Genealogy Of Jesus

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No if you positively assert with an IS, you have a burden of proof.

Did you not read what I said? The only burden of proof here concerns the inherent unreliability of rickety evidential systems (rickety in this case for the reasons I set out). There's no burden of proof test needed though re the truth or otherwise the of the biblical Jesus story/ies because that wasn't what the claim concerned.   

[Spud]

There are: the obvious one being that Spud mentioned that these genealogies can be verified but he can't provide a robust and independent method for doing so - that is sufficient ground in itself to doubt his claim, without going anywhere near issues such as provenance.

But if I have DNA or photographic evidence, you're then going to want that verified - ad infinity. Luke and Matthew simply give what in those days probably was the equivalent of a birth certificate and the only way to identify someone, other than by their appearance.

The differences between the genealogies may even be evidence of their authenticity, since there were traditions in the OT to do with what happened when a blood line was about to end, either through childlessness or through only daughters being born.

In 1 Chronicles 3:17 Shealtiel is listed as the son of Jehoiachin (the same person as Jeconiah in Jeremiah and Matthew).
Luke however lists Shealtiel as the son of Neri.
Thus we could infer that the line of David's son Nathan was about to end at Neri, if the latter only had daughters or died childless. If Shealtiel was adopted as Neri's son or became Neri's son-in-law through marriage, this would have enabled the line of David's son Nathan to continue, at the same time as continuing the line of succession through Solomon.
If a similar thing happened with Jacob and Heli, this would account for the different post-captivity names in Matthew and Luke. 

Another example of this is related in the story of Ruth, where her son Obed though Boaz is called the son of Naomi, Ruth's dead husband's mother.

[ProfessorDavey]

But if I have DNA or photographic evidence, you're then going to want that verified - ad infinity.

But you don't have such evidence and you cannot obtain that evidence so the point it moot. From where we are today the genealogies are not just unverified, but unverifiable.

Luke and Matthew simply give what in those days probably was the equivalent of a birth certificate and the only way to identify someone, other than by their appearance.

No they don't - although provide is a list of names, with no evidence at to whether the claimed relationships are true or not. So even at the point when the genealogies are suggested to have been written - about 90AD, they were not verified, and given the challenge of recording relationships over multiple generations even today let alone in the 1stC, I would argue even then they were unverifiable.

Another point to note - these genealogies run through Joseph - yet we know next to nothing about him. He isn't mentioned in the earliest writing about Jesus (epistles and Mark) and references to him in Matthew and Luke are so limited, we know next to nothing about him.

Yet we are expected to believe that this person who is such an afterthought in a couple of gospels (and absent in the others) is so well understood that his lineage can be trace back though 40-70 odd generations. We are asked to believe that although we know basically nothing about him, that we know who his grandfather, great-great grandfather etc etc was. Total non-sense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

But if I have DNA or photographic evidence, you're then going to want that verified - ad infinity.

No really - it's a question or reliability. If person A says, "I have three pieces of a 1,000-piece jig-saw and the finished picture is X" and person B says, "I have 990 pieces of the jig-saw and the finished picture is Y" neither would have the definitive answer but chances are you'd consider B's claim to be more reliable than A's claim would you not?   

Luke and Matthew simply give what in those days probably was the equivalent of a birth certificate and the only way to identify someone, other than by their appearance.

The differences between the genealogies may even be evidence of their authenticity, since there were traditions in the OT to do with what happened when a blood line was about to end, either through childlessness or through only daughters being born.

In 1 Chronicles 3:17 Shealtiel is listed as the son of Jehoiachin (the same person as Jeconiah in Jeremiah and Matthew).
Luke however lists Shealtiel as the son of Neri.
Thus we could infer that the line of David's son Nathan was about to end at Neri, if the latter only had daughters or died childless. If Shealtiel was adopted as Neri's son or became Neri's son-in-law through marriage, this would have enabled the line of David's son Nathan to continue, at the same time as continuing the line of succession through Solomon.
If a similar thing happened with Jacob and Heli, this would account for the different post-captivity names in Matthew and Luke.

Another example of this is related in the story of Ruth, where her son Obed though Boaz is called the son of Naomi, Ruth's dead husband's mother.

You can of course infer anything you wish, but there's a reason this stuff isn't taught as history whereas other lineages from prior, contemporary and later locales is.

What do you suppose that reason is?     

