diana

Hi all.

I was recently asked (on my blog) to provide my favorite biblical contradiction. I'd never really thought of them in terms of "favorites" before, but I selected the genealogies of Jesus, because they can't be simply hand-waved away like most.

Here's the link with my little writeup. The question put forth was this:

When a woman of the time married a man of another tribe, did she become attached to his tribe? By being married to Joseph, did she become a virtual Judahite? That could explain the need to resolve Joseph's lineage, althought it still doesn't address the larger discrepancies.

I believe the woman did become attached to the tribe she married into, although I can't find proof of this. I'm interested in the Jewish law at that time, of course.

However, it seems to me that any children she has, born or unborn, at the time of her wedlock will not become members of the new tribe. This makes sense to me from the papers I've read on the subject, but I may be confusing later Jewish law with earlier. Needless to say, I can't find anything on this, either.

As my friend noted, these still don't resolve the larger discrepancies, but I still thought he asked a good question.

Can anyone help me with this?

Thank you.

d

diana

Also, I've read where people claim it would have been a problem for Nathan to be in the kingly line instead of Solomon, but I can't find substantiation for the claim. Is it bogus or not? Why?

Thanks.

d

andrewcriddle

I'll try and look this up but at first glance it may depend on what you mean by at the time of her wedlock. Both Matthew and Luke have the conception of Jesus occurring after the formal bethrothal of Mary to Joseph. Now bethrothal in Jewish law at the time is much more like getting married today, than getting engaged today. (A woman cheating on her bethrothed is committing full-blown adultery and can face the death penalty.)

I suspect that children conceived after bethrothal and recognised as part of his family by the woman's bethrothed would be part of the man's tribe.

Andrew Criddle

diana

Interesting point, Andrew.

Now I'm wondering what the difference was between betrothal and marriage, if any. If I understand you correctly, Jesus was, by Jewish law, a member of Joseph's tribe because of Mary's betrothal to Joseph. Is this correct?

Thanks!

d

andrewcriddle

Bethrothal was legally in many ways marriage but the woman continued to live separate from her bethrothed usually with her parents until a marriage ceremony in which she left her previous residence and moved in with her bethrothed who was now her husband and to some extent legal guardian.

Sexual relations were not supposed to begin between the betrothed couple until the marriage ceremony but in practice this rule may not have been strictly enforced.


That's what I'm suggesting but I'm not certain.

Andrew Criddle

John Kesler

Look at 2 Samuel 7:11-16 (NRSV):

Who was this person who would build Yahweh's house and through whom the "throne of his kingdom" would forever be established? The answer is found in 2 Chronicles 22:9-10, quoted below from the NRSV.

So it was through Solomon that the "royal throne" was to be permanently established.

With regard to the marriage/betrothal issue, keep in mind that marriage in the ANE was a union of two families, not just two people, and betrothal was akin to what we might call a "common law" marriage. See for example Deuteronomy 22:23-24, again from the NRSV:

diana

Thus ruling out Nathan or any of his descendents as legitimate claimants to the throne/messiahship?

d

John Kesler

If one's conception of the Messiah including being an heir to the throne of David per the promises of 2 Samuel 7 and 2 Chronicles 22 (see Acts 2:30-31 for example), then the Messiah would have to be a descendant of Solomon, not Nathan.

offa

Here's some angles;


JUB 12:09 And in the fortieth jubilee, in the second week,
in its seventh year, Abram took a wife and her name
was Sarai, the daughter of his father, and she
became a wife for him.

Note that Abram, Haran, and Sarai are siblings.


JUB 12:10 And Haran, his brother, took a wife in the third
year of the third week, and she bore a son for him
in the seventh year of that week. And he called him
Lot.
Note that the "wife" of Haran is not mentioned by name, and
they do have a son.



JUB 13:13 And it came to pass when Pharaoh took Sarai, the
wife of Abram, that the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his
house with great plagues on account of Sarai, the
wife of Abram.

My take on this story is that the "Pharaoh" mentioned above
is Abram's brother Haran. Also, maybe Sarai was already Haran's
wife. The trick is that the Jubilee of Haran's wife taking is
not mentioned, it could have been the thirty-ninth Jubilee.

In answer to Diana's question, Haran took Sarai to his abode?
Sarai would officially become a wife after she delivers a son.
Now, the tricky little "begat" definition. Lot will not be
"begat" until he is 13 years old and celebrates his bar mitzvah
and then he will become a "1 year old Child". When he becomes
that "1 year old Child" Haran will be dead and Abram will begat
him.




JUB 12:12 In the sixtieth year of the life of Abram, i.e.
the fourth week, in its fourth year, Abram rose in
the night and burned the house of idols. And he
burned everything in the house. And there was no
man who knew.




JUB 12:14 And Haran rushed to save them, and the fire flared
up over him. And he was burned in the fire and died
in Ur of the Chaldees before Terah, his father. And
they buried him at Ur of the Chaldees.


Now let's not get all historical over "Ur of the Chaldees" or
"Egypt". Josephus tells us that phony name tags are put on
locations. This event is occurring near to Qumran. The Jews
were never in Egypt or Ur.

If you read between the lines you will discover that Abram
slew Haran and hid his body. Just like Cain slew Abel. Now,
Abram is going to take Sarai and Lot into his clan.


JUB 13:01 And Abram went from Haran. And he took Sarai his
wife, and Lot, his brother Haran's son, into the
land of Canaan. And he came to Asshur. And he
walked to Shechem. And he dwelt by a tall oak.


And about Moses ...


JUB 47:10 And you were in the court three weeks of years
until the day you went out of the royal court. And
you saw an Egyptian beating your friend who was from
the children of Israel. And you killed him and hid
him in the sand.


Isn't it a strange coincidence that these murders keep popping
up? Is this a retelling of Cain and Abel or Abram and Haran?


offa