I’m currently reading Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, and I’ve gotten myself a bit confused.
In the first book, he takes great pains to determine exactly how Joseph was descended from the line of David, naming specific people as well as a way to reconcile the two different versions given in the Gospels. From this we can determine that the literal descent was important.
But Jesus wasn’t Joseph’s son, right? Virgin Birth and all, Joseph had fairly little to do with it. Accordingly, how can descent be traced through him?
I’m interested in accepted theological explanations, especially for early Christianity, but any other denominations would be interesting as well. Debate is not what I am going for, hence placing this in GQ.
Okay, now I feel stupid. Reading on in Eusebius, he says: “In tracing thus the genealogy of Joseph, Africanus has virtually proved that Mary belonged to the same tribe as her husband, in view of the fact that under Mosaic law inter-marriage between different tribes was forbidden …”
Where do you see that inter-tribal marriage is forbidden? It most certainly is not.
Perhaps Eusebius might be referring to the end of Numbers, but in that case, that only applies to a woman who stands to inherit land from her father. (Furthermore, in Jewish law, that only applied up to the time the land was divided but not after that.) But there is no general ban on inter-tribal marriages.
David (from Judah) married Michal, the daughter of Saul, who was from Benjamin. Caleb was willing to marry off his daughter to anyone who could conquer Kiryas Sefer (it turned out that his nephew did it) but it could just as easily have been someone from another tribe.
Boaz married a convert (Ruth).
Aaron (from Levi) married Elisheva from Judah.
There are probably other examples that I simply cannot think of off the top of my head. But there most certainly was no general ban on inter-tribal marriage.
Well, there are a number of theories, none with AFAIK anyone’s imprimatur as that members of that church need to believe it, as to why the Matthew and Luke genealogies are different. I mention this because one such theory suggests that the Lukan genealogy is actually Mary’s ancestry, not Joseph’s.
But in any case, a person taken as son by a childless man is deemed in Jewish law to be legally descended from him, and heir to whatever he may leave him. (Zev, I’m confident that I have this accurate, but any confirmation or cites you could provide would be most welcome.)
God told Joseph to take Mary as wife and act as father to Jesus – so the issue of the Virgin Birth does not arise in that context. Jesus is Joseph’s heir by law.
I’m afraid not, Polycarp. While one can (and is praised) for raising an orphan (or other child needing a home) as one’s own child, the child does not grant the child any status that the parent may have. A kohen who adopts a child (whether or not he has any other children) is not a kohen. An adopted child does not inherit from his adopted parent (although they are free to make a gift to the child upon his death). In short, adoption has no formal standing in Jewish law and certainly confers no status or rights on the child that s/he would otherwise not have.
Polycarp, Eusebius relates Africanus’ version of why the geneologies are different: that a son can be born technically to one father and legally to another in the case of death of a man and impregnation of the wife by the dead man’s brother so the child can inherit.
After that last fiasco with Jewish law, I’m almost afraid to say anything more, but he’s what I understand with regard to that:
When a man dies childless, his brother is expected to “go in to” the widow and father a male child on her, which is regarded as being the son of the deceased childless man, rather than of the gentleman who actually begetted him. This will require him to marry her where such a marriage is legal (i.e., if unmarried or if multiple spouses are legally permitted).
The Onan story from Gen. 38, often used to condemn masturbation or coitus interruptus, is actually God’s judgment on a man who fails to do his duty by his dead brother – though it does predate the giving of the law requiring this.
Please note that this law only applies to one’s paternal brother.
[sup]*[/sup]Normally, if one’s paternal brother than one is also. However, it is possible to have paternal brothers who have different statuses. One such example is where the second husband is the product of a marriage between a Kohen and a woman forbidden to him (such as a divorcee). The child of that marriage is a Challal and does not have the status of a Kohen.
Matthew and Luke wrote their own versions according to their own agendas. The fact that one used the lineage thru Joseph and the other thru Mary means that they weren’t plagiarizing. It can mean what you want it to mean or not mean.
For Mt and Lk, having Jesus being perfectly and legally the heir of Joseph and David was not important (hey, they’re not following strict Jewish law themselves). Simply being ‘of the house of David’ was good enough to satisfy messianic prophecies. It’s Eusebius and the theologically anal that try to look for airtight legal proofs.
Mt and Lk do not practice modern notions of scientific historicity. The choice of ancestors serve theological purposes. These theological points are also expressed in numerology (3 sets of 14 generations, e.g.), even by skipping a generation or two in order to make the number of generations fit.
For Mt and Lk, if God’s your father, then you are[sup][/sup]* the legal heir of Joseph, David, Abraham, Adam, and the creator Himself. Trump that!
Peace.
**[sup]*[/sup]**If foreign kings give you gifts on your birthday, they you are the Messiah.
If you wake up and there are shepherds doing you homage, then you just might be the Messiah.
If you dive into a pool and you bump your head on the top of the water, they it’s a safe bet… you’re the Messiah.