Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[Shermana]

Why? What do you think you know about the author of gMt that warrants this view?

Besides the fact that the Ebionite version begins at Chapter 3 (demonstrating at least that they at least didn't acknowledge the first 2 chapters as legitimate for whatever possible reason that may be), we have a few glaring issues with Matthew's geneology.

The inclusion of Rahab for example. What's that doing there in a standard Paternal Geneology? Why disclude so many of David's descendents?

Was the Virgin Birth Doctrine Part of the Original Gospels?

thus erroneously connecting as mother and son persons who, according to the Old Testament, lived three hundred years apart from each other.

In Matthew it is Joseph who is informed by an angel of the expected miracle, whereas in Luke it is Mary herself who is so informed

"Matthew's" Genealogy​

The accounts given of this event by Matthew and by Luke differ in almost every single detail, so it will be more convenient to consider each Gospel separately, except in so far as they have any correspondence. Matthew begins with a genealogy of Yeshua showing his descent -- the expected descent of the Messiah who would, according to the literal interpretation of the prophets, resuscitate the ancient glories of Israel as a conquering king -- through Solomon and David (by the wife of Uriah the Hittite), and Jacob and Isaac and Abraham.
This genealogy must have been in existence before the Virgin Birth story was thought of because, if the latter be true, the genealogy is worthless. Unless Joseph was the father of Yeshua the Messiah, there could be no object in tracing the pedigree of Joseph; and if Joseph was the father of Yeshua, the Virgin Birth story is not true!
The genealogy begins as "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ," and ends (in its present form) with the words: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
Now, if Joseph was only the husband of Mary and not the father of Yeshua, the genealogy has no value or meaning as an account of the generation of Yeshua; and Yeshua is not shown to be "the son of David," as is insisted upon throughout the Gospel. Verse sixteen has evidently been altered to suit the new doctrine of the Virgin Birth; and that this was the case is made all the more certain by the fact that in many old manuscript versions of Matthew it is actually stated that "Joseph begat Jesus."
In what is probably the oldest surviving manuscript version of "the Gospel according to St. Matthew," verse sixteen runs: "Jacob begat Joseph; and Joseph, to whom the Virgin Mary was betrothed, begat Jesus who is called the Christ" -- a version which makes the genealogy applicable to Yeshua, but which contradicts the virginity of Mary. Moreover, in this Sinaitic Syriac version the words, "to whom the Virgin Mary was betrothed," are undoubtedly an interpolation. The original must have been simply "Joseph begat Jesus" -- as in the other later manuscripts to which reference has already been made.
Evidently the original genealogy was written when the Virgin Birth story was unknown, and verse sixteen is an attempt to reconcile the older story of a descent from David with the later story of a Virgin Birth. Further evidence that this was the case will appear as we continue our study of the Gospel.

Two Genealogies Compared​

Leaving this question aside for the moment, we will examine the genealogy itself and compare it with the genealogy given in Luke. Including YEHOVAH God, who is put down as the father of Adam, Luke specifies seventy-seven names whereas Matthew -- who omits the first twenty-one of these names -- specifies only forty-one. Thus the pedigree given by Matthew, even after making allowance for the omission of the pre-Abrahamite ancestors, is fifteen generations shorter than that of Luke.
Matthew, presumably in an attempt to obtain the symmetry of three groups of fourteen generations each (to which he refers in 1:17) misses out some of the names given in the corresponding genealogy in Chronicles, and mentions Rachab (Rahab) as the mother of Boaz -- thus erroneously connecting as mother and son persons who, according to the Old Testament, lived three hundred years apart from each other.
Still more important is the fact that after the name of David, whose pedigree is in both cases taken from the Old Testament, the two lists differ almost entirely. Between David and Joseph there are only two names common to both lists, Zorobabel and Salathiel; and these, which are taken from the Old Testament genealogies, come nine generations further back in Luke than in Matthew.
It would, indeed, be an extraordinary thing if the carpenter Joseph could trace an unbroken line of descent for about four thousand years back to Adam. However the authors of these two Gospels pretend that they could do so for him and as (ex hypothesi) they were inspired, both their genealogical trees are correct! How both can be correct and true, when they differ almost entirely in their versions from David downwards, the orthodox have never succeeded in explaining! Both seek to show that Yeshua, as the son of Joseph, descended from David as had been foretold; yet both subsequently or previously explained that Yeshua had no earthly father.
It is unnecessary to deal further with these genealogies because such incongruities as the different number of generations used by "Matthew" and "Luke" (in an attempt to make them fit with the chronology found in the Old Testament) renders these genealogies pure inventions and utterly incompatible with each other and the genealogies found in I Chronicles.

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• The first is rich in annotations, including four mothers and mentioning the brothers of Judah and the brother Zerah of Perez.
• The second spans the Davidic royal line, but omits several generations, ending with “Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.”
• The last, which appears to span only thirteen generations, connects Joseph to Zerubbabel through a series of otherwise unknown names, remarkably few for such a long period.

