Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is Jesus son of David
Message-ID: <655@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 15:32:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.655
Posted: Fri Aug  2 15:32:18 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 05:58:00 EDT
References: <1278@uwmacc.UUCP> <615@cybvax0.UUCP> <1293@uwmacc.UUCP> <940@umcp-cs.UUCP> <2194@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 45

In article <2194@sdcrdcf.UUCP> glenn@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Glenn C. Scott) writes:
> > [Mike Huybensz]
> > Then how do you account for the fact that in Matt there are 26 generations
> > between David and Joseph and that in Luke there are 41?  Each with a
> > "begat" or "son of" between?  That can't be accounted for by name changes.
>
> > Matt: Joseph, (9 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (14 ommitted), David.
> > Luke: Joseph, (18 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (20 ommitted), David.
> 
> ... There are other cases in the Old Testament of reciting a lineage and
> excluding individuals of no great importance...
> 
>   The only reason I've been able to come up with for having both the lineage
> of Joseph *and* Mary recorded is to simply show that no matter which side of
> the parents you chose to establish ancestry Jesus' father and mother both
> qualify as decendants of David.

Both these attempted rationalizations have major weaknesses.

First, there is a limited amount of time for those generations to have occurred
between David and JC.  A rough chronology is 1000 years.  40 generations allows
an average age at parenthood of 25, and 25 generations allows an average age of
40.  Assuming (and it is far-fetched) that the different authors differed so
very much (under the putative guidance of the holy spirit?) on who was
important and who not, that would make a total of about 65 generations
(minimum) which would allow an average age at parenthood of less than 16.
Subtract 9 months of gestation, and you're getting below 15.  That's starting
to get rather improbable.

The second rationalization has two major counts against it.  There is
NO biblical justification for interpreting the two as Joseph and Mary's
geneologies.  And why would the geneologies differ between David ... Shealtiel,
Zerubbable?  Again you would need to suggest that the Holy Spirit changed its
mind about whether odd or even generations were worth recording.  (<-sarcasm)
Unless (of course!) you want to suggest that Shealtiel son of Zerubbable was
as likely to be duplicated as Bob son of John.  :-(  On no evidence whatsoever.

The plain, simple explanation is that one or both geneologies were made up, to
satisfy the simple prophetic (in the sense of being predicted, and in the sense
of being needed to be the next prophet) requirement that JC be descended from
David.  The contorted explanations might solve the problem, except that a
little thought shows that they just don't work.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh