Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Jesus geneaology

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket



I found a disucssion on this blog


Vridar

a rationalist’s musings on humanity, religion (especially Christianity) politics and society. Check the Categories to switch between Politics/Society and Religion/Humanity

so I answered it

The Jesus Genealogies: their different theological significances”

1. J.L. Hinman (Metacrock) Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 10:41 am

A late date and anti-Marcionite context for Luke-Acts not only has the power to explain why Luke may have rejected Matthew’s story of the birth of Jesus, but even more directly why Luke’s genealogy of Jesus is so different from Matthew’s. (The common belief that Luke records Mary’s family line and Matthew Joseph’s is a simplistic rationalization that defies the textual evidence.)


when you say “defies textual evidence” you mean the veg comment about ‘thought to be the father” in Mat? that’s hardly textual evidence. the Luke genealogy is given as Mary’s in the Talmud. The claim there is that the independent investigation which has nothing to do with Luke produces the genealogy of “such a one’s” mother and it is a woman named Mary and the same father as the Luke genealogy.

Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus goes back to Abraham and is traced through Solomon. Luke’s bypasses Solomon and traces back to Adam and God himself.


all the more reason to think these are two different lines rather than an two attempts to construct the same line.

There’s another fact worth keeping in mind too. The writings apparently penned by Justin Martyr around the mid-second century c.e. insisted that Jesus had no genealogy and that this fact was one of the proofs of his divine origin.


If he was born of a woman he had to have one. why take Justin over the NT?

Justin also expressed his conviction that it was Mary who belonged to the blood-line of David, while the canonical gospels instead trace Joseph to David, and Mary is only brought in to the family tree by marriage.


Nope! so sorry you are quite wrong. You just said Luke’s bypasses Solomon but that doesn’t mean it bypasses David. it goes through David’s other son Nathan!

See my table of Justin’s knowledge of canonical and noncanonical gospels for references. (Most scholars nevertheless believe that Justin knew some form of our current gospels that he called “the memoirs of the apostles”.)

Luke’s genealogy

As in my last post, I’m playing with the model that our canonical Luke-Acts was the product of a second-century anti-Marcionite cause. Marcionism was a form of Christianity that some authors suggest was more widespread and dominant in the early second century than what we might call “proto-orthodox” Christianity. One of its beliefs was that Jesus came from a hitherto unknown or “Alien” God and not from the God who created this world. The God of this world, the creator of Adam and giver of the Ten Commandments at Sinai, was believed to be a capricious, often cruel and blind God who was unaware of his subordinate place to the higher unknown God.

Marcion was a proto Gnostic Or a full blown ghostic. He saw the God fo the Jews as the damuerge and he saw Jesus as the son of the true uber God who created the damuerge. (sorry about that spelling I don’t have Greek font).

If Luke as we know it was written as a response to Marcionism (Tyson and others) then we can readily understand why it traced the genealogy of Jesus back to the God of Genesis, the creator God of the Jewish scriptures. This genealogy was a rebuttal of the Marcionite doctrine that Jesus was sent by another God who was higher than this “biblical” God.

But why would Luke’s genealogy bypass Solomon, and most notably avoid any mention of the famous women in Matthew’s genealogy?

good question. it’s not an attempt to construct Jo’s genealogy but is a trace of Mary’s line.

One of Marcion’s beliefs was that the God of the Jewish scriptures was often an immoral God, capricious and inconsistent. Matthew’s genealogy highlighted the role of women tainted with racial or moral dubiousness. Solomon was the son of murder and adultery, and despite this he was honoured as the rightful heir to David by the creator God of this world.

Luke’s genealogy appears to be a response to this — in the context of taking up the challenge of Marcionism — and thus proclamation that Jesus line could not only be traced back to the Creator God of Genesis but also that it could be done so legitimately and honourably. The genealogy was a statement that the God of Jesus and this world was a righteous God and not as the Marcionites portrayed him.

Matthew’s genealogy

Matthew’s genealogy appears to have originated among Christians — perhaps adoptionists like Mark — who believed that Jesus was of human origin although he later became God (at the resurrection or at baptism) or temporarily possessed by the Spirit of Christ (until his death on the cross). There are indications of these positions in our current Pauline epistles (e.g. Romans 1:4) and the Gospel of Mark (e.g. Mark 1:11), and these were all well-known variations of Christian beliefs out of which the “orthodoxy” with which we are familiar eventually emerged.

