(with apologies for the long delay - and Burgy thought *he* was slow! :-)
Glenn wrote:
> Hi Gary,
>
> At 08:34 AM 9/23/98 +0100, Gary Collins wrote:
> > Sometimes, though, this is far from easy. Take for example the two
> >genealogies of Jesus - from Matthew's account and from Luke's account.
> >Both purport to be the genealogy of Joseph (and therefore not in fact the
> >genealogy of Jesus at all, except from a legal perspective, following the
> >marriage of Joseph to Mary). But these genealogies are radically different
> >and so both cannot be 'true' in an historical sense. Yet there is a sense
> >in which they are both true.
> > Likewise, the two versions of the Christmas story, and of subsequent events
> >up to Jesus' baptism, are extremely difficult to reconcile - I'm not yet
> sure
> >that I've managed to do it to my own satisfaction - yet there again, I
> >accept both as somehow true, and I'm sure that you do as well.
>
> The best explanation I found is no longer taught or widely known today. It
> comes from the 2nd earliest church historian--Eusebius.
>
>
> Eusebius says that both are genealogies of Joseph but one follows Joseph's
> legal genealogy (from Matthew); the other (from Luke) follows the
> biological lineage. This is due to the Jewish law which says a man can
> marry the widow of a brother who left no offspring and raise up children
> for that dead childless brother. Jacob and Eli are half brothers
> biologically. Eusebius says that the same thing happened in the next
> generation. Jacob and Eli were married to the same woman. Eli had died
> first. Jacob marries Jesus' grandmother and raises Joseph up as the legal
> heir of Eli, but Joseph is the biological son of Jacob. Thus a genealogy of
> law is not equal to genealogy of biology.
> It looks like this. (this will look bad in the archives)
>
> Solomon Nathan
> | |
> Mattan--------Estha----------- Melchi
> dies first | |
> Jacob---?---- Eli (dies first)
> |
> Joseph
>
> Eli dies Jacob marries Eli's Widow raises Joseph as Eli's seed
> according to Law
> ~~Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
> House, 1955), p.33
>
This is very interesting and extremely helpful. Thanks for taking the
time to look this up for me. I will have to find out a bit more about
this Eusebius chappie.
I read something similar recently, though not so detailed:
"By tracing Jesus' descent through the royal line of Judah, it stakes his
claim to the title 'King of the Jews.'
[...]
A more probable explanation of the difference is that while Luke records
the actual physical genealogy ofJoseph, Matthew records the line of
succession to the throne, the 'official' genealogy. This would not
necessarily pass from father to son, but would remain within the family.
(The verb he uses for beget (gennao) is used of a relationship which is
not genetic in 1 Cor 4:15; Phm 10, and the same metaphor was used of the
relatiuonship between a Rabbinic teacher and his pupil. Cf also Ps 2:7)
It is certainly not impossible that the lines should converge at two
points (Shealtiel and Joseph) in a period of 1,000 years. But any
solution must remain tentative."
(Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, R.T. France, 1985 pp 71-72)
I only recently got a copy of this, and this kind of argument does make
sense. In any case I much prefer it to the idea that one of the
genealogies is really Mary's, which is what I had heard up till then and
never really managed to come to grips with.
>
>
> >
> >Some scholars have written that what we would call history (from the bible I
> >mean) starts with Abraham. I know that the genealogies go back further, back
> >in fact to Adam, but at best they must be missing many many generations -
> >perhaps we need to ask ourselves what real meaning there is in these.
>
> Missing people does not mean that the people listed aren't true. I can
> show that there are lots of missing people between David and Abraham
> because the genealogies would require that the average age of the first
> child is something like 60 years old in that stretch of genealogy. But the
> fact that there are missing people doesn't mean that Abraham is fictitious.
