In his book, The Jesus Dynasty, Dr James Tabor, one of the key sources of information for Discovery’s recent documentary on the so-called “lost tomb of Jesus,” expands on the biblical geneology that Jesus was a descendant of King David to claim that Jesus was the rightful heir to the throne of Israel. Is there anything whatsoever to that?
Note: I haven’t read the book because I find that, as well as most of the other things Tabor says in his blog, to be so preposterous as to not be worth my time to investigate. However, my idea of a complete waste of time is often the topic of someone here’s doctoral thesis, so I’m asking, er, here.
That’s part of the plot of Robert Graves’ novel, King Jesus. It seems that Mary, of the line of David, was married in secret to Antipater, the son of King Herod. Secret? Because Herod tended to kill his heirs; and he killed Antipater. Mary & her son, the true King of Judea, were protected by the elderly Joseph–more a wealthy “contractor” than a carpenter.
However, during the years in Egypt, Jesus became interested in various mystical matters. So he didn’t take his rightful place on the throne. Then, there were complications involving various Goddess-worshippers. (As one might expect from Robert Graves.)
Only a novel, but supported by Graves’ deep scholarship. I’m sure a simpler writer could sieze on a few of these ideas & write a best-seller.
If the royal line was known to have survived throughout the Babylonian Exile and the subsequent years of Persian, Alexandrian and Seleucid rule of Judea, why did the Maccabees, after their revolution, take the throne for themselves rather than restoring the Davidic heir? The Maccabees were priests, after all; in principle they should have been committed to a restoration.
Probably silly, but I thought there was some question if there WAS a real historical King David. Isn’t this sort of like claiming the throne of King Arthur or saying such and such is directly decended from Uther Pendragon?
Well, the OP does say “biblical geneology”. I assume that if there’s some debate on the subject the people concerned feel that Jesus in the Bible itself may not fulfil all the criteria necessary to inherit. I seem to recall Diogenes posting on this topic at some point… something to do with how bloodlines counted with adoptive children through the father but not the mother? I could easily be wrong, my memory is pretty bad (so no offense DtC if i’ve made a mistake).
Not necessarily a hijack. But think of it this way-- it doesn’t really matter whether there was a King David or not, just whether or not the Jews at the time of Jesus thought there had been, which I think they did.
Was Mary supposed to be of David’s lineage? I thought Joseph was, in which case Jesus-if the gospels were true- wouldn’t actually have been descended from David at all.
There’s a genealogical lineage at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew that specifically linked Jesus to King David. Some later Biblical scholars have been skeptical, IIRC, believing that it was either added later or was of iffy accuracy from the outset. Jesus’s early followers wanted to make him as attractive to as many people as possible, and his claim to be the Messiah would be greatly strengthened by directly linking him to the royal House of David.
It smacks of pretension. Jesus isn’t just of the Davidic line through, say, Hezekiah, but is descended from all the kings of Judah? Really? Prove it.
Luke has another, contradictory genealogy that traces Jesus’s lineage through a son of David’s called Nathan, not through the entire Messianic line. Bit dubious itself, but less obvious a lie if one is making stuff up, & ends up calling both lists into question.
Matthew is the same text that bizarrely adds an otherwise unattested “flight into Egypt” so that Jesus can “fulfill” the “prophecy,” “Out of Egypt I have called my son.” Since anyone familiar with Jewish national mythology recognizes the reference to the Exodus, Matthew has the reputation among some scholars as being both a liar & an overreaching one.
To be fair to the Matthew and Luke geneologies, one traces Mary’s line and the other one traces Joseph’s. That doesn’t make them any more likely to be accurate, but it doesn’t make them contradictory either. Taken together, they make Mary and Joseph distant cousins.
I’ve heard that claim many times before, and today I think I’ll call bullshit on it. What BIBLICAL evidence have you that one geneology is meant to be about Mary and the other her husband? Both Luke and John assert that the geneology given is that of Joseph, and they contradcit one another so obviously it’s not funny.
Yeah, but after several hundred years David’s descendants would’ve been legion. What would make Jesus any higher in the line of succession than, say, any of his, as the Eastern Rite folks believe, half brothers?
In The Bible Unearthed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman assert there is no archaeological evidence or extrabiblical historical or documentary evidence for most of the OT narrative, and in their view in some cases absence of evidence is evidence of absence. E.g., we can be reasonably certain the Exodus never happened because that large a migration would have left archaeological remains in the Sinai. Nor was there ever a united kingdom of Israel (north) and Judah (south) under David and Solomon. However, it appears there was a real, very ancient kingdom of Judah in the immediate neighborhood of Jerusalem, and there is some extrabiblical evidence (preserved correspondence between other rulers) that it was ruled by a House of David.
Since his four half-brothers would’ve been from Joseph’s presumed first wife, and since at least James outlived him and lived long enough to produce heirs, Jesus would be pretty far down the list.
blinking in incredulity But-but-but, that would not allow for Mary’s perpetual virginity!
This Tabor guy comes to conclusions that are sixteen kinds of crazy, whether or not one looks at it from the standpoint of a believer. And he seems to have so much mentally invested in it (Cameron didn’t pay him, only covered his expenses) that, even when others quoted in the show claim to have been misquoted or had their minimal statements expanded by the producers to say something they didn’t intend, he defends the producers. Looks like career suicide.
Oh, before I retire this thread, another thing Tabor claims is that Jesus’ real father was a Roman soldier named Pantera. The only sources for this I can find for this are the Talmud, and the Jews had reason to both make fun of the Virgin Birth and to distance themselves from Jesus (though if they could’ve found a way to deny Mary was a Jew, too, it would’ve been better), and Celsus, who used the same Jewish libels (assuming they weren’t true) to discredit the Christians. Sorta reminds me of using the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” to support the creation of the modern state of Israel, but whatever floats your boat. :rolleyes:
