The Law, foriegn wives, scripture contradiction, and Mary

[Huiou_Theou]

Hello All!
I have been having a long running conversation in “did Mary know she was sinless?” with David M.
( Hyperlink index here:

Hi David,
A blessed feast of the Holy Family today! I hope you don’t mind a handy little Cheshire index into the thread – I get lost trying to find stuff… so I just want to have a few important memory points up…

img229.imageshack.us/img229/3007/tryagainak3.gif
http://img185.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tryagainep7.gif

Our argument so far, generally examines the idea:
Is there a sin which Mary might have thought applied to her, original, or implied by the law?

Now, I had always understood Mary to be under the law by marriage as a trump card – in spite of the fact that Jesse, David’s pa – was born from the Line of Ruth & Boaz (eg: the book of Ruth…the Moabitess). Or, a little further down the line – David married to Uriah the Hittite’s ex-wife. etc.

Now, in the other thread – David M. contended that offspring of foreign wives were not legitimate. eg:

…there were jews who fornicated with foreign wives and had children who would not themselves be part of the covenant of Abraham in their eyes (since they thought the children of Abraham was a birthright

And so I asked the obvious question, related to the other thread: If Mary was born of a foreign wife, and not legitimate, why would she have needed to obey the law at all since she was not in the covenant?!

and then David had quite a mind twisting response,

Deuteronomy 7:1-4

and

…(and technically Cushites aren’t mentioned in the list above). Moab isn’t mentioned in the list either,…
In Ezra it says that those who married foreign wives:
Ezra 10:44 All these had married foreign women, and they put them away with their children.

Eg: Even Uriah can be explained away, since his wife may not have been a Hittite, but the bible does have Ezra forcing the putting away of foreign wives with their children as cut off from the covenant…

This morning, I just remembered that MOABITES were included in the forbidden list in Ezra although not in Deuteronomy.
Ezra 9:1 – Eg: a grandmother of King David.

So, as a poll – what do you think is the proper way to interpret Ezra and its’ implications on the geneology of Mary and Joseph? Comments appreciated too, as I would like to keep from derailing the other thread further on this point although it IS important to know whether or not Mary was OBLIGED to follow the Mosaic Law or not…

 

[thistle]

I doubt if she knew she was immaculately conceived and there is nothing in Scripture to clarify that one way or the other. It would be easier for her to know she had not committed any personal sins.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Thanks thistle,
I note you didn’t post in the other thread – that one could use your reply too.

Also, What do you think about Ezra’s insistence (apparently about the law? at least superficially…) for putting away foreign wives. What does a “foreign” wife really mean such that a “foreign” wife can (and ought?) to be put away?
Vs. A wife being a Jew/Hebrew by marriage.

Scriptures do not teach error, so how do these things harmonize in your opinion since they seem to contradict.
eg: Moabites are foreign wives, and Ruth (in the line of King David, and thus Mary and Joseph) – and Ezra speaks about putting away such wives and their children?

eg: Ezra chapter 9.
Peace.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

OK, I this is a quiet week. So, here’s a little more to provoke thoughts.

In Josephus (a first century Jewish historian – and turncoat/deserter to the Roman side) he notes in his “Antiquities of the Jews” that circumcision was given by God. And both Isaac (the father of the Jews) and Ismael – the son of a foreigner – were circumcised.

interhack.net/projects/library/antiquities-jews/b1c12.html

Antiquities of the Jews I, 12

And they circumcised him upon the eighth day and from that time the Jews continue the custom of circumcising their sons within that number of days. But as for the Arabians, they circumcise after the thirteenth year, because Ismael, the founder of their nation, who was born to Abraham of the concubine, was circumcised at that age; concerning whom I will presently give a particular account, with great exactness.

I haven’t checked the translation, but concubine is a woman with some rights.
And I will note that this historical event, also seems to be tied to the bar mitzvah – the becoming a “son of the law”. Perhaps someone else knows what mitvah and Torah have in common, as I don’t fully understand the relationship.

In any event, Josephus has limited credibility. He is quite a barometer of what was popular in his day. That is, much of what he says and does is a reflection of popular ways of thinking – But As a captive of the Romans, he admits to trying to convince those in Jerusalem – in the siege of 69/70A.D. – that the Romans were the messiah! – he had little choice…

On the other hand, Josephus is fond of bragging of his Jewish roots, history, etc. etc. etc.
He says of himself that he tried the Pharisaic and Essene ways, and that he was born of a priestly family. Thus he tries to make himself out to be someone to the Jewish people – as he brags – and so, regardless of the whole truth – what he says when not forced, must relate to his understanding of Jewish purity, etc.

Keeping that in mind, notice these anti foreigner points that Josephus makes:
God was pleased with what Sarah had determined in throwing out Hagar the Egyptian, so Abraham was forced to consent. Josephus furthur notes:

Antiquities of the Jews I:10

and commanded that his name should be Isaac; and … he charged him, in order to keep his posterity unmixed with others, that they should be circumcised in the flesh of their foreskin …

So, Josephus appears to identify circumcision with the the taboo against marrying foreign wives, and the first biblical example – is of Sarah “casting out” the foreign woman.