[Spud]

Spud,

No really - it's a question or reliability. If person A says, "I have three pieces of a 1,000-piece jig-saw and the finished picture is X" and person B says, "I have 990 pieces of the jig-saw and the finished picture is Y" neither would have the definitive answer but chances are you'd consider B's claim to be more reliable than A's claim would you not?   

You can of course infer anything you wish, but there's a reason this stuff isn't taught as history whereas other lineages from prior, contemporary and later locales is.

What do you suppose that reason is?   

Back to my earlier point that the genealogies were not refuted when they were published, which was well before the records would have been destroyed: except you assign later dates to their publication because you need the gospels to be written after Jerusalem's destruction so that nobody could verify the genealogies and so only the gullible believe them.

[Gordon]

Back to my earlier point that the genealogies were not refuted when they were published,

So, who would verify them, why would they feel motivated to verify them and what methods could they use to verify them?

which was well before the records would have been destroyed

If they've been destroyed then how on earth could they be verified now?

except you assign later dates to their publication because you need the gospels to be written after Jerusalem's destruction so that nobody could verify the genealogies and so only the gullible believe them.

Unsubtle attempt there at a straw man, Spud, so why not just stop believing them: after all, the details are unverifiable because the reality of 'who actually begat whom' is now unknowable in terms of verifiable facts - so why waste your time bothering about this issue?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Back to my earlier point that the genealogies were not refuted when they were published, which was well before the records would have been destroyed: except you assign later dates to their publication because you need the gospels to be written after Jerusalem's destruction so that nobody could verify the genealogies and so only the gullible believe them.

You're missing it still: genealogies may not have been refuted when they were published, but that still tells you little about how accurate they were. The accounts from which they were drawn would have relied on much less granular detail than the accounts we have now (basically hearsay vs verifiable data), so there would have been comparatively significantly fewer pieces of the jig-saw from which to infer the picture. The more pieces of the jig-saw = the more reliable your description of the final picture, and vice versa.   

Again, these stories fail the basic tests of historicity so they're not taught in academic history classes. Why doesn't this trouble you?     

[ProfessorDavey]

... which was well before the records would have been destroyed:

What records Spud. Where exactly were the records stored that provided a birth certificate (or equivalent) that indicated that Nagge was the father of Esli! Were they stored in the Camden register office

[Spud]

Spud,

You're missing it still: genealogies may not have been refuted when they were published, but that still tells you little about how accurate they were. The accounts from which they were drawn would have relied on much less granular detail than the accounts we have now (basically hearsay vs verifiable data), so there would have been comparatively significantly fewer pieces of the jig-saw from which to infer the picture. The more pieces of the jig-saw = the more reliable your description of the final picture, and vice versa.   

Again, these stories fail the basic tests of historicity so they're not taught in academic history classes. Why doesn't this trouble you?   

I'd say the NT as a whole provides most of the jigsaw, so that we can see the main picture.

[Spud]

But you don't have such evidence and you cannot obtain that evidence so the point it moot. From where we are today the genealogies are not just unverified, but unverifiable.

That's where the other pieces of the jigsaw come in.

No they don't - although provide is a list of names, with no evidence at to whether the claimed relationships are true or not. So even at the point when the genealogies are suggested to have been written - about 90AD, they were not verified, and given the challenge of recording relationships over multiple generations even today let alone in the 1stC, I would argue even then they were unverifiable.

Temple records must have existed, as there were genealogies recorded up until the Babylonian captivity. When they returned from exile, there were some people who could prove their ancestry, and others who couldn't, according to either Ezra or Nehemiah. Babies were still presented for circumcision at the temple in the first century, so they must have kept records for that and for festival attendance.

The genealogies are also like a surname, giving further means of identification.

Another point to note - these genealogies run through Joseph - yet we know next to nothing about him. He isn't mentioned in the earliest writing about Jesus (epistles and Mark) and references to him in Matthew and Luke are so limited, we know next to nothing about him.

Yet we are expected to believe that this person who is such an afterthought in a couple of gospels (and absent in the others) is so well understood that his lineage can be trace back though 40-70 odd generations. We are asked to believe that although we know basically nothing about him, that we know who his grandfather, great-great grandfather etc etc was. Total non-sense.

We are told Joseph was from the family of David. Perhaps the genealogical records were updated each time a descendant was born?

[Roses]

I'd say the NT as a whole provides most of the jigsaw, so that we can see the main picture.

That is what you wish to believe to be true, but cannot support it with verifiable evidence.

[Gordon]

I'd say the NT as a whole provides most of the jigsaw, so that we can see the main picture.

