Jesus, Son of ... an architect?

[patrick457]

Joseph went to Bethlehem because that was his town of origin, ie his family was from there. He would not have gone to an inn - the ‘guestroom’ of his father’s house was full but there was room in with the families attached livestock, usually kept in an excavated area under the family home. It was therefore relatively easy for the shepherd’s to locate the unusual sight of a baby in a feed manger.

Correct!

 

[purplesunshine]

No, Jesus did NOT say she was to live with John. Nothing of the sort. He said that John was to take her as his mother, and she to take him as her son. That’s different. I love and honour my mother dearly, and certainly look after her welfare. But I don’t live with her, since we are able to each maintain a separate residence.

Women didn’t directly inherit land or houses, true, but they certainly were left cash, jewels, gold, furniture or whatnot.

The word ‘dowager’, meaning widow, comes from the fact that a solvent husband would always ‘endow’ (bequeath) to his wife either the income (by way of rent or produce that was sold) from a particular piece of land, or else a sum of money or other valuables to support her after his death. The exact nature and value of this ‘dowry’ was often specified in the wedding contract before the couple were even married.

Joseph, if he had had property to leave, and Jesus, having no wife, would certainly have made similar arrangements for Mary had they had anything worth leaving to her.

Mary as a woman, wealthy or not would have to have a male to “control” her earthly possessions. Just becuase Jesus told John that Mary was his responsibility does not, in any way, indicate she was a pauper.

 

[timotheous123]

QUOTE The use of rabbi in Matthew 23:8 is not really that strong an evidence for an official title pre-AD 70 IMHO; it just shows that teachers of the Law were popularly given the title, but does not say anything about them being men who obtained semicha (rabbinic ordination) after years of arduous study just like the modern definition of rabbi has it. Again I must warn you against trying to force modern Jewish concepts into 1st century Judaism: a lot of change and development has happened since.

Dear Patrick457, If ordination was not happening, on what did the early Church base their practice of ordination: Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.
2 Tim 1:6 (KJV) also 1 Tim 5:22 Regards Tim

 

[sabriner]

Wow. This will probably sound stupid but, …who knew one could know so much detail about Jesus’ life by going deeper into scriptural study??

I knew studying etymological backgrounds and cultural history would deepen the faith, but I never really realized how much more alive Christ Himself becomes.

Gives another facet to “Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ”… at least to me anyway.

 

[patrick457]

Dear Patrick457, If ordination was not happening, on what did the early Church base their practice of ordination: Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.
2 Tim 1:6 (KJV) also 1 Tim 5:22 Regards Tim

First I think we need to clear up a bit of misconception that might pop up: there is a difference between a rabbi and a priest. Whereas some may tend to associate rabbis with clergy, the true priests in Judaism are the kohanim (sing. kohen), those who are in direct patrilineal descent from the Biblical Aaron. These are the ‘priests’ you often see in the Bible in the context of Israelite religion.

After the destruction of the Second Temple and the suspension of sacrificial offerings, the formal role of priests in sacrificial services came to an end - so they haven’t much to do nowadays. However, they retain a formal and public ceremonial role in synagogue prayer services, which were established as a substitute for or reminder of the daily sacrifices themselves, and have a distinct, honored status and remain bound by Torah and Rabbinic laws in Orthodox and, to a lesser extent, in Conservative Jewish communities.

A rabbi, by contrast, is more of a religious teacher, if I remember correctly. They are nothing more than regular people who have learned much Torah, and have authorization and authority to instruct the community and to answer questions and resolve disputes regarding halakhah (Jewish law); they’re not some sort of mediators between the human and the Divine. Unlike our priests, rabbis do not have the power to grant absolution for sins. They have no more authority to perform rituals than any other adult male member of the Jewish community. You technically don’t even need a rabbi for a wedding if you’re Jewish, though some people might think it a good idea, and secular law in some areas might even require a rabbi for a marriage to be recognized (in this, the secular system treats rabbis as the Jewish equivalent to priests or ministers). Now, while a kohen could become a rabbi, it is not a requirement that a rabbi must be a kohen.

Still, in the 19th century Germany and the US rabbis did get influenced by Protestant ministers: sermons, pastoral counseling, representing the community to the outside, all increased in importance. Hence the term ‘pulpit rabbis’.

Thus, rabbis are different from priests, both in the Jewish and Christian senses of the word.

Now to directly address the topic. I don’t deny that semicha (‘laying on of hands’) was a practice that already existed at the time of Jesus, or even before that: it is used for a variety of functions in the Old Testament, including identification with sacrifices, for blessing, or to set a group of people apart for the Lord.

