Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 12-26-2003, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by diana
First, I've heard that the child of a Jewish woman and non-Jewish man is considered a Jew, but the offspring of the opposite pairing is considered Gentile. Here's a rabinnical explanation of this issue, and how it's derived.

An interesting note from here: This is getting closer to answering my questions about non-Jewess mothers of men in Jesus' lineage. Now I'm thinking to myself, Self...what does this say about the marriages of Salmon and Boaz?

According to the information at my disposal, Salmon married Rahab (harlot of Jerico, iirc), and they bore Boaz. This makes Boaz non-Jewish by descent. Boaz marries a non-Jewess named Ruth and they bear Obed. At best, Boaz and Ruth are both only converts--but not Jewish by birth.

However, as I understand these things (shakily, shakily), tribal lineage is determined patrilineally. Hrm. So that means...Boaz and Obed, lacking completely in bonafide Jewish credentials, still qualify as direct and pure lineal descendants of David.

Huh?!

And I'm still no closer to figuring out the Jewish explanation on adoptive fathers when it comes to kingly bloodlines.

d

Obviously the matrilineal idea here is quite a late development. All biblical genealogies are patrilineal. I don't think there are any significant biblical indications.

I think matrilineality was developed to maintain the integrity of Jewish blood and culture, stopping potentially wayward males from straying to non-Jewish women in post-second temple times.

spin

diana · 12-26-2003, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin
Obviously the matrilineal idea here is quite a late development. All biblical genealogies are patrilineal. I don't think there are any significant biblical indications.

I think matrilineality was developed to maintain the integrity of Jewish blood and culture, stopping potentially wayward males from straying to non-Jewish women in post-second temple times.

spin

Hi spin.

You may be right. That's one of the things I'm hoping someone here has dug deeper into so we can get down into the weeds.

This is a quote from one of the links I posted farther up:

Quote:

Additionally, Leviticus 24:10 speaks of the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man as being "among the community of Israel" (ie, a Jew). On the other hand, in Ezra 10:2-3, the Jews returning to Israel vowed to put aside their non-Jewish wives and the children born to those wives. They could not have put aside those children if those children were Jews.

Now, as to when the rabbis decided this meant that religion follows the mother, I have no idea. They did at some point, though.

The male lineages are listed (I'm told) for the purposes of determining tribal affiliations (and for inheritance, so I'm told). I'm led to believe, also, that kingly lines can only be passed through males (from here:

Quote:

For instance, in Numbers, chapter 1, verse 18, we're told that the Jewish people declare their pedigrees according to their fathers' houses. When Queen Athaliah wanted to eliminate the Royal Line of David, she only killed the males knowing full well that a female descendant of David couldn't pass on the right to the throne (II Kings 11; II Chronicles 22).

That would explain why it would be necessary to track patrilineal lines.

It's just the weird divergence I noted earlier that boggles my mind: according to this plan, the "kingly" line needn't even, at any point, actually even be Jewish!

d

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.