From: DPCP1@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:35:56 EST
Dear John, Chico, and all:
[snip one paragraph]
Unless one deliberately chooses some
extremely late revisionist dating for the gospels,
the genealogies given there are fairly contem-
porary. They have some prima facie value on
that score, subject to consideration of other
evidence.
I have no intention to impeach pedigrees transmitted by oral tradition; I'm
sure everyone on the list realizes that such pedigrees, which are vitally
necessary to the societies that create and remember them, figure prominently
in the histories of many of the families we study (e.g., the Anglo-Saxon
royal lineages, whose historical elements have been demonstrated again and
again--cf. Antony Wagner's discussion of them).
The audience was manifestly Jews, to
whom alone those genealogical claims would
have had Messianic implications. If the gene-
alogies were "fabricated" by Jesus' followers for
their partisan purposes, that same audience had
the means (and its numerous partisans of the
other side, the inclination) to publicly rebut those
claims and put an end to the Nazarene sect by
bringing forth evidence from the national archives
(which, as Josephus, another contemporary, noted,
included extensive genealogies) in the Temple.
But did those archives survive the destruction of 79 CE? See next comment.
Unless Jesus' followers only became active,
or only made the central claim of Jesus' Davidic
descent, after the destruction of the Temple, they
were foolish to make a false claim that could and
would be readily disproved. (The later, and manifestly
partisan, claim that Jesus was the bastard son of
a Roman soldier smacks more of mere slander than
of honest genealogical research in any archives.)
Exactly what happened. The conflicting genealogies for Joseph are in
'Matthew' & 'Luke', the first 2 Gospels written after 79 CE--a time when the
Jerusalem Christian community was likely hoping to claim spiritual
leadership in Judaea. In those circumstances a Davidic genealogy for Jesus
would have had immediate political relevance. ('Mark' was almost certainly
written before 79 CE & 'John' at a significantly later date than either
'Matthew' or 'Luke'.) None the less, it is obviously very hard to square
any such reasoning with the Gospels' concurrent message that Jesus was the
Son of God & not of Joseph.
Probably it's also not valid to say of the differing
gospel genealogies that one of them must be false. If
anywhere, on this list we are aware of individuals with
multiple documentable descents from (for example)
Charlemagne. It seems this would be even more likely
in a much smaller and less-mobile population like that
of First Century B.C.E. Palestine. Could Jesus have
had 3 (one through Mary) or more valid descents from
David a millenium removed ? Probably almost certain,
don't you think ?
As was pointed out in another post in this thread, to which I replied a few
minutes ago, both the 'Matthew' and 'Luke' pedigrees purport to give
Joseph's male-line descent from David. It would certainly not be impossible
for one individual to have multiple descents from someone who lived 1000
years earlier, but Joseph can have had only one male-line descent from
David. One of the 2 pedigrees must be false, whether by outright
fabrication or by human error; given that the political circumstances in
which 'Matthew' and 'Luke' were written favored the inclusion of a Davidic
lineage for Jesus, either fabrication or error would be possible.
Finally, argument from lack of evidence is without
value. Lack of corroboration for the "Slaughter of the
Innocents," the visit of the Magi, or the "Flight Into
Egypt" (and all those other great or mediocre paintings)
doesn't mean the incidents didn't occur. The gospel
accounts are the only evidence we have for them: but
they are evidence, and subject to all the standard means
of evaluation.
They are evidence that these things were BELIEVED to have happened (or that
somebody wanted others to believe they happened), but they are not evidence
that these things actually did happen.
As to the census mentioned in Luke 2:2, the New American Bible (the approved
Roman Catholic version) comments as follows:
"Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28
B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those
who are [sic] not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census
of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New
Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with
Luke's dating the census *when Quirinius was governor of Syria*, and the
various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful. P.
Sulpicius Quirinius became legate of the province of Syria in A.D. 6-7 when
Judea was annexed to the province of Syria.... Luke may simply be combining
Jesus' birth... with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius...
to underline the significance of this birth for the whole Roman world...."
A provincial census of Judea was made when Quirinius was governor, but a
date of CE 6-7 for Jesus' birth is too late to fit any of the other criteria
the Gospels provide (e.g., his birth during the reign of Herod the Great).
Regards
John P.
Best regards, Steve