Did Jesus have any claim to the throne of Israel?

[kanicbird]

@dropzone

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.

Well it is consistent with His message the last shall be first and the first shall be last.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

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.

Although, come to think of it, there was Zerubbabel, purported grandson of King Jehoiachin (though his genealogy is controversial), who led the Jews back from Babylon to Jerusalem. So I guess the royal line was known (or believed) to have survived at least that long. Both Luke and Matthew trace Jesus’ descent through Zerubbabel.

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

Although, come to think of it, there was Zerubbabel, purported grandson of King Jehoiachin (though his genealogy is controversial), who led the Jews back from Babylon to Jerusalem. So I guess the royal line was known (or believed) to have survived at least that long. Both Luke and Matthew trace Jesus’ descent through Zerubbabel.

Rabbi Judah Lowe of Prague (the Maharal, he of Golem fame) was supposedly descended from King David, and that was in the 17th century. As to your question of why the Macabees took the throne for themselves instead of turning over power to a Davidic descendant, the answer is pretty simple. They had just led a sucessful revolt and were in charge…they weren’t in any mood to give that up, whether there were descendants of David around or not.

[kaylasdad99]

As long as Herod is being discussed, maybe somebody can solve this for me:

1. Jesus gets borned.
2. Herod finds out, and sends soldiers to kill all the babies (in the hope of killing Jesus among them)
3. Joseph finds out about this, and moves the family to Egypt to wait for the heat to die down.
4. Herod dies.
5. Joseph brings the family back to Nazereth.
6. Jesus grows up.
7. John the Baptist baptizes Jesus.
8. Salome dances the hootchie-kootchie for Herod
9. Herod has John the Baptist’s head delivered on a platter to Salome (apparently he spent all his singles on the wings…)
10. Herod does this great dance number for Jesus before sending Jesus to Pontius Pilates (what, did he think Jesus needed the exercise?)

So, how does the guy die in step 4, yet still have enough momentum to keep going on and doing the things he did in steps 8 - 10?

[H3Knuckles]

@kaylasdad99

As long as Herod is being discussed, maybe somebody can solve this for me:

1. Jesus gets borned.
2. Herod finds out, and sends soldiers to kill all the babies (in the hope of killing Jesus among them)
3. Joseph finds out about this, and moves the family to Egypt to wait for the heat to die down.
4. Herod dies.
5. Joseph brings the family back to Nazereth.
6. Jesus grows up.
7. John the Baptist baptizes Jesus.
8. Salome dances the hootchie-kootchie for Herod
9. Herod has John the Baptist’s head delivered on a platter to Salome (apparently he spent all his singles on the wings…)
10. Herod does this great dance number for Jesus before sending Jesus to Pontius Pilates (what, did he think Jesus needed the exercise?)

So, how does the guy die in step 4, yet still have enough momentum to keep going on and doing the things he did in steps 8 - 10?

Off the top of my head…
1.) We all know the bible is a flawed recording of events that contradicts itself in some places. I’m a Christian, and I freely acknowledge that. Was Herod’s death and his meeting Jesus contained in separate gospels? I don’t recall, but if so, you’re looking at separate accounts by separate authors.
2.) Could he be Herod, son of Herod? Does it specifically identify him/them as being the same King Herod?

[kaylasdad99]

Dunno any of that. I have heard of a reluctance on the part of Jewish families to name offspring after living relatives.

I also heard the other day on NPR that the Herod who built the Second Temple in Jerusalem was a convert to Judaism. Don’t know if that has any significance.

[GIGObuster]

Yep, early it was Herod the Great; the one that saw the hootchie-kootchie was his son, Herod Antipas

[kaylasdad99]

'kaythxbye. No, wait! is there a record (or a tradition) of a different king between the two Herods? Or is there any record or tradition of any other Israelite king passing his name on to his son and successor?

[GIGObuster]

@kaylasdad99

'kaythxbye. No, wait! is there a record (or a tradition) of a different king between the two Herods? Or is there any record or tradition of any other Israelite king passing his name on to his son and successor?

ANTIPAS (HEROD ANTIPAS) - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Seventh (not sixth, as stated in Graetz, nor third, as in Dean Farrar’s biography of the Herods) and, at the time of his father’s death, youngest son of Herod the Great by his Samaritan wife, Malthace. The exact date of his birth can not be ascertained, but it must certainly have occurred before 20 B.C. He died in exile about the year 39. Antipas, like most of the other members of his family, was educated at Rome, and kept in close touch with the imperial court. Little is known of his mode of life or of his activity before his accession to power, though his later acts do not lead to the supposition that he had been superior in virtue to his half-brothers, or, indeed, to most of the patrician youths brought up near the palace. From two Greek inscriptions—one from the island of Kos, and the other from Delos (“C. I. G.” No. 2502; “Bulletin de Correspondances Helléniques,” iii. 365)—it is apparent that he traveled extensively, though it can not be ascertained at what period of his life.

Becomes Tetrarch.

Upon the discovery of Antipater’s attempt to poison his father, Herod the Great appointed Antipas his successor to the throne of Judea; but either, as some state, on account of the severe illness that had again befallen him, or owing to the fear of dire consequences in leaving the whole kingdom in the hands of his youngest son, Herod divided Judea into several districts, and in his last will (about 4 B.C.) bequeathed to Antipas nothing but the tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea, which brought its ruler an income of 200 talents; giving to another son by Malthace, Archelaus, the right to the title of “king of Judea.” Antipas did not acquiesce in this new partition of his father’s dominions. He went to Rome, accompanied by the rhetorician Ireneus, and claimed the kingdom in accordance with Herod’s earlier will; but though a deputation of fifty Jews had reached the imperial court to plead against Archelaus—and incidentally against Antipas—Augustus ratified the terms of the last will.

Upon several occasions, during his rule of the tetrarchy, Antipas appealed to Rome for extension of his territory. But his scheming and petitions were of no avail, and his final appeal to Caligula for further addition to his dominion was fruitless and only hastened his ruin. It is, therefore, either as a general expression of authority and power, or in cognizance of the fact that the royal title was always borne by some member of the Herodian family (Archelaus was then no longer ruling), that the epithet “king” is used (only once) in the New Testament in speaking of Antipas (Mark, vi. 14). Wherever else in the New Testament he is mentioned, the title given to him is, generally, “tetrarch”: the name Antipas never occurs there, Herod being the only name used (Matt. xiv. 1; Luke, iii. 1, 19, and ix. 7). Josephus, who, in the first part of the “History of the Jewish War,” speaks of him as Antipas, calls him Herod in relating the division of Judea; adding to the name the phrase, “he who was called Antipas” (“B. J.” ii. 9, § 1), but using simply the patronymic throughout the rest of his work. In the English translation of Graetz (ii. 114), Herod is spoken of as Antipas I.; but this use of the Roman numeral is evidently unwarranted.

[GIGObuster]

Regarding the OP, it seems important to me to remark that:

1. If the Davidian claim was that important, it shows that being born of a virgin or being the son of god was not the biggest deal.

2. It is the New testament that has the hootchie-kootchie dance :), but historians do not give too much credence to Salome as the cause of John the Baptist’s death, it is more likely that John was killed just for condemning publicly the marriage of Herod to Herodias.

3. The Romans were the ones controlling everything (render to Caesar) looking at the history then, a claim to the throne of Israel, after the division of Israel, would have been dead on arrival (pun intended, although IMO Jesus was crucified before he had made an official claim). Seeing how there was really no king but puppet rulers then, and how badly it did go to Herod Antipas just by trying to be worthy of being called king, the real chance for a claim for the kingdom required a different tactic IMO: Joseph, Mary and Jesus should not had fled to Egypt, but to Rome instead and gotten an audience with Augustus (Of course I should mention here that before someone says that that was “impossible!” consider who we are talking about here. )

[kaylasdad99]

Point 3) is interesting, and leads to the question: if a Davidian pretender to the throne (or tetrarchy, if you prefer) would have been dismissed as irrelevant during the term of Antipas, would a claim have been considered any more realistic and/or relevant some thirty-three years earlier? Put more bluntly, is there any strong argument that Herod the Great had a pausible motivation for ordering the mass infanticide that he was accused of?