If Jesus was understood to be the illegitimate son of Mary — an accusation not unknown in the gospels — then was this genealogy responding with, So what? She was nevertheless married into a line which was sustained by Bathsheba who adulterously conceived Solomon; by Ruth who was a gentile and who teamed up with Boaz through a the euphemistically labelled custom of “uncovering his feet” when he was asleep; by a Rahab, a gentile prostitute; and by Tamar, a daughter of Judah when she turned to prostitution.

I wish I could recall where I originally read this interpretation of Matthew’s genealogy — that it belongs to an early form of Christianity that believed Jesus at least started out as fully human and only later became Christ or possessed by the Spirit of God.



a second alternative is that Luke’s genealogy is an emendation, since it is not found in the two earliest copies of Luke. Matt’s could then be Mary’s genealogy. The throne of Israel could pass through a woman, Israel had a queen at one point. Why should we assume Mat's genealogy is just Jo's line? The crucial thing he's forgetting is the custom of the son in law. In a family with no son the wife's husband is adopted into the line in term of inheritance.




Skeptics and anti-missionaries often raise many difficulties in attempts to prove that Jesus could be the Messiah. Here are the major difficulties with which I will deal:


(1)Disparity in size of two lists.

(2) Two genealogies said to contradict.

(3) Matt's genealogy is not Jesus' bloodline.

(4) Curse on Line in Matt.

(5) If Luke's list is Mary's line, King can't come through female.

(6) Luke's list is useless anyway it goes through Nathan, and Messiah must come through Solomon.

The assumptions that I will deal with here here, and in answer to the first problem:

Matthew's list is Joe's bloodline while Luke's list is Mary's genealogy. These are not the same list. That is apparent since one goes through Nathan and one Through Solomon and all the names are different except for about three, it is clear they are not meant to be the same list. I will deal with the proof that one is Joe's list and the other Mary's latter.

Matt's line = Joesph's line

Luke's Line = Mary's line



Disparity in size of two lists



-------------------------

Matt's genealogy is taken in reverse order to presentation--since Luke's order is reversed to Matt, I've put them all in the order of going back in time form Jesus to David.


Jechoniah (Jahoachin) is in red in Matt's list to mark the beginning of exile

highlight Matt's list to see the missing names that he left out, names of the kings of Judah (and their one Queen).


Luke's Genealogy Matt's Genealogy
supposed son of Joseph Jo husband of Mary
Eli,
Matthat,
Levi,
Melchi,
Jannai,
Joseph,
Mattathias,
Amos,
Nahum,
Hesli,
Naggai,
Maath,
Mattathias,
Semein,
Josech,
Joda,
Joanan,
Rhesa,
*Zerubbabel,
*Shealtiel,
Neri,
Melchi,
Addi,
Cosam,
Elmadam,
Er,
Joshua,
Eliezer,
Jorim,
Matthat,
Levi,
Simeon,
Judah,
Joseph,
Jonam,
Eliakim,
Melea,
Menna,
Mattatha,
Nathan,
Jesus
Joseph the husband of Mary,
Matthan,
Eleazar,
Eliud.
Achim,
Zadok,
Azor.
Eliakim,
*Zerubbabel.
*Shealtiel,
*Jeconiah
Jehoiakim
Jehoahaz
Josiah.
Amon,
Manasseh,
Hezekiah.
Ahaz,
Jotham,
Amaziah
Joash
Uzziah (Azariah?)
Joram,
Jehoshaphat,
Asa.
Abijah,
Rehoboam,
Solomon
David

The thing is we notice something odd about Matthew's list (apart form the lack of names).It is basically a list of the king's of Judah. All the names form Rehaboum to Jahoachin are all king's of judah. That line was hereditary and it involved the one family line of Solomon. Obviously then a lot of the missing names are kings of Judah. The list abridged. This is not unknown. There abridged genealogies in the Old Testament:

Ken Palmer
visited on 5/24/06

lifeofChrist.com


Genealogical abridgment occurs not only in Matthew 1:1, but also in the Old Testament. Compare Ezra 7:3 with 1st Chronicles 6:7-10, and you can see how Ezra deliberately skipped six generations from Meriaoth to Azariah (son of Johanan).

