Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #16  
Old Oct 16, '09, 4:31 am
JP Marat JP Marat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 17, 2009
Posts: 712
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: lineage of jesus

Diggerdomer posted:

Originally Posted by JP Marat
RESPONSE:

That there was an earlier version of Matthew has been demonstrated. Keep in mind our present version can only be dated from about 325 AD. On the other hand, the Ebonite version is clearly quoted from earlier sources. See the references given in the article.

>>Are you saying the Gospel of Matthew is dated from about 325 A.D.? Sorry if I don't understand, thanks for any clarification.<<

RESPONSE:

The earliest extant copy of Matthew we have dates from approximately 325 A.D. To find what still earlier versions said, we have to rely on quotations from Matthew found in writings of the Church Fathers. For example, Eusebius had an extensive library available to him. He quotes from an earlier version of Matthew 28 with differs from our present version.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old Oct 16, '09, 5:00 am
juliamajor juliamajor is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 20, 2007
Posts: 2,563
Religion: catholic
Default Re: lineage of jesus

the point of the genealogies is theological-not historical.why are tamar, ruth, bathsheba included-surely not for lineage purposes?What is the meaning of the genelogies in OT as and NT? Not just history is being passed through these lists.The character and nature of people and tribes is projected through these lists
.Don't get bogged down by 'facts' when there is theological truth to be uncovered.
C.Corday
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old Oct 16, '09, 7:59 am
JP Marat JP Marat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 17, 2009
Posts: 712
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: lineage of jesus

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Marat View Post
Diggerdomer posted:

Originally Posted by JP Marat
RESPONSE:

That there was an earlier version of Matthew has been demonstrated. Keep in mind our present version can only be dated from about 325 AD. On the other hand, the Ebonite version is clearly quoted from earlier sources. See the references given in the article.

>>Are you saying the Gospel of Matthew is dated from about 325 A.D.? Sorry if I don't understand, thanks for any clarification.<<

RESPONSE:

The earliest extant copy of Matthew we have dates from approximately 325 A.D. To find what still earlier versions said, we have to rely on quotations from Matthew found in writings of the Church Fathers. For example, Eusebius had an extensive library available to him. He quotes from an earlier version of Matthew 28 with differs from our present version.
ADDENDUM:

It may be of interest to note several other additions to the original New Testament.

The original "Shorter Ending" to Mark (1st century) was addeded to by the "Longer Ending" (2nd century) which we use now. There was a third ending, the Freer Logion, which was added in the 4th century (Jerome mentions it) but subsequently dropped.

The popular story of the woman taken in adultery ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,etc") didn't appear until the fourth century. It is not found in the Codex Sianaticus or Vaticanus (4th century more or less complete bibles), nor do any Church Fathers cite it before the fourth century. It also appeared in some 4th century manuscripts of Luke.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old Oct 16, '09, 8:00 am
JP Marat JP Marat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 17, 2009
Posts: 712
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: lineage of jesus

Quote:
Originally Posted by juliamajor View Post
the point of the genealogies is theological-not historical.why are tamar, ruth, bathsheba included-surely not for lineage purposes?What is the meaning of the genelogies in OT as and NT? Not just history is being passed through these lists.The character and nature of people and tribes is projected through these lists
.Don't get bogged down by 'facts' when there is theological truth to be uncovered.
C.Corday
RESPONSE:

Yes. We just have to believe and have faith and ignore the facts, don't we?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old Oct 16, '09, 8:16 am
JP Marat JP Marat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 17, 2009
Posts: 712
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: lineage of jesus

Digdommer posted:

Originally Posted by JP Marat
Don't Mark's and John's gospel list Mary as Jesus's mother (as well as list his brothers)? And because nothing was known about Jesus' birth, obviously Mark and John didn't deal with it. Quite probably neither did the original Matthew and Luke especially since no reference is made to Jesus' birth after the nativity narratives.

>>The Gospel of John never mentions "Mary" as the mother of Jesus. You are free to think that the original Matthew and Luke did not include references to Mary as Jesus' mother, but that seems a minority opinion (do you have any scholarly support, or Bible translations that contains notes to that effect?).<<

RESPONSE:

You are evidently very confused. Reread my paragraph which you just quoted. We are talking about the nativity narratives. Mark and John avoid them.

Aside from Matthew's and Luke's nativity narratives, there is no further reference to a virgin birth of Jesus anywhere in the gospels, epistles, or Acts of the Apostles.

And FYI:

Mark 6:3 "Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him."

See also John 19:25
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old Oct 16, '09, 8:21 am
JP Marat JP Marat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 17, 2009
Posts: 712
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: lineage of jesus

Nathan Wagner posted:

>>C. The fact that the NT preserves two different genealogies lends support to the idea that one is Mary's and one is Joseph's. Why preserve two seemingly contradictory genealogies? <<

RESPONSE:

No. Genealogies always are solely through the fathers, never the mothers. If you claim otherwise, please cite any exception in the Bible.

