Genealogy Of Jesus

[ExCBooster]

A couple things, I think, work together in my mind to address the issue of Jesus' genealogy and historicity.

 

First, another question: was Robin Hood a real, historical person? This is actually a pretty interesting parallel. Real, historical people are mentioned in the Robin Hood legends, like King Richard the Lionheart. There's also speculation that Robin Hood is an alias or corruption of the name and identity of a real, historical person, like Roger Godberd, or the Earl of Huntington. (Who certainly had genealogies.) Aside from the question of whether Robin Hood was based on a real outlaw, the other question remains whether the Robin Hood of legend still bears enough resemblance to these seeds of possible truth to be considered the same. There may have been a real outlaw in Sherwood forest with a band of brigands. Does this mean that Robin Hood was a real person, in all the details of his legend, who really robbed from the rich to give to the poor, and really participated in a tournament in disguise and split an arrow, and really shacked up with the winsome Maid Marian, and lived in Sherwood Forest with Friar Tuck, and Little John, and his Merry Men, all in Lincoln Green? Erm, no. It's still fiction.

 

So, just because a legend might have a kernel of truth behind it doesn't anywhere near validate the whole thing. The question of Jesus' genealogy could well be irrelevant, in this sense, as well as in the sense that the hypothetical "historical Jesus" isn't the same man as his 2000 year later distorted legend.

 

Second, the genealogy of Jesus is desperately necessary to the effectiveness of the gospels in the context of the culture of the time. Anyone who was anyone could rattle off their forebears, and it better be the Right kind of family, too. There's whole vast lists of begats, back in the the Old Testament, for this very reason. A genealogy is legitimating. Also, Jesus has to have a virgin mom, who was immaculately conceived, in order to take care of the whole "original sin" thing. It's a major plot point, really. And, naturally, Mary's got to be married, because we can't be having her give birth to said baby out of wedlock. Hence Joseph. He can't be the papa, but he has to be there. So, the only parts of the genealogy that are consistent are actually necessary for the message of the story. These extenuating circumstances make me even more skeptical of this genealogy and Jesus being a real person than I am of Robin Hood. I'm not saying he can't possibly have existed, but I am saying there's a heck of a lot of motive to make the genealogy up and include it in the legend.

[Blood]

Yes, even McCulloch and especially Beckford always state their theories with caveats such as "as far as we can tell", "the evidence suggests", "there are lots of competing theories, but I think...".  For these sorts of matters, I put an emphasis on the stuff that comes out of academia, as I feel its more rigorous than a lot of stuff out there, say Joseph Atwills theories. 

 

I would agree that Jesus of the Bible was mythical.  I feel the myths are based on a real man however, probably a learned paranoid schizophrenic, whose croonies wanted to make a living using his legacy after his death.  Some version of this taken by academia, and even entertained by people like Justin Welby (current archbishop of canterbury), albeit in a dilute form.

 

What sources did you read / research that state Jesus was a total myth?  Always interested in widening my horizons!

 

Anything by Robert M. Price would be a good start, but really, just read some critical scholarship for awhile and it all starts to collapse. Also Thomas Brodie. 

 

I take the more radical view that Paul and the apostles are also mythical, which is beyond the pale even for people who may entertain the idea that Jesus was mythical. My point is that it's all theology and literary. None of these people existed. None of these events actually happened. 

[Blood]

A couple things, I think, work together in my mind to address the issue of Jesus' genealogy and historicity.

 

First, another question: was Robin Hood a real, historical person? This is actually a pretty interesting parallel. Real, historical people are mentioned in the Robin Hood legends, like King Richard the Lionheart. There's also speculation that Robin Hood is an alias or corruption of the name and identity of a real, historical person, like Roger Godberd, or the Earl of Huntington. (Who certainly had genealogies.) Aside from the question of whether Robin Hood was based on a real outlaw, the other question remains whether the Robin Hood of legend still bears enough resemblance to these seeds of possible truth to be considered the same. There may have been a real outlaw in Sherwood forest with a band of brigands. Does this mean that Robin Hood was a real person, in all the details of his legend, who really robbed from the rich to give to the poor, and really participated in a tournament in disguise and split an arrow, and really shacked up with the winsome Maid Marian, and lived in Sherwood Forest with Friar Tuck, and Little John, and his Merry Men, all in Lincoln Green? Erm, no. It's still fiction.