Son could also be used to describe kinship without sonship. Although Zerubbabel was the nephew of Shealtiel (1st Chronicles 3:17-19), he was called the son of Shealtiel (Ezra 3:2, Nehemiah 12:1, Haggai 1:12). Jair is another example of this principle. He was a distant son-in-law of Manasseh (1 Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15). Yet, he was called the "son of Manasseh" (Numbers 32:41, Deuteronomy 3:14, 1st Kings 4:13).
The point to remember is that the word son can be applied to several types of relationships.


The reason Matthew breaks up his genealogy into groups of 14, 14,13 is probably for memorization. It makes memorizing easier.

when we stick in the names of the missing Kings of Judah the lists come up a bit more even. There is a difference in eight names with the missing Kings of Judah in there. No doubt there are other spaces for abrdigement.


Since most of my answers involve the idea that Luke = Mary and Matt = Jo let's tackle that one next. Are my reasons "totally arbitrary?" Of course not, and most Biblical Scholars agree with my reading,and in fact the great Rabbinical scholar Alfred Edersheim agreed with it.


Skeptics often argue that there's no reason to think that Luke's genealogy is Mary's and Matt's is Jo's. They must both be of Jo's line because Luke doesn't mention Mary but says Jesus was supposed the son of Jo."

Lists do not contradict: Luke = Jo, Matt = Mary



These are clearly two different lists. They are not contradictions of each other, they follow two different family lines. One is for Mary and one for Joseph.

A. Different lists.

(1) Vastly different numbers of names indicates differnt lists.

The first thing to notice is that Luke's version has twice as many people in it. The second thing is that they are all different. There aren't just one or two differences, they are all different, except Zerubabel and Shealtiel, who come 10 generations apart in the two lists, which probably indicates they are two different sets of Father and son which are over 100 years apart.

This is clelary not two attempts to make the same list, but two totally different lists.

(2) Matt gores through Solmon; Luke Through Nathan; different sons of David

Luke's line goes through Nathan, While Matt's line goes through Solomon. But only Solomon's line has the promise that is decedent would always be on the throne (presumably meaning he would be the Messiah). It cannot be that Luke was just ignorant. He's far too knowledgeable of Jewish customs and no doubt had Jews to furnish his research. So the idea that he's ust ignorant of the fact doesn't' wash. If he was trying to manufacture a line to boost Jesus Messianic credentials he would surely just make it go through Solomon. the fact that he does not suggests that he's not trying to construct the same list, but is in fact trying to make up Mary's line, because if it was through Mary it wouldn't count Messianically anyway. It would have to go through the Father to count as Messianic. We can get around that by the argument that Jospeh adopted Jesus, but why compound the problem by trying to go through Nathan?

(3) Matt is clearly trying to connect to Royal (legal) line to argue for Messiahship, Luke is demonstrating blood heritage to David.

Matt clearly identifies where Jahoacin and Shealtiel come in, and he himself says they are connected to the exile. In his list he says "After the deportation R8 to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation R7 to Babylon." " This is clealry marking the line as the line that extends from the last King of Judah, and that it is the line containing the Zerubabel who re-establishes the Messianch blessing on the line the lifts the curse of Johoachin. That would be crucial to establishing the line as having a right to the throne. Without that the author might as well just forget it. Luke has a Zerubabel and Shealteil in his line, but makes no attempt to identify them as the decendents of Jahoachin. In fact they dencend from differnt people, and their decendents are different: see above list.

Luke's list:

Josech,
Joda,
Joanan,
Rhesa,
*Zerubbabel,
*Shealtiel,
Neri,
Melchi,
Addi,
Cosam,


Matt's list:

Achim,
Zadok,
Azor.
Eliakim,
*Zerubbabel.
*Shealtiel,
*Jeconiah
Josiah.
Amon,
Manasseh,
Hezekiah.

clealry two seperate lines. If we put them in the chronological contexts the two couples would be about 100 years apart.

That is a pretty clear indication that Matt was trying to establish the connection to the throne and Luke was not! Thus they have different purposes in writting, so probably not working on the same list.

B. Matt = Joe; Luke = Mary.

Skeptics often gloat, and arrogantly entoning "it doesnt' say Mary does it?" They domgatically ingore the fact that Jews didn't put women in geneolgoies. Matt does, but only as a speical noteworthy members of the line. To set out the feamle's line would be ridiculous. In such a case the proper thing to do would be to use the husband as thel egal heir and trace it as though it were his line. This is especially the case if he was adopted as legal heir (son-in-law) by the father (in-law).

