Stephen C. Carlson and the Matthean genealogy.

[DCHindley]

Just joshin' with ya, Ben.

I did pick up on your direction in the OP right away.

WRT the possibility of three dynastic lists in the Gospel of Matthew, it seems that a lot of effort - maybe too much - is required to "get" them out of the existing text, unless the author of Matthew encountered them in sources, and wasn't quite sure what he was dealing with and confused them in a sort of summary.

DCH

[Ben C. Smith]

WRT the possibility of three dynastic lists in the Gospel of Matthew, it seems that a lot of effort - maybe too much - is required to "get" them out of the existing text, unless the author of Matthew encountered them in sources, and wasn't quite sure what he was dealing with and confused them in a sort of summary.

Three? I count two: one that Matthew found, and the one that Matthew turned it into.

[DCHindley]

WRT the possibility of three dynastic lists in the Gospel of Matthew, it seems that a lot of effort - maybe too much - is required to "get" them out of the existing text, unless the author of Matthew encountered them in sources, and wasn't quite sure what he was dealing with and confused them in a sort of summary.

Three? I count two: one that Matthew found, and the one that Matthew turned it into.

I was thinking of your comment about the proposal of Ernst Lerle,

which Carlson has pressed into service in order to explain the genealogy that Matthew reworked. He proposes that the original genealogy contained the mentions of brothers, while Matthew himself added the women in anticipation of the virgin birth from Mary. He also proposes that the original genealogy was as symmetrical as one might wish, but ended at Joseph, and Matthew had to spoil the symmetry a bit by adding Jesus:

Abraham Isaac Jacob Judah Perez Hezron Aram Amminadab Nahshon Salmon Boaz Obed Jesse David (14)

David Solomon Rehoboam Abijah Asaph Jehoshaphat Joram Uzziah Jotham Ahaz Hezekiah Manasseh Amos Josiah (14)

Josiah Jechoniah Shealtiel Zerubbabel Abiud Eliakim Azor Zadok Achim Eliud Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph (14)

Notice that there are now 40 generations in total from Abraham to Joseph, counting inclusively: 40, with all its heavy scriptural symbolism. Notice also that both David (the messianic king par excellence) and Josiah (the last good king) are doubled up. This is a royal lineage, to be sure.

It would be nice, symmetrical, and "royal" but I would not know where one might find any other such neat 14 name symmetrical royal lineages. What would be their purpose? Why 14 names each? It may be too good to be true.

DCH

[Secret Alias]

The one thing I can do is remember things in the Church Fathers without having the books in front of me:

And in the Gospel according to Matthew, the genealogy which begins with Abraham is continued down to Mary the mother of the Lord. "For," it is said, "from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon till Christ are likewise other fourteen generations," -- three mystic intervals completed in six weeks.

[Ben C. Smith]

Notice that there are now 40 generations in total from Abraham to Joseph, counting inclusively: 40, with all its heavy scriptural symbolism. Notice also that both David (the messianic king par excellence) and Josiah (the last good king) are doubled up. This is a royal lineage, to be sure.

It would be nice, symmetrical, and "royal" but I would not know where one might find any other such neat 14 name symmetrical royal lineages.

Other lineages based on the number 14? Not too terribly likely, I suppose, since I think that the number 14 came from Davidic gematria (as per the OP). But other lineages based on numerological schemes of some kind? One must look no further than the Lucan genealogy, 77 generations in all with a tendency to place important figures at the head of septads. There is also, IIRC, a genealogy in 1 Chronicles that follows numerological principles. And of course the Table of Nations in Genesis is numerological.

What would be their purpose?

Ease of memorization and/or heavy numerical symbolism.

Why 14 names each?

David = 14.

It may be too good to be true.

Of course it is too good to be true. I mean, the 14 names from Abraham to David (counting inclusively) may be a coincidence (then again, maybe that number was pure Davidic gematria even in the Jewish scriptures), but to get the next 14 this genealogy has to drop a handful of names, and we do not know enough about those in the third set of 14 to know whether names were dropped, names were added, or the names were invented pretty much from top to bottom.

But I thought all of that was pretty clear between the OP and the article, so I may be misunderstanding you.

Ben.

[DCHindley]

It may be too good to be true.

Of course it is too good to be true. I mean, the 14 names from Abraham to David (counting inclusively) may be a coincidence (then again, maybe that number was pure Davidic gematria even in the Jewish scriptures), but to get the next 14 this genealogy has to drop a handful of names, and we do not know enough about those in the third set of 14 to know whether names were dropped, names were added, or the names were invented pretty much from top to bottom.

But I thought all of that was pretty clear between the OP and the article, so I may be misunderstanding you.

Well, then "of course" I am likely misunderstanding you. Citing Carlson as part of the reasoning may be part of it, as most folks here just do not read his stuff, probably for the same reasons I don't, he tends to speak in double talk.

Perhaps you can restate your own personal question without readers having to deduce it from a series of statements?

DCH (I've got a lot of things to do today, so ...)

