FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-23-2007, 10:55 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 4,157
Default The House of David

I recently heard a sermon on the Nativity narrative in GMatt. It acknowledged the fact that the Gospels were written well after the fact, that the Nativity narratives in GMatt and GLuke are very different, and that they're both trying to stress different things. Fine enough.

One nugget gave me pause, and that was the assertion that because Joseph, in the story, accepted Mary's pregnancy and didn't divorce her, and agreed to raise Jesus as his own, Jesus therefore had a legitimate tie to the House of David.

Now I've seen all sorts of claims and convoluted interpretations of genealogies in apologetic works designed to somehow connect Jesus to the Davidic line, but I don't recall seeing one that asserts that Joseph essentially adopted him into the line.

So, some questions for the holiday weekend to those who are well-versed in ancient Jewish traditions:

Was Hebrew law in the late 1st Century BC such that an adoption like this would have made the adoptee a legitimate member of a patriarchal line?

Would the notion that Joseph adopted Jesus imply that Jesus would have been known to be illegitimate?

Would Joseph have been able to adopt Jesus on the sly so he wouldn't have to admit that Jesus wasn't his? Would the lack of an official, public adoption mean that Jesus wasn't a member of the line, and that claims that he was were deceptive?

To me, the whole story seems like a wholesale reinterpretation of events and characters from the OT intended to support an emergent tradition, but I'm intrigued when people introduce little nuggets of supposed law and culture to explain away the nagging details.

regards,

NinJay
-Jay- is offline  
Old 12-23-2007, 11:17 AM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: russia
Posts: 1,108
Default

hi hun I found a link with some info for you

Quote:
The "seed of David according to the flesh" does not necessarily mean genetic descent. It can also mean that the person is brought up in the house of a descendant of David. In the case of Yeshua, he wasn't just brought up in the household of Joseph, he was born there. His birth was registered by Joseph in Bethlehem the city of David, and he was circumcised on the eighth day under the supervision of Joseph at the Temple in Jerusalem. This was considered to be a physical birth into the household of Joseph, not a spiritual birth as is the case when we are "born again".
There is no certainty that Mary was of the tribe of Levi. There was much intermarriage and she could have been a cousin from any tribe.
Quote:
The Talmud states emphatically that there is no difference between an adopted child and a child who was born into the household, and the genealogical tables in the Bible do not attempt to identify anyone as an "adopted son". Instead they are just called "sons".
http://www.annomundi.com/bible/index.htm
reniaa is offline  
Old 12-23-2007, 05:20 PM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

reniaa - I can't find that quote at your link. This discussion of adoption under Jewish law would seem to be in conflict (and there is no apparent motive here to reach that result.)

Jewish adoptions
Quote:
There is a certain irony in the Jewish view of adoption. Jewish sources teach two contradictory messages. On one hand, the Bible and the Talmud are filled with wonderful examples of adoption and beautiful aggadic sayings about people who raise children born to others. On the other hand, because of the strong emphasis in Judaism on bloodlines and lineage, adoption as a formal legal procedure is totally unknown.

In the Bible, Abraham adopts his servant Eliezer and Mordecai raises his orphaned cousin Esther. The Talmudic sage Abaye often quotes wise sayings in the name of his foster mother. Perhaps the most beautiful statement about adoption concerns Michal, the wife of King David. According to the Bible, she never had children all her life (2 Samuel 6:23); yet the Bible also mentions her five sons (2 Samuel 21:8). Noticing this discrepancy, the Talmud remarks, "Her sister Merab gave birth to them and she raised them, therefore they are called by her name. This teaches that whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded, according to Scripture, as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 19b) A similar passage occurs in the midrash, where the question arises about what Hebrew name to use for a woman raised by a foster father. The decision is to use the foster father's name, because "he who brings up a child is to be called its father, not he who gave birth." (Exodus Rabbah 46:5)

However, adoption as practiced in our modern society means the removal of all rights and responsibilities of the biological parent, and their transfer to another couple or individual. For all intents and purposes, the child's biological lineage is broken. This procedure has its roots in ancient Roman law, where the concern was finding an heir for a childless couple. In contrast, British common law, coming from a society that placed great emphasis on lineage, bloodlines, and class, never developed an adoption procedure, To illustrate this point, suppose Prince Charles and Princess Diana adopted a baby boy; he certainly would not be in line for the throne.