(1)Luke lists Jospeh not Mary because he was the legal heir to that line.

Complete Bible genealogy.com

Jesus was the natural son of Mary, who conceived by the Holy Ghost and therefore He becomes the Son of God (Luk 1:34-35). Considering the fact that by the Jewish tradition women are never listed in the genealogical links, it is acceptable that Luke lists Joseph instead of Mary (as he was the "father" of Jesus) and thus Luke names Joseph as son of Heli. Further, since Heli had no sons but only daughters, we can find a precedent of the same type of name substitution in Num 27:1-11 and Num 36:1-12.





(2) Language of the geneaologies

Matt mentions Jo is husband of Mary. This seems like a purposeful attempt to connect the geneaology to Jesus from Joseph as his adopted father. But Matt says specifically that Jospeh was begotton by Matthan; while Luke uses no such language. The terms Luke uses to describe the relationship between Jesus and Joseph is "Suppossedthe son of..." which certainly implies that there is no begatting between the two. Taken together these seem frank admittions, on Luke's part that he's not really dealing of Joseph's actutal blood line, and for Matt, that he is daling with Josephe's actually blood line.

Of course skeptics will ask "why doesn't it name Mary?" Jews tired to avoid using women in Geneaologies. If the woman was without a brother, the husband could be adopted as legal heir by father and thus it becomes his legal line. So if this was the cause Luke uses Joseph as the leagal heir to the line.

(3) Similarities in names between Mary's Parents in Luke and Mary's partens in latter traditions.

New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia.

"Though few commentators adhere to this view of St. Luke's genealogy, the name of Mary's father, Heli, agrees with the name given to Our Lady's father in a tradition founded upon the report of the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Gospel which dates from the end of the second century. According to this document the parents of Mary are Joachim and Anna. Now, the name Joachim is only a variation of Heli or Eliachim, substituting one Divine name (Yahweh) for the other (Eli, Elohim). The tradition as to the parents of Mary, found in the Gospel of James, is reproduced by St. John Damascene [24], St. Gregory of Nyssa [25], St. Germanus of Constantinople [26], pseudo-Epiphanius [27], pseudo-Hilarius [28], and St. Fulbert of Chartres [29]. Some of these writers add that the birth of Mary was obtained by the fervent prayers of Joachim and Anna in their advanced age. As Joachim belonged to the royal family of David, so Anna is supposed to have been a descendant of the priestly family of Aaron; thus Christ the Eternal King and Priest sprang from both a royal and priestly family" [30].





Talmud agrees with Protoevangelium on Mary's father:

Geneology of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Bible study manuels
"It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition [that Luke's genealogy is of Mary's line]. Lightfoot {Horae Hebraicae on Luke iii. 28} cites from the Talmudic writers concerning the pains of hell, the statement that Mary the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures. {Suspensam per glandulas mammarum," etc.} This statement illustrates, not only the bitter animosity of the Jews toward the Christian religion, but also the fact that, according to received Jewish tradition, Mary was the daughter of Heli; hence, that it is her genealogy which we find in Luke....

If Mary was the daughter of Heli, then Jesus was strictly a descendant of David, not only legally, through his reputed father, but actually, by direct personal descent, through His mother....

[Therefore] Mary, since she had no brothers [as evidenced in Jn 19:25-27] 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, and the legal son of Heli. In a word, Matthew sets forth Jesus' right to the theocratic crown; Luke, His natural pedigree. The latter employs Joseph's name, instead of Mary's, in accordance with the Israelite law that 'genealogies must be reckoned by fathers, not mothers."





(4)Luke is more connected to Mary than Matthew is.


*Luke uses words such as women and womb more times than the other Gospels (Helms p.65)

*Only Luke is interested in Mary's inner life (2:18, 34, 51)

*Luke gives us the famous lines rejoying in pregnancy--something most men woudln't think about doing.(1:42-46)

*ONly author to mention fetal quickening and mention it as a sympotom of the Holy Spirit coming into the womb 1:42)



As a phyiscian Luke was drwawn to the idea of a pregnant woman in Mary's condition and perdicatiment. it seems many scholrs find a connection and an interest that Luke had in Mary. Matthew focuses upon Joseph in the announcmenet of the child. But Luke focuses upon Mary, followers her to her cousins and puts the spot light on her.



