Fulfilling Prophecy in Mysterious Ways
I think I have already remarked that I think it’s pretty neat how scoffers didn’t think Jesus could be the Messiah, since He came from Nazareth while the prophesies said He’d come from Bethlehem. (The solution of course is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but grew up in Nazareth.)
But today in church we went over a passage that reminded me of something that has puzzled me. Here is Luke 3: 23-31:
23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josek, the son of Joda,
27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David…
So Joseph (Mary’s husband) was a direct descendant of King David, which satisfies the prophesies saying that a descendant of David will rule on the throne forever.
But hold on a second. As the part I’ve put in bold indicates, Jesus wasn’t actually genetically related to Joseph at all. He was directly conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit.
Discuss. (And don’t bring up Bryan Caplan.)
What was Mary’s lineage? It’s been a while since I’ve read the gospels – do they even mention it?
Opinions on it differ, but some think that the geneology in Luke is Mary’s.
I have always like to think that this demonstrates a really interesting reciprocity/symmetry between God the Father and Men, and God the Son and a Man. (I am not very learned, so I do not hold this out as anything more than my own thought, but this view has always seemed, or “felt” right to me … )
Through Mary’s “yes”, Jesus became flesh and dwelt amongst us, so that we could become fellow heirs, true Children of God.
Through Mary’s “yes”, Jesus became flesh and dwelt with Joseph as his son, so that he became his true earthly father.
It was “supposed” that Joseph was Jesus’ biological father, which is not true – and is Luke’s most important point here – but this “supposed” does not diminish the mysterious truth of the fatherhood of Joseph.
I think that Jesus is the true heir of the Kingdom of David, just as we are true heirs of the Kingdom of God.
I agree with Daniel in that I have heard that the lineage in Luke is Mary’s. Joseph’s lineage is listed at the beginning of Matthew and you’ll notice is different than the one listed in Luke.
Jesus grew up in Egypt. There was no Nazareth at the time.
Its existence is attested in all four of the gospels. It is hardly likely that Jesus’s disciples would make up a city for their master—particularly one in Galilee, which was the “less favored” region among Jews. It is even more unlikely that its non-existence would go unnoticed for any significant span of time. Why would they not pick from among the extant cities?
It would thus take compelling evidence for any judicious investigator to accept this claim. And what, one wonders, is that evidence? The Wikipedia page on Nazareth reveals no compelling archaeological evidence whatever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth). Wikipedia is not infallible, to be sure—but then, neither is Thomas L. Knapp. What is your source?
http://www.nazarethmyth.info/book.html
This book encapsulates many of the arguments concerning the existence of Nazareth I have seen and its not coming into existence until well after Jesus’ crucifixion.
I don’t make any claims regarding the authors scholarship – I merely point to this as a resource which includes some of the arguments I have seen previously in other places.
Ken Dark has a critique (2008) in the Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society. But let us grant the premise, for the sake of argument—that there is no positive archaeological evidence for first-century inhabitation of Nazareth. That sort of argument from silence is hardly enough to lend credence to the preposterous story described above.
Of course you realize I can’t prove the negative – nor must I. Those who want to make the positive assertion that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus – so that he had a boyhood home – must have evidence to prove that assertion. The Gospels don’t count as evidence for the existence of Nazareth and the archaelogical record indicates that Nazareth is post-Jesus. Before we start throwing stones about preposterous stories you may want to consider that you live in a glass house.
No, the archeologist record does not indicate that Nazareth was uninhabited at the time of Jesus. Even if we dismiss trained archeologists in favor of your conspiracy theorist—and I do this only for the entertainment value—we are led only to the conclusion that nothing in the record proves that it was inhabited at that time.
As for the notion that the gospel accounts “do not count as evidence for the existence of Nazareth,” they certainly do in any sane world. If the accounts are fabrications, they are nonetheless fabrications that took place in a particular context—a context that makes their clumsy reliance on a non-existent town in Galilee, combined with their swift progress in the Roman world, inconceivable.
“As for the notion that the gospel accounts “do not count as evidence for the existence of Nazareth,” they certainly do in any sane world.”
And Superman comics count as evidence for Krypton, Kryptonian superpowers near a yellow sun, etc. Who is the sane one? The person who acknowledges the legitimate faults in the textual, evidentiary and historic record around a belief system or the one who says:
“If the accounts are fabrications, they are nonetheless fabrications that took place in a particular context—a context that makes their clumsy reliance on a non-existent town in Galilee, combined with their swift progress in the Roman world, inconceivable.”
Myths and fabrications in the right context are true or at least worth believing, myths and fabrications out of the right context are not worth believing – I guess?
If one Gospel said Jesus died on the day before Passover and another said he died on the day of Passover – which is correct? They both can’t be right. Wait, I forgot, we need to look at the context in which the myth claims are made. Forget it, that’s right, there’s no problem here – just move along.
When (a) a chronicler of events, however generally unreliable, makes a claim that is in no way supportive of his agenda; (b) the asserted proposition is actually something of an embarrassment to his cause; (c) the falsity of the claim, were it false, would be easily exposed, much to the discredit of the person who made it; (d) the movement making the claim has many an educated and powerful enemy; (e) the claim goes unchallenged, even as that movement gains converts throughout the most civilized portion of the earth—then, in the absence of compelling evidence, the truth of the claim cannot be reasonably impeached. A person who denies this denies the most elementary principles of evidence.
“Myths and fabrications in the right context are true or at least worth believing, myths and fabrications out of the right context are not worth believing – I guess?”
Individual claims within a fabricated account should be accepted as true when context makes it clear that an alternative hypothesis is implausible.
“If one Gospel said Jesus died on the day before Passover and another said he died on the day of Passover – which is correct?”
I don’t follow. Is the argument that if two accounts disagree on a point, both have to be rejected in toto?
Just to decode:
(a) An unreliable storyteller makes a claim that is irrelevant or dispositive (b) and within the story the storyteller says something that is embarassing to his position (c) and if the truth, which is ascertainable, were revealed the storyteller would look foolish (d) and there exists a group with an opposing agenda to the storyteller (e) the fact that the storyteller was never actively disproven by the group in opposition thus giving others the impetus to believe then the story must be true.
I hear this nonsense all the time – particularly from William Lane Craig. Jesus appeared to the women (was it Mary alone, Mary and a small group or Mary and a larger group – the Gospels disagree) and since women were disfavored as witnesses this is an embarassment to the person making the claims. Since the people making the claims based the claims on bad witnesses, and they know this, doesn’t this point to their truthfulness? Huh?
Since the Pharisees and Sadducees didn’t publish a point by point refutation of the Gospels doesn’t that make them reliable. If you are 5 years old, maybe. The Gospels weren’t written until a full generation after the events – given Bronze Age lifespans – it is likely that most of the people with a dog in the fight had died, moved on or thought the Christians irrelevant and mistaken. Let’s not forget the supporters of John the Baptist who didn’t believe in Jesus and were another “sect” that had differing claims – were they right also?
Ancient Palestine and the Roman Empire were not the most civilized place on Earth at that time – the Chinese culture would beg to differ with you.
“A person who denies this denies the most elementary principles of evidence.”
A statement against interest is generally seen as being reliable in a court of law – that’s true. But we don’t have any “statements against interest here” because the story is woven (taking in the context) to persuade and the statements against interest in the Gospels and epistles serve to prop up the story rather than embarass the storyteller. There are no statements like “My name is John and I don’t believe Jesus was the messiah but let me tell you I saw him walk on water, heal the blind and drive demons into hogs.” No, we get, Jesus sat with the Samaritans and tax-collectors – an embarassing story but not a statement against interest.
“Individual claims within a fabricated account should be accepted as true when context makes it clear that an alternative hypothesis is implausible.”
LIes within a lie should be taken as true when some context makes an oppositional argument implausible. Tom Cruise was “helped” by Scientology – does that mean that Xenu brought the thetans to Earth by intergalactice 737s and destroyed them with nuclear bombs? Apparently so, an individual’s claims within a fabricated account should be judged as true based on your rationale.
Knox: “If one Gospel said Jesus died on the day before Passover and another said he died on the day of Passover – which is correct?”
“I don’t follow. Is the argument that if two accounts disagree on a point, both have to be rejected in toto?”
Let’s follow the bouncing ball. It doesn’t mean they both have to be rejected but it does mean that one is incorrect. To borrow from the Randians here – A cannot be non-A. This is the point I was making about a theological harmonization of the Gospels. You can say that there were “mistakes” but that underlying story is true. Ok. But, what you cannot say, is that both accounts are historically accurate. If a source reported D-Day as June 6 and another source as July 19th – one would be right – both cannot be. That is a matter for historians to decide based on the best available evidence. With the Gospels we don’t have that luxury because they were written so far after the facts and are so inconsistent that they cannot be historically or texturally correct – relative to harmony with each other. If you are a fundamentalist you believe that the Bible is inerrant and that the history is accurate. Where is the evidence for the Exodus? How do we reconcile competing claims about facts – like dates? Morning crucifixion or afternoon crucifixion? Passover or day before? Jesus’ last words? Witnesses of the resurrected body? Women? Men? Who? How many? Dead leaving the graves and walking around in Matthew? The Bible says Jesus appeared to the Twelve – but Judas was dead and no replacement had been made. You might be getting the point by now.
