Genealogy Of Jesus

[ProfessorDavey]

The reason she is not mentioned is because women weren't mentioned in Hebrew genealogies.

That is simply untrue - if we pop across to the very closest example, the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew, he mentions four women.

[jeremyp]

So to be clear, if this is Joseph's genealogy then for no apparent reason Luke went to the trouble of showing that Joseph was descended from Adam.

There's also no apparent reason why he would go to the trouble of showing that Mary was descended from Adam.

Since Luke is clearly talking about Jesus being descended from Adam

As we've discussed that can't be the reason why he put the genealogy in, because as far as anybody believed, everybody was descended from Adam.

and since he also implies that Jesus wasn't the true son of Joseph but he was the true son of Mary, then the genealogy must be that of Mary. The reason she is not mentioned is because women weren't mentioned in Hebrew genealogies.

But it isn't. It is quite clearly a genealogy of Joseph. It says so in the text.

Can you give a reference from a reputable scholar of women not being mentioned in Jewish genealogies? Actually, can you give a reference to any Jewish genealogy at all from the first century other than those in the Bible?

[jeremyp]

Here's a youtube video that, coincidentally, I watched last night that discusses the genealogies.

https://youtu.be/AymnA526j9U?t=1302

The link takes you to the rough time at which the discussion of genealogies starts.

[ProfessorDavey]

Can you give a reference from a reputable scholar of women not being mentioned in Jewish genealogies? Actually, can you give a reference to any Jewish genealogy at all from the first century other than those in the Bible?

There are also other examples of biblical genealogies that mention women. I've already referred to Matthew, but there is also the genealogies in Genesis 11, which mention women, some in general terms as just 'daughters' but also some are specifically named, for example Sarai and Milkah.

[jeremyp]

There are also other examples of biblical genealogies that mention women. I've already referred to Matthew,

Yes, I know. I wrote my post before I saw yours, which made me laugh out loud, by the way.

but there is also the genealogies in Genesis 11, which mention women, some in general terms as just 'daughters' but also some are specifically named, for example Sarai and Milkah.

The reason I issued my challenge to Spud is that there is a lot of received wisdom about how people did things in 1st century Palestine that we just accept because we've been told by generations of Christians trying to reconcile the problems of their holy book. The one about not having women in genealogies is an example (probably - this is the first I've heard it).

Another is the idea that people in 1st century Palestine kept meticulous genealogical records. This is totally untrue - Joseph probably had no more idea who his great grand parents were than I have about mine. If they had the genealogical records of every carpenter in Palestine going back a thousand years, you'd expect some of them to survive.

Another is the idea of going to the place of your ancestors for a Roman census. I swallowed that one whole as a child and it was only later when I started thinking critically about such things that I realised it had to be nonsense.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, I know. I wrote my post before I saw yours, which made me laugh out loud, by the way.

Very good

[ProfessorDavey]

The reason I issued my challenge to Spud is that there is a lot of received wisdom about how people did things in 1st century Palestine that we just accept because we've been told by generations of Christians trying to reconcile the problems of their holy book. The one about not having women in genealogies is an example (probably - this is the first I've heard it).

Another is the idea that people in 1st century Palestine kept meticulous genealogical records. This is totally untrue - Joseph probably had no more idea who his great grand parents were than I have about mine. If they had the genealogical records of every carpenter in Palestine going back a thousand years, you'd expect some of them to survive.

Another is the idea of going to the place of your ancestors for a Roman census. I swallowed that one whole as a child and it was only later when I started thinking critically about such things that I realised it had to be nonsense.

Yes - I think you are right. There are a lot of aspects to the bible which are merely accepted due to tradition rather than through any rational thought.

One of the ones I think need most challenge is the view that in cultures that relied on oral transmission of information that somehow these people had photographic memories for detail and 100% perfect oral transmission. That is patently non-sense.

Firstly there is no reason to suspect that a witness to an event in a oral tradition culture would be any better, nor worse, than someone in a written culture (or other evidence culture such as through photography, recording etc) would be inherently better at observation and accurately remembering what they say. And secondly their mode of transmission will be significantly weaker on accuracy and detail. Indeed in oral transmission cultures transmission is often via stories, songs, poems etc which never aim at accuracy or detail - rather they aim at ease of learning and tranmission. If you have inherently more accurate recording and transmission methods (written, recorded, photographed) you will be able to capture much great detail and accuracy and transmit that accuracy and detail with greater fidelity.

[jeremyp]

One of the ones I think need most challenge is the view that in cultures that relied on oral transmission of information that somehow these people had photographic memories for detail and 100% perfect oral transmission. That is patently non-sense.

