-Jay-

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 1^st 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

reniaa

hi hun I found a link with some info for you

http://www.annomundi.com/bible/index.htm

Toto

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 adoptionsThe 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.

-Jay-

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.

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-

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