Matthew deliberately manipulates OT data with an agenda!

[skepticlogician]

This is a really problematic issue because even the context is evidence that this was very likely done deliberately by Matthew, and we will see why.

We are all familiar with the 'begats' in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. You can go and read them again for yourself:


Matthew 1:7-11 (King James Version)

7 "And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;"
8 "And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;"
9 "And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;"
10 "And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;"
11 "And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:"


This is all fine and dandy, but if you go to the OT you can actually find this same genealogy in the first book of Chronicles. So, let's check it out and see if Matthew is true to his word.


1 Chronicles 3:10-16 (King James Version)

10 "And Solomon's son was Rehoboam, Abia his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son,"
11 "Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son,"
12 "Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son,"
13 "Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son,"
14 "Amon his son, Josiah his son."
15 "And the sons of Josiah were, the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum."
16 "And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son."


Uh-oh... We've got a problem here. Matthew is omitting three generations (names) after Joram and another one after Josiah!
Why would Matthew do that? Didn't he have access to the Old Testament? Well, that should be obvious because of the very fact that he is writing this genealogy. So, why on earth would he omit these 4 names? Was it an accident or was there an ulterior motive?

Well, we cannot be 100% sure but Matthew himself gives us a very telling hint of what probably was going on, in the very next verse:


Matthew 1:17 (King James Version)

"So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."

Hmmm... Three blocks of 14 generations, eh? So the number 14 does indeed have great significance for Matthew. So it's not at all crazy to think that when he found more generations in Chronicles that there was "supposed" to be, he simply omitted them!

So, this is not only another error/contradiction you find in the Bible, but this was probably done deliberately with the purpose of deceiving the readers!!

I don't know about you but this is quite shocking coming from a book that is supposed to be the 'Word of God', it doesn't matter from what point of view you look at it.

 

[salida]

Your false accusations are not wanted. Oh, were did you get your source at?

 

[skepticlogician]

Your false accusations are not wanted. Oh, were did you get your source at?

You are being sarcastic, right?
But in case you are not, my source is just the Bible, didn't you notice?

 

[Van]

Hi Skepticlogician, I agree Matthew manipulated OT data to make a point. Next you say we have a "problem." And the "problem" is either Matthew's gospel contains "errors" or is "true." Next you say the purpose was to deceive the readers. And in closing you find it shocking that an author would use information selectively to make a point.

First, I agree Matthew manipulated the OT data to make a point. Second, I agree his numbers do not add up the way we were taught they should add up. But here is where we part company, because I have accepted that in the pre-scientific era numbers were used differently than we use them. They represented approximations similar to saying large or small or just right of an observation about something. So if I write there were a half dozen people in the room, you get the idea of a small group, but if the actual number was 4 or 5 or 7 or even 8, I would not be trying to deceive, only to provide a picture you can relate to.

To question the validity of the Bible based on this level of difficulty seems akin to Matthew selectively using OT data to fulfill an agenda.

May God Bless

 

[skepticlogician]

But here is where we part company, because I have accepted that in the pre-scientific era numbers were used differently than we use them. They represented approximations similar to saying large or small or just right of an observation about something. So if I write there were a half dozen people in the room, you get the idea of a small group, but if the actual number was 4 or 5 or 7 or even 8, I would not be trying to deceive, only to provide a picture you can relate to.

Would you like to share your sources and references of such theory? Or is this a personal interpretation of yours?
By the way, I appreciate that you acknowledged the problem with the first part of it, as you mentioned.

 

[sb81]

It's hard to find much, if any fault with this, even if you are 100% correct. One thing you have to realize is names were very common in that day. If you go through some of the verses of Kings and Chronicles, you'll see numerous repetitive names.

Take 2 Kings Chapter 8 for example. There are numerous Jehoram's (One of Israel, and one of Judah) and numerous Jehoshaphats in a single chapter.

It's possible these two genealogies given aren't even attempting to follow the exact same line.

Surely not going to convince any skeptics, but likewise, your example isn't going to convince any believers.

 

[ebia]

This is a really problematic issue because even the context is evidence that this was very likely done deliberately by Matthew, and we will see why.

We are all familiar with the 'begats' in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. You can go and read them again for yourself:


Matthew 1:7-11 (King James Version)

7 "And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;"
8 "And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;"
9 "And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;"
10 "And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;"
11 "And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:"


This is all fine and dandy, but if you go to the OT you can actually find this same genealogy in the first book of Chronicles. So, let's check it out and see if Matthew is true to his word.