 

So, just because a legend might have a kernel of truth behind it doesn't anywhere near validate the whole thing. The question of Jesus' genealogy could well be irrelevant, in this sense, as well as in the sense that the hypothetical "historical Jesus" isn't the same man as his 2000 year later distorted legend.

 

Second, the genealogy of Jesus is desperately necessary to the effectiveness of the gospels in the context of the culture of the time. Anyone who was anyone could rattle off their forebears, and it better be the Right kind of family, too. There's whole vast lists of begats, back in the the Old Testament, for this very reason. A genealogy is legitimating. Also, Jesus has to have a virgin mom, who was immaculately conceived, in order to take care of the whole "original sin" thing. It's a major plot point, really. And, naturally, Mary's got to be married, because we can't be having her give birth to said baby out of wedlock. Hence Joseph. He can't be the papa, but he has to be there. So, the only parts of the genealogy that are consistent are actually necessary for the message of the story. These extenuating circumstances make me even more skeptical of this genealogy and Jesus being a real person than I am of Robin Hood. I'm not saying he can't possibly have existed, but I am saying there's a heck of a lot of motive to make the genealogy up and include it in the legend.

 

I'm well aware of the Robin Hood legends, and highly recommend JC Holt's book on the subject if you want to pursue this area deeper. 

 

In fact the main reason I became interested in "the historical Jesus" was the earlier interest I had in the folklore surrounding such figures as Robin Hood, Ned Ludd, John Henry, and so forth. Were they real people, around whom legends and myths developed, or did the legend come first, succeeded by a desire to validate the legend by historicizing? That is the tantalizing mystery at the heart of all folkloric figures.

 

What is surprising in the Jesus example is how the "real person who became legend" position is simply considered the default, even by skeptics. Why is that? Nearly everything in the gospels is fantastically mythical to the nth degree. You can go through them point by point and rationalize the myths, as you have done here with the genealogy, but why? I could do the same thing with 1001 Arabian Nights, the story of Phrixus, the Hadith, or any other book of myth and fantasy. 

[Joshpantera]

 

What do you guys think about Jesus and his genealogy? Do you think Jesus was a real man, with real ancestors (David, Ruth, and all the like), but he just wasn't divine? Or do you think the whole thing was made up, like if I were to sit down with a pen and paper and invent a genealogy for my book character? Do you think some of the people were real, but not related to Jesus? Any other thoughts?

 

Only the super rich and powerful had any way of keeping family genealogies, and even then, it would only be from when they attained their power/wealth. 

 

Peasants had no idea what their genealogy was and didn't care. They had no way of keeping such records. There were no "family bibles" to write birth dates in. Even if there were, they couldn't write anyway.

 

Like most people, Jews didn't have "last names." You were simply called "Simon, son of Benjamin." This tradition lasted until the 18th-19th Century! 

 

So the idea that this peasant "Jesus Ben Joseph" could trace his ancestry back A THOUSAND YEARS to King David is the first clue that the New Testament is bullshit. Not just ordinary bullshit, but big-time, major leagues bullshit of a rare order. 

 

And further more, that the genealogy connects Joseph to David and then specifies that Joseph is NOT the father, but rather YHWH - that's one of the many contradictions in the NT. So he's not even of the line of David, no royal blood as it were, but simply a step child of sorts.

 

It's like on one hand they wanted to include the pagan idea of virgin birth for a God-man, but also had to include some type of lineage to David so then they just tossed in a link from Joseph to David for the hell of combining the idea of a Jewish Messiah King with the gentile Godman motif.  

[WarriorPoet]

 

 

George R. R. Martin can write better fiction than the gospels of Matthew or Luke.

I could talk all day about the role of religion in westerosi society. May the warrior grant us courage and the crone guide us in her wisdom, for the night is dark and full of terrors!

 

 

 

Heretic!  The God of Light is the only true God!

 

"There is only one god and his name is Death.  And there is only one thing we say to Death: 'Not today'."

[themonkeyman]

Well considering his Geneologies dont balance and considering we have never found any evidence of Jesus existing outside of written works!  Surely someone was bound to have bought a chair he made or something lol.

 

Also - I am of the strong opinion that Jesus mother had sex with a roman solider as she was a whore of the town and Joseph upon discovering this is suspicious of Mary. As Celsus notes and Julian the Apostate notes - This shows up quite clearly in Mark but on later works is removed obviously because of Criticisim.