I must also note that there is a bit of a difference between the epithesis t?n cheir?n ‘laying on of hands’ in the New Testament and rabbinic ordination, also sometimes referred to as semicha: ordination of rabbis meant the recognition and conferral of judicial authority. This was apparently also the case with a different practice recorded in the Mishna that may have occurred in New Testament times - I say ‘may’ since it’s still debated how this account accurately preserves actual pre-70 customs: the appointment of the Sanhedrin (and even there it would seem that imposition of hands played only a minor role). That was purely judicial and unrelated to teaching ministry. As regards rabbinic ordination, no saying referring to the laying on of hands is attributed to any rabbi prior to the time of Rabina (4th century AD), who asked Rabbi Ashi, “Is ordination practiced by the laying on of hands?” (Talmud, B. Sanhedrin 13b)

It would seem that the laying on of hands as recorded in Acts and St. Paul’s letters was more of a charismatic act that did have points of comparison with other instances of imposition of hands in Scripture (I personally think that at this period of time it was probably not yet a developed, full-blown ordination ritual like today), but it is difficult to identify it with any uniform rite practiced in NT times. It could be likely that the early Christians adapted the biblical precedents.

 

[timotheous123]

A rabbi, by contrast, is more of a religious teacher, if I remember correctly. They are nothing more than regular people who have learned much Torah, and have authorization and authority to instruct the community and to answer questions and resolve disputes regarding halakhah (Jewish law); they’re not some sort of mediators between the human and the Divine. Unlike our priests, rabbis do not have the power to grant absolution for sins. They have no more authority to perform rituals than any other adult male member of the Jewish community…

I must also note that there is a bit of a difference between the epithesis t?n cheir?n ‘laying on of hands’ in the New Testament and rabbinic ordination, also sometimes referred to as semicha: ordination of rabbis meant the recognition and conferral of judicial authority. This was apparently also the case with a different practice recorded in the Mishna that may have occurred in New Testament times - I say ‘may’ since it’s still debated how this account accurately preserves actual pre-70 customs: the appointment of the Sanhedrin (and even there it would seem that imposition of hands played only a minor role). That was purely judicial and unrelated to teaching ministry. As regards rabbinic ordination, no saying referring to the laying on of hands is attributed to any rabbi prior to the time of Rabina (4th century AD), who asked Rabbi Ashi, “Is ordination practiced by the laying on of hands?” (Talmud, B. Sanhedrin 13b)

It would seem that the laying on of hands as recorded in Acts and St. Paul’s letters was more of a charismatic act that did have points of comparison with other instances of imposition of hands in Scripture (I personally think that at this period of time it was probably not yet a developed, full-blown ordination ritual like today), but it is difficult to identify it with any uniform rite practiced in NT times. It could be likely that the early Christians adapted the biblical precedents.

Thanks for your reply. If I may comment further: The Rabbis were part of the teaching body in Israel that represented the Law (civil + religious in one package, rather like Sharia law is in Islamic states today). They formally taught the Law of Moses in all of it’s complexity. The problem we have is that the rabbinic records in Israel were destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. So we are necessarily looking back at a period with little Jewish documentation. Jesus’ co-equating Rabbi with Master seems to me to indicate a legal role in his day. Jesus himself was approached with legal questions, eg inheritance issues. If he was himself ordained (as this article suggests) that would make sense. He would also then be posing a greater threat to the Sanhedrin than an uneducated intinerant would be. What do you think? Regards, Tim

 

[patrick457]

I have only a bit of free time now, so I’ll divide my reply into two parts for now, if I may:

Thanks for your reply. If I may comment further: The Rabbis were part of the teaching body in Israel that represented the Law (civil + religious in one package, rather like Sharia law is in Islamic states today). They formally taught the Law of Moses in all of it’s complexity.

Right! Now, remember that this paragraph fits one of the Jewish groups in Jesus’ time - which incidentally, was also regarded as the ‘ancestors’ of the post-70 rabbis and modern-day Rabbinic Judaism in general: the Pharisees.

And yep, they did teach the Law of Moses, or at least, their ‘flavor’ of it: they, along with the Essenes or the Sadducees or the Hellenistic Jews or the Therapeutae or even first-generation Christianity were just one of the various diverse ‘Judaisms’ (as some scholars call it) of the Second Temple period who had their own distinct ideas of how to live out their faith: each studied, taught, worshiped, and interpreted in their own way. Each sect claimed a monopoly on the truth, and discouraged marriage between members of different sects. Members of different sects did, however, argue with one another over the correctness of their respective interpretations (things have not improved much even today it seems ), although there is no significant, reliable record of such debates between sects.