There are two contradictory genealogies because Matthew and Luke are reporting different legends and never coordinated their gospels.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old Oct 16, '09, 12:13 pm
Nathan Wagar Nathan Wagar is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 10, 2009
Posts: 1,014
Religion: Christian, Latin Rite
Default Re: lineage of jesus

Okay JP, apparently you are only answering with what you can specifically find in your Raymond Brown books. Don't selectively quote me, respond to my argument. Otherwise you're just a propaganda pump.

"There are two contradictory genealogies because Matthew and Luke are reporting different legends and never coordinated their gospels"

Once again you are simply stating something that begs the question. Prove it. And while you're at it, you never dealt with anything I wrote.

My example of a genealogy through the woman IS the genealogy in the Bible, which can be linked to Mary for reasons stated. You ignored all of the evidence provided and merely made your assertion again. There's a lot of firsts in the Bible JP, using that as your sole argument accomplishes little.

The reason why it would be the first is because these two genealogies are the only way to connect Jesus to David in a meaningful way to the Jews, as well as have him be a heavenly figure, in keeping with messianic prophecies in Daniel. In this way both varying prophecies of humble origin and coming through the clouds were kept, as well as him being covered to the line of David on both sides. The virgin birth is the only way to do this, and if anything seems to state God knows what he's doing.

All you did is state "no" then pretty much make your assertion again. That's not how debate works JP.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old Oct 16, '09, 12:23 pm
djeter djeter is offline
Regular Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2009
Posts: 1,427
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: lineage of jesus

The best thing I ever read on Jesus' lineage and birth was in Stanley Huerhaus' wonderful commentary on Matthew.

Perhaps the best recommendation for the book comes from Hauerwas himself in the introduction: “I have tried to write the commentary in the hope that those reading the commentary will want to read it as a book. In other words, I hope that the reader will read the commentary the way they read a novel….The reader may wish to read what I have to say about this or that passage, but the intelligibility of the commentary depends upon its being read in sequence.”

Some of the selections that bear on your discussion here:

Matthew’s Genealogy
The genealogy that Matthew provides from Abraham to Jesus is but a commentary on the extraordinary claim that with Jesus we have a new beginning. The genealogy is divided into three series, the first two consisting of fourteen generations and the last of thirteen generations The last group has only thirteen generations because the church that Jesus calls into existence constitutes the fourteenth generation It is not clear why Matthew may have thought fourteen to be significant, but what is crucial is the story of Israel that Matthew tells through the genealogy.

The first generational history is meant to tell the story of Israel’s triumph as a nation, for it ends with King David, who clearly represents for Matthew the climax of Israel’s history. David, the mighty king, the lover of justice, ruled Israel in fulfillment of the law given to Moses (Psalm 99) However, the history that Matthew tells in the genealogy is also one of loss, because the next series climaxes with the Babylonian captivity an exile that still haunts Israel’s life even after the return to Palestine Matthew, like the writers of the Old Testament, does not try to hide Israel’s failure to trust God or God’s judgment on Israel’s unfaithfulness through exile That Israel continues to tell the stories of her failure is a witness to the community’s conviction — a conviction learned through the hard discipline of prophetic lives and one that affirms the story it has to tell — to the God who makes her very existence intelligible Matthew becomes part of that witness, testifying to God’s continued faithfulness to Israel through the coming of Jesus.

Accordingly the last genealogical series is about the restoration of Israel through the birth of Jesus. To be Israel’s Messiah means that Jesus does not simply represent Israel, but that he is the renewing of the law, he is the promise of the land, and he is the temple. Jesus is the long-awaited king. He is the restoration of all that makes Israel the promised people. Through Joseph’s adoption, Jesus stands in the line of David, becoming for Israel its king unlike the kings of this world. Jesus is the climax of Matthew’s genealogical story of Israel’s past, at once representing Israel’s story while profoundly transforming the very categories of its existence.

