CEJ said
vergari said
Omar6741 said
I just heard a claim to the effect that Joseph, the purported husband of Mary, did not really exist, and that Mary was unmarried all her life; Joseph was invented by the early Christians to give Jesus a Davidic lineage through the male line.
What do you all think of that idea?
Probably worth noting that you don’t need to assign the name “Joseph” to Jesus’s father to put him in Davidic lineage.
The simplest answer is that the father of Jesus was named Joseph; but placing him into the House of David was far less likely.
I heard his father was named Pantera, a Roman soldier.
Well, that’s what Celsus told me anyway.
Well, Celsus was eyewitness to the conception. So it’s hard to dismiss his account.
JAS said
For the first part, I assume that the claim is that Mary and Joseph were first cousins. I have no idea about the second part, unless it is being suggested that they were directly related to a jungle animal.
Fathers were brothers. Joseph’ father’s nickname was Panthera
Jarek said
JAS said
For the first part, I assume that the claim is that Mary and Joseph were first cousins. I have no idea about the second part, unless it is being suggested that they were directly related to a jungle animal.
Fathers were brothers. Joseph’ father’s nickname was Panthera
Any 1st or 2nd century evidence for that factual claim?
Jarek said
JAS said
For the first part, I assume that the claim is that Mary and Joseph were first cousins. I have no idea about the second part, unless it is being suggested that they were directly related to a jungle animal.
Fathers were brothers. Joseph’ father’s nickname was Panthera
I’m not getting that from your apparent Epiphanius quote. But maybe someone smarter than me can set the record straight.
Gee, where’s Steefen when you need him?
TTHorne56 said
Jarek said
JAS said
For the first part, I assume that the claim is that Mary and Joseph were first cousins. I have no idea about the second part, unless it is being suggested that they were directly related to a jungle animal.
Fathers were brothers. Joseph’ father’s nickname was Panthera
Any 1st or 2nd century evidence for that factual claim?
Evidence?? It is A Church father’s invented solution for problem of different genealogies, Davidic lineage, rumours about Roman soldier Panthera.
Jarek said
TTHorne56 said
Jarek said
JAS said
For the first part, I assume that the claim is that Mary and Joseph were first cousins. I have no idea about the second part, unless it is being suggested that they were directly related to a jungle animal.
Fathers were brothers. Joseph’ father’s nickname was Panthera
Any 1st or 2nd century evidence for that factual claim?
Evidence?? It is A Church father’s invented solution for problem of different genealogies, Davidic lineage, rumours about Roman soldier Panthera.
OK. I looked up what Epiphanius said about Pantera, not in Greek, but as summarized by Tabor. The quote you gave seems to be a small chunk of his argument and, absent context, seemed off kilter to me.
CEJ said
Jarek said
TTHorne56 said
Jarek said
JAS said
For the first part, I assume that the claim is that Mary and Joseph were first cousins. I have no idea about the second part, unless it is being suggested that they were directly related to a jungle animal.
Fathers were brothers. Joseph’ father’s nickname was Panthera
Any 1st or 2nd century evidence for that factual claim?
Evidence?? It is A Church father’s invented solution for problem of different genealogies, Davidic lineage, rumours about Roman soldier Panthera.
OK. I looked up what Epiphanius said about Pantera, not in Greek, but as summarized by Tabor. The quote you gave seems to be a small chunk of his argument and, absent context, seemed off kilter to me.
All we have is an invention of writers, reinvented by editors to solve imaginary problems. Jesus is just a content product to them. The priority list is short. The good of The church
Jarek said
CEJ said
Jarek said
TTHorne56 said
Jarek said
JAS said
For the first part, I assume that the claim is that Mary and Joseph were first cousins. I have no idea about the second part, unless it is being suggested that they were directly related to a jungle animal.
Fathers were brothers. Joseph’ father’s nickname was Panthera
Any 1st or 2nd century evidence for that factual claim?
Evidence?? It is A Church father’s invented solution for problem of different genealogies, Davidic lineage, rumours about Roman soldier Panthera.
OK. I looked up what Epiphanius said about Pantera, not in Greek, but as summarized by Tabor. The quote you gave seems to be a small chunk of his argument and, absent context, seemed off kilter to me.
All we have is an invention of writers, reinvented by editors to solve imaginary problems. Jesus is just a content product to them. The priority list is short. The good of The church
Correct. What you have is a 4th century apologist explaining away a 2nd century rumor.
And here we come to the heart of the problem. If the counterfeiters believed in the existence of Paul and the original letters, they would not dare to add their own products. The counterfeiters saw perfectly well that this was an imaginary tradition and that there would be no witness to verify their forgery
This is the best I can find, apparently sourced to The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books II and III. De Fide, 2nd rev. ed. (Brill, 2013). I can’t tell if what I am going to quote is a translation of Epiphanius or just paraphrases of what he supposedly wrote. So:
“7.5 Joseph was the brother of Cleopas but the son of Jacob surnamed Panther; both of these brothers were the sons of the man surnamed Panther. (6) Joseph took his first wife from the tribe of Judah and she bore him six children in all, four boys and two girls, as the Gospels according to Mark and John have made clear [Mark 6:3; John 19:25] (Ibid. p. 605).”
Jospeh “knew that her [Mary’s] mother was Ann and her father Joachim, that she was related to Elizabeth, that she was of the house and lineage of David.(Ibid. p. 614).”
I agree with CEJ: a late 4th century apologist trying to explain very late 1st/very early 2nd century rumors.
Jarek said
And here we come to the heart of the problem. If the counterfeiters believed in the existence of Paul and the original letters, they would not dare to add their own products. The counterfeiters saw perfectly well that this was an imaginary tradition and that there would be no witness to verify their forgery
Hey! Hands at ten and two and eyes on the road.
Don’t make me have to come over there.
TTHorne56 said
This is the best I can find, apparently sourced to The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books II and III. De Fide, 2nd rev. ed. (Brill, 2013). I can’t tell if what I am going to quote is a translation of Epiphanius or just paraphrases of what he supposedly wrote. So:“7.5 Joseph was the brother of Cleopas but the son of Jacob surnamed Panther; both of these brothers were the sons of the man surnamed Panther. (6) Joseph took his first wife from the tribe of Judah and she bore him six children in all, four boys and two girls, as the Gospels according to Mark and John have made clear [Mark 6:3; John 19:25] (Ibid. p. 605).”
Jospeh “knew that her [Mary’s] mother was Ann and her father Joachim, that she was related to Elizabeth, that she was of the house and lineage of David.(Ibid. p. 614).”
I agree with CEJ: a late 4th century apologist trying to explain very late 1st/very early 2nd century rumors.
Thank you, Mr. T.
The value of Janiszewski’s book is not the story of these problems in the case of Panthera, genealogy and other crap. The greatest value of the book is to show the literary mechanisms and writing practices in early Christianity. You can see that all players knew perfectly well what kino of stories surround them and that they can come up with their developments themselves.
Jarek said
And here we come to the heart of the problem. If the counterfeiters believed in the existence of Paul and the original letters, they would not dare to add their own products. The counterfeiters saw perfectly well that this was an imaginary tradition and that there would be no witness to verify their forgery
I think just the opposite is true. You don’t counterfeit a worthless fake. You counterfeit a valuable original.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)