Jesus was crucified around 30 CE. Mark was written around 65 CE, Matthew and Luke around 80-85 CE and John around 95 CE. The Gospels were not written by the disciples – the Gospels were written in Greek and the disciples were illiterate men who spoke Aramaic. Would it be better for a fact checker to place events in the “no man’s land” of ancient Israel – like Nazareth, etc. or in Jerusalem where presumably the literatti of the times lived?
The mysteries that support the Gospel accounts seem to me to be conveniences created by the oral tradition of those trying to get converts and the particular viewpoints of the scribes with a theological axe to grind. You can make a theological argument for the harmony of the Gospels – unfortunately that is not a historical or textual argument. The disagreements are too many, varied and important to pass historical or textual muster – but they are not outside the scope of a theological view which hopes to harmonize the Gospels.
In much the same way as theology should stay out of the laboratory it should stay out of history as well – it is much too unreliable to take as authentic historical documentation.
PSH,
Various sources support my claim, but the one mentioned by Knox Harrington will do.
The mentions in the gospels appear to be attempts to shoehorn Jesus’ status as a Nazarene/Nazorean/Nazaroit into a geographical context. Whether they were due to unintentional error, or part of an intentional attempt to erase fact that he was a “zealous for the law” Jewish revolutionary dedicated to kicking Roman ass out of Judea and restoring the Davidic monarchy, I don’t know, although given the extent of the Pauline heresy, I have to suspect the latter.
Is there any actual historical evidence that Jesus existed at all?
My personal opinion is that Jesus did exist given independent sources like Josephus and – I think Bart Ehrman discusses this – some Roman references to Jesus which are impartial, uninterested and “numerous” – meaning more than a couple.
That is a separate issue from the Gospel backfill taking place in order to justify Jesus as a representation of the Davidic line. There is absolutely no evidence – outside the Gospels themselves – that dates a census at the time of Jesus birth in the manner in which it was taken, e.g., making people travel back to their “ancestral” homes. A census of this variety was never ordered and the prophecy of the Old Testament was backfilled in the New Testament to create Jesus as messiah.
Additionally, parthenogenesis was a common trait of mythic gods including Horus, Krishna and Jesus – there is nothing either special or unique in the virgin birth claims – those claims were a commonplace at the time. In fact, Marcion – an early church father – told people that the claims made for Jesus were no different than other claims made about certain Greek gods.
Thomas Knapp is correct – there was no Nazareth at the time and there was no synagogue in Nazareth until sometime in the second century if not later.
What’s astonishing, knoxharrington, is that Bart Ehrman is astonished that people think he didn’t think Jesus existed!!!!
I know. I have never been in the Jesus didn’t exist camp and the way Ehrman treats the “Jesus never existed” crowd is whithering – I can’t remember if it was on Fresh Air or in a debate with William Lane Craig that I first heard him talk about this issue. If I remember correctly Craig thought Ehrman would deny Jesus’ existence and forcefully stated the opposite which threw Craig off a little. It’s been awhile since I watched that debate on the resurrection so don’t quote me on that.
“My personal opinion is that Jesus did exist given independent sources like Josephus and – I think Bart Ehrman discusses this – some Roman references to Jesus which are impartial, uninterested and “numerous” – meaning more than a couple.”
I’m not aware of one such Roman reference, let alone “numerous”. The earliest Roman reference to Jesus that I know of is Tacitus ca. 116, but this demonstrates only that Christians existed, not that Christ did. The Testimonium Flavianum is a fake.
Jesus is mentioned in Josephus’s history of Israel in and around the time of the Jewish Wars. I’ve heard, though, that some believe that references to Jesus were added in later, as the writing style differs in passages revolving around Jesus as compared to the rest of the book.
There is a ton, actually, Zach. You can look into Michael Licona, Gary Habermas, N.T. Wright, or William Lane Craig on the massive amount of work they have done or recorded about what is known and what historians think about the historical Jesus.
But hold on a second. As the part I’ve put in bold indicates, Jesus wasn’t actually genetically related to Joseph at all. He was directly conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit.
If God creates every human, then aren’t all humans conceived by mystical power? If Mary conceived Jesus without sex [Note: virginity in women was considered as ideal back then because sex was considered as evil, since it empowered women as they had the control to give birth and hence continue the human race, and in the paternalistic world of might makes right, that was perceived as too big a threat to established power] because God impregnated Mary by mystical power, then does it not follow that if God creates all humans by mystical power, then He must be impregnating all women?
