my life

HUH! verrryyy interesting!

Rick,

Isn’t that just wild, though? How many times have you read the bible and never noticed this? (I say this generally to all…and ’tis a rhetorical question.) But haven’t we all many times picked up the bible and read these bits, but just skimmed over them thinking “yeah, yeah…” in order to get to the interesting bits? But in so doing, we never really read them, huh? (It is an additional deterrent in that the NT lineages are listed in opposite directions, making direct comparisons far more difficult.)

I should point out, also, that those are just the ones I noticed the one day I decided to make my own chart, research and compare (Christmas Day, 2003, actually. A propos, huh?). I have no doubt there are more there.

I’m holding the proverbial hoops here now, for those of you who wish to start jumping through them to explain these problems (without creating more…that’s the real trick).

d

Another comment on point 3…, and why it’s a silly claim (quoted from a post by Asha’man at IIDB):

The claim is made that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary, not Joseph. This claim utterly ignores Jewish custom of the time, where paternal ancestry is the only one that matters. (Maternal recognition was changed after the Diaspora, around the 2nd to 3rd century.) This claim also ignores that Mary’s cousin Elisabeth (and therefore Mary herself) was identified as being of the daughters of Aaron, or tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5), not of the royal line of David.

However, this still means that the text has an error, since Luke clearly states “Jesus …being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.” Mary’s name is not in the verse. No matter who the genealogy is assigned to, the text we have must be in error.

I’ll have to look up the Diaspora claim. It makes sense, as we have no biblical instance of lineage being traced through women (as I already pointed out), but it would be good to be certain of this information, nonetheless.

But I think that pretty much sews up the usual escape route for the contradiction. Luke is not Mary’s line. Both are meant to be Joseph’s. They can’t both be right. This leaves inerrantists in an uncomfortable situation.

d

Here’s an interesting paper on the switch to matrilineal lineage.

So much for the non-Jewess problems of Ruth and Rahab.

d

Diana,

You’ve done a lot more diligence on this topic than I could ever muster. I’m going to have to excuse myself from this discussion I think.

And I’m also guilty of the “skimming” habit. Shame on me.

Dave

Should I select something less involved, Dave?

Also, feel free to direct your minister to this discussion. He may be more prepared to discuss these things from the get-go. Also, he may have more time to research it (plus…isn’t that what he gets paid to do?). Just a thought.

d

Diana,
Want some interesting and entertaining info on inaccuracies in the bible? Checkout a show called “B*ll Sh*t” on showtime hosted by two of the funniest guys around Penn &Teller. I have the particular episode on DVD if you are interested. Trust me this is a very serious show that attacks of lot of misconceptions we all have about the world and society that we live in today.
lol
Rick

Diana,

Less involved? Not at all - I’m skimming the discussion here, too. (Grin) The paper on matrilineal lineage is fascinating. I like learning the history of non-WASP peoples.

I don’t currently belong to a congregation, so I’m afraid I don’t have a minster to invite to the discussion. The one I had before I moved has quit and became a photographer. (We should have a contest to see who can backslide the fastest.)

There is something tugging at my mind, and at the moment I’m not in a position to look for the answer but perhaps you have it already. When a woman of the time married a man of another tribe, did she become attached to his tribe? By being married to Joseph, did she become a virtual Judahite? That could explain the need to resolve Joseph’s lineage, althought it still doesn’t address the larger discrepancies.

Dave

Rick,

I have the episode in question. ;)

Dave,

I don’t have the answer. I’ll look into it, though. You may be right. :)

d

The thing to look into might be whether a pregnant woman (with a bastard child) passes the child’s step-father’s lineage to her son. Yes? Moreover…whatever the answer, that must have been the case at that period in history. If the answer is no, it matters not whether Mary became a virtual Judahite.

Hrm. Where to find such info, anyhow?

d

Diana,

Good question. Maybe the author of the article on matrilineal lineage?

I do know that here (in Ohio at least, and I suspect in other states) the husband of a woman who gives birth is legally the father of the child until declared otherwise by the court.

Dave

Diana,

The fact that Mary had to go to Bethlehem with Joseph to be registered for the census instead of being registered with her own family is what made me wonder about her status. And since paternity was a difficult thing to prove up until very recent times, the only evidence that the baby wasn’t Joseph’s was his and her testimony. In view of that, I think it’s likely that Jesus would have inherited Joseph’s standing if such was commonly passed down through the male line, which seems to have been the case at that time.

