Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Synoptic-L] Re: Jesus Genealogies

Expand Messages
  • Eric Eve
    ... David. ... Lk s departure from the royal line is certainly striking, but one would still have to explain it somehow even on the basis of Lk s independence
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 5 11:27 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Chuck Jones wrote:

      > Especially puzzling is the departure from the kingly line just after
      David.
      > Where Mt has David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, etc. Lk has David, Nathan,
      > Mattatha, Menna, etc. It reads like a rookie, Gentile mistake based on
      > ignorance of Hb history. It's hard to reconcile with the scenario of a
      > copy of Mt sitting in Lk's presence....

      Lk's departure from the royal line is certainly striking, but one would
      still have to explain it somehow even on the basis of Lk's independence from
      Mt. It can hardly be the result of Lk's ignorance of Hebrew history, since
      Lk makes such heavy use of the LXX in his birth narratives. Had he wanted
      to, Luke could have constructed a genealogy following the royal line from
      Kings and/or Chronicles just as well as Mt could, with or without Mt's help,
      so the fact that he doesn't do so surely indicates a deliberate choice by
      Lk, whether or not he knew Mt. Putting the boot on the other foot, one could
      argue that Lk's deliberately avoiding the royal line after David was the
      result of his consciously distancing himself from Mt, perhaps because he
      wanted to downplay Mt emphasis on Jesus as son of David. At the very least,
      an explanation for why Lk avoided the royal line (after David) on the basis
      of Lk's independence from Mt seems likely to work just as well on the basis
      of Lk's use of Mt.

      Best wishes,

      Eric

      ----------------------------------
      Eric Eve
      Harris Manchester College, Oxford





      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Chuck Jones
      Chuck Jones responds to Eric Eve: Eric: Lk s departure from the royal line is certainly striking, but one would still have to explain it somehow even on the
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 5 1:02 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Chuck Jones responds to Eric Eve:

        Eric:

        Lk's departure from the royal line is certainly striking, but one would
        still have to explain it somehow even on the basis of Lk's independence from
        Mt. It can hardly be the result of Lk's ignorance of Hebrew history, since
        Lk makes such heavy use of the LXX in his birth narratives. Had he wanted
        to, Luke could have constructed a genealogy following the royal line from
        Kings and/or Chronicles just as well as Mt could, with or without Mt's help,
        so the fact that he doesn't do so surely indicates a deliberate choice by
        Lk, whether or not he knew Mt.
         
        Chuck:
         
        It appears that Lk did in fact construct his genealogy from I Chron.  Investigating this further today, I discovered that Luke follows I Chron 1 and 2 very closely in constructing his genealogy from Adam to David.
         
        Likewise Mt carefully follows I Chron 2 and 3 in his genealogy of Abraham to Zerubbabel, where the Solomonic genealogy in I Chron ends.  (Both Mt and Lk follow I Chron closely enough that there is no need to assume either knew the other to explain the similarity of their lists.)
         
        Given that Lk seems to have used I Chron 1 for his Adam to David list, it does seem to be a deliberate choice not to use I Chron 3 (Mt's apparent source) for the royal lineage.
         
        Eric:
         
        Putting the boot on the other foot, one could
        argue that Lk's deliberately avoiding the royal line after David was the
        result of his consciously distancing himself from Mt, perhaps because he
        wanted to downplay Mt emphasis on Jesus as son of David.
         
        Chuck:
         
        I explored this line of thought, too, and can't make the hypothesis work out.  Lk actually emphasizes Jesus' Davidic descent repeatedly.  For brevity's sake, I'll simply list references here, but in their context these are places where Lk goes out of his way to cast Jesus as the resumption of the Davidic line:  Lk 1:32-33, 1:69, 2:4, 2:11, Acts 2:25-36, 13:34-36, 15:16.  Lk would have much to gain by recounting the Davidic royal line.  It's hard to imagine why he would abandon I Chron or Mt after David and make up the remainder of the genealogy (no portion of his remaining genealogy has any parallels within the Hb scriptures).
         