So you've checked the NT for mistakes, exaggerations and lies then?

I'd say you are clearly far too credulous to even realise just how weak your case is.

[Owlswing]

That is what you wish to believe to be true but cannot support it with verifiable evidence.

How many times and in how many different ways do you have to tell these (insert the derogatory description of your choice) Christians that the Bible, as an accurate textbook of history, is about as useful as an ice-cream teacup, before they manage to get rid of their blinkers?

On this forum, there must be over 50,000 posts telling them that the Bible is not a viable history and they still prefer to deny this fact!

The amount of bullshit written on this Forum trying to prove the reality of Jesus Christ as a real person would choke the entire world's population several times over.

Put in the simplest terms I can find - Christianity is based on FAITH NOT FACT, as is my own religious belief and that of every other religious sect on Earth.

Why do I stay under these circumstances? Quite simple, this Forum is one of the very few contacts I have with the real world outside my flat, for which I am truly grateful,  and talking to myself is terminally boring.

Owlswing

)O(

[Owlswing]

So you've checked the NT for mistakes, exaggerations and lies then?

I'd say you are clearly far too credulous to even realise just how weak your case is.

See 312 above!

Owlswing

)O(

[ProfessorDavey]

Temple records must have existed, as there were genealogies recorded up until the Babylonian captivity. When they returned from exile, there were some people who could prove their ancestry, and others who couldn't, according to either Ezra or Nehemiah. Babies were still presented for circumcision at the temple in the first century, so they must have kept records for that and for festival attendance.

You could say the same about more recent generations and, for example, baptism ceremonies. Yet for an ordinary person it is pretty well impossible to trace your lineage back 70 generations, as suggested in the gospels. And, of course, even were records kept they'd never have survived intact over perhaps 1700 years, which is what 70 generations suggests.

Can you find the birth records of your many, many times grandparent born in 300AD Spud - didn't think so.

[ProfessorDavey]

We are told Joseph was from the family of David. Perhaps the genealogical records were updated each time a descendant was born?

Baseless assertion.

[Spud]

That is what you wish to believe to be true, but cannot support it with verifiable evidence.

Each bit of evidence is like a piece of a puzzle - only when combined with the others is each piece shown to belong to the picture. I'm talking about the historical Jesus here, not his miracles.
So for example we have his family name (son of David), his place of birth, the town where he grew up (Nazareth), his place of death, parents' and other relatives' names, that he was sent to his death by Pilate, confirmed by Tacitus.

[ProfessorDavey]

Each bit of evidence is like a piece of a puzzle - only when combined with the others is each piece shown to belong to the picture. I'm talking about the historical Jesus here, not his miracles.
So for example we have his family name (son of David),

No we don't - all we have is claims in the NT, with no evidence to back it up and no independent non-partial corroborating accounts.

his place of birth,

No we don't - all we have is claims in the NT, with no evidence to back it up and no independent non-partial corroborating accounts.

the town where he grew up (Nazareth),

No we don't - all we have is claims in the NT, with no evidence to back it up and no independent non-partial corroborating accounts.

his place of death,

No we don't - all we have is claims in the NT, with no evidence to back it up and no independent non-partial corroborating accounts.

parents' and other relatives' names,

No we don't - all we have is claims in the NT, with no evidence to back it up and no independent non-partial corroborating accounts.

that he was sent to his death by Pilate, confirmed by Tacitus.

Ah finally you mention a non NT source for one of your claims.

Problem is that Tacitus was writing in about 110AD, by which point early christians were already making the claims about Jesus' life and death. So Tacitus is really describing Jesus' death in the context of christians - so effectively what they claimed, rather than being an independent account. Realistically he is just recounting what the early christians believed.

[Roses]

Each bit of evidence is like a piece of a puzzle - only when combined with the others is each piece shown to belong to the picture. I'm talking about the historical Jesus here, not his miracles.
So for example we have his family name (son of David), his place of birth, the town where he grew up (Nazareth), his place of death, parents' and other relatives' names, that he was sent to his death by Pilate, confirmed by Tacitus.

The Bible is NOT a history book.

[Spud]

No we don't - all we have is claims in the NT, with no evidence to back it up and no independent non-partial corroborating accounts.
No we don't - all we have is claims in the NT, with no evidence to back it up and no independent non-partial corroborating accounts.
No we don't - all we have is claims in the NT, with no evidence to back it up and no independent non-partial corroborating accounts.
No we don't - all we have is claims in the NT, with no evidence to back it up and no independent non-partial corroborating accounts.
No we don't - all we have is claims in the NT, with no evidence to back it up and no independent non-partial corroborating accounts.