1 Chronicles 3:10-16 (King James Version)

10 "And Solomon's son was Rehoboam, Abia his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son,"
11 "Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son,"
12 "Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son,"
13 "Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son,"
14 "Amon his son, Josiah his son."
15 "And the sons of Josiah were, the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum."
16 "And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son."


Uh-oh... We've got a problem here. Matthew is omitting three generations (names) after Joram and another one after Josiah!
Why would Matthew do that? Didn't he have access to the Old Testament? Well, that should be obvious because of the very fact that he is writing this genealogy. So, why on earth would he omit these 4 names? Was it an accident or was there an ulterior motive?

Well, we cannot be 100% sure but Matthew himself gives us a very telling hint of what probably was going on, in the very next verse:


Matthew 1:17 (King James Version)

"So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."

Hmmm... Three blocks of 14 generations, eh? So the number 14 does indeed have great significance for Matthew. So it's not at all crazy to think that when he found more generations in Chronicles that there was "supposed" to be, he simply omitted them!

So, this is not only another error/contradiction you find in the Bible, but this was probably done deliberately with the purpose of deceiving the readers!!

I don't know about you but this is quite shocking coming from a book that is supposed to be the 'Word of God', it doesn't matter from what point of view you look at it.

Again, you suppose the purpose of the bible is to transmit facts - that we somehow need to be able to recite the generations and that somehow consistitutes truth. That having an agenda and telling the story to tell that is bad thing.

Matthew expects his audience to have access to and to be familiar with Chronicles so he would be wasting his time trying to fool anyone - like it would matter anyway.

Rather Matthew is telling the genealogies like any storyteller necessarly tells a story - being selective to bring out the meaning of that story that he wants to tell. So he makes it sets of 14s to symbolically bring out what he wants to say, just as he selects the 4 women he will mention very carefully.

All storytellers, without exception, manipulate the data to suit their agenda. You can't tell a story without. The boundaries of what is and is not considered appropriate manuipulation are culturally dependent - to try to impose yours upon Matthew is anachonistic at best and downright silly at worst.

 

[skepticlogician]

It's possible these two genealogies given aren't even attempting to follow the exact same line.

I cannot believe you are suggesting that these are two different genealogies.
Did you notice that both contain Solomon the son of David? If not, read the context.
Did you notice that all of the names are in the same order?
The are exactly the same genealogies, the only differences are Matthew's omission and the slightly different spelling of the names.
There's no way these are two different genealogies. If you believe you can support with evidence your theory, please do so.

Surely not going to convince any skeptics, but likewise, your example isn't going to convince any believers.

That believers won't be convinced that the Bible is not the word of God, is expected and even respectable.
That believers won't be convinced that these are the same genealogies, clearly misquoted by Matthew, that would be unbelievable and anyone who can't see this is clearly and willingly blind.

 

[skepticlogician]

ebia,

You do realize that with what you just wrote you are clearly supporting that the Bible is a book of stories and myths, not a book containing the truth, right?

Again, you suppose the purpose of the bible is to transmit facts

If the Bible is inerrant and the absolute truth then I WOULD expect it to contain FACTS and truth.
If you don't believe so, I guess you are supporting the point I'm trying to make.

That having an agenda and telling the story to tell that is bad thing.

Of course is a bad thing if you knowingly include faulty data in order to meet your agenda and then you tell me that you are narrating the truth! I can't believe you don't see this.
If Matthew and others are willing to do this so lightly, how can you be sure they didn't make up Jesus miracle's, resurrection, etc.??
The ONLY evidence for these stories is the Bible narrative, and if that's obviously manipulated then it's clear that the stories of the Bible are just myths not historical facts.
You can easily come to this conclusion just using your own line of reasoning, nothing else.

Rather Matthew is telling the genealogies like any storyteller necessarly tells a story - being selective to bring out the meaning of that story that he wants to tell.

Wow, do you realize what you are saying? If not, please see above.

So he makes it sets of 14s to symbolically bring out what he wants to say, just as he selects the 4 women he will mention very carefully.

Um.... The 4 women??? What 4 women?

All storytellers, without exception, manipulate the data to suit their agenda. You can't tell a story without. The boundaries of what is and is not considered appropriate manuipulation are culturally dependent - to try to impose yours upon Matthew is anachonistic at best and downright silly at worst.

