I find it interesting that most Biblical scholars acknowledge that the Gospels and virtually all of the New Testament in general were written expressly for Theological purposes but then use it to prove/verify historical events or as source material on individuals.
How can anyone who acknowledges a source as essentially propaganda then turn around and insist that same source is a valid piece of historical facts?
Although, I did hear once from an otherwise-educated evangelical a rather crafty explanation of the two conflicting genealogies of Jesus in the NT: He said that sometimes in Jewish tradition, they'd skip names. "Grandfather begat you." Therefore, all the names in both genealogies are correct.
I haven't heard this anywhere else, but it actually does sound plausible. Or a plausible-sounding but crafty invention to get around that particular contradiction.
I don't see how that would be plausible in terms of historical research. There is nothing verifiable and his explanation would make an already impossible task that much harder. The NT genealogies are based on? Old Testament? Which is based on? They do come up with interesting ways to subvert the real questions at hand and finding ways around legitimate scholarship. But I could do the same in an attempt to "prove" Leprechauns are real and base it on "historical" research.
I've heard other strange theories about the geneologies regarding variations in spelling. None of them reallly pan out. It's the same principle they try to use in justifying the "Bible Code."
I call it 'plausible' in how oral histories and myths get passed down. Names commonly get lost for a number of reasons. Grandfather and grandson are famous in the community but father is not. Or father was outcast/an embarrassment somehow and we'd rather forget him. Or you have John I, John II and John III, who, in the passing of time, all get lumped together as one guy named 'John.'
"Plausible"
I've never heard of this being an official, recognized, deliberate practice of the region. As compared to, say, attributing authorship of the sermon or gospel you just wrote to a now-dead mentor. Or plagiarizing a common story or myth and simply attaching your guy's name and your own spin to it.
If anything, knowing how names are commonly skipped gives the story less credibility in my opinion, not more, as these are also methods that go hand-in-hand with embellishing the whole story to begin with.
But to a layman's ears, it's an explanation that sounds good and most conveniently can't be verified one way or another. Hence my comment that even if I give the person that explanation, that's one of hundreds of contradictions.
Oral histories are dicey that way. I like oral history but tend not to view that as actual history unless there are separate verifiable sources that confirm at least the basic content of said "history." I think my misunderstanding was one of semantics. I deem something plausible if it is at least possible to verify historically. Which virtually eliminates the whole bible for legitimate historical research, with just a few minor exceptions.
I would also like to find a good source that addresses the theopolitical propaganda in the Old Testament. What was the relationship between a temple complex in Jerusalem, royal dynasties, and the changing religious beliefs of those power centres and the population they governed.