Jesus...the Messiah?
- Thread starter saxon
- Start date
What makes you think there are any learned Jews in this forum?
There are people here that know a little bit about trading, but this is not the place I would look for scholars on Judaism.
The Jewish bible, the Tanakh, makes it clear that the TRIBAL LINEAGE follows the father's line, but the child's Jewish heritage, or place in the Jewish family, is matrilineal. The reason why Judaism is matrilineal: because we always know who the mother is 
If, by Jewish law, the name of a woman could not be mentioned in a genealogy, but you wished to trace a womanâs line, how would you go about doing so? The answer is that you would use the name of her husband.
However, if the husbandâs name were used, that raises a second question. Suppose somebody picked up a genealogy to read; how would he know whether the genealogy is that of the husband or that of the wife because, in either case, it would be the husbandâs name that was used?
The answer to that riddle lies in a problem with the English language which does not exist with the Greek or Hebrew languages. In English, it is not good grammar to put the word "the" before a proper name. We do not use a definite article before a proper name; such as, the Matthew, the Luke, the Mary, the John. However, this is quite permissible in both Greek and Hebrew grammar. The Greek text of Lukeâs genealogy is very interesting because of this. In the Greek text, every single name mentioned in the genealogy of Luke has the definite article "the" with one exception, and that is the name of Joseph. His name does not have the definite article "the" in front of it.
What that would mean to someone reading the original is this: when he saw the definite article missing from Josephâs name while it was present in all the other names, it would mean that this was not really Josephâs genealogy, rather, it is Maryâs genealogy. So, in keeping with Jewish law, it was the husbandâs name which was used. We have two examples of this in the Old Testament: Ezra_2:61 and Nehemiah_7:63.
Lukeâs genealogy traces the line of Mary and portrays how Jesus could claim the Throne of David. The line is traced until it returns to the family of David (vv._31-32). However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. The important point here is that Mary was a member of the House of David totally apart from Jechoniah.
Since Jesus was Maryâs son, He, too, was a member of the House of David, totally apart from the curse of Jechoniah. In this manner, He fulfilled the first Old Testament requirement for kingship.
However, Yeshua was not the only member of the House of David apart from Jechoniah. There were a number of other descendants who could claim equality with Yeshua to the Throne of David, for they, too, did not have Jechoniahâs blood in their veins. At this point, it is important to note the second Old Testament requirement for kingship: divine appointment. Of all the members of the House of David apart from Jechoniah, only One received divine appointment.
We read in Luke_1:30-33:
30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. 31And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
The final question is: On what grounds can it be said that Lukeâs account is actually Maryâs genealogy? While there is much evidence to support this, it will be necessary to limit it to only three lines of argument.
First, the Talmud itself refers to Mary as the daughter of Heli. It is obvious, then, that in long-standing Jewish tradition, Mary was recognized to be the daughter of Heli as mentioned in Luke_3:23.
Secondly, although most versions translate Luke_3:23 as follows:
... being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli ...
That same Greek phrase could easily be translated in a different way. While all of the names in Lukeâs genealogy are preceded with the Greek definite article, the name of Joseph is not.
Because of this grammatical point, that same verse could be translated: "being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) the son of Heli." In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Jesus was supposed or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, He was really the descendant of Heli. The absence of Maryâs name is quite in keeping with Jewish practices on genealogies, and it was not unusual for a son-in-law to be listed in his wifeâs genealogy.
The third argument is the obvious viewpoint of the two genealogies. Matthew is clearly writing from the viewpoint of Joseph. Luke, however, is obviously writing from the viewpoint of Mary. So from the context alone, it would appear that Luke is giving Maryâs lineage, because his whole perspective is focused on Mary.
(It's amazing what you find on the internet)
If, by Jewish law, the name of a woman could not be mentioned in a genealogy, but you wished to trace a womanâs line, how would you go about doing so? The answer is that you would use the name of her husband.