It reeks of interpolation quite strongly.

 

[gnostic]

All the Gospel writers agreed and wrote the OT principles which Jesus taught. Jesus spoke of HIMSELF as the Son of man and Did NOT deny being the SON of GOD.

Sorry, but it has been a long time, since I have read the Book of Ezekiel, so correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't Ezekiel himself was given the title of "Son of Man"?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why? What do you think you know about the author of gMt that warrants this view?

Besides the fact that the Ebionite version begins at Chapter 3 (demonstrating at least that they at least didn't acknowledge the first 2 chapters as legitimate for whatever possible reason that may be), we have a few glaring issues with Matthew's geneology.

Thanks for predictably avoiding the question.

 

[Shermana]

Thanks for predictably avoiding the question.

By all means please explain how that response warrants "avoiding the question", thanks.

You asked why I think I know something that warrants that view. I explained, with a very informative link which I recommend you take a look at, why I think this.

Likewise, there's the little "JOSEPH BEGAT JESUS" thing which perhaps I should have emphasized. So let me make it more clear so you don't mistakenly think I avoided your question again:

In what is probably the oldest surviving manuscript version of "the Gospel according to St. Matthew," verse sixteen runs: "Jacob begat Joseph; and Joseph, to whom the Virgin Mary was betrothed, begat Jesus who is called the Christ" -

Does that suffice that the oldest known manuscript of Matthew reads "Joseph....BEGAT JESUS"?

Perhaps I should have added: "I don't think the author of gMT was as stupid to suggest things like the idea that Rahab would have given birth to someone 300 years later, and only later interpolators could have been that stupid".

 

[sincerly]

My guess is that it wasn't Matthew who did this but later interpolators.

As well as with Luke. I believe that the long list of geneology included in Luke to make Jesus the son of Joseph (and thus son of David) was the original, and only later they shoehorned in the virgin birth thing without realizing (or caring) that this would render the whole Paternal geneology useless.

Hi Shermana, First off, there was no earthly "paternal line". Secondly, Joseph did marry Mary ,therefore, any children would take on the tribal status of Joseph. That is what the geneological record reflacted. (Just as Ruth[a moabitist] gave linage in the tribe of Benjamin----and to David.)

However, you are aware of that fact. The Prophecies Of GOD are still correct and all such will be fulfilled regardless of the actions of Mankind or adversaries.
There are modern "interpolators" who still would like to change what GOD has stated is truth and "everlasting".

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, First off, there was no earthly "paternal line". Secondly, Joseph did marry Mary ,therefore, any children would take on the tribal status of Joseph. That is what the geneological record reflacted. (Just as Ruth[a moabitist] gave linage in the tribe of Benjamin----and to David.)

However, you are aware of that fact. The Prophecies Of GOD are still correct and all such will be fulfilled regardless of the actions of Mankind or adversaries.
There are modern "interpolators" who still would like to change what GOD has stated is truth and "everlasting".

And there are modern people who think that the finalized version of the Bible is the "Word of GOD" who throw all the evidence contrary to their views out the window and dismiss others who don't believe the Orthodox party line about the scripture being stated "everlasting" truth as "changing the word of GOD'.

With that said, what do you mean there was no Paternal line?

Do you not believe the Prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in Isaiah 8? Have you read Isaiah 8?

PS Ruth may very well have been a spurious interpolated story as many scholars suggest, or have not even origiinally meant to have been a Moabite at all but merely living in the land of Moab. The Talmud answer for this seemingly obvious Torah contradiction is: "A Moabite but not a Moabitess".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., there's the little "JOSEPH BEGAT JESUS" thing which perhaps I should have emphasized.

That is, in fact, more than a little interesting. Can I get a reference for the manuscript and some consensus on dating and translation?

 

[Shermana]

That is, in fact, more than a little interesting. Can I get a reference for the manuscript and some consensus on dating and translation?

Sure:


Journal of Biblical Literature - Google Books

I cannot copy and paste but it should open up to page 185. All I can see about the current scholarly consensus is that some feel it "Should not have a place in the Canonical Gospels" merely because its the minority. But it DOES say "Presumably derived from lost documents or an older tradition".

At least one manuscript preserves what is probably the original wording: "Jacob begat Joseph. Joseph, to whom was espoused Mary the virgin, begat Jesus, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1.16, Sinaitic Syriac Palimpsest).

Birthing a God - The Genealogy of Matthew examined

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Does that suffice that the oldest known manuscript of Matthew reads "Joseph....BEGAT JESUS"?

That is, in fact, more than a little interesting. Can I get a reference for the manuscript and some consensus on dating and translation?

Sure:
Journal of Biblical Literature - Google Books

I cannot copy and paste but it should open up to page 185. All I can see about the current scholarly consensus is that some feel it "Should not have a place in the Canonical Gospels" merely because its the minority. But it DOES say "Presumably derived from lost documents or an older tradition".