The Four Women In Matthew’s Genealogy
Matthew’s genealogy also includes the names of four women: Tamar (Genesis. 38), Rahab (Joshua 2), Ruth, and Bathsheba wife of Uriah (2 Samuel. 11-12; 1 Kings. 1). That Matthew names these women is unusual because the genealogies of Israel (e.g., those in Genesis 5; 10; 11) are lists consisting of only males. That Matthew names these women, therefore, cannot be insignificant. Some suggest that they represent women who engaged in sexually doubtful activity; thus preparing the reader for the irregularity of Jesus’ conception. Such a reading, however, does not seem to do justice to Ruth’s relationship with Boaz. It seems more likely, given the role that Gentiles will play throughout his gospel, that Matthew names these women, who are in different ways outsiders to Israel, to indicate how God has used them to sustain the promise people. These women are not clearly from the people of Israel, yet they serve God’s providential care of Israel by quite literally making the Davidic line possible. Confronted with untenable situations that seem to preclude their full inclusion, these women use their wits to force the men of Israel to claim them as members of God’s promise. They prefigure the Canaanite woman who calls to Jesus to cure her daughter tormented by a demon (Matthew. 15:21-28). Jesus at first refuses to answer her, responding that he was sent only to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she kneels before him, confessing, as we confess in the prayer of humble access, that she is ready like the dogs, an Israelite description of Gentiles, to eat the crumbs that fall from the master’s table. Jesus commends her faith and heals her daughter.

These women (and it is not accidental that they are women) represent the undeniable reality that God’s promise to Israel has spread to the Gentiles. Matthew’s gospel is the ongoing commentary on this reality and the tension it represents for understanding Jesus’ mission Matthew does not try to resolve the tension created by the brute fact that Jesus is acknowledged by those who are not Israel. And we, from our position two thousand years later, cannot assume that we know how to resolve the tension created by the promise of Israel including the Gentiles. All we know, because Matthew makes it a point to show us, is that Gentiles recognize Jesus. Therefore, it is crucial that we not seek solutions that would make it impossible for us to read Matthew’s gospel with a faith like that of the Canaanite woman. Like her, we must recognize that Jesus has the power to restore us to life even if it means we receive God’s gifts as crumbs from the table.

And much more here (limited by post # of characters):

http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2...nley-hauerwas/

I really "got" the Virgin Birth for the first time reading this. Makes perfect sense to me now.

In Christ,

dj
__________________
"To the young, the early dead, the baffled, the defeated, I don’t think we can be tender enough."
Henry James
http://payingattentiontothesky.com/
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old Oct 16, '09, 12:39 pm
diggerdomer diggerdomer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: March 16, 2009
Posts: 6,056
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: lineage of jesus

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Marat View Post
Digdommer posted:

Originally Posted by JP Marat
Don't Mark's and John's gospel list Mary as Jesus's mother (as well as list his brothers)? And because nothing was known about Jesus' birth, obviously Mark and John didn't deal with it. Quite probably neither did the original Matthew and Luke especially since no reference is made to Jesus' birth after the nativity narratives.

>>The Gospel of John never mentions "Mary" as the mother of Jesus. You are free to think that the original Matthew and Luke did not include references to Mary as Jesus' mother, but that seems a minority opinion (do you have any scholarly support, or Bible translations that contains notes to that effect?).<<

RESPONSE:

You are evidently very confused. Reread my paragraph which you just quoted. We are talking about the nativity narratives. Mark and John avoid them.

Aside from Matthew's and Luke's nativity narratives, there is no further reference to a virgin birth of Jesus anywhere in the gospels, epistles, or Acts of the Apostles.

And FYI:

Mark 6:3 "Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him."

See also John 19:25
I am aware Mark mentions Mary by name. John 19:25 mentions either three women: Jesus' mother and two women named Mary; or four women: Jesus' mother, her sister, and two women named Mary. So?

You brought up Mark and John not narrating Jesus' birth as a significant point to this thread (so I assume). The fact that the virgin birth is not brought up later in Matt and Luke really doesn't prove anything, does it? Is King Herod slaughtering the innocents isn't brought up again in Luke either, Joseph doesn't appear again in the narrative in Matt or Luke....and so on.... I just don't see the compelling proof you seem to be offering by your arguments.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old Oct 16, '09, 12:41 pm
diggerdomer diggerdomer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: March 16, 2009
Posts: 6,056
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: lineage of jesus

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Marat View Post
Nathan Wagner posted:

>>C. The fact that the NT preserves two different genealogies lends support to the idea that one is Mary's and one is Joseph's. Why preserve two seemingly contradictory genealogies? <<

RESPONSE:

No. Genealogies always are solely through the fathers, never the mothers. If you claim otherwise, please cite any exception in the Bible.

There are two contradictory genealogies because Matthew and Luke are reporting different legends and never coordinated their gospels.
Whether they are contradictory depends on how one interprets them.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old Oct 17, '09, 5:11 am
JP Marat JP Marat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 17, 2009
Posts: 712
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: lineage of jesus

Quote:
Originally Posted by diggerdomer View Post
I am aware Mark mentions Mary by name. John 19:25 mentions either three women: Jesus' mother and two women named Mary; or four women: Jesus' mother, her sister, and two women named Mary. So?