However, if the husbandâs name were used, that raises a second question. Suppose somebody picked up a genealogy to read; how would he know whether the genealogy is that of the husband or that of the wife because, in either case, it would be the husbandâs name that was used?
The answer to that riddle lies in a problem with the English language which does not exist with the Greek or Hebrew languages. In English, it is not good grammar to put the word "the" before a proper name. We do not use a definite article before a proper name; such as, the Matthew, the Luke, the Mary, the John. However, this is quite permissible in both Greek and Hebrew grammar. The Greek text of Lukeâs genealogy is very interesting because of this. In the Greek text, every single name mentioned in the genealogy of Luke has the definite article "the" with one exception, and that is the name of Joseph. His name does not have the definite article "the" in front of it.
What that would mean to someone reading the original is this: when he saw the definite article missing from Josephâs name while it was present in all the other names, it would mean that this was not really Josephâs genealogy, rather, it is Maryâs genealogy. So, in keeping with Jewish law, it was the husbandâs name which was used. We have two examples of this in the Old Testament: Ezra_2:61 and Nehemiah_7:63.
Lukeâs genealogy traces the line of Mary and portrays how Jesus could claim the Throne of David. The line is traced until it returns to the family of David (vv._31-32). However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. The important point here is that Mary was a member of the House of David totally apart from Jechoniah.
Since Jesus was Maryâs son, He, too, was a member of the House of David, totally apart from the curse of Jechoniah. In this manner, He fulfilled the first Old Testament requirement for kingship.
However, Yeshua was not the only member of the House of David apart from Jechoniah. There were a number of other descendants who could claim equality with Yeshua to the Throne of David, for they, too, did not have Jechoniahâs blood in their veins. At this point, it is important to note the second Old Testament requirement for kingship: divine appointment. Of all the members of the House of David apart from Jechoniah, only One received divine appointment.
We read in Luke_1:30-33:
30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. 31And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
The final question is: On what grounds can it be said that Lukeâs account is actually Maryâs genealogy? While there is much evidence to support this, it will be necessary to limit it to only three lines of argument.
First, the Talmud itself refers to Mary as the daughter of Heli. It is obvious, then, that in long-standing Jewish tradition, Mary was recognized to be the daughter of Heli as mentioned in Luke_3:23.
Secondly, although most versions translate Luke_3:23 as follows:
... being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli ...
That same Greek phrase could easily be translated in a different way. While all of the names in Lukeâs genealogy are preceded with the Greek definite article, the name of Joseph is not.
Because of this grammatical point, that same verse could be translated: "being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) the son of Heli." In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Jesus was supposed or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, He was really the descendant of Heli. The absence of Maryâs name is quite in keeping with Jewish practices on genealogies, and it was not unusual for a son-in-law to be listed in his wifeâs genealogy.
The third argument is the obvious viewpoint of the two genealogies. Matthew is clearly writing from the viewpoint of Joseph. Luke, however, is obviously writing from the viewpoint of Mary. So from the context alone, it would appear that Luke is giving Maryâs lineage, because his whole perspective is focused on Mary.
(It's amazing what you find on the internet)
Quote from teasinggtara:
The Jewish bible, the Tanakh, makes it clear that the TRIBAL LINEAGE follows the father's line, but the child's Jewish heritage, or place in the Jewish family, is matrilineal. The reason why Judaism is matrilineal: because we always know who the mother is
If, by Jewish law, the name of a woman could not be mentioned in a genealogy, but you wished to trace a womanâs line, how would you go about doing so? The answer is that you would use the name of her husband.
However, if the husbandâs name were used, that raises a second question. Suppose somebody picked up a genealogy to read; how would he know whether the genealogy is that of the husband or that of the wife because, in either case, it would be the husbandâs name that was used?
The answer to that riddle lies in a problem with the English language which does not exist with the Greek or Hebrew languages. In English, it is not good grammar to put the word "the" before a proper name. We do not use a definite article before a proper name; such as, the Matthew, the Luke, the Mary, the John. However, this is quite permissible in both Greek and Hebrew grammar. The Greek text of Lukeâs genealogy is very interesting because of this. In the Greek text, every single name mentioned in the genealogy of Luke has the definite article "the" with one exception, and that is the name of Joseph. His name does not have the definite article "the" in front of it.
