Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site philabs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!jah
From: jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is Jesus son of David
Message-ID: <406@philabs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 14:44:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: philabs.406
Posted: Fri Aug  9 14:44:47 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 01:18:49 EDT
References: <2194@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <1050@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Lines: 45

> 
> The whole point of this argument (at least from my point of view) is that
> people are approaching the quite evident problem of these two texts from
> the point of view of (a) they must both be correct and (b) it's very 
> important that they be reconciled.  Which takes us to...
> 
> >  One of the criteria for being the Messiah is that the Messiah has to be a
> >decendant of David.  Therefore it's important to establish the geneology of
> >Jesus to determine whether Jesus was or was not a descendant of David.

Bravo!

> Perhaps so, but this sort of argument leads in a completely different 
> direction.  What produces the attempts to "fix" the genealogies is starting
> from the belief that the genealogies ARE correct.  The reasoning runs the
> opposite direction.

They have to be.  They are the only evidence left.  If they are not correct,
there is no reason to believe that these prophecies have been fullfilled. And
they correct, as far as they are traceable in the Old Testament records.  It
is obvious that these distinctly different genealogies apply to two sides of
the family and not one.  The difference is traced back to which son of David
continues the line.  Was it Solomon or Nathan?  Mary descended from Nathan and
Joseph descended from Solomon makes perfect sense.  After all, it is widely
believed that Luke's account of the Gospel can also be called "Mary's Gospel".
That's why he was privy to all the background information that the other 
accounts don't have.
> 
> >  The only reason I've been able to come up with for having both the lineage
> >of Joseph *and* Mary recorded is to simply show that no matter which 
> >side of the parents you chose to establish ancestry Jesus' father and 
> >mother both qualify as decendants of David.
> 
> Except that no genealogy is given for Mary (both are given for Joseph). 
> Without editing the Bible, you can't get such a genealogy.

Are you sure you've looked at every possible translation?  I haven't looked
yet, but I would think the Amplified, NIV or NAS versions would differ in sound
and might lead to the suggested alternative.

I seem to remember someone responding on this very point with a translation
that could suggest that Luke's genealogical account is on Mary's side of the
family.

Julie A. Harazduk