Probably, but it is likely also one of the “just so stories” intended to show the faithful that Jesus was a religious prodigy at an early age…
I’m guessing the apocryphal story about child Jesus zapping an annoying teacher didn’t make the cut because it was off message.
No doubt the gospels are full of nuggets of hidden detail; the general theory being that they were composed from earlier written or oral history/histories rearranged by the various authors to emphasize what they wanted their intended audience to know, possibly the deeper meaning of some details escaping the author or later editors.
Personally, I like to read that as some snobbish Jerusalem scholars were astonished at how well a kid from an area with a reputation for being kinda dumb knew his Torah. People in the rest of Judah talked about Galilee the way people in Indiana talk about Kentucky.
The bit about handling serpents is a classic example. It wasn’t in the original Mark Gospel but was added some time later (Centuries) by someone pushing some heresy or other.
Back to the topic of linage, it has been suggested that, although Jesus was the son of God, Joseph’s linage would have mattered for legal reasons, and that this was good enough to fulfill biblical prophecy. I thought the prophecy referred to actual blood linage-am I wrong?
I’m embarrassed to say so, but I don’t know if David was a Cohen (except for my bud Dave Cohen), that is, of a priestly lineage and, assuming other criteria are met, is in theory ready to be the High Priest.
Clearly the relationship of Jesus, and the Christians, via a vis the Temple, or a Temple, is part of the main story; I don’t know if His Cohen (OK, Kohen, or [Roy] Cohn) status was argued, but mention lineage to a Jew–of course, now vestigial, but then of the essence–the first thing is whether or not you’re a Cohen. And that’s what they would want to see on paper.
ETA to above post. Whether or not you’re a hereditary Cohen is less vestigial depending on who you talk to and what situation. Wander into an Orthodox shul on a Monday, Thursday, or Saturday, when the Torah is read, and the shamus s(exton? beedle?guy who takes care of stuff like this) will go down the aisles asking if anyone is a Cohen, who gets first dibs on reading the verses. Second dibs goes to any Levines, Levy’s, etc. (Levites) in the house. Then the riffraff, all the other Israelites, get their turn. The accepted response to the question coming down the aisle “Cohen?..Cohen…?” Is either “Yes” or “No, but I’m working on it.”
So there a few practical, daily life issues that even today, when Hope Springs Eternal for a return to the Holy Temple, that Orthodox Cohens have to take care of (don’t touch a corpse or enter a cemetery is another one), not to speak of other Mitzvoth that are studied by all Talmud students to keep the Law fresh for that big day. For example, I don’t know if having both testicles is actually a Mitzvah if you’re a Cohen; I doubt it.
ETA2: Since I’m on an explicatory roll, a hand sign that the Cohens use in certain moments in the liturgy, when they gather together and pronounce the Priestly Blessing over the congregants, is, for I don’t know how long, the Spock live-long-and-prosper split four fingers. There’s an interview with Nimoy in Yiddish somewhere where he talks about it.
Go to a Jewish cemetery and if you didn’t know any better you’d think, Man, I had no ideas so many Jews were into Star Trek, and, Man, they were really into it. Gravestone of Cohens often have the hand etched into them.
Was “lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass” an example of saying almost the same thing twice? To me, it sounds like the second is reinforcing the point by making it more extreme: “He is humble enough to come riding on an ass. Not only that, but an immature ass to boot!”
I must be misunderstanding you, because it’s very well known that David was of the tribe of Judah, and therefore could not be in the direct male line of Aaron, or even Levi.
On the other hand, it’s possible that Mary (the mother of Jesus) was a descendant of Aaron, since Luke says that her cousin Elizabeth was. However, many Christian apologists claim that she is descended from David, in order to give Jesus a blood connection to David. Some even explain the difference between Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus by claiming that Luke is actually tracing him through Mary, although Luke explicitly says he is tracing him through Joseph (the claim is that when Luke said that Joseph was the son of Heli, he really meant son-in-law — as if there was no way to distinguish the two in Greek).
As an outsider, I’ve never really understood why Matthew is so obsessed with Messianic prophecies (to the point of inventing them, as in the case of “He shall be called a Nazorean,” or twisting and misapplying them, as in “Behold, a virgin shall conceive”), when Jesus so miserably failed to perform the main function of the Messiah – to drive the Romans out and restore the throne of David. I mean, I fulfill all the “prophecies” concerning the President of the United states — I was born in the right place, I’m over 35, I’m not a (convicted) felon — but there’s that pesky detail of not having won the election that keeps me from claiming I’m the President.
As noted earlier, Luke’s Gospel provides a much LONGER genealogy than Matthew does, and their genealogies don’t match.
Why is Luke’s longer? Mainly because Luke was a Gentile and Matthew was a Jew, so their perspectives were different. Matthew traces Jesus back to Abraham, the father of the Jews, because he was trying to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of Yahweh’s covenant with Abraham.
As a Greek Christian ,Luke believed that Jesus’ mission was to ALL humanity, not just the Jews, so he tried to trace Jesus’ lineage all the way back to Adam and Eve.
I’ve heard that explanation before, but I find it very unconvincing. As I mentioned in a previous post, Luke included all kinds of things that would be important only to Jews.
And even putting aside the fact that Genesis is a Jewish book, if you believe in Adam and Eve, then you believe that anyone who ever lived can be traced back to them, so what’s the point in doing it?
IMO Luke went back past Abraham to lend his genealogy credibility by including the well-known (to Jews) names between Adam and Abraham. He needed to bolster its credibility, because he pretty clearly just made up names for the first third of it.
The Gospel of John does seem to show that attitude:
John never seems to have any “Oh, but he was really from Bethlehem, as the Scriptures foretold” either. It’s just, “Yeah, the Messiah is from Hicksburg; you’re just gonna have to deal with that.”