Hey that reminds me of that time when I was a medieval priest, when I convinced women to remain virgins until I granted them the permission to have sex with God, through me of course.
“Note: virginity in women was considered as ideal back then because sex was considered as evil…”
Captain Freedom: making up shit since 1998!
Captain Freedom: making up shit since 1998!
Hahaha, sorry if it gets your panties in a twist.
The supreme good is virgin birth. Why would virgin birth be considered the supreme good? Because sex is disgusting and “evil”. Why did (and do still) fanatical adults engage in genital mutilations of babies? Because sex is evil. Why are extremely devout nuns and priests celibate (well, not including raping little boys)? Because sex is evil.
Adam and Eve were living in Paradise without sex. They disobeyed their god’s order not to eat fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is only after they eat of the fruit of knowledge that they become aware of their genitals and sex. As a result they are caste out of paradise, out of the presence of their god, into a cold, cruel, uncultivated world…where sex is evil.
Yes, I know you don’t like it when the truth of the foundations of your most cherished beliefs are given a wake up call from time to time (it’s why so many of your typical childish and glib responses are closer in resemblance to what a pimpled 12 year old living their mother’s basement would say.) But that’s how we grow up.
As far as I know Mary was also a descendant of David. No other way that prophecy could be fulfilled.
Both the Matthew and the Luke genealogies represent themselves as the genealogy of Joseph, and both genealogies come through the line of David. Therefore, it seems that one of the accounts refers to Jesus’ legal claim to David’s throne, while the other account refers to his blood/genetic claim to David’s throne. Obviously, the Josephan account corresponds to his legal claim and the Maryan account corresponds to his genetic claim.
I should note that I do not have a very good grasp (i.e., none whatsoever) of how Jewish genealogies were written in the first century. Thus, it may have been standard practice for Jewish writers, when compiling a genealogy for a woman, to have made reference to the woman’s husband.
Both the Matthew and the Luke genealogies represent themselves as the genealogy of Joseph, and both genealogies come through the line of David. Therefore, it seems that one of the accounts refers to Jesus’ legal claim to David’s throne, while the other account refers to his blood/genetic claim to David’s throne. Obviously, the Josephan account corresponds to his legal claim and the Maryan account corresponds to his genetic claim.
I should note that I do not have a very good grasp (i.e., none whatsoever) of how Jewish genealogies were written in the first century. Thus, it may have been standard practice for Jewish writers, when compiling a genealogy for a woman, to have made reference to the woman’s husband.
It is dispute who the genealogies are from. By that I mean, a lot of scholars hold that Luke is Mary’s and Matthew’s is Joseph’s.
It is very probably that often a Jewish writer would replace women with their husbands or closest male relative.
Is there a separate RSS feed that only has the economics posts?
I think you get what you pay for.
The question is whether you require all 4 Gospel to be historically accurate in all aspects to be of value as theological documents. If so, it will be very difficult. Note that Luke and Matthew place the birth of Jesus during the reign of different rulers, which historians estimate at about 6 years difference. Our calendar is based in the Luke account, but most theologians now think the Matthew account is more likely to be true.
Since none of the Gospels were written with first-hand knowledge, I accept that there are historical inaccuracies. That’s my personal decision, though, and I wouldn’t dream of insisting that others agree.
Interesting that most of the comments about a question regarding specific text in a specific document involve questioning whether a town also mentioned numerous times in the same document actually existed. And we are not supposed to use the fact that it is so mentioned as evidence for its existence.
What I take from that fantastic departure from logic and common sense is that Federal Reserve officials both read and comment on this blog.
As to the question, a comparison of the genealogies of Luke and Matthew reveal significant differences immediately after David. In line with the typical fashion that God manages to work seeming paradoxes together to fulfill His long prophesied plans. As an earlier commenter noted , a lot of scholars believe one is the line of Joseph, the other the line of Mary. Since Matthew’s follows the line of Judah’s kings, and Luke’s does not, it is presumed that Luke’s is of Mary. If that’s the case, the God so arranged things that regardless of whether one thought Joseph was Jesus’ natural father, or that Mary divinely conceived Jesus, the lineage of both can be traced back to King David in fulfillment of the prophecies.
Bob, I am not sure what is puzzling you. If you are puzzled that Jesus’ ancestry could pass through his step-father to get to David then it is just a matter of Jewish law and it could be done that way, no puzzlement; he didn’t have to be genetic relative.