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