What that would mean to someone reading the original is this: when he saw the definite article missing from Josephâs name while it was present in all the other names, it would mean that this was not really Josephâs genealogy, rather, it is Maryâs genealogy. So, in keeping with Jewish law, it was the husbandâs name which was used. We have two examples of this in the Old Testament: Ezra_2:61 and Nehemiah_7:63.
Lukeâs genealogy traces the line of Mary and portrays how Jesus could claim the Throne of David. The line is traced until it returns to the family of David (vv._31-32). However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. The important point here is that Mary was a member of the House of David totally apart from Jechoniah.
Since Jesus was Maryâs son, He, too, was a member of the House of David, totally apart from the curse of Jechoniah. In this manner, He fulfilled the first Old Testament requirement for kingship.
However, Yeshua was not the only member of the House of David apart from Jechoniah. There were a number of other descendants who could claim equality with Yeshua to the Throne of David, for they, too, did not have Jechoniahâs blood in their veins. At this point, it is important to note the second Old Testament requirement for kingship: divine appointment. Of all the members of the House of David apart from Jechoniah, only One received divine appointment.
We read in Luke_1:30-33:
30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. 31And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
The final question is: On what grounds can it be said that Lukeâs account is actually Maryâs genealogy? While there is much evidence to support this, it will be necessary to limit it to only three lines of argument.
First, the Talmud itself refers to Mary as the daughter of Heli. It is obvious, then, that in long-standing Jewish tradition, Mary was recognized to be the daughter of Heli as mentioned in Luke_3:23.
Secondly, although most versions translate Luke_3:23 as follows:
... being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli ...
That same Greek phrase could easily be translated in a different way. While all of the names in Lukeâs genealogy are preceded with the Greek definite article, the name of Joseph is not.
Because of this grammatical point, that same verse could be translated: "being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) the son of Heli." In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Jesus was supposed or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, He was really the descendant of Heli. The absence of Maryâs name is quite in keeping with Jewish practices on genealogies, and it was not unusual for a son-in-law to be listed in his wifeâs genealogy.
The third argument is the obvious viewpoint of the two genealogies. Matthew is clearly writing from the viewpoint of Joseph. Luke, however, is obviously writing from the viewpoint of Mary. So from the context alone, it would appear that Luke is giving Maryâs lineage, because his whole perspective is focused on Mary.
(It's amazing what you find on the internet)
It is amazing, and also based solely on conjecture and specious reasoning. It is based on the unwarranted assumption--guess--that when Luke went through the family history of Joseph, he actually meant Mary. But yet it is not Luke's fault, but the fault of translators.
This is all guessing.
Luke is "obviously writing" from the viewpoint of Mary. No, it is not obvious.
The more likely explanation is that the gospel writers made up some of the family history, just like they made up some of the dialogue. These books are not historical as much as they are (admittedly) propagandistic.
Your above statement is incorrect. The historical evidence is easily observable.
I guess it would depend on who is damning what facts.
Leaving the witness of the writings of the early church fathers aside, the Peschito was translated from the Greek around 150 A.D. and the Old Latin Vulgate around 157 A.D. Since these were translations, there was obviously a working manuscript previous to the translation.
Actually, the oldest extant "complete" gospel texts date from later than that...more like 350 CE (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus), though there do exist some older fragments.
The gospel texts were likely written during the mid to late 1st century. But what we have now must be understood as being the end result of 250 years of copying, and probably editing.
Sorry, the minority texts you reference are not the "oldest", Tatian's Diateserian, which harmonized the four Gospels was written around 150 A.D. thereby predating your examples.
All of the Gospels were likely written before A.D. 100, but none were written until decades after the events described therein had already taken place.
They are not primary source documents.
They are not primary source documents.