Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Imnotspecial · 12-21-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imnotspecial

Is there any reason to believe that at that time a formal adoption was made? Or was it just presumed because Joseph took care of the illegitimate son?

I believe the adequacy of law breaks down here. I am not sure what steps are needed legally to adopt a son born to your virgin wife in any culture. it seems he is presumed to be Joseph's son. (John 1:45, John 6:42, Luke 4:22)

~steve

No surprise here. Nothing adds up in the Bible.

sschlichter · 12-21-2009, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imnotspecial

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I believe the adequacy of law breaks down here. I am not sure what steps are needed legally to adopt a son born to your virgin wife in any culture. it seems he is presumed to be Joseph's son. (John 1:45, John 6:42, Luke 4:22)

~steve

No surprise here. Nothing adds up in the Bible.

it is certainly your right to come to that conclusion but there is nothing in this thread that supports that statement.

spin · 12-21-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

And I'm not sure that Luke speaks against Mary being a Davidid in his note in 1:36 that Mary was related to Elizabeth, an Aaronid. The term Luke uses in this designation is not ἀνεψιός but συγγενίς - which is vary vague term.

Not that vague when considering its fundamental meaning... as given by L&S: "of the same kin, descent, or family, akin to", which doesn't give much scope for the two women being from different tribes. Are there really any indications in Lk 1:36 that would suggest we should look elsewhere for its significance?

spin

sschlichter · 12-21-2009, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

And I'm not sure that Luke speaks against Mary being a Davidid in his note in 1:36 that Mary was related to Elizabeth, an Aaronid. The term Luke uses in this designation is not ἀνεψιός but συγγενίς - which is vary vague term.

Not that vague when considering its fundamental meaning... as given by L&S: "of the same kin, descent, or family, akin to", which doesn't give much scope for the two women being from different tribes. Are there really any indications in Lk 1:36 that would suggest we should look elsewhere for its significance?

spin

Maybe not, but Mary stayed with Elizabeth (and presumably Zechariah) for 3 months during her pregnancy (Luk 1:56), they knew she was pregnant (Luk 1:42) and Zechariah saw Mary's child as a horn of salvation in the house of David. (Luk 1:69). Admittedly, this proves nothing but it seems that the characters in the story consistently tie the birth to the line of David.

there is no reason why Mary's relationship to Elizabeth cannot exist across tribes. All it takes is for one woman to marry outside of her tribe. Why couldn't Mary's mother been a descendant of Aaron who married a descendant of David? (or grand-mother, or father, or grand-father) Was this un-heard of?

~Steve

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-21-2009, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I believe you were right on both counts. 1) that Christians do believe Mary to be a descendant of david and 2) that it is important and adoption is not sufficient.

I am not buying it, Steve.
Even if Mary were David's daughter, that would not be sufficient, according to Jewish law, for Jesus to claim descent from the house of David. Descent was traced via the paternal link, exclusively. The mother is only there to nourish, in the Jewish idea of society.

Where specifically in the corpus of "Jewish Law" may this rule be found? Please cite any Jewish legal text that goes back to the first century that shows that one's descent from David (or to any notable figure in Israel's history) was legally prescribed as having to be traced via the paternal link exclusively in order to have one's ancestral claims recognized as legitimate.

What line did Hillel use to justify his claim that he was a descendant of David?

And if your wholly unsubstantiated claim is correct, why in his proclamation that Jesus is descended from Abraham and David, does Matthew trace Jesus genealogy to these figures through Tamar (v 3), Rahab, Ruth (v 5), and Bathsheba, v 6?

Jeffrey

spin · 12-21-2009, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

And if your wholly unsubstantiated claim is correct, why in his proclamation that Jesus is descended from Abraham and David, does Matthew trace Jesus genealogy to these figures through Tamar (v 3), Rahab, Ruth (v 5), and Bathsheba, v 6?

How does the mention of these women change the patrilineality of the line?

spin

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-21-2009, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

And I'm not sure that Luke speaks against Mary being a Davidid in his note in 1:36 that Mary was related to Elizabeth, an Aaronid. The term Luke uses in this designation is not ἀνεψιός but συγγενίς - which is vary vague term.

Not that vague when considering its fundamental meaning... as given by L&S: "of the same kin, descent, or family, akin to", which doesn't give much scope for the two women being from different tribes. Are there really any indications in Lk 1:36 that would suggest we should look elsewhere for its significance?

spin

Leaving aside the question of whether you are appealing here to a vesrion of the etymological fallacy, I suggest you have a look at the meanings that the term bore as given and instanced by Danker:

Quote:

συγγενής, ές related, akin to (Pind., Thu.+; inscr., pap., LXX, Philo, Joseph.) in our lit. only subst. In the sing., masc. (Jos., Vi. 177) J 18:26 and fem. (Menand., fgm. 929 K.; Jos., Ant. 8, 249)Lk 1:36 t.r. Predom. pl. οἱ συγγενεῖς(the dat. of this form, made on the analogy of γονεῖς—γονεῦσιν, is συγγενεῦσιν [a Pisidian inscr.: JHS 22, ’02, p. 358 no. 118; I Macc 10:89 v.l.] Mk 6:4; Lk 2:44 [both passages have συγγενέσιν as v.l., like Diod. S. 1, 92, 1; Dit., Or. 177, 7 (97/6 bc); UPZ 161, 21 (119 bc); PTebt. 61, 79; 1 Macc 10:89, text; Jos., Ant. 16, 382]; Bl-D. §47, 4 w. app.; Mlt.-H. 138; Thackeray 153) Lk 2:44; 21:16. W. a gen. (Bl-D. §194, 2) Mk 6:4; Lk 1:58; 14:12; Ac 10:24.—In the broader sense fellow-countryman, fellow-citizen of members of the same nation (Jos., Ant. 12, 338)οἱ συγγενεῖς μου κατὰ σάρκα Ro 9:3; cf. 16:7, 11, 21. M-M. B. 132.*

Jeffrey

John Kesler · 12-21-2009, 03:59 PM

Mary would not necessarily be a Levite just because she was Elizabeth's "kinswoman," since intertribal marriages took place. Even Aaron's own wife, Elisheba, was of the tribe of Judah.

Quote:

Numbers 1:5,7
5 These are the names of the men who shall assist you...7 From Judah, Nahshon son of Amminadab.

Exodus 6:23
23 Aaron married Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab and sister of Nahshon, and she bore him Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.

spin · 12-21-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Not that vague when considering its fundamental meaning... as given by L&S: "of the same kin, descent, or family, akin to", which doesn't give much scope for the two women being from different tribes. Are there really any indications in Lk 1:36 that would suggest we should look elsewhere for its significance?

Leaving aside the question of whether you are appealing here to a vesrion of the etymological fallacy,...

I didn't catch your meaning here regarding your question. Could you elucidate rather than leaving it aside?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...I suggest you have a look at the meanings that the term bore as given and instanced by Danker:

Quote:

συγγενής, ές related, akin to (Pind., Thu.+; inscr., pap., LXX, Philo, Joseph.) in our lit. only subst. In the sing., masc. (Jos., Vi. 177) J 18:26 and fem. (Menand., fgm. 929 K.; Jos., Ant. 8, 249)Lk 1:36 t.r. Predom. pl. οἱ συγγενεῖς(the dat. of this form, made on the analogy of γονεῖς—γονεῦσιν, is συγγενεῦσιν [a Pisidian inscr.: JHS 22, ’02, p. 358 no. 118; I Macc 10:89 v.l.] Mk 6:4; Lk 2:44 [both passages have συγγενέσιν as v.l., like Diod. S. 1, 92, 1; Dit., Or. 177, 7 (97/6 bc); UPZ 161, 21 (119 bc); PTebt. 61, 79; 1 Macc 10:89, text; Jos., Ant. 16, 382]; Bl-D. §47, 4 w. app.; Mlt.-H. 138; Thackeray 153) Lk 2:44; 21:16. W. a gen. (Bl-D. §194, 2) Mk 6:4; Lk 1:58; 14:12; Ac 10:24.—In the broader sense fellow-countryman, fellow-citizen of members of the same nation (Jos., Ant. 12, 338)οἱ συγγενεῖς μου κατὰ σάρκα Ro 9:3; cf. 16:7, 11, 21. M-M. B. 132.*

I asked you specifically "Are there really any indications in Lk 1:36 that would suggest we should look elsewhere for its significance?" You could look at that dictionary entry yourself because it doesn't help you wiggle. The Pauline examples are by their metaphorical nature not relevant, nor is Ant 12, 338, whose context clearly signals this broader sense. Please answer my question which focused on indications in Lk 1:36 and context that allow you to consider a broader meaning than the usual one.

spin

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-21-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the question of whether you are appealing here to a vesrion of the etymological fallacy,...

I didn't catch your meaning here regarding your question. Could you elucidate rather than leaving it aside?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...I suggest you have a look at the meanings that the term bore as given and instanced by Danker:

I asked you specifically "Are there really any indications in Lk 1:36 that would suggest we should look elsewhere for its significance?" You could look at that dictionary entry yourself because it doesn't help you wiggle. The Pauline examples are by their metaphorical nature not relevant, nor is Ant 12, 338, whose context clearly signals this broader sense. Please answer my question which focused on indications in Lk 1:36 and context that allow you to consider a broader meaning than the usual one.

spin

What is the "usual" one? "Cousin"? Pardon me if I take Fitzmyer here over you:

Quote:

your relative Elizabeth. The degree of kinship is not stated. And Luke does not use a form of anepsios, “cousin,” otherwise known in the NT (Col 4:10), and thus renders questionable a popular interpretation of this kinship.

Fitzmyer, J. A., S.J. (2008). The Gospel according to Luke I-IX: Introduction, translation, and notes (352). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

Jeffrey

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.