You brought up Mark and John not narrating Jesus' birth as a significant point to this thread (so I assume). The fact that the virgin birth is not brought up later in Matt and Luke really doesn't prove anything, does it? Is King Herod slaughtering the innocents isn't brought up again in Luke either, Joseph doesn't appear again in the narrative in Matt or Luke....and so on.... I just don't see the compelling proof you seem to be offering by your arguments.
RESPONSE:

You overlooked the fact that the earliest strata of Matthew does not have a virgin birth claim. (And, of course, that Matthew's Old Testament (the Septuagint) mistranslated "almah"(Hebrew) as virgin (Gr. parthanos). Hence, Matthew's error on the virgin birth claim.

And the slaughter of the innocent isn't mentioned in Luke's gospel because, according to Luke, Jesus was born in 6 AD during Quirinius' census. Herod had been dead for ten years at this point making the slaughter of the innocent chronologically impossible.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old Oct 17, '09, 5:14 am
JP Marat JP Marat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 17, 2009
Posts: 712
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: lineage of jesus

Quote:
Originally Posted by diggerdomer View Post
Whether they are contradictory depends on how one interprets them.
RESPONSE:

No. There are errors in that some of the same people are listed in both and names are omitted.

Also note, that Hebrew geneologies are exclusively male ("Y" chromosome linked), never female. Pleae cite any biblical exception you claim.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old Oct 17, '09, 4:28 pm
Nathan Wagar Nathan Wagar is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 10, 2009
Posts: 1,014
Religion: Christian, Latin Rite
Default Re: lineage of jesus

1. Your statement that somehow the Jews mistranslated their own word "almah" into the Greek is a fallacy and begs the question. Why should your opinion count over those in that time period translating their own language?

2. I already gave you an example of a genealogical line going through a woman in 1 Chronicles, so stop ignoring it.

3. Even the Jews have an ancient tradition alluding to the Vrigin birth. He was said to be fathered by a Roman soldier, who's name was recorded in the Talmud as either Pandera or Panthera, apparently a play on words on the Greek word for virgin, parthenos; see Rashi to Sanhedrin 104b, who explains that Jesus was called Ben Pandera after the name of his father, even though he was an illegitimate child. Among Jewish scholars this is dismissed as having no basis in fact, but for our purposes it is important to note that the idea of a virgin birth being circulated was present among Jesus' critics.

4. Ebionites were an heretical fringe Jewish messianic movement. Irenaeus already talked about how they denied the Virgin birth and other tenets of the faith, and so came out with their own versions of the text. Then Irenaeus proceeds to quote Scripture containing the Virgin birth verbatim; so your argument that our earliest copy containing it is so late doesn't really matter. If you're Catholic at all, you're thankful the fathers quoted so much Scripture.Today, scholars hold the position that the Gospel of the Ebionites was used by the Ebionites. However, Irenaeus wrote that they used only one Gospel -- Matthew's Gospel. But, Eusebius writes that the Ebionites use only the Gospel according to the Hebrews. This confusion is clarified by Epiphanius who explained that the Ebionites used the Gospel according to the Hebrews written by Matthew. Although the Ebionites "edited it", they never composed a gospel of their own. So go ahead an rely on a fringe movement's highly edited Bible.

6. The idea that Herod died in 4 BC is highly debated by scholars, and many believe it is false for a variety of reasons. The only source we have for the 4 BC date is Josephus, who was known to be a bit suspect regarding dates, and was known for falsifying statistics for various motives. I can go more indepth into this if you wish, up to you.

7. A quote from your venerable Raymond Brown: "it is difficult to explain how the idea [of the virgin birth] arose if not from fact. Many parallels for a virginal conception have been suggested from world religions, from paganism, and from pre-Christian Judaism; but they are not really satisfactory...and there is little reason to believe that most of them would have been known or acceptable to early Christians."

It seems to me that your personal views are a hodgepodge of various liberal scholars, attuned to your own preconceptions. I don't really mind that, but I fail to see why you call yourself Catholic.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old Oct 17, '09, 4:34 pm
Kaninchen's Avatar
Kaninchen Kaninchen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 8, 2006
Posts: 7,736
Religion: Jewish (Jewess)
Default Re: lineage of jesus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan Wagar View Post
3. Even the Jews have an ancient tradition alluding to the Vrigin birth . . . . . but for our purposes it is important to note that the idea of a virgin birth being circulated was present among Jesus' critics.
You'd need an awful lot more evidence to sustain that argument.
__________________

Il ruggito della coniglia!



A little bit of these in all of us?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old Oct 17, '09, 5:06 pm
Nathan Wagar Nathan Wagar is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 10, 2009
Posts: 1,014
Religion: Christian, Latin Rite
Default Re: lineage of jesus

I know It was one point of many that I made earlier. Glad to see you back by the way.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8455Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: SueZee
5143CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4424Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3863SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3735Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3318Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3282Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3223Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3109For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: RevDrJBTDDPhD



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:12 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.