Josephus reinforces this view strongly in other places where he discusses the purity of his inherited priestly line… although I will post more on that later. But it seems that Josephus sees the law as excluding foreign wives – and one has, then, to try and find Hagar’s place in God’s plan; for God certainly cares for her once cast out.

It does not appear that Ismael obey’s the law of Moses, and yet at age 13 – the barmitzvah age of the Jews ?? – Ismael was circumcised – in a way which suggests strongly a connection between the two. The arabians to this day will claim the inheritance of Abram – although they tend to claim that the “sacrifice” of Isaac was actually the sacrifice of “Ismael” – from what little I have been told.

 

[pippin]

Since Ezra lived several centuries after Ruth, his law would not have affected Ruth. Ruth made Naomi’s people her people and apparantly, according to the laws in effect at that time, it was legal. Therefore, her offspring (Jesse) was Jewish.

 

[Usagi]

I’m pretty sure the reason that Jews weren’t supposed to marry foreign women (and the reason why Ezra reaffirmed and enforced that prohibition later in history) is that the foreign women were pagan and carried the danger of leading their husbands astray from the True God. (Even King Solomon suffered this fate.)

That being the case, I would think that a technically foreign-born woman who embraced her husband’s religion would be treated differently. Ruth, as you mention, is well-treated in Scripture and is proudly acknowledged as the ancestor of both David and Jesus. Of course, she is famous for declaring that she would adopt the people and God of her mother-in-law.

Usagi

 

[Huiou_Theou]

… foreign women were pagan and carried the danger of leading their husbands astray from the True God. (Even King Solomon suffered this fate.)
…
Usagi

Hi, pippin, Usagi

So, in the other thread – I am trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint the meaning of the scriptural texts apologetically.

It would seem that even women whom did not wish to become Jewish were granted this status as well:

NAB version
usccb.org/nab/bible/deuteronomy/deuteronomy21.htm

KJV

Deute 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
Deute 21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
Deute 21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
Deute 21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
Deute 21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

So, the problem is that from one passage to another there is inconsistency.
One moment foreigners are allowed (as captive wives) the next, they must be put away (the only apparent difference being that they were captured and their family is presumably dead).

In the case of the Law “changing” with time, consider that the example of Abraham shows – the Law had a precedent. The reason for not taking foreign wives was already known, and Abraham put away his second wife long before Moses came along, or the scribes, to codify the law.

How do we harmoniously interpret the different scriptures?

If a law were given for hardness of heart in the O.T., how do we demonstrate the true meaning of the exceptions in scripture?

A pharisee, like St. Paul, would lawyerly wrangle these points out – and I think it clear that they error occasionally in their interpretation of Torah… But, what were they thinking when they said the things they said – and how could I show the true meaning of scripture. I mean, is Ezra just on a “guilt” complex coming back from the Babylonian captivity and over-reacting to the Law? If so, how do we reconcile the rather bold statements and (at least superficially contradictory) scripture that are both inspired?

–Pax Christi.
–Andrew.

 

[D_M]

Hi Andrew,

I didn’t realize that you had started this thread.

I’m now thinking that Usagi may be right that the main reason why they forbade the taking of foreign wives is that so the people of Israel would be separated from the idolatrous pollution of the gentiles. Moses gives this as the reason for the law in Deuteronomy 7, and it may be possible to think that gentiles who didn’t commit idolatry may not be targetted by that law.

I think about the story in the gospel wherein Jesus tells the pharisees of how David ate the bread of the presence that only the high priest could lawfully eat… and if you read the story in the old testament, you realize the priest gave the bread to David because Saul was trying to kill him and David needed food for his journey away. Moses wrote that the high priest ate the bread, but he never wrote that there couldn’t be exceptions in life-and-death situations, and similarly Moses wrote that how the Israelites couldn’t marry foreign wives, but he didn’t say anything about if the foreign wives were converts in which case they didn’t share the reason for the law’s application.

Although that then raises another question as to why it is that Ezra couldn’t have instead given two options, instead of only one, for the Israelites between putting away their families and having their families convert?.. maybe Ezra was over-reacting? (and wouldn’t that be an interesting insight into the scripture)

Deuteronomy 21 perhaps assumes that the captive women will not remain idolaters once they are captured.

If you’ll forgive my sense of humour I just noticed this while I was reading that passage:

Deuteronomy 21:11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife,

← Moses only said that they could take beautiful women, but he did not also say anything about being allowed to take women who weren’t beautiful. Would the Israelites be violating the law if the women they captured were not beautiful?

(anyone can say this herself is she chooses)

Lord, we thank you for all the wisdom you share with us about these things and we pray for assistance in helping to reconcile Your inspired Word as well as to understand its meaning better. Look after Andrew also and whatever it is that afflicts him. We ask for these things, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi David,

I don’t know. Beautiful according to scripture is the virtues – eg: The OT prophets talk about removing the gold and makeup, and letting virtue be the beauty. Esther is an example of that kind of thinking.

I don’t remember the exact verses, but I also think that in the divorce law given by Moses that he makes some kind of comment along the lines of finding any uncleanliness whatsoever in her.