[JoeWallack]

JW:

Date	Apologist	Source	Apology	Commentary
1968	Raymond Brown	The New Jerome Biblical Commentary	629 Mark probably assumed some familiarity among his readers with the appearance traditions, and so he chose to end the Gospel subtly and dramatically by leaving the readers acknowledging the resurrection and looking forward to the parousia.	"subtly and dramatically"? A hopelax legoame. Brown did not write this but he was an editor of the book so presumably he agreed. Here we have the traditional related Christian apology, "Mark" (author) did not provide supposed known witness to a resurrected Jesus because his readers already knew who they were. This is of course ridiculous/comical or as Brown would say, "fantastic", because: 1. As far as we know GMark is the original Gospel narrative that all others were based on. 2. Most of GMark's hearers probably had never heard of Jesus. 3. Orthodox Christianity has always claimed that the most important assertion of Christianity is that there was known historical witness to a resurrected Jesus. Strange/bizarre/macabre that the original Gospel would not only not show this but put a lot of effort into denying it. Brown was the outstanding CBS scholar of his time writing the classics Birth and Death. He always said he also wanted to write Resurrection but never got around to it. Presumably because he would have to deal in detail with the lack of detail in GMark. For example, showing that GMatthew copied GMark to 16:8 and than the only significant edit was changing the women not telling anyone to the women telling everyone, how do you spin that?
2009	Stephen Carlson	The Function of Mark 16:8	The dominant theme of 16:8 is not the women’s disobedience but their fright. The women were seized with terror and bewilderment (τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις). They were scared (ἐφοβοῦντο). Their actions, too, display their fright. They fled the tomb (ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου), and they did tell anyone. Whatever the function of 16:8 is, it must involve fright. I propose that this theme of fright was meant to enhance, not undercut, the authority of the young man in white.	Carlson wins a pair of Freudian Slippers by mistakenly letting out the conclusion he starts with that he and his co-conspirators try so hard to conceal "and they did tell anyone". His apology tries to use misdirection, switching the point from not following instructions to being afraid. With his (mis)emphasis on emotion he then concludes that the fear of the women was intended to show that, as he wrote, "they did tell anyone", rather then what the author wrote, "they did not tell anyone". In Carlson's blog, the fear of the man/angel/Stranger Thing, made the women afraid of disobeying him. So the not telling anyone was connected to their reaction to that Thing and not to their not telling anyone. That goes beyond naughty. I think Rakovsky should go Judas on Carlson and make him do Russian twists until he confesses that he is an Apologist and not a Bible Scholar. Note also the cumulative discrediting of each individual Apology. For all of the contributors here to each make up their own God-awful apology, how bad must they think the other apologies are, not to use them instead.
2011	James McGrath	Mark’s Missing Ending: Clues from the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Peter	This lack of closure may perhaps have seemed less problematic in the context of early Christian communities in which visions of the risen Christ were part of their religious experience. It also needs to be placed in the context of a vibrant oral tradition that was both the author’s and the readers' primary mode of contact with stories about Jesus. There can be no doubt that, even if the written Gospel of Mark ended at 16:8, the story known to the author and his readers did not.	In plain English, McGrath's apology is that the ending of GMark is not a significant problem for Christian assertian because its lack of post resurrection reunion is not important. But as my five year old son used to retort, "Yes, important." McGrath ignores/denies/exorcises the most important related issue as far as Christianity is concerned, what is GMark's evidence as far as Christianity's most important assertian that there was known historical witness to a physically resurrected Jesus? All subsequent Gospels use GMark as a base and the only significant story added is known historical witness to a physically resurrected Jesus. Instead of dealing with the larger and more objective issue of the significance of no known historical witness to a physically resurrected Jesus McGrath throws darts against the bored hitting not just the why but why the why is not a problem scoring not QP but PC (polemically correct) points and can only doublespeak out. The more important observations/issues of 16:8 that McGrath fails to deal with are: 1) The only related certainty we have is that there was no historical witness to a physically resurrected Jesus. If you are afraid and can not speak this than you are not a Bible scholar indeed. All related scientific reasoning must start with this observation. 2) The extant evidence indicates that GMark is the original Gospel narrative. Most hearers would never have previously heard of a Jesus narrative. Based just on GMark they would have no reason to believe there was known historical witness to a physically resurrected Jesus. 3) 2) is consistent with 1). Since historically there was no known historical witness, it's logical that the original narrative would make a lesser conclusion, Jesus was physically resurrected but no claim of known historical witness. 4) The cruncher as the Brits would say, as Christianity turns orthodox (so to speak) all subsequent Gospels want known historical witness to a physically resurrected Jesus, but they still use as a base up to that point a Gospel which doesn't have any. Evidence that there was no such narrative at the time. 5) Thematically, the first two significant Christian authors, Paul/"Mark", want belief based on faith. So they want belief in Jesus' supposed resurrection based on faith. Consistent with 1-4). 6) After looking at Paul/"Mark" (and Q if you like) for evidence of known historical witness to a physically resurrected Jesus it's like the classic Adam Family episode where they give Cousin It a haircut and when they finish there is nothing left. The best explanation for the lack of a presentation of known historical witness to a physically resurrected Jesus in GMark is not only because "Mark" (author) did not believe there was but was unaware of any such claim. There can be no doubt then that instead of teaching history classes at a University McGrath should be teaching Sunday School.
2014	Mark Goodacre	NT Pod 71: Was the ending of Mark's Gospel lost?	12:32 of podcast He just never finished it	First of all, I would rate Goodacre probably among the best Internet CBS (Christian Bible Scolars). His 15 minute podcast is worth it just for the Kronenberg joke. He asks a lot of questions for someone from the Original Jersey. He accepts that 16:8 is likely the original finish but finishes his pod by questioning if "Mark" (author) left his Gospel unfinished. This is a lesser apology but still an apology, asking the wrong related questions. The better question is why "Mark" intentionally finished with 16:8 and what this means for the most important Christian assertian, that there was supposed known historical witness to Jesus' supposed resurrection. For those who need points sharply explained, like Rakovsky, we need to consider and interpret lone wolfs in sheep's clothing lines like 1 Corinthians 15 against the body of GMark and the rest of Paul, rather than vice-verses.
2016	Peter Gurry	Is the Longer Ending of Mark Inspired?	These 12 verses may have been added, but this does not mean they aren’t inspired by God. I count myself among that small group that thinks Mark 16.9–20 is not Mark’s original ending but is still Scripture. These verses are attested early and widely and there is nothing in them that I can see that would discredit them theologically. The fact that they have been received by so many Christians as Scripture seems to me to weigh heavily in their favor.	As a self-proclaimed Bible Scholar he accepts that the evidence indicates the LE is likely not original. With the normal path (evidence) closed to the conclusion he wants and starts with, he then creates a new path, changing the definition of what is Scripture from what was originally written to what (he thinks) was inspired.
2016	Larry Hurtado	Jesus, the Cross, the Women, and Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark	Part of my argument was that Mark 16:8 does not depict the women as disobeying and failing to do what they were told to do–to go to Peter and the Twelve with news of Jesus’ resurrection. Instead, “they said nothing to anyone” should be read as meaning that they said nothing to anyone else.	Standard apologetic technique of ignoring/denying clear, explicit and absolute meaning in favor of unclear, supposed implied and relative meaning. Not to mention that his supposed implication is contradicted by all Internal evidence such as theme, context and style. Note that in the Comments section he further devolves into standard Apologetic defense of moving basis of related discussion to any dissent being based on not reading/understanding/agreeing with his argument rather than the basic issue itself.

