/lit/ - Literature

Mainly it's just not a contiguous, integral narrative thought out and written by a single hand. There are all sorts of screwy things in the Bible, like parts where an ancient song is recounted and then explained in prose. Why not just have the song, or the prose? Because it probably was a real, ancient song they wanted to include while also contextualizing and explaining it in terms of their faith so it wasn't too out of place. The entirety of Genesis is a patchwork narrative of different Mesopotamian traditions, hence the famous double-creation of humanity (which is subsequently given various symbolic and mystical interpretations).

The genealogies are there to make statements that were important at the time of writing, like for example establishing the legitimacy and lineage of the Levite priesthood after the Captivity ended and the faith was being reestablished in Israel. More fanciful ones are historically important and derive partly from traditional Mesopotamian chronologies and king lists.

>>20968754
>Why does this history / genealogy / prophecy book have genealogy in it!?!

It wasn't written for gentiles

>>20969840
It is not a history book or a genealogy book, because its history is inaccurate and its genealogy is mostly fictitious. It is not a prophecy book either as prophecy makes up a small fraction of its content. It's a book of morality and mythology. The question of how genealogy relates to morality and mythology is sensible.

Because the Bible is a complex text, serving simultaneously as a book of myth, prophecy, philosophy, theology, AND history. The genealogies are the historical parts, though some Bible scholars have argued that they contain numerological hidden meanings, especially the genealogy in Matthew.

>>20968754
Because the Bible is not the precursor to a religious tradition, as some believe, it is the output of a religious tradition.
I see a lot of people (regardless of beliefs, they can be atheist, Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, whatever) talk about the Bible like it was written at some point in time, and then after that a bunch of people decided to believe in it in different ways. That’s not the case. People live, grow, beliefs emerge and change and evolve, traditions are kept and traditions are broken, and out of this stew of beliefs comes written records, and these records are scriptures
If The Bible had been written by one guy or one group of guys with the intent of establishing a particular religious tradition, it would be very different. It would more closely resemble its imitators like the Book of Mormon or Urantia.
I find a lot of misreadings and confusion solely come from this singular misconception

>>20969857
Oh sorry sorry let me amend
>Why does this history / genealogy /cosmology / prophecy / virtue ethics book have genealogy in it?!???
Whether or not it's accurate isn't the point now, is it? it's a book about the people of Jerusalem, where they came from, where they're going, and what they should do.

>>20969857
What a bizarre post. History books don’t get reclassified if their history is found to be inaccurate or outdated. “History book” is a genre, and the bulk of the Bible comprises history books. Same with your genealogy objection. Regardless of if the genealogies are fictitious or non-fictitious, the books of genealogies are still books of genealogies.
I get you’re not a Bible believer, but this is still a very odd post

>>20969840
spbp

1. They probably feature in the histories elsewhere, maybe under a different name or as 'tribal descendants of' So-and-So, like Canaanites were born from a person named Canaan, so we have the rest.
2. It does show the average/expected family structure of the times, and that genealogical recordkeeping was durable enough for legal standards of inheritance, succession, etc. some matters may lay dormant for centuries before needing to be resolved by consulting the family rolls.
3. The names frequently have a latent meaning in the original language. For example, "Cain" can be written "Qayin", which means exchange or purchase. And what Eve said, "I have acquired a man." It is usually a very difficult (but not impossible) task to establish meaning-of-names for ancient Hebrew unless it is already known or given, or a common name located in the Lexicon elsewhere as an ordinary term.
4. When shifty business in Anno Domini 2022 causes you to notice that a certain politician is naming all thier kids after the bastards of failures instead of the saints, now you know they are bastards and failures too, and not to be taken as saints.

>>20969857
>because its history is inaccurate and its genealogy is mostly fictitious

>>20969857
>history is inaccurate and its genealogy is mostly fictitious
Everything in the Bible is true and happened

>>20968754
It's the Word of G-d.

Because the jew wants to stick his jew line down your throat. It's the lyrical version of getting oral cumshotted.

It's not essential to the story, it's not related to jesus, it's not beneficial for the reader.

Yet you keep it in your bookshelf, all while not even knowing your OWN genetic line or your OWN ancient faith as that would be antisemitic.

Want to now why? Because the jew is chosen and you are not.

>>20969863
>some Bible scholars have argued that they contain numerological hidden meanings
Could you please elaborate? That sounds interesting. I know only of the supposed hidden meanings in the generations of Cain and Seth, I didn't know there could be meanings in other genealogies

>>20969885
Yeah but what's the point of those long lists lmao

>>20972268
Old testament is older than the current Torah, fagface

>>20973251
GENEALOGY

>>20973251
Genealogy was kinda an general obsession at the time. Jews just went way overboard with it but read the Iliad. Every time someone is about to have their head chopped of we get a summary of their parents and grandparents minimum.