Dave

Ah. Aside from the fact that there’s no evidence from actual historical books that no census was every conducted in such a manner (stop for a moment to consider the logistics of it), let’s not confuse “what people thought was probably the case” (the child was Joseph’s and illegitimate) with “legitimate successor to David’s throne” (and therefore properly meeting at least one qualification of messiahship). We’re either talking inspired scriptures or we aren’t. If we’re talking about what it just looked like, then we lack the lineage required of the Jewish messiah. If we’re talking about what truly was, then…we have lots of questions to answer.

The prevalent secular theory of the formation of the gospels explains this phenomenon nicely. To wit: Mark wrote the first one, >=70 AD (sometime after the destruction of the temple), and Matthew and Luke were written as references from that as well as another source (known as Q, from another word–German, I think–meaning “source"). Mark doesn’t have a virgin birth nor a kingly line. It just has the basic, fairly unembellished story. By the time Matthew and Luke were written, however, the story had grown considerably. We now had a virgin mother and lineages to prove the lad’s right to kingship, as well as lots of extras throw in through his ministry and resurrection. The writers of Matthew and Luke were clearly not comparing notes. I think these represent two different traditions of the story (contrary to what so many people seem to believe, the bible was centuries in the making; before then, all people had was tradition, and possibly an epistle).

The problem is, the traditions are noticably different, thereby bringing “divine inspiration” into question with at least one of them. But which one? And does this not bring “divine inspiration” into question in all of it? (If not, I’d be interested in hearing your reasoning.)

d

Dave,

I missed your first reply there. :) Sorry.

Laws on lineage and legitimacy (and kingly succession, for that matter) vary in place and time, as you know. What would be important is learning what the Jewish laws were then.

Here’s a link I found this morning that appears to answer many of the problems I’ve pointed out. See if you can spot the problems in their explanations, as well as some of the problems they didn’t even acknowledge. (This is, incidentally, one of the better pages I’ve found for addressing these problems, which I why I post it here.)

d

A friend of mine pointed out another little snafu. Something I missed.

“Mary’s” lineage (in Luke) goes through David’s son Nathan. However, the throne was required to go through Solomon’s line, as per God’s promise to David.

What is this? Number 14? I’ve lost count.

d

Hmm, I was gonna comment, but it seems I’ve already contributed.

Nice work d. :)

Yeah, Mike. I figured you wouldn’t mind. Thanks. :)

d

Dave,

I’ve found bald assertions that adoption made Jesus Joseph’s legitimate son and bald assertions to the contrary. What I haven’t found are Jewish sources that substantiate the claims either way.

I happened to meet Richard Carrier yesterday (a man who specializes in ancient history, and who is known for his balanced review of research and conclusions concerning such matters, if such is possible), so I asked him your question. He said he was unaware of any adoption provision for Jewish royal lineage, and he’s read the Midrash (sp?) and Talmud (not an easy feat). In light of this information, I’ll leave this ball in your court: if there is such a provision by Jewish law at the time, I (and many others, no doubt) would be very excited to review your source(s). It/They would certainly substantiate that question in the lineage of Joseph. Without such sources, however, you’re left with speculation based on a 2nd century Christian’s traditional Jesus tale–which substantiates nothing as far as Jewish laws or beliefs (as my comparison of Jewish/Christian lineages should make clear).

Oh…Richard said his favorite contradiction is the birthdate of Jesus. :)

I hope you have a very happy and safe Independence Day!

d

One more comment on this, and I’ll move along to other stuff. Another think I don’t understand about the genealogy thing is this:

In 1Ti 1:4, Paul charged Timothy to “Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].”

Did Paul not know about Jesus’ genealogies? (I seriously doubt it.) If he did, why would he say you shouldn’t heed them? Is he saying they aren’t important? If so, what are they doing in the bible, anyway?

d

Hi, ben.

You ask good questions, and you’ve crossed no lines. Worry not.

I think there are things to be gained from such arguments. However, first and foremost, I make these cases out of a personal interest in the subject. In this particular case, I was asked for my favorite inconsistency, and simply answered the question to the best of my ability.