Joseph

You Might Be An Antisemite

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think the fact that none of the Gospels following Mark exhibit any commonalities at all in their appearance narratives show that there could not have been any strong tradition about them. The other Gospels all invented completely de novo appearance stories which share no details or overlap and all contradict each other. They also all contradict Paul's chronology in the Corinthians creed.

There is no discernible tradition of an empty tomb before Mark's Gospel. There is no attestation independent of Mark's Gospel. The tomb burial is historically highly implausible in the first place (this realization might be JD Crossan's most lasting contribution to HJ scholarship). Mark says the women didn't tell anybody about it. The authors of all Gospels following Mark are forced to each improvise their own endings, showing no common tradition or agreement. They can't even agree on whether Jesus first appeared in Jerusalem or Galilee. Even by the end of the 1st Century, no common tradition had arisen because John and Luke are still freely inventing appearances. There was at least one non-canonical claim as late as the 2nd Century that Jesus was buried in sand.

It's obvious that there never was a tomb. Mark made it up. The fact that he says the women never told anybody about it shows that he made it up. He is "revealing" it as a secret. It's fiction from beginning to end. Even Bart Ehrman finally realizes this. Do credentialed scholars like Hurtado, McGrath and Goodacre really not see this or are they consciously being dishonest? I often wonder this about apologists. Are they genuinely self-deluded or are they just cynical liars? Take this"

Instead, “they said nothing to anyone” should be read as meaning that they said nothing to anyone else.

Does Hurtado actually believe this horseshit? What happens to critical faculties of these people? What other discipline or field of study accepts rank supernaturalists as credible experts?

[gmx]

How do the discrepancies in Luke's genealogy play into this topic?

[Charles Wilson]

Josephus, Antiquities..., 14, 1, 3:

"But there was a certain friend of Hyrcanus, an Idumean, called Antipater, who was very rich, and in his nature an active and a seditious man; who was at enmity with Aristobulus, and had differences with him on account of his good-will to Hyrcanus. It is true that Nicolatls of Damascus says, that Antipater was of the stock of the principal Jews who came out of Babylon into Judea; but that assertion of his was to gratify Herod, who was his son..."

Matthew 1, 11 - 12 (RSV):

[11] and Josi'ah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
[12] And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoni'ah was the father of She-al'ti-el, and She-al'ti-el the father of Zerub'babel

Before we go Somewhere Over the Rainbow again, we should look to see if there is a more mundane explanation of Matthew's Genealogy - like finding that a Genealogy already existed off the shelf from the writings of Nicholas of Damascus, f'rinstance.

CW