From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:47:15 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications, Plano Tx.


			 The Two Jesus Children

Regarding my posting on Rudolf Steiner's claim that there were two
Jesus children, Kent Sandvik writes:

>If we want to further speculate we are dealing with identical twins, and
>one
>of them died, and the other appeared afterwards and the disciples believed
>that he rose from the dead! Wow, this starts to get really interesting.
>
>However, I would like to point out that the Gospels concerning the
>genealogies are a mystery; either a problem adjusting two different
>writer's background information (the most likely problem), or then
>there's something fundamental that the writers didn't inform the
>readers (less likely). As long as we don't know the hidden meaning
>why we have two genealogies, the Occams razor tells us to rationalize
>and select the most obvious case, in other words the Gospel writers screwed
>up.
>

The razor is very sharp and cuts well, but once you have cut off the beard
you can't put it back on.  Let me take the (apparently) more complicated
route for a moment first.  Sometimes there is wisdom in keeping a beard.

I emphasize, the first person to point out that there were two Jesus children
was Rudolf Steiner.  His observations were not speculative in nature but the
results of other research.  Comparing those results with the actual gospel
stories reveals that they are indeed true and consistent in a most unexpected
way. What I say here is (a) both the skeptical and orthodox interpretations
contain irreconcilable contradictions and (b) the two children scenario is at 
least consistent with the texts, as far as the nativity stories are concerned.

According to Steiner, they were not twins but children two different sets
of parents, as their genealogies indicate. It is also unlikely that the parents
would give both brothers the same name. What I would like to do for now is take 
the standpoint that there is not an inconsistency between the two, just as an
assumption,and see at first whether it makes sense in context.  I.e. suspend 
skepticism for a moment and explore the possibilities.

If you insist on shaving with Occam's razor at this point, then we must
go our separate ways.  But you can always do that any time.  Please let
it be for a while.  Step 1. (again, assuming for the moment that both 
Matthew and Luke are both correct).  The first thing that strikes the reader
is that the stories do not appear to be two varying versions of the same
story but essentially two totally different stories.  Except for the names
of the parents and child, the birthplace, and perhaps the statements relating
to Mary's virginity (I'm not discussing that issue for now) the two stories
have essentially nothing in common.  At leas consider the possibility that
they are both authentic accounts about different people and events.

Nothing is proven yet, but it is necessary to start somewhere.  Without trying
to explain or prove it yet, let's just try to establish whether the scenario
would at least fit the details of the gospel stories. Change the names
Mary, Joseph, Jesus and Bethlehem in Matthew to soemthing else and then read
tbe two accounts trying to forget everything you previously knew about them.
This is just a beginning, and no one is required to go an further.  The point
is that the stories do not just differ (especially when you include Luke's
genealogy in chapter 3), but they are utterly different accounts.  Now it is
interesting that the early church fathers who assembled the materials that
became the canonical gospels could have easily ruled one of the accounts to
be spurious and let the other one stand.  Many texts were eliminated, some 
of which, by the way, would have made very good propaganda for the new faith.
But they let both stories stand, despite the apparent contradictions.

In sum, I am suggesting the possibility that the skeptics are right in pointing
out the apparent contradictions between Matthew and Luke, but wrong to conclude
that either or both of them are wrong; and those faithful are right when they
claim that both gospels are right but wrong in their attempts to apply both
stories to the same child and parents.  IF this line is true, there is a raft
of new issues to unravel far more mysterious than the first.  Any reasonable
person armed with even the dullest Occam's razor would be quite justified to
dismiss the idea with a single slice in this instance.  But for those who are
not ready to cut out those pages from Matthew and Luke, it might be worth 
exploring further what Steiner has to say about it. 

	Gerry Palo