Bingo! You said it yourself. You just admitted that the Bible is a myth containing book for storytellers. Thank you!
At least you are honest!

 

[lucaspa]

This is a really problematic issue because even the context is evidence that this was very likely done deliberately by ...I don't know about you but this is quite shocking coming from a book that is supposed to be the 'Word of God', it doesn't matter from what point of view you look at it.

Yes, it does matter quite a bit from what point of view you are looking at it. If you are a Fundie and say that Biblical inerrancy is necessary for Christianity and even use "Word of God" referring to scripture, then you have a problem.

But if look at what Jesus has to tell us in Mark 10 and Matthew 14 you realize that the different books of the Bible were written by men and that they occasionally make errors.

Matthew isn't trying to "deceive" anyone. He is trying to convince Jews that Jesus is the Messiah. And Matthew believes this is absolutely true.

So he manipulates the birth narrative to make Jesus look like Moses. He manipulates the geneology so that he comes up with the (apparently) mystic number 14. All this so his readers will more readily accept the real truth: the divinity of Jesus.

Ebia gave a very good response, also. You should pay attention to it. And then consider the strawman you made with your assertions about "Word of God".

 

[lucaspa]

ebia,

You do realize that with what you just wrote you are clearly supporting that the Bible is a book of stories and myths, not a book containing the truth, right? ... If the Bible is inerrant and the absolute truth

Look at that last phrase. That is your strawman. Ebia is not saying that scripture does not contain truth. A book can contain both truth and not true. Look at Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. Lots of truth there, but not all of it is true. For instance, his account of how wingless beetles evolved is all wrong. Do we now throw out all of Origin of Species?

The Bible is a theological document. What it needs to be is theologically true. This does not mean that every detail has to be true.

Agnostics and atheists love to attack Biblical inerrancy. But the authors of the Bible don't claim such inerrancy. As I told you, Jesus says that one Biblical author (Moses) got part of it wrong.

You are attacking Biblical inerrancy and then falsely think you are attacking the theological truths. You aren't. What you are showing is that the ddoctrine of Biblical inerrancy is wrong. Big deal. Christians have been saying that for over 1600 years. You are really late with that realization.

Of course is a bad thing if you knowingly include faulty data in order to meet your agenda and then you tell me that you are narrating the truth! I can't believe you don't see this.

Scholarship standards have changed. You need to go back and look at the contemporaries. Roman historians altered history so that the emperors could look more godlike. Does that negate any historical accuracy of the accounts? Josephus colors is history of the Jews to minimize Roman atrocities during the Rebellion. Does that make his entire History false?

If Matthew and others are willing to do this so lightly, how can you be sure they didn't make up Jesus miracle's, resurrection, etc.??

Because they are changing things precisely so that it is easier for people to accept the central truths. Notice that Matthew changes the resurrection story to have guards at the tomb. He is doing this not to make up the resurrection, but to protect it from slander by the Jews of the time.

The ONLY evidence for these stories is the Bible narrative, and if that's obviously manipulated then it's clear that the stories of the Bible are just myths not historical facts.

You are setting up a general criteria: if our only source for historical events can be shown to manipulate for any reason, then the accounts are "just myths and not historical facts". A general criteria has to work on all similar cases, otherwise it is just Special Pleading. I've already shown that we don't accept the criteria by two examples of historical works done about the same time. Your general criteria is invalid.

 

[skepticlogician]

Yes, it does matter quite a bit from what point of view you are looking at it. If you are a Fundie and say that Biblical inerrancy is necessary for Christianity and even use "Word of God" referring to scripture, then you have a problem.

I do realize that the way I presented my analysis is directed towards fundies and there's a couple reasons. I come from a fundamentalist background myself and most (if not all) of the christians I've encountered were fundies too. To be honest, I forgot that there are a lot MORE ways to view the Bible other than the fundamentalist approach.
By the way, if you are not a fundie, I apologize but then I would love to learn more about how you guys see the Bible, Jesus and god, etc., since I haven't really have that much interaction with non-fundie christians. Even so, I have an immediate issue to which you might have some answer. If you do not attach to the idea that the Bible is literally and factually true, how do you reconcile that with your belief that Jesus was a character really divine, and that he really performed the miracles mentioned in the Bible? Or is this also something you non-fundie fellows do not believe either?
I'm quite honest, I would like to learn your point of view.

