Genealogy Of Jesus

[Roses]

You can disbelieve the miraculous elements of the NT and still reasonably assume statements that Jesus was from the family of David to be accurate, and therefore consistent with the genealogies. But if you think the whole NT, including the non-miraculous details is fabricated or wrong, I would suggest this is not very sensible.

Why?

[ProfessorDavey]

You can disbelieve the miraculous elements of the NT and still reasonably assume statements that Jesus was from the family of David to be accurate, and therefore consistent with the genealogies. But if you think the whole NT, including the non-miraculous details is fabricated or wrong, I would suggest this is not very sensible.

You could but you would look for evidence to support the genealogies being accurate. So a good starting point would be to look for consistencies between a reported genealogy and other reported genealogies. Which of course you can do as there are two of them in the gospels - problem is that they are woefully inconsistent.

Now if you take a biased starting point (that the gospels are true and accurate) then of course you can conjure up all sorts of convoluted ways to try and explain away those gross inconsistencies.

However if you come at this from a starting point of neutrality the clear conclusion is that at least one must be wrong. Add in some non-biased rationalism and ask how likely it is for anyone to be able to accurately report their genealogy over dozens of generations (even now, let alone then) and the notion that these genealogies are accurate becomes increasing implausible. Finally throw in the notion that they are fundamentally built on a lie (or at least Luke's is) that Adam was the first human and their credibility crumbles to dust.

There is no credible evidence to support the genealogies being accurate.

[Spud]

You could but you would look for evidence to support the genealogies being accurate.

That Jesus was known to be the son of David, and no-one disputed that, is evidence the genealogies are accurate.

[Gordon]

That Jesus was known to be the son of David, and no-one disputed that, is evidence the genealogies are accurate.

Not it isn't: it is evidence only of what some people reportedly thought - but they could be wrong, and in any event you have no way of checking.   

[Spud]

Not it isn't: it is evidence only of what some people reportedly thought - but they could be wrong, and in any event you have no way of checking.   

That nobody disputed it does to an extent verify the claim.

[Roses]

That nobody disputed it does to an extent verify the claim.

How do you know no one disputed it?

[Owlswing]

That nobody disputed it does to an extent verify the claim.

The timing is important here. When was it first suggested that Jesus was the son of David?

Your highly questionable history book (the Bible) says he was the son of God, or Joseph not David - he cannot have had three fathers!

The dating of the New Testament is also highly questionable. No two biblical historians seem to agree on a specific date.

Owlswing

)O(

[Gordon]

That nobody disputed it does to an extent verify the claim.

No it doesn't: stop being so gullible, Spud.

[jeremyp]

The timing is important here. When was it first suggested that Jesus was the son of David?

Your highly questionable history book (the Bible) says he was the son of God, or Joseph not David - he cannot have had three fathers!

The dating of the New Testament is also highly questionable. No two biblical historians seem to agree on a specific date.

Owlswing

)O(

Actually they do. The majority opinion is that the genuine Pauline letters were written in the 50's and the gospels between 70 give or take five years and maybe 110.

OK, so that's not specific years, but it's a reasonably small window. It's good enough to tell us that there are no contemporary writings about Jesus and that the oral tradition had decades before it was committed to papyrus. It's also good enough to discount the "Eusebius fabricated the whole thing" conspiracy theory.

[Owlswing]

Actually they do. The majority opinion is that the genuine Pauline letters were written in the 50's and the gospels between 70 give or take five years and maybe 110.

OK, so that's not specific years, but it's a reasonably small window. It's good enough to tell us that there are no contemporary writings about Jesus and that the oral tradition had decades before it was committed to papyrus. It's also good enough to discount the "Eusebius fabricated the whole thing" conspiracy theory.

A span of sixty years is hardly what I would call specific! Even for Chrstianity!

Owlswing

)O(

[jeremyp]

A span of sixty years is hardly what I would call specific! Even for Chrstianity!