Considering the idols under Rachel’s menstruation, which we already spoke of in the other thread – I am not sure that the two are totally un-related. But I don’t want to judge really superficially.

It would seem, then, with respect to Bathsheba – she was a beautiful woman even if foreign – but that she was not virtuous.

Ruth converted, fully; But Booz (Boaz), the man Ruth married (Jesse’s dad) when he goes to claim Ruth from the next of Kin who had the right to marry her –
The next of kin, if I am remembering right, said something to the effect that Booz should marry her for Booz’s pedigree was already soiled.

So, were still stuck –
How do you rule out that Mary was not technically under the Law?

For it seems, that if Ruth’s closest of kin for marriage could not marry her because of soiling of the bloodlines, that Ezra’s statement was already known in the time of Ruth in some form or another.

Matthew 1:1-17 does not mention any of the non-scandalous wives, but only mentions those who would soil the pedegree: Rahab, Ruth, Thamar, and Bathsheba are all mentioned. It is as if Matthew is trying to show she is discredited, but still chosen by God.

 

[D_M]

Hi Andrew,

The hebrew words used for beautiful in this context seem to be used primarily for describing visual appearance in the old testament. I don’t know if they could be used to describe virtue too.

Exodus 24:1 "When a make takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house,

The hebrew word used for ‘indecency’ (in other translations ‘uncleanness’) is the word which is used in the sexual laws in Leviticus and it is often translated as ‘nakedness’. For example:

Leviticus 20: 19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.

It seems to mean ‘shamefulness’.

I’m not sure what you mean by Boaz’ pedigree being ruined. Where does it state this?

Mary practiced the jewish religion and appeared to observe Moses’ laws according to what Luke wrote. I’m not sure if she would have been allowed entry into the temple if she hadn’t. Furthermore there is this:

Galatians 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

It seems clear from the gospels that Jesus was a jew under the law and He was obedient to what Moses had put down, although His authority was greater than Moses’ and replaced it. If He was cut off from the old covenant due to bad heritage, then that would seem to radically change that part of the gospels’ character.

Furthermore, why is it necessary to interpret that Mary was a descendant of David? Traditionally it is supposed that she was of the house of David, but the gospels only say that Joseph descended from David and they don’t outline Mary’s heritage.

I don’t think Ezra’s statement was applicable in light of the evidence that we’ve considered. I should also reference at this point that Moses himself married a Cushite woman.

(anyone can say this herself is she chooses)

Lord, we thank you for all the wisdom you share with us about these things and we pray for assistance in helping to reconcile Your inspired Word as well as to understand its meaning better. Look after Andrew also and whatever it is that afflicts him. We ask for these things, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Andrew,

The Hebrew words used for beautiful in this context seem to be used primarily for describing visual appearance in the old testament. I don’t know if they could be used to describe virtue too.

Deute 21:11 … καλη τω ειδει …
The Greek word is the same, it just means good/beautiful.
eg: missing in the messiah Isaiah 52:2;
Rachel had it over Leah (Genes 29:17)

And is used negatively in Prove 6:25;
and on top of that, in the LXX a different word is typically used of Aaron & Holy beauty, τιμην

So, it seems your humour – is just that.

Hmmm … I don’t see that in Exodus 24:1 – did you make a typo?

… often translated as ‘nakedness’. For example:

I would like to cross check that in the LXX, what you are saying makes a LOT of sense.

It seems to mean ‘shamefulness’.

Or sexual sin; more likely. It is used in some places to mean the attempt of a son to take over kingship of his father’s house by having sexual relations with his mother – a Pagan thing. also: Abishag the shunamite was what Absalom asked for in order to boast of having his father’s concubine – There is a strong correlation througouht the OT to this kind of thing. Noah’s son – who is later said to have defiled his father’s bed. Etc.

… Boaz’ pedigree being ruined …

That’s my half baked memory – I’m only half here, too much junk going through my head right now to think straight.

See: Ruth 4:6 – and take a good look at the Hebrew; I will dig around a bit in the LXX myself.

Mary practiced the jewish religion … there is this:
Galatians 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

Yes, I saw that before – which is why in the early part of this thread I brought up bar-mitzvah – son of the Law. It is not clear to me that Galations proves his natural birth put him under the law.

Notice; a bar-mitzvah (and I don’t know Hebrew so I can’t tell the exact meaning of mitzvah) is an event which happens at around 12 or 13. The tie in with Hagar and Ishmael is on that very point. Ishmael, who is kicked out, IS circumcised at around age 13.

Notice also the issues surrounding the incest law – yet Abraham claims Sarah as his sister on account of her being his ‘niece’. I didn’t check to see if that is literal brother’s daughter – or cousin – but as incest is considered a sexual sin; nakedness; these things all converge on the same set of historical events and patterns.

It seems clear from the gospels that Jesus was a jew under the law and He was obedient to what Moses had put down, …

But St. Paul is writing after Jesus was 13 years old. He had two births, possibly.
The idea of baptism as a rebirth was something Jesus reprimanded Nicodemus for not understanding – so that the idea of rebirth is not totally foreign to Jewish teaching, even if it is somehow subtle.