(5)Use of definate article


Jews didn't like putting women in geneolgoies. If Jo was adopted into the line as it's legal heir, because the father was sonless, the it would be more common to use him as the heir rather than Mary, even though it was her actaul blood line. We can see the way the genealogy is written there is a clue that Joseph is only the legal heir. All the other names have definate article in front them but not Jo's name. So "the Heli," "the so and so" that would be litteral reading. Only Jo is missing this definate article, indicating there is something different.

Now one might argue that this tradition (Protoevangelium) takes it ques form Matthew. But why would they use the nick name instead of using the name givne in Matthew? That creates more confussion than it resolves. It would seem that the names have a connection, but are clearly from different traditions of use.

This quotation also gives us good reason to assume that Mary didn't have a brother. Because the alternative traidtion of the Protoevangelum and the chruch father's mentioned seem to hold to that view.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Joe,

You said:

>>Since most of my answers involve the idea that Luke = Mary and Matt = Jo let's tackle that one next. Are my reasons "totally arbitrary?" Of course not, and most Biblical Scholars agree with my reading<<

You should check your facts on this. The majority of biblical scholars think the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are to be read at a literary and theological level and cannot be relied upon to be accurate in a historical sense. A very large majority thinks the genealogy in Luke is intended to be that of Joseph. Very few accept the idea that Luke is giving Mary’s genealogy. Also, most reject the idea that the Miriam mentioned in Talmud Hagigah 77d is to be identified with Jesus’ mother. And the Protoevangelium of James gives the name of Mary’s father as Joachim, which is not the same name as Eli or Heli. And you have produced no examples of a man’s genealogy being traced through his father-in-law.

Best,

LO

J.L. Hinman said...

you are so full of bull. Most scholars wont try to tackle the identity of "such a one" or any other euphamism they use. The Jews self censured the Talmud so they could say they don't talk about Jesus, most scholars just let them get away wtih it because they don't care and don't want to offend them. But the truth of it is it has to be here its' absurd to think it's not.

J.L. Hinman said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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 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

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

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

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

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).

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).

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).

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…

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. 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. Second, the absence of the article tou can be explained simply because Joseph starts the list. Third, the virgin birth does not prevent legal paternity from passing through the father (Gordon 1977). Thus, no contradiction with the virgin birth exists. 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.

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

Anonymous said...

Joe:>>you are so full of bull. Most scholars wont try to tackle the identity of "such a one" or any other euphamism they use. The Jews self censured the Talmud so they could say they don't talk about Jesus, most scholars just let them get away wtih it because they don't care and don't want to offend them. But the truth of it is it has to be here its' absurd to think it's not.<<

Promoting a conspiracy theory involving the Jews and “most scholars” does not add to your credibility. I doubt you’ve ever read the Talmud passage in question. There is no “such a one” or other euphemism that would represent Jesus in it.

Most scholars think the text does not refer to Mary mother of Jesus. R. Travers Herford wrote: >>There is, in j. Hag. 77d, a reference to a certain Miriam the daughter of ‘Eli whom, on account of the name (cf. Luke iii.23) one might be tempted to connect with the story of Jesus ; but there seems to be no suspicion on the part of the Talmud of any such connexion, and what is told about her does not seem to me to point in that direction<< Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, 1903 reprinted 1966, 43).

In fact, the Talmud text has “Miriam, the daughter of ‘LY BSYLM” which means something like “shoots of onions” and some have interpreted it to be a play-on-words for the name ‘Eli. Here’s the passage:

>>R. Eliezer bar Yose said that he saw Miriam, the daughter of ‘LY BSYLM [Jastrow—the leeklike sprouts of onions] hanging by the nipples of her breasts. R. Yose b. Hanina said, “The pin of the gate of Gehenna was fastened to her ear.” He said to him, “Why are things this way?” He said to him, “Because she fasted and told people about it.” And some say she fasted one day and had blood drawn the next. He said to him, “And how long will it be this way for her?” They said to him, “Until Simeon b. Shatah will come, and we shall remove it from her ear and put it in his ear!” He said to him, “And what is his crime?” They said to him, “Because he vowed, ‘If I am made patriarch, I shall kill off all the witches,’ and lo, he has been made patriarch, but he has not killed off the witches. Lo, there are eighty witches in a cave of Ashkelon, doing destruction to the world, so go and tell him”<<(trans. Jacob Neusner, The Talmud of the Land of Israel, vol.20, Hagigah and Moed Qatan, 1986, 57-58].