Owlswing

)O(

It isn't 50 years. 70 to 110 is the span for all four gospels. Each one has a smaller window.

[ProfessorDavey]

Actually they do. The majority opinion is that the genuine Pauline letters were written in the 50's and the gospels between 70 give or take five years and maybe 110.

OK, so that's not specific years, but it's a reasonably small window. It's good enough to tell us that there are no contemporary writings about Jesus and that the oral tradition had decades before it was committed to papyrus. It's also good enough to discount the "Eusebius fabricated the whole thing" conspiracy theory.

I don't subscribe to the view that Eusebiua made it all up.

But that doesn't mean that we can accept that the earliest papyrus fragments we have are the same as what was originally written in 70-110. We know that there are huge numbers of inconsistencies between early copies of the gospels. We also know that some key elements are missing from the earliest copies. So realistically all we can say is that that gospels said x or y by the time we have extant fragments to verify x and y. We cannot know whether the originals, from perhaps 150-200 years earlier, also included x and y or whether x and y were only added or created via alternation in that copy or its immediate predecessor(s).

So we might be able to conclude that the gospels were originally written in 70-110, but we cannot conclude that we know what they said at that point.

[jeremyp]

I don't subscribe to the view that Eusebiua made it all up.

But that doesn't mean that we can accept that the earliest papyrus fragments we have are the same as what was originally written in 70-110. We know that there are huge numbers of inconsistencies between early copies of the gospels. We also know that some key elements are missing from the earliest copies. So realistically all we can say is that that gospels said x or y by the time we have extant fragments to verify x and y. We cannot know whether the originals, from perhaps 150-200 years earlier, also included x and y or whether x and y were only added or created via alternation in that copy or its immediate predecessor(s).

So we might be able to conclude that the gospels were originally written in 70-110, but we cannot conclude that we know what they said at that point.

Yes we can. Not 100% but it's definitely not right to say we don't know anything about what was in the gospels.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes we can. Not 100% but it's definitely not right to say we don't know anything about what was in the gospels.

No we cannot.

I'm not saying that it is likely that none of the text that we have in the earliest extant fragments was in the original gospel text written perhaps 150 years earlier. What I am saying is that we cannot know for sure what was, and what wasn't in versions earlier than the fragments we have. In some cases we do know about changes - for example where none of the earliest versions contain text which begins to appear in later versions. However when we do not have this before/after shift we cannot simply conclude that the earliest version is the same as (or similar to) the original from 150 years earlier.

Given the number of inconsistencies between gospel versions and the number of active changes (additions or removal) in the first couple of hundred years where we do have fragments through to full texts (about 150-400) then we can be pretty confident of at least similar changes in the earliest 150 years (where we don't have fragments or full texts). Indeed it is more plausible that the number of changes in the earliest versions would be greatest, for a range of reasons including non trained copyists, lack of any orthodoxy of text and simply that versions of pretty well any text tend to change the most as they are initially drafted.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No we cannot.

I'm not saying that it is likely that none of the text that we have in the earliest extant fragments was in the original gospel text written perhaps 150 years earlier. What I am saying is that we cannot know for sure what was, and what wasn't in versions earlier than the fragments we have. In some cases we do know about changes - for example where none of the earliest versions contain text which begins to appear in later versions. However when we do not have this before/after shift we cannot simply conclude that the earliest version is the same as (or similar to) the original from 150 years earlier.

Given the number of inconsistencies between gospel versions and the number of active changes (additions or removal) in the first couple of hundred years where we do have fragments through to full texts (about 150-400) then we can be pretty confident of at least similar changes in the earliest 150 years (where we don't have fragments or full texts). Indeed it is more plausible that the number of changes in the earliest versions would be greatest, for a range of reasons including non trained copyists, lack of any orthodoxy of text and simply that versions of pretty well any text tend to change the most as they are initially drafted.