        Eric:
         
        At the very least, an explanation for why Lk avoided the royal line (after David) on the basis
        of Lk's independence from Mt seems likely to work just as well on the basis of Lk's use of Mt.
         
        Chuck:
         
        Per the above, I agree.  Some (mysterious) authorial intent is at work in the decision to deviate from I Chron or Mt.  This means (a retraction from my first post today) that the current state of the texts of the two genealogies does not imply independence or dependence between Mt and Lk.
         
        Chuck Jones

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com

      • Richard H. Anderson
        ... David. ... Eric Eve wrote Lk s departure from the royal line is certainly striking, .... I hope I am not repeating anything said previously but I have
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 5 4:56 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Chuck Jones wrote:

          > Especially puzzling is the departure from the kingly line just after
          David.
          > Where Mt has David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, etc. Lk has David, Nathan,
          > Mattatha, Menna, etc. It reads like a rookie, Gentile mistake based on
          > ignorance of Hb history. It's hard to reconcile with the scenario of a
          > copy of Mt sitting in Lk's presence....

          Eric Eve wrote "Lk's departure from the royal line is certainly striking,
          ...."

          I hope I am not repeating anything said previously but I have been too busy
          exploding fireworks!

          In The Interpreter's Bible on Luke (vol 8: Abingdon, 1989), the author
          directed attention to a letter preserved in Eusebius' Church History (1.7)
          wherein Africanus wrote to Aristides about the differences between Matthew's
          and Luke's genealogies. In the letter, Africanus claims that Herod did not
          want to be associated with either the patriarchs of the Jews nor of any
          proselytes, so he burned the records. However, apparently there were some
          in Judea who compiled their own records, private records, which indicate
          that Herod's father was descendent of Achio the Ammonite and Ruth the
          Moabite. The author of the above-mentioned commentary had this to say
          regarding the letter of Africanus as preserved by Eusebius: "Early in the
          third century (see the letter of Julius Africanus to Aristides as quoted by
          Eusebius Church History I.7) the theory was current that Matthew's Gospel
          symbolized Christ's royalty, and Luke's his priesthood" (p. 81 in the IB,
          volume 8).

          Lee Dahn has been investigating the matter and has published three short
          entries on his blog on Luke’s Genealogy.

          http://luke-theophilus.blogspot.com/2005/04/lukes-genealogy.html

          http://luke-theophilus.blogspot.com/2005/04/lukes-genealogy-part-2.html

          http://luke-theophilus.blogspot.com/2005/04/lukes-genealogy-part-2a.html


          I think that Luke identified the Davidic lineage with Nathan to demonstrate
          the fulfillment of the prophecy in Zechariah.

          I also recall that Jeremiah stated that no physical descendant of Jeconiah
          would ever sit on the throne of David. Thus Jeconiah could not be an
          ancestor of David. Jesus was descended according to Luke from David through
          Nathan and Neri rather than through Solomon and Jeconiah.

          In some traditions, the origin of which is uncertain to me, Solomon had
          healing powers and therefore the phrase “son of David” used frequently [6x]
          by Matthew could have been a linkage to this tradition and in most of 6
          instances in Matthew, Jesus heals someone. Luke I believe has only one such
          usage and does not show lineage through Solomon. This argument not being
          fully developed is merely interesting and very speculative but it may
          explain why Matthew added additional references of "son of David" to his
          account.

          Richard H. Anderson
          http://kratistostheophilos.blogspot.com/




          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 7/5/2005 4:03:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... People who have read my doctoral dissertation (who could hold an assembly in a telephone
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 6 3:32 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 7/5/2005 4:03:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, chuckjonez@... writes:

            explored this line of thought, too, and can't make the hypothesis work out.  Lk actually emphasizes Jesus' Davidic descent repeatedly.  For brevity's sake, I'll simply list references here, but in their context these are places where Lk goes out of his way to cast Jesus as the resumption of the Davidic line:  Lk 1:32-33, 1:69, 2:4, 2:11, Acts 2:25-36, 13:34-36, 15:16.  Lk would have much to gain by recounting the Davidic royal line.  It's hard to imagine why he would abandon I Chron or Mt after David and make up the remainder of the genealogy (no portion of his remaining genealogy has any parallels within the Hb scriptures).


