not at all clear that the rabbinic reference applies to Mary.

that is the weakest argument I've ever seen.Rather than a long critical examination he just says "not at all clear." you have to quote a major scholar for that?

In fact, most doubt that it does, because the Miriam referred to there is not called the mother of Jesus and thus could be any Miriam.

But of course the name Jesus was taken out of the Talmud so it couldn't say that (that is an historical fact too and its documented Herford, who you quote in the other comment as a true authority so you can't impeach him). she doesn't have to be called the mother of Jesus because he's not mentioned. Moreover, when it says most most who? Talmudic Scholars? IF they centered it why would they admit it?

Second, the absence of the article tou can be explained simply because Joseph starts the list.

yes, but it can be explained either way

Third, the virgin birth does not prevent legal paternity from passing through the father (Gordon 1977). Thus, no contradiction with the virgin birth exists.

That's irrelevant has nothing to do with it.

Fourth, the most natural way to read the Greek is as a genealogy for Joseph (Carson 1984, 64), given that Mary is not named at all here and the genitive tou at the front of the list is masculine. To clearly bring in Mary, Luke could have named her and/or changed the opening genitive to a feminine, similar to Matt. 1:16 and it use of hes which makes clear that the Matthean connection is only to Mary.

that argument ignores the one made by your guy before about they didn't use women in genealogies which explains why they don't say "Mary"

The remaining views all agree that Joseph’s line is addressed by both Luke and Matthew. They disagree on how this is done… <<(Luke, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 1994, vol. I, 919-920).

Enjoy,

LO

none of them actually give a viable reason why we should accept that. nonce of them say "most scholars agree with this." That one did say most agree that the Talmudic passage isn't' about Mary but that's hardly surprising since they censored it in the first place to remove the onus of critiquing Jesus. Now it's understandable why they did, ti is a historical fact that they did. It's been documented by Lightfoot, Herford, McDowell and many others. It is not a sinister plot they did it to avoid pogroms. So it's understandable, but the fact remains they did do so.

You also overlook my alternate view about which I am just as serious; that Lukes genealogy is an emmendation and Mat's is Mary's line.

Over all you give no effective argument.