To drift a bit, we might note that one of the reasons why the Pharisees are so big on following the Law is because of their idea that since all Israel is “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”, all Jews in their ordinary life, and not just the Temple priesthood or Jews visiting the Temple, should observe rules and rituals concerning purification.

The problem we have is that the rabbinic records in Israel were destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. So we are necessarily looking back at a period with little Jewish documentation.

Yes, this is true. Some of what we know about pre-70 Judaism (say, those found in the Mishnah) only exists in records written years or decades after the destruction of Jerusalem, and there are still debates on how the surviving accounts accurately portray the days of old.

 

[timotheous123]

Thanks Patrick for the thoughtful and accurate (seems to me!) reply. I find the notion that Jesus was an ordained man (which is what the book ‘The Jesus Discovery’ suggests) plausible and making more sense of his conversation with Nicodemus in Jn 3 that the conventional itinerant idea. Best wishes, Tim

 

[patrick457]

Thanks Patrick for the thoughtful and accurate (seems to me!) reply. I find the notion that Jesus was an ordained man (which is what the book ‘The Jesus Discovery’ suggests) plausible and making more sense of his conversation with Nicodemus in Jn 3 that the conventional itinerant idea. Best wishes, Tim

You’re welcome.

Personally I’m not surprised if some people assume (and there are some more people who do!) that Jesus Himself was Pharisee, which I will take here as being synonymous with, as you put it, an ‘ordained rabbi’ (many Pharisees were probably just laymen who happened to know a lot of Torah, though): for one, He and the early Christians taught certain ideas which are also expressed by the Pharisaic sect, and He had talks and discussions with Pharisees more than any other group (that is, if the Gospels give a full picture), for instance. Still, we’ve gotta admit that Jesus Himself had His own, sometimes crucial, differences with them in some areas, and some think that Jesus also had ‘influences’ from other groups, say the Essenes.

 

[kkoleon]

the use of teknon as an architect is very obscure and only makes sense in this context on the premise that Joseph was a man of social distinction. teknon in its proper sense is usually reserved for a skilled worker. Jesus most likely was a stone mason as well as a builder who’s social status did not enjoy the appreciation of modern day carpenters. Remember, questions were asked in regards to his literacy in connection with his upbringing as “the carpenters son”. Obviously those who knew him did not regard Joseph in a position of distinction.

 

[timotheous123]

the use of teknon as an architect is very obscure and only makes sense in this context on the premise that Joseph was a man of social distinction. teknon in its proper sense is usually reserved for a skilled worker. Jesus most likely was a stone mason as well as a builder who’s social status did not enjoy the appreciation of modern day carpenters. Remember, questions were asked in regards to his literacy in connection with his upbringing as “the carpenters son”. Obviously those who knew him did not regard Joseph in a position of distinction.

No, the literacy issue is in John 7 where the crowd say ‘how did he get such learning (ie he was literate) without having manthano’, ie the study of a disciple. Christ never taught as a disciple of another Rabbi, hence he was unique; this drew surprise. Be careful of building doctrine on the words of the crowd - the same folk go on to accuse Christ of being demonised - we don’t teach that as doctrine!!
Actually ‘devout’ (Matt 1:19) for Joseph means one who kept the Law, ie knew it well enough to keep it, ie was a person who had studied. There is no evidence at all to say that Josseph or Jesus were poorly regarded.

 

[manualman]

I think there’s more mistranslation in the thread headline than is alleged in the Greek to vernacular! Sounds to me more like he was a senior tradesman than an “architect.”

The ancient world didn’t HAVE nattily dressed, latte sipping guys who spent their days looking at material samples and holding design charettes… I guarantee you that Joseph didn’t have an architect’s fingernails.

Oops, is my attitude about architects showing?

 

[sabriner]

I think there’s more mistranslation in the thread headline than is alleged in the Greek to vernacular! Sounds to me more like he was a senior tradesman than an “architect.”

The ancient world didn’t HAVE nattily dressed, latte sipping guys who spent their days looking at material samples and holding design charettes… I guarantee you that Joseph didn’t have an architect’s fingernails.

Oops, is my attitude about architects showing?

hahahah

Well, at any rate… the word “architect” was more a bit more catchy than “senior tradesman”…