            People who have read my doctoral dissertation (who could hold an assembly in a telephone booth) would not place 1:69 in this list of Lukan texts. In spite of the way it is frequently translated in modern hymn settings, the text does not speak of a "mighty savior from the house of David", but rather of a "horn of salvation [consisting] in the house of David...". It is connected with a kind of salvation that was normative in the OT, beginning with the exodus (alluded to in Lk 1:68), and operative in God's mighty salvation of his people from the enemy inhabitants of the land as mediated by Israel's royal figures, and especially the house of David. The type of salvation common to these eras of the exodus and the dwelling in the land, including that of the judges, is defined in 1:71. The first part of the Benedictus should therefore be read as a prophetic summary (with verbs in the aorist tense) of the past history of Israel as grateful beneficiary of a divine salvation of a certain type. Zechariah looks forward to the new era (with main verbs now in the future tense) in the second part of the text (1:76-79). Here, and in v.77 in particular, a new kind of salvation is predicted, envisioned and defined: a salvation in the forgiveness of "their" (the people's: see Matt 1:21b) sins. Luke thus associates David with a kind of salvation that he sees as in some sense antithetical to the salvation brought by Jesus. David is also contrasted with Jesus in the sermon of Peter in Acts 2 (see 2:29,31). While he lies rotting in the grave, one from his seed, Jesus, sits on his throne forever.. in fulfillment of God's promise.

            Leonard Maluf
            Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
            Weston, MA
          • John Lupia
            ... Lk 1:27 cites Joseph, Mary s spouse from the House of David. Lk 1:32 Jesus is to have the throne of his father David Lk 1:69 is as Leonard suggests Lk 2:4
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 6 4:03 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              > chuckjonez@... writes:
              >
              > > Lk actually emphasizes Jesus' Davidic descent
              > repeatedly. For brevity's
              > > sake, I'll simply list references here, but in
              > their context these are places
              > > where Lk goes out of his way to cast Jesus as the
              > resumption of the Davidic
              > > line: Lk 1:32-33, 1:69, 2:4, 2:11, Acts 2:25-36,
              > 13:34-36, 15:16. Lk would
              > > have much to gain by recounting the Davidic royal
              > line. It's hard to imagine
              > > why he would abandon I Chron or Mt after David and
              > make up the remainder of
              > > the genealogy (no portion of his remaining
              > genealogy has any parallels within
              > > the Hb scriptures).

              Lk 1:27 cites Joseph, Mary's spouse from the House of
              David.

              Lk 1:32 Jesus is to have the throne of his father
              David

              Lk 1:69 is as Leonard suggests

              Lk 2:4 Jesus is born in the city of David since he is
              of that line

              Lk 2:11 restates 2:4 in an iconic manner

              Lk 3:31 shows David descent

              Lk 18:38,39 even a blind man recognizes Jesus as Son
              of David

              Lk 20:41-44 redirects the Davidic role as Leonard
              suggests but does not deny or negate it. The point
              being that even if he is a Son of David he is nothing
              like David nor shall his kingship or throne, or
              kingdom be like David's, i.e., earthly, but rather, a
              spiritual kingdom that shall be eternal.

              So although I agree with Leonard I do not agree that
              the David role is denied or negated, but redirected to
              its true end.

              With best regards,
              John N. Lupia, III

              John N. Lupia, III
              Beachwood, New Jersey 08722 USA
              Fax: (732) 349-3910
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
              God Bless America



              __________________________________
              Yahoo! Mail
              Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
              http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html


              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.