It takes a good bit of imagination to see the virgin Mary here. Simeon b. Shatah lived in the earlier half of the first century BC. Miriam was, by far, the most common name for Jewish women in the period, and this Mary is not said to be the mother of “such a one” or anyone else.

The way this passage of the Talmud has been used to try to support the idea that Luke is giving the genealogy of Mary is criticized here:

http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/QA8_talmud_mary.htm

J.L. Hinman said...

Anonymous said...
Joe:>>you are so full of bull. Most scholars wont try to tackle the identity of "such a one" or any other euphamism they use. The Jews self censured the Talmud so they could say they don't talk about Jesus, most scholars just let them get away wtih it because they don't care and don't want to offend them. But the truth of it is it has to be here its' absurd to think it's not.<<

Promoting a conspiracy theory involving the Jews and “most scholars” does not add to your credibility. I doubt you’ve ever read the Talmud passage in question. There is no “such a one” or other euphemism that would represent Jesus in it.


The actions of self censer are pretty much self incriminating. why censor it if it's not about Jesus anyway? The little zeros they put where his name went show it was censered. I have 2 pages defending the idea that it is Jesus mentioned in the Talmud:


http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/Talmud_JC.html

Most scholars think the text does not refer to Mary mother of Jesus. R. Travers Herford wrote: >>There is, in j. Hag. 77d, a reference to a certain Miriam the daughter of ‘Eli whom, on account of the name (cf. Luke iii.23) one might be tempted to connect with the story of Jesus ; but there seems to be no suspicion on the part of the Talmud of any such connexion, and what is told about her does not seem to me to point in that direction<< Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, 1903 reprinted 1966, 43).


I just got through researching that guy. You claim him as an authority his basic arugment was that the Talmud does talk about Jesus!

btw this is not documentation for the point that "most" scholars agree with you. Taht's one and you are wrong about what he said.



In fact, the Talmud text has “Miriam, the daughter of ‘LY BSYLM” which means something like “shoots of onions” and some have interpreted it to be a play-on-words for the name ‘Eli. Here’s the passage:

Some Scholars attribute Eli as an abrivation of a normal name meaning "El" as in God. I can't remember the name but I'll look it up.

>>R. Eliezer bar Yose said that he saw Miriam, the daughter of ‘LY BSYLM [Jastrow—the leeklike sprouts of onions] hanging by the nipples of her breasts. R. Yose b. Hanina said, “The pin of the gate of Gehenna was fastened to her ear.” He said to him, “Why are things this way?” He said to him, “Because she fasted and told people about it.” And some say she fasted one day and had blood drawn the next. He said to him, “And how long will it be this way for her?” They said to him, “Until Simeon b. Shatah will come, and we shall remove it from her ear and put it in his ear!” He said to him, “And what is his crime?” They said to him, “Because he vowed, ‘If I am made patriarch, I shall kill off all the witches,’ and lo, he has been made patriarch, but he has not killed off the witches. Lo, there are eighty witches in a cave of Ashkelon, doing destruction to the world, so go and tell him”<<(trans. Jacob Neusner, The Talmud of the Land of Israel, vol.20, Hagigah and Moed Qatan, 1986, 57-58].


you are conflating two different passages. Notice the one above, who is it attributed to? Eliazer, well this one ant by him:

R. Shimeaon ben 'Azzai said: I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, "Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress." McDowell and Wilson state, on the authority of Joseph Klausner, that the phrase such-an-one "is used for Jesus in the Ammoraic period (i.e., fifth century period)." (McDowell & Wilson, p. 69)

According to the Jewish Tractate of Talmud, the Chagigah a certain person had a dream in which he saw the punishment of the damned. In the dream, "He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades..." (John Lightfoot, Commentary On the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859; with a second printing from Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p. v; vol. 3, p.55


It takes a good bit of imagination to see the virgin Mary here.

because it's the wrong passage


Simeon b. Shatah lived in the earlier half of the first century BC. Miriam was, by far, the most common name for Jewish women in the period, and this Mary is not said to be the mother of “such a one” or anyone else.


It may not be her. but there's a more than good chance it is. Celsus told us the same material that is in the Talmud and he told us the Jews told him is of Jesus of Naz. Celsus proves it because is the same material.

The way this passage of the Talmud has been used to try to support the idea that Luke is giving the genealogy of Mary is criticized here:


Edersheim believed it was. I would take his expertise over anyones.