Did Jesus have brothers? Revisited

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, I appreciate the discussion we have had on this topic. I think we must agree to disagree. You are correct in saying that this cannot be used to prove that Mary’s virginity ceased.

If you concede that point, then my work here is done.

A member pointed out to me earlier that the angel was only speaking in verses 20-21 prior to and after these verses Mathew was speaking.

A pity that the member did not point out that after the angel was done, the Holy Spirit took over. Scripture is the inspired Word of God, remember?

Now he was speaking from the point of view of hindsight, therefor he new them personally. ( Probably not at that time though) The way he worded the text gives me reason to consider that they had children.

No, that’s YOUR interpretation. That’s why I gave you lots of examples from scripture of the phrase being used in an idomatic way.

I understand that you cannot see it this way. I would not want someone to change their mind because of my thoughts. I believe that God reveals to each of us the truth at his time.

Then I hope that God will use this as an opportunity to reveal something to you. Here is the most definitive treatment of this subject I have found to date:

Heos Hou and the Protestant Polemic
By John Pacheco
catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/HeosHouPolemic/HeosHouAndProtestantPolemic.aspx

It’s a lengthy piece, but worth reading.

Enjoy!

 

[Randy_Carson]

I do have a question. I the protoevangelism of James, it stated that Joseph and Mary had to appear before the temple authorities. How did they get out of there? How could they have explained this in a way that it could be acceptable? The were not very lenient.

Respectfully Doug

From the Protoevangelium:

1. And the priest said: Give up the virgin whom you received out of the temple of the Lord. And Joseph burst into tears. And the priest said: I will give you to drink of the water of the ordeal of the Lord, and He shall make manifest your sins in your eyes. And the priest took the water, and gave Joseph to drink and sent him away to the hill-country; and he returned unhurt. And he gave to Mary also to drink, and sent her away to the hill-country; and she returned unhurt. And all the people wondered that sin did not appear in them. And the priest said: If the Lord God has not made manifest your sins, neither do I judge you. And he sent them away. And Joseph took Mary, and went away to his own house, rejoicing and glorifying the God of Israel.

From the Internet:

Medieval Trial by Ordeal
web.cn.edu/kwheeler/trial_ordeal.html

Where did the medieval idea of trial by ordeal originate? Some components probably originated in the pagan practices of Germanic tribes–though surviving records are sparse. One kernal for this medieval idea, however, comes from the Bible. In the Hebrew Bible’s book of Numbers 5:11-22, trial by ordeal was the prescribed method for testing a wife’s fidelity to her husband. The following excerpt comes from the NIV translation:

Then the Lord said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), and if feelings of jealousy come over the husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure–or even if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure–then he is to take his wife to the priest. . . .

The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband”–here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath–“may the Lord cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away.”’ (Numbers 5:11-22)

In the presence of the temple priests, the woman would be required to drink water mixed with the dirt from the tabernacle floor after calling upon God to strike her with sickness if she were guilty of adultery. If she grew ill from drinking this contaminant, and her womb swelled or she later lost muscle tissue in her thigh, this was considered clear evidence of her guilt, and she would then be stoned to death. (No similar method existed for testing adulterous husbands in Old Testament accounts, however, though in the proto-Evangelium of James, both Joseph and Mary under a similar test when Mary is pregnant out of wedlock.*)

 

[Randy_Carson]

A couple of questions for my Catholic friends. Perhaps this was mentioned in one of the previous discussions, but at any rate it does not appear to have come up in this particular thread.

First question:

Looking at the Greek language it is clear, as has been pointed out, that the word “brother” (adelphos) can refer to a male sibling as well as “brethren in Christ” (Thayer’s). However, there is a Greek word for cousin, which is anepsios. An example appears for us in Colossians 4:10: “Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions–if he comes to you, welcome him),” So the first question I have is why, when the opportunity presented itself, the biblical writers, and particularly Matthew in chapter 13, did not avail themselves of more precise language? I am sure we cannot satisfactorily answer that question in this forum, much less come to an agreement, but it is curious.

Because the gospel writer was Jewish, not Greek. Therefore, he used the idiomatic Aramaic expression, “brothers” because that was more natural for him. As for the letter to the Colossians, it was written while Paul was in prison in Rome, and Paul used a scribe or secretary adding just a brief line at the end in his own hand. If Colossians is non-Pauline, then the use of a Greek word potentially becomes even less problematic.