To those who are insistent that the bible is inspired because it doesn’t contradict itself, then turn around and reason that it can’t contradict itself because it’s inspired (and thus jump through any hoop necessary to make contradictory information seem to harmonize), such arguments are worthless. This is most people. However, to those who see the circularity (and therefore logical bankruptcy) of this approach, detailed analyses of passages that shows the lack of agreement is food for thought. Food for thought plants a seed of doubt, which germinates eventually into skepticism, at which point they can see, unaided, the silliness of the book. These seeds are different for all people.

Most people are not moved by reason, as you pointed out. They’re too busy trying to prove their beliefs are true (or simply assert them).

I’ve noticed that, since the bible came to be (actually, only like 1400 years ago–surprise surprise), that it has given many people a reason to wage war. I think people find in its pages justification for what they already want to believe, which is why we have things like the Inquisition in our sordid history. The bible’s main theme isn’t “love your neighbor"; it is “fear hellfire.” I’ve read it. There’s very, very little joy and peace and love exemplified in its pages. The vast majority is murder and rape and incest and legalism and judgmentalism and…fire and brimstone. You get the idea.

I’ve met very few people over the years who were HAPPY Christians, let alone at peace. I have, conversely, known countless who were NOT at peace specifically because they believed the insupportable doctrines found in the book’s pages.

Semantic issues in the bible don’t drive people to gamble and beat their wives (then again, I’ve seen wife-beating scripturally justified). They do, however, drive them to beat their children and punish their daughters for being raped and murder people for being “witches.” People use “semantic issues” to justify destroying families and condemning loved ones for “sinning.” In the Dark Ages, its pages were used to justify outright slaughter.

The bible is our last and most tenuous vestage of superstition, encouraging people to fear an invisible being who supposedly loves them (which makes no sense), and trying to root out Satan and witches from their midst. And now, a book that assumes cattle breed striped calves if they are impregnated looking at striped sticks and that demonic possession is to blame for mental illness is guiding the tenets of the majority of our government.

For those who want the truth instead of proving themselves right, all it takes is a small, seemingly insignificant flaw for them to question their own previous assumptions and conclusions. Oddly enough, it isn’t ever the bigger logical problems of religious belief that seem to have this effect. It’s almost that such people are so close to the forest that they can’t see the trees…but they can see the way the bark on this one isn’t growing the right way, and it causes them to start backing away from the scene to examining each tree in turn.

I’m just pointing out one place that the bark isn’t growing right.

“Sophistry,” incidentally, is “a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.” I’ve done no such thing, but then, I suspect you thought it meant something else.

d

Thanks for correcting me on the definition, ben. The dictionaries I consulted all went with the third definition automatically, omitting the first two.

I suspect we do come from very different backgrounds. You might determine an atheist’s initial denomination (or at least, his level of fundamentalism) by the arguments he makes. You should be able to tell, then, that in my mind I’m dealing with people who believe in a literal 6-day creation because the bible says so, and who absolutely refuse to leave room for the remote possibility that it isn’t true or is fanciful in any respect. Etc.

Daddy asked me two things long ago, when he first knew I’d left the church. He asked that I remember the values I was taught, and he asked that I study to make sure of my position. I promised I would. As you can see, this is a promise I take very seriously.

Incidentally…I’ve occasionally noted progress being made with even belligerent Christians. It just takes much longer for a single point to sink home than with those who are already open to the possibility that the bible isn’t perfect. I was raised Church of Christ, however. The COC argues that the canonized bible contains no contradictions, and that is how we know it is inspired of God. Hence, I find the careful delineation of contradictions to be very worthwhile.

What’s sad is that arguments of contradiction make stronger impressions upon the faithful than simply pointing out the evil, maniacal behavior of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To wit: demanding a man sacrifice his own son to prove his faith; causing a flood to destroy his children because they displeased him; hardening Pharoah’s heart in order to have an excuse to slaughter Egyptian livestock and the Egyptians themselves to prove his power; etc. It confuses me deeply that people can read these stories, believe in gods and devils, then assume this is the behavior of a being you’d worship and not revile.

What might be an interesting exercise is to reread the bible, leaving room for the notion that the “God” who wrote it is really Satan, and the “Satan” he condemns is really “God.” As far as ethical and admirable behavior goes, such a reading makes far more sense than the traditional one.

d

Great link, ben. :D

Develop sudden hearing loss.

*Chortle*

Thanks.

d