Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!mcnc!akgua!akgub!usl!dkl From: dkl@usl.UUCP (Dwayne K. Lanclos) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is Jesus son of David Message-ID: <615@usl.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 18:38:36 EDT Article-I.D.: usl.615 Posted: Wed Aug 7 18:38:36 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 07:09:31 EDT References: <2194@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <1050@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <2222@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Organization: USL, Lafayette, LA Lines: 62 In article <2222@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Glenn C. Scott offers two theories explaining the discrepancies between Matthew's and Luke's genealogies: > > (1) Both genealogies *Joseph's*; Matthew exhibiting him as the legal > heir to the throne of David by naming succesive hiers of the kingdom > from David to Jesus "the reputed son of Joseph"; while Luke gives > Joseph's private genealogy or actual descent. > > (2) Matthew gives Joseph's and Luke, Mary's, genealogy. He favors the second. This thesis runs afoul of two problems: the fact that Jewish descent is traced through fathers and not mothers, and that Luke makes it plain he is tracing descent *through Joseph*. To get around these two problems, Glenn offers the following rationale: > > - Theory (2) seems supported by several early Christian > writers, -- Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, and > Justin Martyr. > > - It demonstrates in what way Christ was the "Son of David." > If Mary was the daughter of Eli (cf. Luke 3:23), then Jesus was > strictly a descendant of David, not only *legally*, through his > reputed father, but actually, by direct personal descent, > through his mother. > > - Since Mary had no brothers she was an heiress. Therefore > her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her > father's family as his *son*. So that Joseph was the actual > son of Jacob (cf. Matt 1:16), and the legal son of Eli (cf. > Luke 3:23). In other words, Matthew describes Jesus' right to > the theocratic crown while Luke describes his natural pedigree. > Luke employs Joseph's name instead of Mary's in accorodance > with Israelite law that genealogies must be reckoned by > fathers, not mothers. I submit that there is no Biblical evidence for such an interpretation. To achieve such an interpretation, one would have to discard the clear interpretation of Luke 3:23 in favor of Glenn's hypothetical situation. If we did not have Matthew's Gospel, no difficulties would arise in supposing Joseph's father to be Eli, and there would consequently be no grounds for supposing such a situation as Glenn mentions. This appears to be a rather desperate attempt to salvage Biblical inerrency at the expense of Biblical literalism. Furthermore, although Jewish law insists on descent through the father, neither Luke nor his audience was Jewish. If Luke had wanted to state that Mary was the daughter of Eli, he would not have had to mention Joseph at all. After all, Luke did take pains to point out that Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph. Would not he have also pointed out that Joseph was adopted of Eli had that been the case? Finally, if Glenn is going to rely on the Fathers of the Church to support his argument, he should also keep in mind that tradition holds the father of Mary to be Joachim, not Eli. In conclusion, I feel that the first theory mentioned is a more defensible argument. ----------- Come to the shell for answers. dwayne {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!dkl