The Genealogies of Jesus and the Laws of Logic
This is a follow-up to my last post "The Gospel of Matthew Debunks the Messiahship of Jesus." There is nothing like applying the standards of logic to a hopelessly irrational target like the genealogies of Jesus.
As a reference, I will re-state the laws of logic below
A is A: This is the law of identity:
For a proposition, if it is true, then it is true.
For a thing, it is what it is. A thing is itself.
A or non-A: This is the law of the excluded middle:
For a proposition, it is either true or it is false.
For a thing, it is either A or it is non A, itself or not itself.
A and non A: This is the law of contradiction:
For a proposition, it cannot be both true and false.
For a thing, it cannot be both itself and not itself. Either-or.
For the record, I do not believe that either the genealogy of Jesus as offered in the Gospel of Matther or the one offered in Luke are an accurate genealogy of either the figure of Joseph or Jesus as the case may be. It is my opinion that they were independently concocted by later interpolators for apologetic reasons. Note that the Gospel of Luke which first has attestation in the hands of Marcion (mid 2nd century) did not contain a genealogy, birth stories, or childhood stories. It began with the appearance of Jesus at the Jordan, just like the Gospel of Mark on which it was based.
That said, I will still subject the genealogies Jesus/Joseph as given by Matthew and Luke to the laws of logic.
A is A: A genealogy is the pedigree of a person running through generations of individuals related by normal parentage. If I were to describe the genealogy or pedigree of my Pug, I would list its genetic forbears for as many generations back as possible. If my Pug's grandfather was adopted by a family owning another Pug generated from a previous champion, could I call the genetic line of the champion part of the pedigree of my Pug? Of course not, that would be fraud. But it would also break the meaning of "genealogy." It is important to clarify a concept to be identified as "A". Once that is done, it is what it is. A genealogy is a genealogy. DNA from DNA.
In the case of Matthew's Gospel, the opening chapter purports to be the "genealogy of Jesus, son of David". Though the current form of Matthew does not specifically say that Joseph fathered Jesus, it may have originally, only to be cleaned up by orthodox theologians of the fourth century. Even lacking that statement, it still claims to be the genealogy or pedigree of Jesus linking him as an heir to David through Joseph obviously carrying the implication that Joseph fathered Jesus. Otherwise as a "genealogy" of Jesus, it has no purpose. Since it is claimed to be the Genealogy of Jesus, then it is meant to be the genealogy of Jesus.
In the case of Luke's Gospel, the genealogy runs from Jesus (supposedly fathered by Joseph) back to David. It is a genealogy intending to show that Jesus was descended from David with a royal claim.
A or non-A: If in fact these genealogies are intended to accurately link Jesus or Joseph to David, they must either really be genealogies or they are not really genealogies. The problem exists because the genealogies are entirely different. They link two individuals by Pedigree, David and Joseph. Yet they show lines of descent with no common links. Matthew's genealogy portrays David's line descending through his son Solomon down to Joseph. Luke's genealogy portrays David's line descending through his son Nathan down to Joseph with a completely different set of intermiary names. Simply put, both genealogies cannot be true. Both lists of ancestral fathers without commonality cannot be the pedigree of the same individual. One or the other is excluded.
A and non-A: This is an either-or consideration. At least one of the genealogies is bogus. Both might be bogus, but at least one must be bogus and excluded by the law of contradiction.
This has caused no little consternation for biblicists. For the skeptic, the answer is as plain as the nose on your face. The lists are irreconcilable. Logic prohibits two divergent lists of pedigree as belonging to the same person. Therefore, while both could be false, one certainly is.
The job of the systematic theologian (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is to find a plausible explanation to reconcile the contradiction. Since no actual contradiction can be tolerated,the systematic theologian inserts the word "apparent" before "contradiction." In his mind, there must be a way to smooth over the mountain of logic. In the event of the problem at hand, the ingenious theologian simply redefines the concept. Though both genealogies clearly state that the line descends from David to Joseph, and since both lists cannot be the ancestors of the same individual, one must posit that they are both genealogies of Jesus, but one (Matthew's) is the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke's is the genealogy of Mary. That way, all the problems are smoothed over. The worried believer can rest in the peace that greater minds have overcome the obstacles and that biblical inerrancy has once again triumphed over the powers of reason.
However, this can only be done by assuming that both genealogies of Jesus are true (they just have to be because the Bible says so) and that the introduction of Mary as the true descendent of the genealogy, cleverly disguised as Joseph so as not to offend partiarchal sentiments, is the best way to outmaneuver the laws of logic.
Read the words of the systematic theologian, Dr. William Smith, "They are both the genealogies of Joseph...Mary, the mother of Jesus WAS IN ALL PROBABILITY the daughter of Jacob, and first cousin to Joseph, her husband...(Godet, Lange and many others take the ground that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary). Mary's name was omitted because 'ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link." emphasis supplied.
What an ingenious exercise. He argues from that which is probable in his own mind to that which he wishes to be true. By suggesting a probability with no textual support whatsoever and quoting that some scholars "take the ground" that Mary (unmentioned in the text as part of the genealogy) and not Joseph (who is actually mentioned in the text as the descendent) the systematic theologiann amasses the appearance of solid argumentation built upon nothing more than a pious imagination meant to fool the average dupe in the pew into thinking that the Bible has once again been successfully defended against the wiles of satan (logic).