Jewish law is far closer to British common law than to ancient Roman law. In Judaism, personal status is based on bloodlines and lineage, the moment of birth gives a Jew his or her identity. No legal procedure or court decree can erase that identity.

This emphasis on bloodlines has serious consequences for adoption in Jewish law. For example, the status of the birth mother as Jew or gentile at the moment of birth establishes the identity of the child as Jewish or gentile. If the mother is Jewish, then the father's tribal status as a Kohen, Levi, or Yisrael decides the child's tribe. If a Jewish woman became pregnant as a result of adultery or incest, the child would take on the status of a mamzer, and traditional Jewish law would forbid such a person from marrying a Jew of legitimate birth.
The Jewish charge against Jesus (in later centuries) was that he was a mamzer, illegitimate. It does not appear that the society at that time had any means of legitimating an illegitimate child, or that this would affect his lineage.

The argument that Ninjay brings up in the OP reminds me of Lord Mansfield's rule; a child born to a married woman is conclusively presumed to be the child of her husband. It is a little rule of evidence that avoided a lot of messy legal fights. But it is a product of 18th century Britain, not ancient Israel.
Toto is offline  
Old 12-23-2007, 05:52 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 4,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
reniaa - I can't find that quote at your link. This discussion of adoption under Jewish law would seem to be in conflict (and there is no apparent motive here to reach that result.)

Jewish adoptions
Quote:
<...much interesting stuff snipped...>
The Jewish charge against Jesus (in later centuries) was that he was a mamzer, illegitimate. It does not appear that the society at that time had any means of legitimating an illegitimate child, or that this would affect his lineage.
Ah, the sweet smell of apologetics...
It's interesting, though, because if the author of GMatt was within Jewish society, he should've been aware of this. If so, the act of including the reference in his writing was an ill-advised complication.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
The argument that Ninjay brings up in the OP reminds me of Lord Mansfield's rule; a child born to a married woman is conclusively presumed to be the child of her husband. It is a little rule of evidence that avoided a lot of messy legal fights. But it is a product of 18th century Britain, not ancient Israel.
Thanks for bringing that up. I dimly recalled some sort of convention to that effect, but couldn't come up with the details.

regards,

NinJay
-Jay- is offline  
Old 12-23-2007, 06:20 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 4,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reniaa View Post
hi hun I found a link with some info for you

Quote:
The "seed of David according to the flesh" does not necessarily mean genetic descent. It can also mean that the person is brought up in the house of a descendant of David. In the case of Yeshua, he wasn't just brought up in the household of Joseph, he was born there. His birth was registered by Joseph in Bethlehem the city of David, and he was circumcised on the eighth day under the supervision of Joseph at the Temple in Jerusalem. This was considered to be a physical birth into the household of Joseph, not a spiritual birth as is the case when we are "born again".
There is no certainty that Mary was of the tribe of Levi. There was much intermarriage and she could have been a cousin from any tribe.
reniaa - I would agree that the term "seed of David according to the flesh" could mean something other than direct genetic descent, if the term "according to the flesh" was commonly understood to include, for example, adoptions, step children, and the like.

It does not seem obvious that this is the case, though, and without a clear warrant to interpret the term differently, we must assume that the phrase was intended to mean precisely what it says, hence the subsequent contortions to establish Jesus' place by citing lengthy genealogies in GMatt and GLuke.

I'd also like to point out that your comments about Jesus'/Yeshua's birth and early circumstances aren't supported by any extra-Biblical sources, and that the discrepancies between the two Nativity narratives are significant enough to call both into serious question. You're effectively attempting to use stories in the Bible to justify a claim that is, in turn, used to justify those selfsame Biblical stories. This is circular. While such explanations may be sufficient for you, I hope you can appreciate that others may not be convinced by them.

regards,

NinJay
-Jay- is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:32 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.