Firstly there is no reason to suspect that a witness to an event in a oral tradition culture would be any better, nor worse, than someone in a written culture (or other evidence culture such as through photography, recording etc) would be inherently better at observation and accurately remembering what they say. And secondly their mode of transmission will be significantly weaker on accuracy and detail. Indeed in oral transmission cultures transmission is often via stories, songs, poems etc which never aim at accuracy or detail - rather they aim at ease of learning and tranmission. If you have inherently more accurate recording and transmission methods (written, recorded, photographed) you will be able to capture much great detail and accuracy and transmit that accuracy and detail with greater fidelity.

You can also cite the gospels themselves. John is radically different from the synoptics in style, but also content. If oral transmission is so reliable, how could John have such a different interpretation?

Another example: I listened to a fascinating In Our Time about the Epic of Sundiata. This is an epic of the Mali empire that has been transmitted orally over centuries. There are many different versions of it in spite of the alleged ability of oral cultures not to get things wrong.

[Spud]

Here's a youtube video that, coincidentally, I watched last night that discusses the genealogies.

https://youtu.be/AymnA526j9U?t=1302

The link takes you to the rough time at which the discussion of genealogies starts.

A bit overconfident? Just to correct him here when he says Jews didn't know their family trees - Luke says Joseph went to Bethlehem for the census because he was of the house and line of David. (Lk 2:4)

[Owlswing]

Does anyone know what has happened to Theoretical Skeptic?

He seems to have suddenly disappeared.

Too many atheists maybe?

Owlswing
)O(

[Outrider]

A bit overconfident? Just to correct him here when he says Jews didn't know their family trees - Luke says Joseph went to Bethlehem for the census because he was of the house and line of David. (Lk 2:4)

Yeah, that's not how censuses work...

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

Does anyone know what has happened to Theoretical Skeptic?

He seems to have suddenly disappeared.

Too many atheists maybe?

Owlswing
)O(

Reporting back to headquarters for his next tactics, no doubt. I'm sure he's a front for the Jehovah's Witnesses, pretending to be sceptical and presenting his own views, whilst simply spewing out Jehovah's Witness gumph practically word for word.

[ProfessorDavey]

A bit overconfident? Just to correct him here when he says Jews didn't know their family trees - Luke says Joseph went to Bethlehem for the census because he was of the house and line of David. (Lk 2:4)

So what - just because it is written in a book doesn't make it true. And the other nativity narrative has no mention of a census whatsoever.

[ProfessorDavey]

Luke says Joseph went to Bethlehem for the census because he was of the house and line of David. (Lk 2:4)

And of course Luke's account of the census and the requirement to travel to Bethlehem is so full of holes it could be used as a sieve.

[Spud]

There's also no apparent reason why he would go to the trouble of showing that Mary was descended from Adam.

Because he wanted to show that Jesus was descended from Adam. Adam was created in the image of God and Seth had the image of Adam. When tempted, Adam lost God's image. Jesus was also tempted but kept God's image. So Jesus is also the son of God. But if Jesus wasn't Joseph's son, someone might wonder if God created him from the dust, like Adam? Tracing his genealogy back to Adam through Mary, as though he was Joseph's son, makes clear that Jesus was not a separate creation.

As we've discussed that can't be the reason why he put the genealogy in, because as far as anybody believed, everybody was descended from Adam.

See above. Also, Luke's Gentile readers might not have known about Adam.

But it isn't. It is quite clearly a genealogy of Joseph. It says so in the text.

It kind of hinges on whether the wording indicates Joseph is separated out from the genealogy. I'm not convinced about that yet, but there is still the alternative possibility that Joseph was son-in-law of Jacob or Heli, or some kind of levirate marriage took place. Imagine for example that Mary II and William III (of Orange) had had a son, and called him Jesus. If I was Luke and was omitting women from the family tree, I might write that Jesus was son of William (III), the son of James (II), the son of Charles (II), the son of Charles (I), the son of James (I and VI). If I was being accurate, though, I'd have put Mary (II) in place of William III. As it happened, William was king alongside Mary, so it would be fair to omit Mary. Another genealogy of William III by someone else might have said that his father was William II, who married Charles I's daughter Mary. So it would look as though William had two fathers: James II and William II.

Can you give a reference from a reputable scholar of women not being mentioned in Jewish genealogies? Actually, can you give a reference to any Jewish genealogy at all from the first century other than those in the Bible?

No, I'll retract that claim. However, it is significant that Luke doesn't mention a single woman in a 77-generation list. It's unlikely this was an unbroken line of father-son relationships.

[Spud]

So what - just because it is written in a book doesn't make it true. And the other nativity narrative has no mention of a census whatsoever.

I don't think I need to prove any of this, only present reasons why I can believe it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I don't think I need to prove any of this, only present reasons why I can believe it.