As a reference, I will re-state the laws of logic below
A is A: This is the law of identity:
For a proposition, if it is true, then it is true.
For a thing, it is what it is. A thing is itself.
A or non-A: This is the law of the excluded middle:
For a proposition, it is either true or it is false.
For a thing, it is either A or it is non A, itself or not itself.
A and non A: This is the law of contradiction:
For a proposition, it cannot be both true and false.
For a thing, it cannot be both itself and not itself. Either-or.
For the record, I do not believe that either the genealogy of Jesus as offered in the Gospel of Matther or the one offered in Luke are an accurate genealogy of either the figure of Joseph or Jesus as the case may be. It is my opinion that they were independently concocted by later interpolators for apologetic reasons. Note that the Gospel of Luke which first has attestation in the hands of Marcion (mid 2nd century) did not contain a genealogy, birth stories, or childhood stories. It began with the appearance of Jesus at the Jordan, just like the Gospel of Mark on which it was based.
That said, I will still subject the genealogies Jesus/Joseph as given by Matthew and Luke to the laws of logic.
A is A: A genealogy is the pedigree of a person running through generations of individuals related by normal parentage. If I were to describe the genealogy or pedigree of my Pug, I would list its genetic forbears for as many generations back as possible. If my Pug's grandfather was adopted by a family owning another Pug generated from a previous champion, could I call the genetic line of the champion part of the pedigree of my Pug? Of course not, that would be fraud. But it would also break the meaning of "genealogy." It is important to clarify a concept to be identified as "A". Once that is done, it is what it is. A genealogy is a genealogy. DNA from DNA.
In the case of Matthew's Gospel, the opening chapter purports to be the "genealogy of Jesus, son of David". Though the current form of Matthew does not specifically say that Joseph fathered Jesus, it may have originally, only to be cleaned up by orthodox theologians of the fourth century. Even lacking that statement, it still claims to be the genealogy or pedigree of Jesus linking him as an heir to David through Joseph obviously carrying the implication that Joseph fathered Jesus. Otherwise as a "genealogy" of Jesus, it has no purpose. Since it is claimed to be the Genealogy of Jesus, then it is meant to be the genealogy of Jesus.
In the case of Luke's Gospel, the genealogy runs from Jesus (supposedly fathered by Joseph) back to David. It is a genealogy intending to show that Jesus was descended from David with a royal claim.
A or non-A: If in fact these genealogies are intended to accurately link Jesus or Joseph to David, they must either really be genealogies or they are not really genealogies. The problem exists because the genealogies are entirely different. They link two individuals by Pedigree, David and Joseph. Yet they show lines of descent with no common links. Matthew's genealogy portrays David's line descending through his son Solomon down to Joseph. Luke's genealogy portrays David's line descending through his son Nathan down to Joseph with a completely different set of intermiary names. Simply put, both genealogies cannot be true. Both lists of ancestral fathers without commonality cannot be the pedigree of the same individual. One or the other is excluded.
A and non-A: This is an either-or consideration. At least one of the genealogies is bogus. Both might be bogus, but at least one must be bogus and excluded by the law of contradiction.
This has caused no little consternation for biblicists. For the skeptic, the answer is as plain as the nose on your face. The lists are irreconcilable. Logic prohibits two divergent lists of pedigree as belonging to the same person. Therefore, while both could be false, one certainly is.
The job of the systematic theologian (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is to find a plausible explanation to reconcile the contradiction. Since no actual contradiction can be tolerated,the systematic theologian inserts the word "apparent" before "contradiction." In his mind, there must be a way to smooth over the mountain of logic. In the event of the problem at hand, the ingenious theologian simply redefines the concept. Though both genealogies clearly state that the line descends from David to Joseph, and since both lists cannot be the ancestors of the same individual, one must posit that they are both genealogies of Jesus, but one (Matthew's) is the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke's is the genealogy of Mary. That way, all the problems are smoothed over. The worried believer can rest in the peace that greater minds have overcome the obstacles and that biblical inerrancy has once again triumphed over the powers of reason.
However, this can only be done by assuming that both genealogies of Jesus are true (they just have to be because the Bible says so) and that the introduction of Mary as the true descendent of the genealogy, cleverly disguised as Joseph so as not to offend partiarchal sentiments, is the best way to outmaneuver the laws of logic.
Read the words of the systematic theologian, Dr. William Smith, "They are both the genealogies of Joseph...Mary, the mother of Jesus WAS IN ALL PROBABILITY the daughter of Jacob, and first cousin to Joseph, her husband...(Godet, Lange and many others take the ground that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary). Mary's name was omitted because 'ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link." emphasis supplied.
What an ingenious exercise. He argues from that which is probable in his own mind to that which he wishes to be true. By suggesting a probability with no textual support whatsoever and quoting that some scholars "take the ground" that Mary (unmentioned in the text as part of the genealogy) and not Joseph (who is actually mentioned in the text as the descendent) the systematic theologiann amasses the appearance of solid argumentation built upon nothing more than a pious imagination meant to fool the average dupe in the pew into thinking that the Bible has once again been successfully defended against the wiles of satan (logic).