Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is God ...  (inerrancy)
Message-ID: <361@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Jul-85 10:23:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.361
Posted: Tue Jul 16 10:23:57 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 02:34:45 EDT
References: <193@gymble.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 42

> First of all concerning the genealogies: We have in Luke 3:23:
> 
> 	"And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty
> 	 years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
> 	 ...[genealogy]" (NASV)
> 
> Now, the question at hand is what does the phrase "the son of Eli" modify? If
> it modifies Joseph, then we have a genealogy going Jesus<-Joseph<-Eli... .  On
> the other hand, if we take the phrase "being supposedly the son of Joseph" as
> parenthetical, being set off with commas like this one, then the phrase "the
> son of Eli" modifies "Jesus", giving a genealogy Jesus<-Eli... .
> 
> Obviously, the second interpretation would permit the genealogy given to be
> through Mary.  Is there any reason to prefer that interpretation?  Well, of all
> the Gospels, Luke spends the most space telling us how Mary had Jesus without
> any help from Joseph, so it would seem unlikely that Luke would proceed to list
> Joseph as Jesus' father.  Why is Mary not listed then?  Because the form of
> genealogies in Luke's culture generally omits listing the women.
> 
> So I think this passage at least allows the interpretation of the genealogy as
> through Mary; if someone knows enough about the Greek text to provide more
> information about the grammatical question, please speak.

You are hanging all this speculation on a very slender reed.  The genealogy
goes on and on, and it is *obvious* that the genealogy is that of Joseph.
Do you claim that the continuation of the line, "Joseph, the son of ..."
really refers to Mary?  Hardly.

The attempt to explain the conflict between these two genealogies
*of Joseph* is rationalization, plain and simple.  There is *absolutely
no* scriptural authority to support the idea that the genealogy in
Luke is that of Mary.


-- 
"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from
	religious conviction."  -- Blaise Pascal

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(uucp)
	bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA		(ARPANET)