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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Jesus Genealogies

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Jul 5, 2005
      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 2 of 5 , Jul 6, 2005
        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 3 of 5 , Jul 6, 2005
          > 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.