Furthermore, why is it necessary to interpret that Mary was a descendant of David?

You have a point there; But look again at Ruth and the “right” of the closest kinsman. I don’t recall the passages, but there are several (eg: the book of Tobit, concerning his wife); Tamar with Onan, and so forth – which indicate a right of refusal to marry a woman. eg: a preferential order.

I am not sure which way these things point – I am just noticing them, and begning to sort them out in my mind.

I don’t think Ezra’s statement was applicable in light of the evidence that we’ve considered. I should also reference at this point that Moses himself married a Cushite woman.

Right, and his brother and sister became angry with him over it. Moses also delayed in circumcising his child on the eighth day, which led God to “try” and kill him.

I think we are missing certain details which make these passages clear and harmonious. In the Book of Ruth, I am simply going to point out that the near kinsman was concerned that his own children would somehow be cut off.
That could mean several things – but it occurred the moment Booz mentioned that ruth was a Moabitess – and that matches with the later prohibition that we are seeing.

I sure am glad to have a non-confrontational conversation. The other thread I have been pursuing with a Calvanist is rather difficult to keep calm in.

Peace, David, and God bless you this day for your kindness.
Amen.

 

[D_M]

Hi Andrew,

Yes, I meant Deuteronomy 24:1.

If you like humour, I have a joke that was told me by a rabbi: Who is the shortest person in the bible?

Answer: Bildad the Shuhite (book of Job)

Could the word be translated as ‘indecent exposure’? I’m not sure if a sexual sin would be what is implied, because Jesus in the gospel of Matthew says:

Matthew 5:31-32 "It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Moses did not forbid divorce, but Jesus did, except on the grounds of unchastity. If Moses also only permitted divorce on the grounds of committing sexual sin would Jesus have said that there was something different about what He was teaching?

Ruth 4:6 does not refer to Boaz but to Naomi’s next of kin and I’m not sure if it is referring to the law about marrying foreign wives, but he may be saying that he can’t afford to pay the money lest he lose his own possessions.

I don’t know hebrew either, but mitsvah means commandment, and it is frequently used in the old testament in reference to God’s commandments.

I’m not sure when the bar-mitzvah celebration started in judaism… I have a feeling it may be too recent to be applicable. I do think Jesus had to be under the law due to the character of the gospels though that have Him fulfilling what the law required of Him and His words about ‘think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets’.

Sarai, I thought, was Abraham’s half-sister. Genesis 20:12 Besides she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

Abraham wasn’t bound by what Moses commanded but only according to the natural law and what God had instituted with him (eg. circumcision).

I would have suspected that anyone could have refused to marry a woman, but Moses had written that one had a duty to marry his brother’s widow and that it was disgraceful (although permitted) to refuse to marry her.

I think Moses’ wife in Midian may have been different from his cushite wife. Where is there a story about Moses refusing to circumcize his child on the eigth day?

If there was a prohibition against marrying Ruth on account of her gentile heritage, how would that fit in with what the people said when Boaz married her?:

Ruth 4:11 Then all the people who were at the gate, and the elders said, "We are witnesses. May the Lord make the woman, who is coming into your house, like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you prosper in Ephrathah and be renowned in Bethlehem;

Thank you for calling me non-confrontational and kind; that’s very nice of you.

I also find it a strange experience to have a non-confrontational conversation. I find myself often debating with atheists and I understand the experience you are describing.

(anyone can say this herself is she chooses)

Lord, we thank you for all the wisdom you share with us about these things and we pray for assistance in helping to reconcile Your inspired Word as well as to understand its meaning better. Look after Andrew also and whatever it is that afflicts him. We ask for these things, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Andrew,
Answer: Bildad the Shuhite (book of Job)

img189.imageshack.us/img189/2757/shoeheight.jpg

I’m not sure when the bar-mitzvah celebration started in judaism… I have a feeling it may be too recent to be applicable. I do think Jesus had to be under the law due to the character of the gospels though that have Him fulfilling what the law required of Him and His words about ‘think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets’.

I see two references in the threads about people who think similarly, but no one indicates any evidence. I also came across this:.

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9002fea2.asp

To belabor the obvious, Jesus was twelve. Jewish boys attained religious and legal maturity and assumed their religious and some of their legal responsibilities at the age of thirteen years and one day (Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 4, columns 243f.).

If you can find some more on that, I would be interested. The point of the Bar-Mitzvah – or at least the age 13 years and 1 day – is that is when a child becomes legally responsible (eg: under the law).

I will come back to many of the other things you point out in a bit. But, the general idea I am exploring is whether or not one willfully submits to the law vs. the necessity to do so. I’ll go back to Josephus and other early Jewish writers and do some exploration – perhaps God will grant us some wisdom.

–Andrew.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I think Moses’ wife in Midian may have been different from his cushite wife. Where is there a story about Moses refusing to circumcize his child on the eigth day?

The explanation for why the angel of God (LXX Exodu 4:24 εγενετο δε εν τη οδω εν τω καταλυματι συνηντησεν αυτω αγγελος κυριου και εζητει αυτον αποκτειναι ) tries to kill “him” is apparently back in Exodus 4:22.