Agreed - although of course Abraham was about 100 when he had Isaac
(Gen 17:1,21) Isaac about 60 when he had Jacob and Esau (Gen 25:26)
and Jacob must surely have been *at least* 50 or so when Reuben was
born (Gen. 26:34, 29:18-21, with a bit of reading between the lines.)
So maybe the 60 years old is not quite so far fetched as it seems(?)
I haven't tried to check ages for subsequent generations.
>
> >
> >Like yourself, I find the idea of allegory not altogether to my liking -
> >theological interpretation can be as you point out very subjective, though
> >of course it must be constrained to some extent by the overall message of
> >the whole of scripture - but distasteful or not, at the end of the day
> >we may have to accept it as such. There are questions like this which
> >I believe we will never have complete answers to this side of heaven!
> >
>
> I agree that we will never have all the answers, but once we say that the
> events of Scripture didn't happen, we fall into the position that my
> atheist friends find so incredible--believing as truth that which is false.
> Isn't that what the young-earthers do?
Yes - but in their case, the belief goes against the data we have, so
it is not *quite* the same. Let's face it, much as we would like it, we
don't have the same kind of contemporary evidence for pre-Abraham as we
do for Jesus Christ. In fact, right up until well into the Divided
Kingdom, there is little if any evidence outside of what is recorded
in the Bible - though David Rohl, with his thesis on the Third Intermediate
Period in Egypt, claims to have changed all that, as I posted before
somewhere. I have read his book and he appears to have a very strong
case, including best fits of astronomical retrocalculations to support
him. And he wasn't trying to prove the Bible either- in his own words,
he has 'no religious axe to grind.' He just realised that if his
revision of the chronology (on other grounds) is correct, these things
fall more readily into place.
>
>
> >But if it *were* categorically shown that the flood could not have taken
> place
> >as described - if your theory were disproved conclusively - say by proof
> that
> >there was never any civilization in the Mediterranean basin - what would you
> >do (as Burgy asks)? Would you abandon your Christian faith altogether? I
> >doubt it. Your faith is based on a relationship with God through Jesus
> >Christ, just as mine is - and I don't believe that you would deny this
> >relationship. So you would have to come to terms with it some other way -
> >either by accepting that the flood must be allegorical, or by accepting
> >that we walk by faith, not by sight and that there are some things that we
> >just cannot understand in this life.
>
> Obviously our faith (and my faith) is in Jesus Christ. But I often ask
> myself and others "Would you believe Jesus is the Messiah if there were no
> evidence of Egyptians, Hittites, Babylonians, Samaritans, Israel, Judah
> etc. Would you believe that Jesus is the son of God if there were no
> evidence of a Roman empire, no evidence that man had ships 2000 years ago
> upon which Paul could travel?"
>
> I would contend that you would dismiss the Scripture as a collection of
> fairy tales in the same manner we reject the Book of Mormon. It doesn't
> match the unique history of the world.
You would be right - but of course we *do* have such supporting evidence!
Now if you would reject
> Christianity in the above situation, at what point does Christianity become
> acceptable? How much false history can be taught and still have a viable
> religion?
It wouldn't necessarily have to be taught as false history if it is
in fact allegorical. Personally I hope it is not, but if it could be
proved that it must be, then I would have to revise my thinking
somewhat - but I have to do that quite often anyway :-) but I don't
think in this case it would necessarily be fatal to Christianity.
If a lot of false history can be taught, does this mean that
> Mormonism is a viable religion? Can Mormonism be understood in a
> theological manner and thus is to be embraced as a true revelation?
Well, we have Galatians 1:8-9 to help us here:
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than
the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have
already said, so now I say again: if anybody is preaching to you a gospel
other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
>
> >
> >best regards,
> >and thanks from all the insights you have given me - I have learned a lot
> >from your posts..Keep up the good work!
>
> Thanks for the kind words.
Not at all. I have been really stimulated by much of what I have read on
this list. My only regret is that I don't have as much time as I would
like to get involved much more!
Regards,
Gary