 

[ebia]

ebia,

You do realize that with what you just wrote you are clearly supporting that the Bible is a book of stories and myths, not a book containing the truth, right?

Of course the bible is a book of stories and myths. That doesn't stand opposed to it being truth.

If the Bible is inerrant and the absolute truth then I WOULD expect it to contain FACTS and truth.

Any storyteller, including a biblical one, has to be selective in the way they tell the story to bring out the aspects they want to convey - try to do everything and you succeed at nothing. You happen to live in a culture that prioritises precision in factual detail over meaning, but almost every other culture the world has ever seen does not do that - why do you think the biblical writers would follow your cultural priorities rather than their own?

Of course is a bad thing if you knowingly include faulty data in order to meet your agenda and then you tell me that you are narrating the truth!

This isn't science, its storytelling. The rules are not the same. Cannot be the same.

If Matthew and others are willing to do this so lightly, how can you be sure they didn't make up Jesus miracle's, resurrection, etc.??

Because there's a difference in shaping the telling of the story to bring out the truth and changing the truth you are telling. Sure, they each shape the telling of the resurrection story to show a different light onto the resurrection itself, but the resurrection is the truth at the heart of everything else - their whole reason for wanting to tell the story in the first place.

(Additionally there are enormous historical problems in suggesting the resurrection stories are completely made up, but that's really beyond the scope of this thread.)

The ONLY evidence for these stories is the Bible narrative, and if that's obviously manipulated then it's clear that the stories of the Bible are just myths not historical facts.

All historical texts have agendas - real historians are quite used to working within that framework.

Wow, do you realize what you are saying? If not, please see above.

I suspect you are reading something in to what I'm saying because you are bringing invalid assumptions to it.

Um.... The 4 women??? What 4 women?

Tamar (v 3), Rahab (v 5), Ruth (v6) and 'the wife of Uriah' (v6)

Bingo! You said it yourself. You just admitted that the Bible is a myth containing book for storytellers. Thank you!
At least you are honest!

myth is the wrong word for all but a small part of it. The absurdity is the connotation you bring to story (and even myth) - story (and even myth) does not mean untrue. Indeed story is our most fundamental way of thinking.

What you are trying to do is create a false dichotomy - to try to say "a text is either a complete and precise collection of facts or it has no bearing on reality" Even a complete work of fiction can be profoundly true, and all tellings of historical events necessarly shape those tellings to convey what the storyteller intends to say - that's equally true but in different ways whether we are talking about the writings of Luke, Josephus, a modern news reporter or a modern historian.

If you come at the bible with a naive idea that the only truthful texts are those that convey lists of precise, accurate facts then sure - it won't match that standard because it wasn't trying to. Neither is any other comparible telling of an account. That's not because they aren't based in things that happened but because you are demanding something inappropriate.

 

[ebia]

If you do not attach to the idea that the Bible is literally and factually true, how do you reconcile that with your belief that Jesus was a character really divine, and that he really performed the miracles mentioned in the Bible?

Nobody but the very liberal is saying that the bible isn't grounded in real events. But the way people tell the events is to bring out their meaning. So, for example, in John's resurrection account (John 20) he does certain things to bring out the meaning he wants his readers to realise:

• He brackets the account with "the first day of the week"
• He makes it clear it takes place in a garden
• Mary Mags mistakes Jesus for the gardener
• etc

Together these scream at the reader - this is the beginning of New Creation.
He also breaks with what he has done in naming the Marys everywhere else. In the greek text everywhere else the Marys are called Maria. But here, when Jesus calls her name he says not "Maria" (Mary) but "Mariam" (Miriam). In other words this is also the New Exodus. And, to make that come through clearly she is the only woman there in his telling of the story.

 

[sb81]

I cannot believe you are suggesting that these are two different genealogies.
Did you notice that both contain Solomon the son of David? If not, read the context.
Did you notice that all of the names are in the same order?
The are exactly the same genealogies, the only differences are Matthew's omission and the slightly different spelling of the names.
There's no way these are two different genealogies. If you believe you can support with evidence your theory, please do so.




That believers won't be convinced that the Bible is not the word of God, is expected and even respectable.
That believers won't be convinced that these are the same genealogies, clearly misquoted by Matthew, that would be unbelievable and anyone who can't see this is clearly and willingly blind.