>>20973256
>Old testament is older than the current Torah

>>20972268
It's Israelites were the chosen people, not Jews are the chosen people.
You should pay attention when I deign to reply to your drivel

>>20974337
Jews are israelites you midwit

>>20974405
Yes, and that factoid has absolutely nothing to do with the post you're replying to

>>20974405
i bet you think moses was a jew

>>20969857
>its history is inaccurate and its genealogy is mostly fictitious
This just isn't gonna work out, I'm sorry anon it's not me it's you. Head on back to that other site, ok?

>>20969857
>It is not a history book or a genealogy book, because its history is inaccurate and its genealogy is mostly fictitious.
Based

>>20974622
tbqh even most Christians agree with this, only the most brickheaded protties (and orthodox jews) with no knowledge and historical context try to argue. Also 1 Maccabees is probably the most historically accurate part of the Bible but it was one of those they rejected lmoa

Before Herod became king of Judea, there were detailed genealogical lists going back to the time of the Exodus, or before.
Herod was supposedly not of pure Judaic lines and supposedly had the genealogies burned.
There were supposedly families who had acquired( I presume by bribing the correct officials) copies of their families genealogies before the lists were burned.
Since certain names also tend to be consistently used over again within families, names of Cousins etc. listed in genealogies could be used to track back were a family line might have sprung from.
It’s also possible the people listed were known in other contexts, such as those who might be listed on historic monuments in Egypt or Babylonia.
Currently, there are jews who have genealogies going back to the time of Christ, if not earlier.

>>20972176
ok sabbatai

The genealogy in the Bible is analogous to the Catalog of Ships in the Iliad. If you don't understand the point you're a pseud.

>>20974323
The aramaic texts are later than the Septuagint.

>>20968754
To help with genealogical stuff would be the first thought. Many of the direct genealogies give us background on where Christ's lineage came from, essentially confirming and providing context to what we later read in the Gospels and the two genealogies there (Matthew 1 and Luke 3).

We see that Mary's lineage stems from Nathan, David's son, while Joseph's is through Solomon. This is interesting because it provides a way to fulfill the restoration of the Kingdom, since in Jeremiah 22 it was stated that no offspring of Jeconiah (aka Jehoiachin), who was the last officially recognized king of Judah, would ever sit on the throne of David. Since Jesus Christ had Joseph as His legal father, and since Mary was also of the same tribe, the rule of the firstborn taking the name of the dead (Deut. 25:5-6) was triggered, meaning Jesus Christ as the first-born inherited the title of the kingdom from Joseph, while sidestepping the curse of Jeremiah 22:28-30 that had been active since the exile. Interestingly, Jesus Christ also sidestepped the whole curse of Adam as well at the same time, due to His incarnation being born from a virgin.

Also, I imagine the genealogies in the earlier books helped out the priests in Ezra's day when they were rebuilding the temple and instituting the priests, to be able to sort out what the correct lineages were. See Ezra 2:62 for instance, which says, "These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood."

Lastly, the earliest genealogies, the ones in Genesis 5 and 11, which include ages, help with dating the age of the earth since the six days of creation. Also the question of whether Israel was in Egypt for only 215 years or for 430 years is definitely supported in the latter case because a genealogy in 1 Chronicles 7 shows that Joshua, (contemporary of Moses) was ten full generations removed from Ephraim (the son of Joseph, grandson of Jacob). These are a few of the contextual things that the genealogies help with that I know of.

>>20972170
Based

>>20969857
So when a history book is inaccurate it suddenly was never meant to be a history book now? Are you fucking retarded?

>>20968754
Bible genealogies are dogshit. Some books give conflicting genealogies. The only point to have them is to link people with previous prophets, and usually the number of generations has a symbolic meaning. Most numbers in the bible are symbolic, and the Septuagint may even give different numbers than the Hebrew bible, because the accuracy is not important

>>20977823
Also, a lot of people, like Enoch, are in fact mentioned in apocryphal/deuterocanonical books (and many prophets/apostles quote from these books)

>>20969873
I think the Orthodox and Catholics do understand that the bible came out of tradition and wasn't the source of the religion. They don't believe it is the literal uncreated word from God like the Muslims believe about the Qur'an, but that the Holy Spirit has guided the writers to protect the faith. The apostles never intended for their letters to become scripture, but they were later canonised by the authority of the Church to fight the heresies.