Perhaps you can review this:

Was Jesus an Only Child?
By Father Mateo
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9001fea2.asp

Second question:

What do Catholic apologists make of the fact that there is actually a unique Greek word for “only begotten” (monogenes)? The significance here is that in both Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7 Jesus is called “firstborn” (uihos prototokos) whereas if Jesus had been Mary’s only born, the language used would have been “only begotten” (uihos monogenes). There are many examples of monogenes in the NT. Consider as one example Luke 7:12: “As he drew near to the gate of the town, behold, a man who had died was being carried out, the **only son **of his mother, and she was a widow, and a considerable crowd from the town was with her.” It is striking that Luke would provide this detail concerning the son of an unknown woman from the town of Nain, but would somehow, supposedly mistakenly, not identify Jesus as Mary’s only begotten. How do Catholic apologists respond?

Like this:

Matthew 1:25 (KJV)
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

From this verse, many non-Catholics assume that Mary had a second child because Jesus is referred to as her “firstborn son”. However, firstborn is merely a technical term which was applied to the first child that “opened the womb”. The term does not imply a “secondborn”. In ancient times, a woman who only had one child during the course of her lifetime still called that child the “firstborn”. Scripture also supports this understanding:

Numbers 3:40
And the LORD said unto Moses, Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names.

Note here that a child as young as one month old was called the “firstborn”. Given the length of the human gestation period, it is not possible for a month old infant to have a younger sibling. Thus, we see clearly that “firstborn” was a technical term that did not prove that additional children had been born.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Solus_Christus]

The text is only interested in showing that Jesus had all the rights and privilages of being the first born. Nothing else.

Both responses to my inquiry agree, and I think it is an interesting argument. I am curious, however, what evidence exists to support this assertion. I am not trying to be combative or disrespectful, but I am interested in hearing the supporting evidence that the intention of the writer is to show the rights and privileges to which Jesus was entitled. It is my understanding that using prototokos for an only begotten would be a departure from normal usage.

Additionally there are, I think, a few problems with this response:

1. First of all, monogenes would by default convey the idea of first born. You cannot be an only born without also being the first born. So if it really was the intention of the writer to convey Jesus’ rights and privileges then it still does not make sense why monogenes was not used (especially if it does depart from the conventions of the language).
2. Secondly, why would the author feel it important to establish Jesus’ legal rights? Jesus certainly was not interested in an inheritance. He did not assume Joseph’s carpentry shop, tools, etc. Why would this fact need to be established?
3. Finally, if ever entitlement to rights and privileges was of interest, from a Jewish perspective, then it would be with Isaac and Abraham. Technically, Isaac was not Abraham’s first born (or only born, for that matter). But because Ishmael was born of a slave he was not entitled to inherit anything. Legally he did not exist and certainly not in terms of God’s promise to Abraham. In this connection the writer to the Hebrews refers to Isaac using the term monogenes in Hebrew 11:17. The import of all of this is that it is not even necessary to use protokos in order to convey entitlement.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Both responses to my inquiry agree, and I think it is an interesting argument. I am curious, however, what evidence exists to support this assertion. I am not trying to be combative or disrespectful, but I am interested in hearing the supporting evidence that the intention of the writer is to show the rights and privileges to which Jesus was entitled. It is my understanding that using prototokos for an only begotten would be a departure from normal usage.

Additionally there are, I think, a few problems with this response:

1. First of all, monogenes would by default convey the idea of first born. You cannot be an only born without also being the first born. So if it really was the intention of the writer to convey Jesus’ rights and privileges then it still does not make sense why monogenes was not used (especially if it does depart from the conventions of the language).
2. Secondly, why would the author feel it important to establish Jesus’ legal rights? Jesus certainly was not interested in an inheritance. He did not assume Joseph’s carpentry shop, tools, etc. Why would this fact need to be established?
3. Finally, if ever entitlement to rights and privileges was of interest, from a Jewish perspective, then it would be with Isaac and Abraham. Technically, Isaac was not Abraham’s first born (or only born, for that matter). But because Ishmael was born of a slave he was not entitled to inherit anything. Legally he did not exist and certainly not in terms of God’s promise to Abraham. In this connection the writer to the Hebrews refers to Isaac using the term monogenes in Hebrew 11:17. The import of all of this is that it is not even necessary to use protokos in order to convey entitlement.

The term prôtotokos, “firstborn,” as applied to males is recognized to have a unique legal and cultic meaning. In Exodus 13:2, the Lord says: “Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine.” Moses, in Exodus 13:12, adds: “You shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb.”

In Israel a firstborn was defined as such not because he was the first among other siblings, but because he was the first “to open” his mother’s womb, whether his mother would have other children or not. In Numbers 3:40, the Lord ordered to Moses: “Number all the firstborn males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward.” A one-month-old child could not be declared a first-born because he had other siblings.

The term “firstborn” refers above all to the law, and is thus applicable not only to the eldest of several, but also to an only son. Luke insists, three times, on showing how Jesus was presented into the Temple as the law demanded for every firstborn male child (cf. Luke 2:22.23.27).

 

[adrift]

Consider the use of first-born.

Luke 2 7: And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

Romans 8 29: For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.

Colossians 1 15: He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;

Colossians 1 18: He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.

Revelation 1 5: and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood
Matthew was pointing out a theological use not that there was a second born. The fact is he used first born. It wasn’t used to say there was a second born. I had a link that explained first born perhaps you should give it a look.

One of the things it states is

As a token of recognition, God declared that all firstlings belonged to Him (Exodus 13:2; Numbers 3:3).

The first born animals and men belonged to God. Stating Jesus was first-born was a strong statement that He belonged to God as Randy already pointed to the scripture.

 

[adrift]

Both responses to my inquiry agree, and I think it is an interesting argument. I am curious, however, what evidence exists to support this assertion. I am not trying to be combative or disrespectful, but I am interested in hearing the supporting evidence that the intention of the writer is to show the rights and privileges to which Jesus was entitled. It is my understanding that using prototokos for an only begotten would be a departure from normal usage.

.

To ask for documentation is not combative or disrespectful, I would and do ask the same from you. Where do you get your understanding that it is a departure from normal usage?

 

[jediliz]

I agree that the above information is not without error. Joseph and Mary did have a marital relationship. It is safe to say this because of the references to his brothers in Mt 12: 46-50 and Acts 1:14. Also in Mt 1:20-25 an angel of the Lord instructs Joseph to wed Mary now but he asks that he not have relations with her until the birth of Jesus.

Mary’s SPOUSE was the Holy Spirit, having relations with Joseph (whose age we don’t even know) would have been akin to adultery.

Mary was also possibly a consecrated virgin, which means she did not intend to be married in the regular way and Joseph may have been chosen to PROTECT her virginity.

Then why did Jesus give his mother’s care over to John the Apostle, if he had half siblings?

 

[Doug_S]

Consider the use of first-born.

Luke 2 7: And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

Romans 8 29: For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.

Colossians 1 15: He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;

Colossians 1 18: He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.

Revelation 1 5: and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood
Matthew was pointing out a theological use not that there was a second born. The fact is he used first born. It wasn’t used to say there was a second born. I had a link that explained first born perhaps you should give it a look.

One of the things it states is

The first born animals and men belonged to God. Stating Jesus was first-born was a strong statement that He belonged to God as Randy already pointed to the scripture.

I see no reason why this does not fall in suit with the following.
Romans 8:29 In this passage the word he in not gender specific, and the use of first born is referring to all of us believers that will receive an inheritance in Gods kingdom.

Col 1:15 Here he is impressing that Jesus was with him since the beginning and there were many things to come after him. John 1:1-4 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
Jesus is the word the truth and the light.

Col 1:18 Referring to the resurrection.

Rev 1:5 Same thing this refers to the resurrection.
In all of these passages that you pointed out, there is a necessity for there to be second born and a countless number after that. I do not understand what you are trying to get at.
The reference to the first born animals was to clarify that you are only to sacrifice your very best that you have. Anything less is insufficient.

I feel that the fact that Jesus was with God since before creation is an awesome statement. To me an even bigger statement is that through adoption, we the followers of Christ receive the same inheritance. Amen Praise God to whom all the glory belongs.

Peace of the Lord be with you all.

 

[adrift]

I see no reason why this does not fall in suit with the following.
Romans 8:29 In this passage the word he in not gender specific, and the use of first born is referring to all of us believers that will receive an inheritance in Gods kingdom.

Col 1:15 Here he is impressing that Jesus was with him since the beginning and there were many things to come after him. John 1:1-4 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
Jesus is the word the truth and the light.

Col 1:18 Referring to the resurrection.

Rev 1:5 Same thing this refers to the resurrection.
In all of these passages that you pointed out, there is a necessity for there to be second born and a countless number after that. I do not understand what you are trying to get at.
The reference to the first born animals was to clarify that you are only to sacrifice your very best that you have. Anything less is insufficient.

I feel that the fact that Jesus was with God since before creation is an awesome statement. To me an even bigger statement is that through adoption, we the followers of Christ receive the same inheritance. Amen Praise God to whom all the glory belongs.

Peace of the Lord be with you all.

You asked why he would use terminology that you said was not normal usage. It has to do with the theology that the term first born meant something. First born was designated as belonging to God. The first born of animals were sacrificed. The first born had to be redeemed. Jesus became our sacrifice as the first-born. The importance of being first born in Scripture has been provided to you. I am not understanding why you say the usage was not normal. If I accept that as fact, than it must be wondered why Matthew used it. But to discuss it further I need to know what is meant by an unusual usage?

 

[Doug_S]

You asked why he would use terminology that you said was not normal usage. It has to do with the theology that the term first born meant something. First born was designated as belonging to God. The first born of animals were sacrificed. The first born had to be redeemed. Jesus became our sacrifice as the first-born. The importance of being first born in Scripture has been provided to you. I am not understanding why you say the usage was not normal. If I accept that as fact, than it must be wondered why Matthew used it. But to discuss it further I need to know what is meant by an unusual usage?

That was not a comment from my post.

 

[Solus_Christus]

To ask for documentation is not combative or disrespectful, I would and do ask the same from you. Where do you get your understanding that it is a departure from normal usage?

Certainly. I used as my reference Thayer’s Greek Lexicon. Specifically I am looking at the entry for G80 (adelphos).

 

[Solus_Christus]

The term prôtotokos, “firstborn,” as applied to males is recognized to have a unique legal and cultic meaning. In Exodus 13:2, the Lord says: “Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine.” Moses, in Exodus 13:12, adds: “You shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb.”

In Israel a firstborn was defined as such not because he was the first among other siblings, but because he was the first “to open” his mother’s womb, whether his mother would have other children or not. In Numbers 3:40, the Lord ordered to Moses: “Number all the firstborn males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward.” A one-month-old child could not be declared a first-born because he had other siblings.

The term “firstborn” refers above all to the law, and is thus applicable not only to the eldest of several, but also to an only son. Luke insists, three times, on showing how Jesus was presented into the Temple as the law demanded for every firstborn male child (cf. Luke 2:22.23.27).

Any comments/thoughts on why Hebrews 11:17 uses monogenes instead of theotokos? Is it not the legal and cultic meaning of significance in this instance as well?

 

[veritas9753]

I agree that the above information is not without error. Joseph and Mary did have a marital relationship. It is safe to say this because of the references to his brothers in Mt 12: 46-50 and Acts 1:14. Also in Mt 1:20-25 an angel of the Lord instructs Joseph to wed Mary now but he asks that he not have relations with her until the birth of Jesus.

 

[veritas9753]

As a convert to Catholicism I find it very disturbing that a Catholic could conclude something entirely different from what the Church teaches: the Virgin Mary never lost her virginity, hence “Ever Virgin”, meaning it is impossible for her to be a virgin and yet have had other children. Think for a moment of whom we are speaking of: The Mother of God, “Bride of the Holy Spirit” Go figure!!!

 

[Solus_Christus]

There are now two explanations provided for why Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7 use protokos instead of monogenes:

First Explanation: To convey primogeniture.

Second Explanation: To convey the “legal and cultic” significance, specifically the concept of the firstborn being consecrated to God as prescribed in the Mosaic Law.

The first explanation is not very plausible since Jesus did not inherit Joseph’s estate or, if He did (unlikely, since “the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” - Matthew 8:20), it was immaterial to the gospel account.

The second explanation is more plausible at first blush, but upon careful reflection seems more a case of special pleading.

Consider:

1. According to Thayer, an only begotten would always have been referred to using monogenes rather than protokos. Someone has pointed out that both terms are applied to Christ, but in this case there is a good explanation in that Christ is only begotten of the Father in a special sense (i.e. there will never be another God-man). In another sense, Christ is “the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15) and “the firstborn of many brothers” (Romans 8:29). By adoption Christ becomes our older brother and so, in this respect, is a firstborn. In order to successfully contest the claim by Thayer concerning the normal usage of monogenes and protokos, an expert on the Greek language on-par with Thayer should be produced that refutes Thayer’s assertion.
2. As I have already pointed out, monogenes implies protokos. If protokos carries with it specific information, then monogenes conveys that same information and more. If the motivation for using protokos by Matthew and Luke were to convey the “legal and cultic” significance, then usage of monogenes would not have precluded that significance from being communicated. Even if we set aside this fact the problem is not resolved. It has been pointed out that Matthew was written to the Jews. However, Luke was a Gentile writing to a Gentile (Theophilus), and so would not have been compelled by the same motiviation to stress the “legal and cultic” significance (which was decidedly Jewish in nature).
3. Finally, we see in the Letter to the Hebrews (the recipients of which would have appreciated the “legal and cultic” significance) that Isaac is referred to using the term monogenes. As stated previously, Ishmael was illegitimate from a legal standpoint as well as concerning the promises made to Abraham by God. Isaac was the first to open Sarah’s womb. Moreover, the passage in chapter 11 is specifically dealing with the “legal and cultic” significance of Isaac, since “in Isaac shall thy seed be called” (vs 18). As the firstborn Isaac was consecrated to God and so, by definition, belonged to God. Asking Abraham to offer up Isaac was a reasonable request by God in Abraham’s mind. Yet for all of this verse 17 still uses mongenes to refer to Isaac.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Any comments/thoughts on why Hebrews 11:17 uses monogenes instead of theotokos? Is it not the legal and cultic meaning of significance in this instance as well?