Which is fine provided you don’t expect anyone else to take your beliefs seriously. Anyone can have reasons to believe anything – Harry Potter flying around on a broomstick included if that’s your thing. If you insist that your beliefs are true for other people too though, that they should be taught as facts to children, that their proponents should sit by right in the legislature etc then you need much more than “reason why I can believe it” to justify these positions.     

[jeremyp]

A bit overconfident?

I should have warned you about his presentation style. I found it a bit over the top too, but it doesn't alter the truth of what he says.

Just to correct him here when he says Jews didn't know their family trees - Luke says Joseph went to Bethlehem for the census because he was of the house and line of David. (Lk 2:4)

That's a circular argument. You are claiming Luke's genealogy of Joseph is correct because Luke says Joseph knew his genealogy.

Up thread I cited the census thing as an example of blindly accepting what Christians tell you and I have discovered that it is nonsense. I didn't say why it is nonsense because it wasn't relevant then. Since you've brought it up, let's think about it.

Firstly, there is no historical evidence that it ever happened outside of Luke. There never was a census of all the World.

Secondly, it's possible that Quirinius did hold a census when he took command of Syria and Judea. Unfortunately, at the time, Galilee was not part of his jurisdiction. Why would Joseph, living in Galilee, take part in a census for a province of which he was not part.

Thirdly, it's nonsense to suggest that the Romans would let people travel to the place of their ancestors to register for the census. They want to know where people are living now; where they are economically active.

Fourthly, why your ancestors from 1,000 years ago? Why not your ancestors from 500 years ago, or 2,000 years? Why didn't all the Jews travel to the birthplace of Abraham to register for the census?

Fifthly, there is no evidence that the average Jew living in Galilee knew his genealogy going back a thousand years. None whatsoever. It's a myth propagated by Christians to account for the fact that the census story is a fictional plot device to get Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem. 

[jeremyp]

Because he wanted to show that Jesus was descended from Adam.

Adam was the first man. In Jewish mythology, everybody is descended from Adam. There's no need to show anything.

But if Jesus wasn't Joseph's son, someone might wonder if God created him from the dust, like Adam?

Well, if you wanted to show that, you wouldn't use a genealogy of somebody Jesus wasn't biologically related to. The whole story of Mary and the virgin birth is enough already.

Tracing his genealogy back to Adam through Mary, as though he was Joseph's son

He doesn't do that though. He traces Jesus' ancestry through his "adopted" father, Joseph.

Also, Luke's Gentile readers might not have known about Adam.

That would make the whole exercise of proving Jesus was a descendant of Adam completely futile. Better to just have a story in which he is born of a human woman.

Imagine for example that Mary II and William III (of Orange) had had a son, and called him Jesus. If I was Luke and was omitting women from the family tree, I might write that Jesus was son of William (III), the son of James (II)

That would be problematic because everybody knows that William III was not the son of James II. It would be a lie, in fact. Are you claiming that Luke lied?

[Spud]

That would be problematic because everybody knows that William III was not the son of James II. It would be a lie, in fact. Are you claiming that Luke lied?

No, just that he didn't name any women in a 77-generation list, suggesting that Joseph could have been substituted for Mary. And it's not a lie if you state beforehand that William//Joseph is not the natural parent.

[Harrowby Hall]

is it not the case that - at that time - there was no concept of any genetic contibution from the mother?
Men sowed a seed into the woman and she was  simply a cultivator within which the seed grew.

[Spud]

is it not the case that - at that time - there was no concept of any genetic contibution from the mother?
Men sowed a seed into the woman and she was  simply a cultivator within which the seed grew.

They might have noticed that some daughters look a lot like their mothers, though?

[Spud]

He doesn't do that though. He traces Jesus' ancestry through his "adopted" father, Joseph.

If this is the case, there is still a possible explanation, which my man Eusebius gives here. Note what he says about Herod burning all the genealogical records, and the family of Jesus writing it down from memory later.

Heli is (in this explanation) the legal father of Joseph and Jacob his natural father.

[ProfessorDavey]

If this is the case, there is still a possible explanation, which my man Eusebius gives here.

Frankly Eusebius' agenda in large parts of his writing is to try to prove provenance and 'fix' contradictions etc in the bible rather than provide anything close to historical accuracy. Some of the most blatant interpolations of ancient texts (e.g. Josephus) are attributed to Eusebius. Frankly I would believe anything he writes which attempts to prove christianity correct.

Note what he says about Herod burning all the genealogical records, and the family of Jesus writing it down from memory later.

I thought Joseph was supposed to have been a poor carpenter - very unlikely he would have been able to write if that was true. And of course, even if we had an accurate family tree sat in a drawer at home, how many of us would be able to reproduce it accurately from memory.

[Harrowby Hall]

Would a carpenter have been "poor" or a well-off middle-class artisan?