I also spoke briefly of it here in reference to the baptism of a child.: (click the grey button, and also look at the end of the post and also the post which followed for another joke…)

, there may be no recorded positive explicit infant command which is clear to the many contradictory 20th century scholars – but there are two problems and a large number of idiot-savant scholars that makes me wonder about your choice of sources!

St. Augustine attacked his opponents on the VERY basis that infant baptism was “universal” practice.

 

[D_M]

Hi Andrew,

Very cute picture of Mr. Bildad.

According to archaeologists, people generally were smaller back then (theorized cause: lack of proper nutrition) with an average height of, I think, 5 feet or less.

I see two references in the threads about people who think similarly, but no one indicates any evidence. I also came across this:.

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9002fea2.asp

If you can find some more on that, I would be interested. The point of the Bar-Mitzvah – or at least the age 13 years and 1 day – is that is when a child becomes legally responsible (eg: under the law).

I will come back to many of the other things you point out in a bit. But, the general idea I am exploring is whether or not one willfully submits to the law vs. the necessity to do so. I’ll go back to Josephus and other early Jewish writers and do some exploration – perhaps God will grant us some wisdom.

‘Mateo’ appears to be relying on the encyclopedia judaica. According to jewish sources that I’ve now looked at, they say it is according to jewish law… although I don’t believe there is anything that Moses wrote that says this and all of the sources I have seen appear to reference the talmud rather than the torah, which makes me think that it may be an ancient practice but not necessarily a genuine part of the old covenant nor did it necessarily exist during Jesus’ day.

(I had difficulty following that argument you linked to… I wonder if it is possible though that Jesus’ ‘siblings’ could simply be children of Joseph from a different marriage?)

I also spoke briefly of it here in reference to the baptism of a child.: (click the grey button, and also look at the end of the post and also the post which followed for another joke…)

I hadn’t noticed that before. Your theory seems possible at the moment although I wonder why it is that it doesn’t mention God telling Moses to circumcise his child while He was talking with him?

(anyone can say this if she chooses)

Lord, we pray for wisdom with regard to these things so that we may understand them better. Guide us to know the truth of these things and clarify what seems cloudy to us. Look after Andrew also, and give him whatever support he needs. We ask for these things, if it is Your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Andrew,

Very cute…

Awwww. shucks…

… jewish law…

A short caution to you about the idea of “Jewish Law”;
The first five books of the OT (the TaNaK) are referred to as “Torah”.
TorAh (Law or Teachings.)
Nevim. (Prophecy.)
Ketuim. (Wisdom & history writings).

The first five books of the bible are those attributed to Moses and his teaching. Those are the “Law” that St. Paul speaks of. Notice that Genesis is part of the “Law”. So when the Talmuds discuss law, they refer even to Genesis passages. And this is why Adam and Eve were pertinent to Jesus’ discussion of the Law of Moses.

This is one of the reasons I am looking at Abraham divorcing Hagar as a precedent in Law – and also why it is important to understand the Levirate (latin: husband’s brother) custom which Judah sets in force for Tamar.

(I had difficulty … I wonder if it is possible though that Jesus’ ‘siblings’ could simply be children of Joseph from a different marriage?)

The technical grammar questions are why I began verifying statements in Greek myself by comparison with texts inside and outside of scripture.

Take for example Fr. Maeto’s point about the use of “the” before “Mary”.
A repeated “The” of differing endings is a dead giveaway of a very nuclear/close tie.
But Maeto’s argument is based on a vague grammar relationship.
I think it would have been easier just to point out that “the” when used multiple times is emphatically distinguishing something, not grouping it with others mentioned.

Mark 6:3 ουχ ουτ-ος εστιν ο τεκτ-ων ο υι-ος τ-ης μαρι-ας και αδελφ-ος ιακωβ-ου και ιωσητ-ος και ιουδ-α και σιμων-ος και ουκ εισιν …

NOT this is he(1male) of-children THE(1MALE) SON(1Male) of-THE(1FEMALE) of-Maria and brother of-Jacob and Jose-xx and Juda and Simon and NOT are …

Word order and count and color is preserved in the awkward English. Hyphens are single words broken into parts; parenthesis are comments.
The first “the” means “he” so the reader knows that “this” and the subject after “is” (A New subject) is a singular male among a group of children. Notice Mark doesn’t put a second “the” in front of children – eg: one that agrees with the children (eg: τ-ων);

BUT St. Mark does link Jesus as THE son of-THE Mary. Whenever a second “The” appears, it carries the idea of emphatic distinguishing (eg: I MEAN [of]THE). So, what the author said is that “he of-children (of yet unspecified parentage) is THE son (I MEAN OF) Mary.” It is emphatic because there are two matched “the” (brown). But after the “and”, there are no more “the’s” with respect to the proper names of the brothers. They are NOT emphatic. The sisters part has a new verb, so we can’t check relationship with them.

That means St. Mark went to quite a bit of extra work to isolate the relationship of Jesus to Mary. This is the same type of grammar that appears when discussing the wife of someone. There will be a double “the” sometimes immediately in series with the first being female, and the second being male. So, Mark has made it clear that Jesus is distinguished from the others by Mary.