So, your boast is simply sloppy exaggeration and distortion. Can you show that this "oldest knows manuscript of Matthew" is in fact the oldest known manuscript? So, for example, is the Sinaitic Palimpsest deemed older than Codex Vaticanus? Older than Codex Sinaiticus? Older that Papyrus 1? As for ...

But it DOES say "Presumably derived from lost documents or an older tradition".​

Yes, it 'DOES', and precisely the same might be said about Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc.

Finally, please note that an article by one man written in a Journal back in 1913 hardly constitutes the consensus of scholarship -- although it's excellent example of intense quote-mining.

 

[CG Didymus]

Jayhawker Soule, the most intense, and meaningful quote I've heard is: "intense quote-mining." To a someone slightly to greatly predisposed to disbelieving New Testament claims that is exactly what Mathew, Paul and others seem to be doing with the Hebrew Bible. Some quotes work and sound like prophesies fulfilled. Others are forced and snatched out of a bigger context. For those that say "the Holy Spirit" guided Mathew into doing it makes it worse. I can pull a verse that might say that God is spirit and another verse where Jesus says that he is not a ghost but real flesh, and yet another verse where Jesus says that the Father is greater than he is, and, therefore, "prove" Biblically that Jesus is not God and therefore it blows the trinity doctrine to pieces.
I think Mathew "mined" the Hebrew Bible. I think early Christians "mined" it to come up with things like the trinity, original sin and other doctrines. I wouldn't mind it accept that some Christians insist that their God is the same yesterday, today and forever. I don't see that. I see an ever-changing Christianity based on continual "mining." Thanks Jayhawker Soule, whether you intended it or not, whether I took you out of context or not, your words inspired me.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think Mathew "mined" the Hebrew Bible. I think early Christians "mined" it to come up with things like the trinity, original sin

Original sin concept comes from Genesis
Aside from that, many of these ideas were actually interpreted by non-Christian Biblical scholars.

cheers!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jayhawker Soule, the most intense, and meaningful quote I've heard is: "intense quote-mining." To a someone slightly to greatly predisposed to disbelieving New Testament claims that is exactly what Mathew, Paul and others seem to be doing with the Hebrew Bible. Some quotes work and sound like prophesies fulfilled. Others are forced and snatched out of a bigger context. For those that say "the Holy Spirit" guided Mathew into doing it makes it worse. I can pull a verse that might say that God is spirit and another verse where Jesus says that he is not a ghost but real flesh, and yet another verse where Jesus says that the Father is greater than he is, and, therefore, "prove" Biblically that Jesus is not God and therefore it blows the trinity doctrine to pieces.
I think Mathew "mined" the Hebrew Bible. I think early Christians "mined" it to come up with things like the trinity, original sin and other doctrines. I wouldn't mind it accept that some Christians insist that their God is the same yesterday, today and forever. I don't see that. I see an ever-changing Christianity based on continual "mining." Thanks Jayhawker Soule, whether you intended it or not, whether I took you out of context or not, your words inspired me.

I see little here that I would necessarily disagree with, but also little that I would find relevant to my criticism of Shermana's posts.

Remember, it is Shemana who seeks to defend some fictive vorlage of gMt when he argues:

My guess is that it wasn't Matthew who did this but later interpolators.

and, when challenged, seeks to support this view claims that are highly questionable at best. It actually matters little to me whether the doctine of the Virgin Birth wad some Mathean midrash or some later interpolation. I simply don't care much for pompous yet vapid argumentation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Original sin concept comes from Genesis

No, it comes from a Christian interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, it comes from a Christian interpretation of Genesis.

so according to Judaism it is possible for one to be without sin?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

so according to Judaism it is possible for one to be without sin?

I tend to be a bit contemptuous of semantic slight of hand. While Judaism has a relatively nuanced position on sin (and, in fact, employed a number of different terms to mean slightly differing things), even if that were not the case there would be a world of difference between rejecting the doctrine of original sin and maintaining that [some] people are sinless. Play your word games with somebody else.

 

[Desert Snake]

Play your word games with somebody else.

No word games here, I thought it was a pretty simple question, considering your earlier statement.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

what does being sinless have to do with the doctrine of original sin?

 

[Desert Snake]

what does being sinless have to do with the doctrine of original sin?

You tell me, I simply asked if according to Judaism it is possible for someone to be sinless

nevermind, if you don't want to answer the question

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Original sin concept comes from Genesis

so according to Judaism it is possible for one to be without sin?

what does being sinless have to do with the doctrine of original sin?

You tell me, I simply asked if according to Judaism it is possible for someone to be sinless

When you're interested in and capable of an honest discussion let me know ...

 

[Desert Snake]

When you're interested in and capable of an honest discussion let me know ...

Uh, yeah, whatever. You seem to be pretty good at avoiding simple questions