Ah, Professor. You want me to count the number of the day! Of course, I'd love to count the number of the day! One no we don't. Two no we don'ts. Three no we don'ts. Four, four no we don'ts. Five. FIVE NO WE DONTs!!!
#####
(Those are bolts of lightening)
FIVE, the Sesame Street Number of the day!
Now, professor. The problem with saying no we don't five times is that we Do have evidence to back it up: The Early Church writings #####

Ah finally you mention a non NT source for one of your claims.

Problem is that Tacitus was writing in about 110AD, by which point early christians were already making the claims about Jesus' life and death. So Tacitus is really describing Jesus' death in the context of christians - so effectively what they claimed, rather than being an independent account. Realistically he is just recounting what the early christians believed.

Professor. When someone writing a long letter states 'Jesus lived' presumably he has spoken to people who knew Jesus. Those people being believers does not make them biased. When reporters report things they usually believe those things. That doesn't make them biased.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I'd say the NT as a whole provides most of the jigsaw, so that we can see the main picture.

That’s like saying you know Harry Potter flew on a broomstick because you’ve read the novels as a whole, not just the chapters about quidditch.

Your argument here is just “the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true”, which fails unless you can demonstrate that premise to be true a priori.   
   

[Gordon]

Ah, Professor. You want me to count the number of the day! Of course, I'd love to count the number of the day! One no we don't. Two no we don'ts. Three no we don'ts. Four, four no we don'ts. Five. FIVE NO WE DONTs!!!
#####
(Those are bolts of lightening)
FIVE, the Sesame Street Number of the day!
Now, professor. The problem with saying no we don't five times is that we Do have evidence to back it up: The Early Church writings #####

All you need do now, Spud, is explain how you've addressed the risks of mistakes and lies: if not, then these "Early church writings" are indistinguishable from fiction.

Professor. When someone writing a long letter states 'Jesus lived' presumably he has spoken to people who knew Jesus. Those people being believers does not make them biased. When reporters report things they usually believe those things. That doesn't make them biased.

Except when they make mistakes or decide to tell lies: you really are breathtakingly gullible (possibly due to your own biases).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No we don't - all we have is claims in the NT, with no evidence to back it up and no independent non-partial corroborating accounts.
No we don't - all we have is claims in the NT, with no evidence to back it up and no independent non-partial corroborating accounts.
No we don't - all we have is claims in the NT, with no evidence to back it up and no independent non-partial corroborating accounts.
No we don't - all we have is claims in the NT, with no evidence to back it up and no independent non-partial corroborating accounts.
No we don't - all we have is claims in the NT, with no evidence to back it up and no independent non-partial corroborating accounts.
Ah finally you mention a non NT source for one of your claims.

Problem is that Tacitus was writing in about 110AD, by which point early christians were already making the claims about Jesus' life and death. So Tacitus is really describing Jesus' death in the context of christians - so effectively what they claimed, rather than being an independent account. Realistically he is just recounting what the early christians believed.

This appeal to Tacitus writing in 120. How old are the earliest Extant copies of Tacitus?

[ProfessorDavey]

Do have evidence to back it up: The Early Church writings #####

Ah the old chestnut of the early church fathers and their writings, trotted out as if we have a whole series of original tomes from the period up to 150AD setting out evidence. Sorry Spud - we don't.

A few points on the supposed early church fathers and their writing:

1. Many aren't early - i.e. before about 150AD - indeed you can pretty well count on the figures of one hand those believed to have been writing in that period.
2. In many cases we know next to nothing about them and their writing.
3. We don't have originals of the early writing in virtually all cases - what we have is either much later copies or mentions of their writing in later texts, for example the works of Eusebius - the arch re-writer and reviser of history if it didn't fit with his view of the church.
4. Christians love to focus on the early church fathers, but tend to ignore what I might call the early church heretics - don't forget that there are others in that early period who we believe had radically different opinions and interpretations of the past. The developing church denounced them as heretics. Yet there is no more, nor less, evidence that their views may have been correct - they just lost the argument.

[ProfessorDavey]

This appeal to Tacitus writing in 120. How old are the earliest Extant copies of Tacitus?

Absolutely.

So although we think that Tacitus wrote Annals in about 110-120 we do not have original extant copies. So we cannot be sure that the words ascribed to him in the context of Jesus were in the original or are later edits or interpolations.