[BrainGlutton]

@Captain Amazing

Rabbi Judah Lowe of Prague (the Maharal, he of Golem fame) was supposedly descended from King David, and that was in the 17th century.

Interesting. And John Kerry is a descendant of Rabbi Lowe! (See posts #10 & 16.)

:eek: JOHN KERRY IS THE MESSIAH!

[Captain_Amazing]

@kaylasdad99

Point 3) is interesting, and leads to the question: if a Davidian pretender to the throne (or tetrarchy, if you prefer) would have been dismissed as irrelevant during the term of Antipas…

A Davidian pretender to the throne wouldn’t have been dismissed as irrelevant. On the contrary, there were a number of would be messiahs at the time who were violently put down.

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

Interesting. And John Kerry is a descendant of Rabbi Lowe! (See posts #10 & 16.)

:eek: JOHN KERRY IS THE MESSIAH!

Well, as the linked posts show, Kerry may be a descendent of Rabbi Lowe’s brother on his mother’s side. The messiah will be descended from King David along the male line. So, for that reason, among many others, Kerry can’t be the messiah.

[jimmmy]

To the OP there are two wildly different Genealogies for Jesus: Luke and Matthew

Matthew’s wants to show Jesus as the New Moses to a Jewish audience and his genealogy actually begins with Abraham, David is included to show that Jesus is fulfilling Jewish law and (carefully selected) scripture

Luke wants to show Jesus as a Prophet to the whole world, Jew and Gentile alike. His genealogy goes all the way back to Adam, and Davidic lineage [thru Nathan the Prophet not King Solomon] is included probably for the same reasons above and to give him a Prophetic and Godly pedigree to gentiles who might be worried about following a day laborer/carpenters son

So, to the OP, the writers of the Gospel at the time were not writing to claim a Davidic throne for Jesus (who was decades dead by the time this was written & wasn’t going to claim it anyhow). What they are actually doing is covering Jesus in legitimacy in the eyes of their readers for own purposes other than what Tambor would lead us to believe is a political motive

BTW Solomon supposedly had 1000’s of kids – and even if this was a 10X exaggeration – likely almost anyone in Israel could claim some Davidic blood. People today still do
And are planning a reunion

As wiki says

Thus men such as the editor of the Mishnah, Rabbi Judah haNasi and his heirs were considered to be from the Davidic line, hence also the title “Nasi” meaning prince. Many of the heads of the Jewish communities in Babylon, the Reish Galuta were also described as being of the Davidic line.

Let me say on the Pantheria thing – if we are going to believe Celsus on that we also need to note that Celsus says Jesus had [Super Friends voice] fabulous magic powers learned from the Egyptians[/Super friends voice]. In full:

Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain magical powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.

Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28 (Celus wrote this ~175 or about 175 years after the fact and is first quoted 70-80 years later)

Clearly (to me) Celus had read the/heard the Proto_Christian Gospel and had an answer and inclination to explain it all away

[dropzone]

@jimmmy

To the OP there are two wildly different Genealogies for Jesus: Luke and Matthew

Yeah, there’s that, too.

BTW Solomon supposedly had 1000’s of kids – and even if this was a 10X exaggeration – likely almost anyone in Israel could claim some Davidic blood.

And that, which I noted in Post 12.

Let me say on the Pantheria thing – if we are going to believe Celsus on that we also need to note that Celsus says Jesus had [Super Friends voice] fabulous magic powers learned from the Egyptians[/Super friends voice].

Funny how True Believers are so awfully good at cherry-picking their beliefs. He’s got this bee in his bonnet and hhe’s going to keep force-fitting the evidence to support it.