There is no clear error or contradiction, and I personally feel different genealogies is far more believable than your notion that Matthew deliberately manipulates the OT in an attempt to deceive the reader and that this is some kind of big problem. Especially when the reader will obviously have access to the OT.

God likes to test us... if you go in the Bible honestly looking for God and his guidance, you will find it. If you have little or no faith and go in looking for reasons to remain skeptical, you will find them. But most "clear errors and contradictions" claims take some kind of assumption on the reader's end in order to make it an error or contradiction.

 

[skepticlogician]

Nobody but the very liberal is saying that the bible isn't grounded in real events. But the way people tell the events is to bring out their meaning. So, for example, in John's resurrection account (John 20) he does certain things to bring out the meaning he wants his readers to realise:

• He brackets the account with "the first day of the week"
• He makes it clear it takes place in a garden
• Mary Mags mistakes Jesus for the gardener
• etc

Together these scream at the reader - this is the beginning of New Creation.
He also breaks with what he has done in naming the Marys everywhere else. In the greek text everywhere else the Marys are called Maria. But here, when Jesus calls her name he says not "Maria" (Mary) but "Mariam" (Miriam). In other words this is also the New Exodus. And, to make that come through clearly she is the only woman there in his telling of the story.

You still didn't address my question.
How can you differentiate other myths in the Bible and say that Jesus' resurrection is not a myth?

You know that the gospel of John was the last to be written of the 4 gospels and that it contains material absolutely not found in any of the other 4, right?

How do you know that John didn't make some of that material up? I mean, if early gospel writers like Matthew manipulate stuff to fit his purposes, what makes you think that John couldn't have done the same thing?

 

[skepticlogician]

There is no clear error or contradiction, and I personally feel different genealogies is far more believable than your notion that Matthew deliberately manipulates the OT in an attempt to deceive the reader and that this is some kind of big problem. Especially when the reader will obviously have access to the OT.

No CLEAR contradiction? Can you explain what's not clear?
Your only rebuttal is your theory of these being two different genealogies.
Can you elaborate a little more about your theory to provide supportive explanations, please?
I really wonder if any of your fellow christians believe your theory is even plausible.

God likes to test us... if you go in the Bible honestly looking for God and his guidance, you will find it. If you have little or no faith and go in looking for reasons to remain skeptical, you will find them. But most "clear errors and contradictions" claims take some kind of assumption on the reader's end in order to make it an error or contradiction.

Where does it say that in the Bible? I mean, that God would permit confused material to be in the Bible with the purpose of testing the believers?

 

[ebia]

You still didn't address my question.
How can you differentiate other myths in the Bible and say that Jesus' resurrection is not a myth?

Giving a detailed answer requires a lot of work - including defining "myth".

But to give some pointers, there are a number of reasons that the resurrection stories don't look like myth, or even made up stories:

• Relative closeness and specificity of the people and places involved and time (though the gospels are written late, we can nail down Paul's account to early 50s and there is good reason that the gospel resurrection accounts were fixed before then - much earlier than the rest of the gospels).
• Independence of the five accounts
• Centrality of resurrection in Christian thinking - it's the absolute on which all the rest is built and understood in early Christian thinking, not a developed add-on.
• Nowhere for the idea to come from in such a short space of time - surrounding pagan myths and philosophies deny resurrection, Jewish thinking has it as something that only makes sense happening to all God's people at the end of time.
• (Connected to above) the completely unexpected nature of resurrection.
• Crucifixion is the ultimate proof that someone is not the Messiah - once a would-be Messiah is killed there are only two options - give up, or replace him with a brother or similar (in this case it would be James). Just carrying on is not an option. Therefore had resurrection not happened there would be no group of followers to invent it.
• If the resurrection stories were inventions they would not look like they do. Most obviously in the role of women - for a first century audience, whether Jewish or Greco-Roman, having women as first witnesses dramatically decreases the credibility of the story. Yet they are there in all four accounts as the first and initially only witnesses.

The full analysis of the Resurrection as an historic event can be found in NT Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God but it takes about 750 pages of serious historical work and relies on about another 250 pages worth of groundwork on epistimology and historical method done in New Testament and the People of God so I'm not going to reproduce it all here!

You know that the gospel of John was the last to be written of the 4 gospels and that it contains material absolutely not found in any of the other 4, right?

How do you know that John didn't make some of that material up? I mean, if early gospel writers like Matthew manipulate stuff to fit his purposes, what makes you think that John couldn't have done the same thing?

You make the same kinds of assessments on those things as you do for any other text. There are no shortcuts - being entirely precise on the handful of checkable facts wouldn't prove reliability on the overall message, and a disinterest in irrelevant detail doesn't imply unreliability on the core message.

 

[lucaspa]

To be honest, I forgot that there are a lot MORE ways to view the Bible other than the fundamentalist approach.

Thanks for the honesty. Now we can have a discussion without trying to beat up a strawman.

If you do not attach to the idea that the Bible is literally and factually true

Inerrancy and what you said here are 2 different concepts. We say the Bible is theologically true. Now, since Christianity is a revealed and historical religion, that means that some parts of the Bible have to be historically accurate. By "historical" I mean that God reveals Himself by intervening in human history.

So, there are parts that have to be historical "facts" in order for Christianity to survive. I think the essentials are:
1. God had to intervene to free the Hebrews from Egypt. That is, the essentials of the Exodus have to be true.
2. Jesus lived, preached, was killed, and resurrected.

Notice, however, that all the details of these do not have to be true. For instance, it's not possible that the Exodus was a quarter of a million people. Such a number of people would fill the Sinai. If the number were 1/10 of that, I would be surprised. But the number is not essential.

Do you see the distinction between requiring some parts to be "literally and factually true" but not "inerrant"?

I would love to learn more about how you guys see the Bible, Jesus and god, etc., since I haven't really have that much interaction with non-fundie christians. ... how do you reconcile that with your belief that Jesus was a character really divine, and that he really performed the miracles mentioned in the Bible?

The Bible is a compilation of books written by people about their personal experience of God or the personal experiences of others. For instance, Luke had no personal experience of Jesus. But he was writing of the experiences of people who did.

The early Church had a lot of ideas about Jesus and, at one point, there were over 400 gospels. Of these, influential Christians decided that these 4 gospels contained 1) the most factual information or 2) the correct theology, or a combination of both. They were not concerned with non-essential details like the conflicting geneologies of Luke and Matthew. The point of both geneologies is to tie Jesus to the House of David, because Jesus was Messiah. And that Jesus was Messiah is the essential theological truth.

As to the miracles, that is interesting. If you go to the Jewish writings of the period, you find that they do mention Jesus. As you can imagine, they never accept Jesus as divine. But there are some interesting features.
1. They never produce a father for Jesus. Instead, they are contemptuous of Mary's (Mirriam in Hebrew) virtue and there are at least 3 suggestions for a father.
2. They can't produce a body, either. Instead, they accuse the disciples of stealing it. Which is why you find it progressively harder for this to happen in the gospels of Luke and Matthew than it would have been in Mark.
3. They never deny the miracles. Isn't that interesting? Instead, they say the power to do the miracles came from the "Ineffable One" and not from God. Basically, they say Jesus is a sorcerer.

 

[lucaspa]

You still didn't address my question.
How can you differentiate other myths in the Bible and say that Jesus' resurrection is not a myth?

What "other myths"? What we are talking about are the details of the story, not the essential elements of the event. The essential elements of the resurrection are:
1. Jesus is arrested and tried.
2. Jesus is executed by crucifixion.
3. He is dead and placed in a tomb.
4. 36-40 hours later the tomb is empty; the body gone.
5. People see the living Jesus after this time.

You know that the gospel of John was the last to be written of the 4 gospels and that it contains material absolutely not found in any of the other 4, right?

Of course. The synoptic gospels all made use of common sources, such as "Q" (a collection of sayings). John comes from different sources. That doesn't mean John is wrong. This happens frequently in modern history books. Eric Hammel's book The Battle of Guadalcanal has material absolutely not found in any other book about the battle. But then, Hammel interviewed Marines and sailors that other authors had not.

How do you know that John didn't make some of that material up? I mean, if early gospel writers like Matthew manipulate stuff to fit his purposes, what makes you think that John couldn't have done the same thing?

You look to see what the manipulation would be. You ask questions, such as: was John writing to a particular audience? Did John have a particular Christology that would influence what he wrote?

As it turns out, of the 4 gospels John as the most Gnostic influence. Not enough to be Gnostic, but some of what he says is there (probably) to lead the reader towards Gnosticism.

Basically, you are skeptical. What ebias and I are saying is that the essentials survive the skepticism.