SharonB: The rendition of the Genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and Luke follows the male lineage. In Judaism, lineage is traced through the female line. Why was the male line used for the genealogy of Jesus?
I do not know why the genealogy is given so confusing in the text,
but for the record =
Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth and it declares that she was “… of the daughters of Arron …” per Luke 1:5, so that makes Jesus being of the Levite Priesthood through His mother Mary.
I’m not Jewish nor do I play one on TV but my understanding is that the switch from patrilinear descent to matrilineal didn’t really kick in until the second century and then mostly to accommodate intermarriage with gentiles. If the father was gentile and the mother is Jewish then the child is Jewish. if the father is Jewish and the mother not, then otherwise. So in Jesus’ day and for a time after it would still have been normal to go back through the father especially if both parents were Jewish.
In Jesus Interrupted. Dr. Ehrman puts forth the argument that Mary can NOT be in the line of David, as we know a required prophesy, in order to be the Messiah.
I put together a meme (cartoon) that points this out.
Apologist are countering with the reference in Luke to “Heli.” This vague reference to a brother of Joseph who married an ancestor of Mary apparently is used to show that Mary is indeed descendant from the House of David.
How can I show this is essentially bunk, perhaps added at a late date by a scribe seeking a cure for an obvious problem that would negate Jesus as the Christ.
I gather the only way to post a graphic is to link to it?
As for the change to matrilineality around first-century ce rabbinic Judaism, Shaye JD Cohen discusses this process at length in his book The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, and specifically in a paper titled Origins of the Matrilineal Principle in Rabbinic Law, for those with access to JSTOR. It’s a fascinating subject.
What I can’t figure out is why the genealogies diverge twice: once after David and once after Zerubbabel. It makes not only the lineage of Jesus suspect but also the genealogy of Zerubbabel.
Was Nathan, the son of David, a priest? If so that might make sense as Luke begins with Zechariah and Elizabeth in priestly roles and heritage. It may simply be literary focus on the temple priesthood in view, idk.
“The rendition of the Genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and Luke follows the male lineage”
Some people claim that the lineage in the book of Matthew is that of Jesus through his mother Mary.
Andrew Gabriel Roth on Mt 1:16
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“how Jesus is considered to be of David’s bloodline since he didn’t share Joseph’s DNA”
Jesus had DNA of his mother Mary.
“only way to post a graphic is to link to it?”
What’s the link?
“why the genealogies diverge twice: once after David and once after Zerubbabel”
Jesus was a descendant of King David on his biological mother Mary’s side, and on his step-dad Joseph’s side.
I heard a rabbi say that in Second Temple Judaism, tribal descent is through the paternal line, which is why, considering the culture of the Second Temple Judaism, Jesus would be ruled out as the Messiah, since Joseph is only the putative father of Jesus; tribal descent is through the father, not the mother.
Welcome Tlapapal.
I am always reminded of the passages in the Book of John where Joseph is explicitly identified as Jesus’ father, once by a friend and once by an enemy. The gospel writer presents both identifications without contradiction although they would be a perfect time to step in if he really believed in the Virgin Birth.
Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him about whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.” -John 1,45 NRSV
&
They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” – John 6,42 NRSV
My point is that early on there were other traditions than the one where Jesus had a special birth. There were Christologies that were not inconsistent with Joseph being Jesus’ father.
The fact that the paternal genealogies are present in the same gospels as the Virgin Birth is just an internal contradiction. I suspect those Messianic genealogies predated Jesus and were subsequently assigned to him by tradition.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)