No, not at all.

I’m no Greek scholar, but my opinion is that Hebrews 11:17 is referring to Isaac as Abraham’s “only” son because that reveals the true magnitude of the sacrifice for Abraham. If he had several sons, then although losing his firstborn would be a loss, his family line would still be continued through his other sons.

Since Isaac was an “only son”, the sacrifice was greater.

And no, I’m not forgetting about Ishmael…I just don’t think the son of a slave girl who was sent away meant very much to Abraham once Isaac was born.

I understand the argument you’re trying to make, Solus, and I don’t think it works.

Late addition to this post
Abraham offered his only son, Isaac, as a sacrifice, but was stopped at the last minute by the angel. A ram took Isaac’s place. God offered his only son, Jesus, as a sacrifice. He became the Lamb that was slain in our place. Both Isaac and Jesus were firstborn and only sons of their mothers.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Consider:

1. According to Thayer, an only begotten would always have been referred to using monogenes rather than protokos. Someone has pointed out that both terms are applied to Christ, but in this case there is a good explanation in that Christ is only begotten of the Father in a special sense (i.e. there will never be another God-man). In another sense, Christ is “the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15) and “the firstborn of many brothers” (Romans 8:29). By adoption Christ becomes our older brother and so, in this respect, is a firstborn. In order to successfully contest the claim by Thayer concerning the normal usage of monogenes and protokos, an expert on the Greek language on-par with Thayer should be produced that refutes Thayer’s assertion.

Sort of a “my Greek scholar can beat up your Greek scholar” kind of a thing?

1. As I have already pointed out, monogenes implies protokos. If protokos carries with it specific information, then monogenes conveys that same information and more. If the motivation for using protokos by Matthew and Luke were to convey the “legal and cultic” significance, then usage of monogenes would not have precluded that significance from being communicated. Even if we set aside this fact the problem is not resolved. It has been pointed out that Matthew was written to the Jews. However, Luke was a Gentile writing to a Gentile (Theophilus), and so would not have been compelled by the same motiviation to stress the “legal and cultic” significance (which was decidedly Jewish in nature).

Since it is generally agreed that Luke’s source for much of the material in the early chapters of his gospel was probably Mary, it is understandable if she referred to Jesus as her “firstborn”.

1. Finally, we see in the Letter to the Hebrews (the recipients of which would have appreciated the “legal and cultic” significance) that Isaac is referred to using the term monogenes. As stated previously, Ishmael was illegitimate from a legal standpoint as well as concerning the promises made to Abraham by God. Isaac was the first to open Sarah’s womb. Moreover, the passage in chapter 11 is specifically dealing with the “legal and cultic” significance of Isaac, since “in Isaac shall thy seed be called” (vs 18). As the firstborn Isaac was consecrated to God and so, by definition, belonged to God. Asking Abraham to offer up Isaac was a reasonable request by God in Abraham’s mind. Yet for all of this verse 17 still uses mongenes to refer to Isaac.

Answered in post #77.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Any comments/thoughts on why Hebrews 11:17 uses monogenes instead of theotokos? Is it not the legal and cultic meaning of significance in this instance as well?

And by the way, theotokos, means “God-bearer”…but I know what you meant.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Secondly, why would the author feel it important to establish Jesus’ legal rights? Jesus certainly was not interested in an inheritance. He did not assume Joseph’s carpentry shop, tools, etc. Why would this fact need to be established?

I want to address this question, also, and I think the answer is simple given human nature:

The Jews were obsessed with obeying the Law. Technical accuracy with regard to legal matters was VERY important in that culture. This reached its apex (or depth) in the Pharisees, but that simply illustrates my point, of course.