Are you saying that there is some formula for how the gospels would have mutated? Would they have mutated to produce almost identical doctrine were they to have been following some law of generational degradation? Why would the doctrinal content of the Gospels not mutate from that of the epistles.
The copying of the Gospels would not have followed the same generational problems of translation as say VHS tape, is that the sort of degradation you envisage?

I think there are other factors that would have been at play that might not be at play for secular material namely because of the apparent holiness of the text greater care would be expected to be taken. 

[jeremyp]

No we cannot.

I'm not saying that it is likely that none of the text that we have in the earliest extant fragments was in the original gospel text written perhaps 150 years earlier.

That's what it seems like and you seem to have an obsession with proving it. Why not just shut up about it? You made your point.

What I am saying is that we cannot know for sure what was

We don't have 100% certainty about any documents from the ancient world. We don't have the originals of anything that wasn't carved into stone and yet we still manage to use them to understand historical events.

We proceed here on the basis that the genealogies are what Matthew and Luke wrote down. Yes, we don't know 100% that that is true, but we can be fairly confident that they are substantially correct.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's what it seems like and you seem to have an obsession with proving it. Why not just shut up about it? You made your point.

Why should I - it is an important point and highly relevant to the whole reading of the gospels.

Realistically, rather than consider the gospels (the ones we actually have to hand, rather than lost versions) as being from 70-110, we should consider them to be broadly 3rdC/4thC documents. That is the earliest that we can be confident about in terms of what they say.

Of course the earliest (lost) versions will cover largely the same territory - they aren't going to be a narrative about a holiday in Egypt. However given that christians pour over the precise wording and speculate endlessly over the meaning of those words, we have to recognise that those words may not be what was originally written but what had evolved through mistakes and more importantly alterations over about 150 years or so.

[ProfessorDavey]

We don't have 100% certainty about any documents from the ancient world. We don't have the originals of anything that wasn't carved into stone and yet we still manage to use them to understand historical events.

True - but in most cases these documents are used to give a broad historical perspective, corroborated by other evidence - e.g. archeological. In the case of the gospels we (or rather christians) are asked to to consider the details and precise wording as key.

[ProfessorDavey]

We proceed here on the basis that the genealogies are what Matthew and Luke wrote down. Yes, we don't know 100% that that is true, but we can be fairly confident that they are substantially correct.

I sorry - you cannot justify that claim.

The first fragments including the genealogies are from the 3rdC - how do you know that earlier versions of the gospels even included these genealogies.

You can make assumptions - fine - but those assumptions aren't evidence-based as there is no evidence that conclusively demonstrates the genealogies were present in the earliest gospels - for example within 100 years of their original writing.

[Spud]

How do you know no one disputed it?

There was a claim that he was the son of a Roman soldier called Panthera. This was referred to by Origen who dismissed it as made up.

[Roses]

There was a claim that he was the son of a Roman soldier called Panthera. This was referred to by Origen who dismissed it as made up.

Whoever his father was, I reckon they were a human male, not a god.

[Owlswing]

Whoever his father was, I reckon they were a human male, not a god.

Assuming, of course, that Jesus Christ ever actually lived!

I have only ever had the BIble presented to me a proof that he did so and as I think that is one of the, if not the, most inaccurate history books ever written, and the last time I bothered looking the earliest proven written account of JC was written at least 100 years after his supposed death!

Owlswing

)O(

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Assuming, of course, that Jesus Christ ever actually lived!

I have only ever had the BIble presented to me a proof that he did so and as I think that is one of the, if not the, most inaccurate history books ever written, and the last time I bothered looking the earliest proven written account of JC was written at least 100 years after his supposed death!

Owlswing

)O(

No, some of the New Testament epistles are dated to a couple of decades after.

[Owlswing]

 No, some of the New Testament epistles are dated to a couple of decades after.

Dated by whom?

Owlswing

)O(

[ProfessorDavey]

No, some of the New Testament epistles are dated to a couple of decades after.

Not the versions we have - the earliest extant versions have been dated as 200-300AD, so perhaps 200 years after Jesus' death.