…to give him a Prophetic and Godly pedigree to gentiles who might be worried about following a day laborer/carpenters son

Now, you and I always thought of Joseph like that. I got it from, IIRC, Jim Bishop’s “The Day Christ Died,” which claimed that the modern standing of a carpenter as a solidly middle-class professional was not accurate back in the day and that a carpenter did not own land so he was a day laborer like the field hands Jesus told parables about. Tabor and his buddies see Joseph and Sons Inc. as contractors who could afford the nice tomb the show was about. So what is it? Would a carpenter in dinky, li’l Nazareth be a prosperous small-businessman or a step or two above a beggar?

[BrainGlutton]

@jimmmy

BTW Solomon supposedly had 1000’s of kids – and even if this was a 10X exaggeration – likely almost anyone in Israel could claim some Davidic blood.

So could a lot of “gentiles” in Europe and MENA. Jews in the Middle Ages (and later) always were under a lot of pressure to convert to Christianity or Islam, and it’s known that in every generation some yielded to that pressure; eventually everyone forgot the family in question had ever been Jewish, and it intermarried freely with other Christian or Muslim families. So practically anybody with roots west of India could be a descendant of King David. Right?

[jimmmy]

@dropzone

Tabor and his buddies see Joseph and Sons Inc. as contractors who could afford the nice tomb the show was about. So what is it? Would a carpenter in dinky, li’l Nazareth be a prosperous small-businessman or a step or two above a beggar?

Whether you translate tekton (what the bible says Joseph was) as Carpenter, Builder, Mason, Artisan or Day Laborer – would really be your answer. There are lengthy, scholarly treatise’s on this & all sound reasonable. Diogenes who knows these languages first hand would be a person to listen to, I am not sure who to trust - really the answer shapes how you read the rest & there seems to be no one indisputable good answer

Right Brainglutton - hail to thee son of David

BTW just to be clear Celus seems to be laughing at & trying to explain away what he heard of Christianity - second hand almost 2 centuries later. We only know what he thinks thru Origen’s apologetic against him.

[DrDeth]

@xtisme

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?

Sorry if its a hijack.

-XT

Whether or not King David was 99% or only 90% Legendary, it makes no difference. Queen Elizibeth is descened from Dudes who claimed they were descended for the Gods, and so did Julius Ceasar. Does that somehow make the line of the Tudors or Ceasar to be false? We have early archeaological evidence mentioning a House of David, so certainly there was such a lineage.

Sure Jesus could have been of Royal blood- and still been 987th in line for the throne. If you are of English Nobility going back several hundred years, you are likely also to have some royal blood. Big deal.

My Grandmother insisted her Father was something like 87th in line for some Eastern European petty Principality (and they were some sort of Nobility, with a coat of arms and everything, listed in books I found at the library, so she wasn’t making it all up). Thus I am “of Royal Blood”. Big Whoop. :dubious:

Royal Blood or no, Jesus had no real claim to the Throne- by that time the Romans pretty much called the shots anyway. But it is possible that Jesus had just enough claim that if he bribed the Senate and Emperor with hundreds of Talents of Gold, they would have been happy to give him a meaningless crown. Barring a “lead into gold” miracle, Jesus had no chance.
**
BrainGlutton** “The Bible Unearthed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman” is highly disputed and non-mainstream, and even so the authors have recanted on their strongest points. (Like "Well, there *might *have been an Exodus, but it was minor and with far less people and far less time. Thus the *classical Biblical Exodus *is mythical.) I disputed this a while ago with DtC, if you want to look for it.

[dropzone]

@jimmmy

Diogenes who knows these languages first hand would be a person to listen to…

And I’ve been dangling this thread here for a week but he hasn’t bitten.

BTW just to be clear Celus seems to be laughing at & trying to explain away what he heard of Christianity - second hand almost 2 centuries later. We only know what he thinks thru Origen’s apologetic against him.

Both reasons, I would think, to be real circumspect before using him as a source.