Knowing the ambiguity of the word “brothers”; your idea seems plausible. They might (or not) be Joseph’s sons by a different wife – but Maeto was only interested in proving that they are not sons (biological) of Mary. A narrow point; which Mark 6:3 actually supports very well. “of-the” can be pluralized and it is not. It could be the(single) of-sons(plural) of-Mary – but the author did not do so. The other children could have had another “the” to establish a tie to Mary as well.
Therefore, Jesus is the only(single) son of Mary in that sentence.(Sisters aside).

This would be important, for if you look at the names of the sons after the “and”, one of them is “Jose-t(os)”. Should Joseph have had a son named Jose-t(os) named after himself – then that would appear to show him to be the favored son of the inheritance; and Joseph’s is the kingly line. Since Jesus is an adopted child (presumed because of the Marriage) – that would reduce (or even threaten) his claim to David’s throne.

If Joseph had a son in his own name before marriage to Mary, by a different wife, that too would suggest a contender to the throne of David who had more biological right to it. I would conclude, if that were the case, that God did not warn Joseph against favoring any of his sons prior to Jesus by their name; and that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I also have never seen a text which excludes Joseph’s other “son” from inheritance of the throne – which is a point that I would think the evangelists would have covered if it were a potential issue.

So, I would argue, based on inferences from the text, that some of these children might be Joseph’s – but at least Jose is not. For the name Jose/ph would be encouraged among Jesus’ cousins because Joseph was an upstanding member of the family; and I find it hard to believe that God would have permitted Joseph to designate a favored son. Of course, that is just conjecture, but the inheritance of David is something that needed to be safeguarded and another reason that it would be fitting for Mary to be of the line of David; a reason for preference over other wives.

I hadn’t noticed that before. Your theory seems possible at the moment although I wonder why it is that it doesn’t mention God telling Moses to circumcise…

Moses already had the command to circumcise; it was from father Abraham. It was already part of the “Law” since it is in Genesis. The timing is the critical issue here – and if Sophira were pregnant at the start, it is odd that wasn’t mentioned either.

What disturbs me more is the convoluted notion I put forth about Moses being at odds with Sophira over the custom. One of the things I just realized is that later we learn Sophira was sent back to her father at some point on the trip into Egypt. It’s plausible after all that the angel (literally – messenger) is Moses. I’ll have to ask around about the Hebrew…

If you have detailed thoughts/comments go ahead and add them to that thread…
I just want to keep the general ideas on the Law and Marriage here and (of course) inclusion in the covenant.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5484717#post5484717

Also, which Talmud did the references point to? The Jerusalem or the Babylonian?
And do they indicate which section?

Thanks. --Andrew.

 

[D_M]

Hi Andrew,

short caution to you about the idea of “Jewish Law”;
The first five books of the OT (the TaNaK) are referred to as “Torah”.
TorAh (Law or Teachings.)
Nevim. (Prophecy.)
Ketuim. (Wisdom & history writings).

The first five books of the bible are those attributed to Moses and his teaching. Those are the “Law” that St. Paul speaks of. Notice that Genesis is part of the “Law”. So when the Talmuds discuss law, they refer even to Genesis passages. And this is why Adam and Eve were pertinent to Jesus’ discussion of the Law of Moses.

This is one of the reasons I am looking at Abraham divorcing Hagar as a precedent in Law – and also why it is important to understand the Levirate (latin: husband’s brother) custom which Judah sets in force for Tamar.

I know. I don’t think there’s anywhere in the whole old testament where it clearly says that a person becomes under legal obligation at the age of 13. It also doesn’t make sense to me, because children are specifically mentioned as subject to punishment also in certain parts of what Moses wrote.

This would be important, for if you look at the names of the sons after the “and”, one of them is “Jose-t(os)”. Should Joseph have had a son named Jose-t(os) named after himself – then that would appear to show him to be the favored son of the inheritance; and Joseph’s is the kingly line. Since Jesus is an adopted child (presumed because of the Marriage) – that would reduce (or even threaten) his claim to David’s throne.

If Joseph had a son in his own name before marriage to Mary, by a different wife, that too would suggest a contender to the throne of David who had more biological right to it. I would conclude, if that were the case, that God did not warn Joseph against favoring any of his sons prior to Jesus by their name; and that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I also have never seen a text which excludes Joseph’s other “son” from inheritance of the throne – which is a point that I would think the evangelists would have covered if it were a potential issue.

So, I would argue, based on inferences from the text, that some of these children might be Joseph’s – but at least Jose is not. For the name Jose/ph would be encouraged among Jesus’ cousins because Joseph was an upstanding member of the family; and I find it hard to believe that God would have permitted Joseph to designate a favored son. Of course, that is just conjecture, but the inheritance of David is something that needed to be safeguarded and another reason that it would be fitting for Mary to be of the line of David; a reason for preference over other wives

I’m not sure about this. There could have been thousands of males who directly descended from David living in Israel, and I have doubts that there would have been a conscious recognition of which one would have inherited David’s throne had it been re-established. In the old testament, the king of Israel is selected by God.

There are people living in India who directly descend from Mughal emperors who are living in little apartments working in blue-collar jobs.

I have a few brief thoughts:

Moses already had the command to circumcise; it was from father Abraham. It was already part of the “Law” since it is in Genesis. The timing is the critical issue here – and if Sophira were pregnant at the start, it is odd that wasn’t mentioned either.

What I meant was why wouldn’t God have reminded Moses about this during his talk with him just before he embarks back to Egypt?

What disturbs me more is the convoluted notion I put forth about Moses being at odds with Sophira over the custom. One of the things I just realized is that later we learn Sophira was sent back to her father at some point on the trip into Egypt. It’s plausible after all that the angel (literally – messenger) is Moses. I’ll have to ask around about the Hebrew…

It doesn’t say ‘messenger of God’ in the hebrew. In hebrew it is actually Yhovah (God/Yahweh/the unutterable name) who seeks to kill and I don’t think it could mean Moses. I can’t read hebrew, but I’m not sure if they actually use pronouns and I’m wondering if the object of the sentence ‘God met and sought to kill’ is not actually made specific even in the hebrew. I wonder if it may even be possible that God is actually trying to kill Gershom who may have been an adult by this point.

The reference appears to comes from the Jerusalem talmud and this is what I found:

74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:_U9KkXydfHUJ:mishnahyomit.org/avoth/Avoth%25205-21.doc+bar-mitzvah+mishnah&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

(anyone can say this herself if she chooses)

Lord, help us to better understand these things we are trying to discern better. Grant us your wisdom and help us reconcile these things. Look after Andrew also and give him whatever help he needs. We ask this, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen

God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Andrew,
I know. I don’t think there’s anywhere in the whole old testament where it clearly says that a person becomes under legal obligation at the age of 13. It also doesn’t make sense to me, because children are specifically mentioned as subject to punishment also in certain parts of what Moses wrote.

Four things:

1. Ishmael was 13 at the time of his mocking of Sarai for her sexual barren-ness.
2. 13, according to the Mishna you mentioned, 13 is a typical age of puberty at the time of the Talmuds in Jerusalem.
3. The divorce and cutting off is on account of Ishmael at age 13 – HE mocked Sarai who was barren – and by consent, God makes him accountable rather than counseling pardon.
4. The Mishnah you cite speaks only about the “celebration” of barmitzvah – not it’s existence prior to the “celebration” tradition.

Could you cite some of these “punishments” that you refer to? I am uncertain of the references and the context in the law of Moses.

I’m not sure about this. There could have been thousands of males who directly descended from David living in Israel, and I have doubts that there would have been a conscious recognition of which one would have inherited David’s throne had it been re-established. In the old testament, the king of Israel is selected by God.

I can understand the doubt; But what I am getting at has nothing to do with the number of potential kings – eg: the more who could claim the line, the worse the situation is without some kind of clarification.

Nero was adopted, and selected to be Roman Emporer because he was the eldest. He fell out of favor with his mother, so he murdered his mother’s biological son, because his mother could make the claim that only his brother was legitimately a descendant. 1 day before his brother could claim the throne – he died…
After Nero committed suicide, Chaos reigned – because although there were Many cousins who could ascend to the throne, no clear edict prevented anyone from pretending to be Nero or a legal heir; several imposters and extended family members were executed by those who succeeded in gaining power half legitimately.

It was expected that the OFFSPRING of David would hold the jewish throne, and so whenever the opportunity arose – God had to make it clear whom was the king in some fashion; Think about how he did so.

Consider Saul. His Son Jonathan is the rightful heir to the throne – but the scripture writers take great pains to have Jonathan show that he WILLINGLY gave David the throne; and that gives David legitimacy to the people, and explains why – although a possible heir of Saul was living during David’s reign – that David was not disputed as King.

David himself is the one who confirmed Solomon as the successor; Nathan tells Bathsheba to talk to the senile David in order to save her and Solomon’s life. God loved Solomon, but there is no talk of an oracle of the Lord that Solomon specifically will be king.

note: 1Kings 3-4, 8, 12, and especially 13.
It is David who chose Solomon. 1Kings 20-21.

And even in this situation, a son of a different wife – Adonijah – tries to take the throne by inheriting a “wife” of his father: 1King 2:21-22. The reason Solomon balks is because he is his older brother.

If the choice were made clear by God – why then is there any doubt by the people as to who is legitimately king? And what was the threat that Solomon was fighting that he should kill his older brother?

The more relatives when a throne is involved, the more reason to clearly identify the chosen one. Even if everyone was a son of David, there is more reason when the question arises – to identify the true heir. Since it is the father who pronounces the successor – why doesn’t Joseph do this in order to prevent the readers and Jews from objecting that Jesus was never chosen by Joseph?
Christianity was disputed – and the non-converting Jews would CERTAINLY use any argument against Jesus they could !

Again, even the Apostles – the figurative tribes of the new Father Jesus – argued amongst themselves who was the Greatest, and it was Peter, the eldest who was Pope; Jesus had to make this clear to them for the slightest doubt caused an uproar – and NONE of them are biologically Jesus’ children.

The detractors of Jesus could say he was illigitimate, and unchosen, and tradition had been violated – I don’t think the Gospel writers would miss that issue if it existed; no matter how minor it might seem – people were politically trying to use Jesus and to destroy him by his own relatives.

The other Q’s are quite interesting – but belong to the other thread.
A little later, I will post some thoughts there too.

I hope your days have gone well this summer, and you are blessed with a gentle fall and winter.
–Andrew.

 

[D_M]

Hi Andrew,

1. Ishmael was 13 at the time of his mocking of Sarai for her sexual barren-ness.
2. 13, according to the Mishna you mentioned, 13 is a typical age of puberty at the time of the Talmuds in Jerusalem.
3. The divorce and cutting off is on account of Ishmael at age 13 – HE mocked Sarai who was barren – and by consent, God makes him accountable rather than counseling pardon.
4. The Mishnah you cite speaks only about the “celebration” of barmitzvah – not it’s existence prior to the “celebration” tradition.

Could you cite some of these “punishments” that you refer to? I am uncertain of the references and the context in the law of Moses.

When did Ishamel mock Sarah for her barrennes?

Ishmael was thirteen when he was circumcised, and he must have a little bit older when he was sent away with Hagar.

The mishmah I mention does not speak about the celebration, which the webpage indicates didn’t have its origins until the 15th century. The mishnah says ‘At thirteen subject to the commandments’

For punishment, I was thinking of this one:

Deuteronomy 22:18-21 "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, "This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

There is also of course the commandment to honour your father and your mother.

I can understand the doubt; But what I am getting at has nothing to do with the number of potential kings – eg: the more who could claim the line, the worse the situation is without some kind of clarification.

Samuel anointed David as king over Israel. Nathan the prophet along with Zadok the priest anointed Solomon as king over Israel.

I have difficulty imagining how Joseph would have been recognized as the heir to David’s throne as though he could pass it on to someone else, because I’m assuming he wasn’t famous and that he was just a carpenter. He would have perhaps been like the descendants of the Mughal emperors who live in broken apartments in Delhi.

I’ll bet people probably did allege Jesus was from the wrong family or the wrong tribe in order to discredit Him. God performed many miracles and signs through Him though that demonstrated who Jesus was.

My summer went well, and it’s getting colder where I live. We’ve started getting snow and frost.

(anyone can say this with me if she chooses)

Lord, look after us and bring us together in your love. Grant us wisdom concerning these things we discuss and answer our ponderings in whatever manner most pleases you. Look after Andrew and keep him healthy, and near to you. We ask for this, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen

God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Andrew,
When did Ishamel mock Sarah for her barrennes?

In Genes 17:18, Abraham shows his preference for Ishmael, his eldest son in being kingly – eg: God responds by making him a king, the father of 12 princes, but Ishmael is not in his covenant.

God listened to the father’s plea for his favored son – but established the covenant with another – eg: who had no cities to be king over, but God only was King until the time of Saul; When the cities and forts were built. The city with foundations.

Genesis 16:4 is the despising of Hagar over Sari when she was barren.
Genesis 21:8-9 is the mocking verses of Ishmael to Sarah.

Ishmael was thirteen when he was circumcised, and he must have a little bit older when he was sent away with Hagar.

Yes, he would be 13 and some months, or 14/15 at most. The law holds for all ages above 13… eg: at least 13 when he mocked.

Genes 21:10 …for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.

Ishmael clearly knew he was to be a leader, as his father favored him and the promise was known of Ishmael being the father of a great nation. It is at the weaning of his half brother that Ishmael mocks Sarah – tying his mocking to the delay in his rival’s birth due to barrenness – and it is on this account that Sarah demands the divorce (eg:sending away of a non-wife sex partner) of Hagar so that Ishmael will not be given of Abraham’s inheritance ( a wandering herdsman! ).

Genes 25:16 shows clearly the kingly issue of Ishmael, the favored son of Abraham.

The mishmah I mention does not speak about the celebration, which the webpage indicates didn’t have its origins until the 15th century. The mishnah says ‘At thirteen subject to the commandments’

I think it did, Barmitzvah is a word associated with a celebration today; There is no evidence of a celebration at the time of Jesus; hence it represents a development of tradition. The word Christmass isn’t in the bible either…

For punishment, I was thinking of this one:

Deuteronomy 22:18-21 "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, "This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

There is also of course the commandment to honour your father and your mother.

Why do both the father and mother need to take hold of him if he isn’t strong enough to struggle effectively?

Apply Deute 22:18-21 to a child of six months (circumcised). A fat child drunk on mothers milk… (people are called drunk on blood, why not milk?) Common sense of the statement, right?
If wine; it requires someone who knows how to make wine, the strength and stamina to press it, or has the strength to steal it? A 6 year old?, 7? when???

The command to honor your father and mother is also not something a powerless child can really do. Esp: OT commentary on that honor says – eg: … do not revile your father in your strength, even if he looses his mind in his old age…

St Paul too shows a change in status with age:

Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once…

And EVEN Ishmael is carried by his mother at age 13+. A weak child.
Deute 21:15.
–more–