Another round of speculation....
Many moons ago I critiqued Stephen C. Carlson's
treatment of the Matthean genealogy on this forum. Carlson argued, and I agreed, that Matthew did not invent the genealogy which inaugurates his gospel. Rather, he merely used it and modified it a bit. It came to him as a list of 40 names (note the highly symbolic number) running from Abraham to Joseph, with occasional notes about various brothers (those of Judah in Matthew 1.2, of Perez in 1.3, and of Jechoniah in 1.12) along the way; it was, in other words, a Davidic genealogy for Joseph. Matthew turned it into a Davidic genealogy for Jesus by adding Jesus and then using David's gematria (David = 14) to structure the genealogy into three lists of 14 names; he had to double David's name, however, in order to make this work; Matthew also sort of eased the tension between a patrilineal descent from David and a virgin birth involving no male by adding the mentions of various women who, like Mary, had made important or unusual contributions to the line (Tamar in 1.3, Rahab and Ruth in 1.5, and Bathsheba in 1.6).
So far so good. Carlson, however, argued that the original genealogy was meant to justify, with its mentions of brothers, the passing of the Davidic torch from Jesus to his brother James. I objected to this potential reason on the grounds that the original genealogy,
ex hypothesi, did not even reach Jesus; it ended at Joseph. My countersuggestion was that the genealogy was actually meant to justify the passing of the Davidic torch from Joseph to his brother Cl(e)op(h)as, whose son Symeon ended up taking over the reins of the Jerusalem church after the death of James, according to Eusebius, citing Hegesippus:
Eusebius, History of the Church 3.11.1-2: 1 After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. 2 They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Savior. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.
A different potential reason, however, has occurred to me in the interim, bolstered somewhat by the observations made in the OP. This potential reason originally involved Jesus' parentage being originally unknown, but now it might involve his (alleged) parentage being originally Ephraimite. Bear with me.
How the gospel of John treats Jesus' mother has always been interesting. On the one hand, John never names her Mary; on the other, he notes:
John 19.25b: 25b But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother and His mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene [ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ, καὶ Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή].
(I take this sentence as indicating three different women, not two or four, because there are only two instances of καί to separate them all.)
So Jesus' mother has a sister named Mary. Is she herself also, then, a Mary? A common solution is that sister = sister-in-law in this verse, and both Clopas and his brother Joseph married women named Mary. As Mary was a very common name (= Hebrew Miriam), this is possible. However, the fact that John never names Jesus' own mother as Mary is suspicious to me. If we read this gospel on its own, without outside help, we would not know Jesus' mother's name, but we would (think we) know that he had an aunt named Mary.
The Mary is said to be "of Clopas." This could mean "daughter of Clopas," "wife of Clopas," or "mother of Clopas," but "wife of Clopas" seems more likely as the default. For example, a certain Mary is called "Mary of Joses" and "Mary of James" in Mark 15.47 and 16.1, and in this case it seems like she is their
mother, but this relationship has already been clarified previously in the gospel, in 15.40. Contrariwise, in Matthew 1.6 Bathsheba is called "she of Uriah" without previous clarification, and we know from the Jewish histories that she was the
wife of Uriah. Here in John 19.25b, there is no previous clarification; hence I tend to prefer "wife of Clopas" as the intended meaning, and this is how Eusebius seems to read it in
History of the Church 3.32.4 (in which he asserts that this "Mary of Clopas" birthed Symeon, Clopas' son). The most natural reading, then, of John 19.25b is that Jesus' mother has a sister named Mary, and this Mary is the wife of Clopas.
I mean to synthesize several strands of data at this point.
First, Hegesippus says that Clopas and Joseph were brothers (
apud Eusebius,
History of the Church 3.11.2).
Second, Hegesippus also says that both Clopas' son Symeon (
apud Eusebius,
History of the Church 3.32.3) and Jude's grandson's (
apud Eusebius,
History of the Church 3.20.1-6) were accused of being descendants of David; this Jude, of course, is supposedly the brother of James the Just (and of Jesus, if the stories be true, but I shall be casting doubt upon them).
Third, Matthew's genealogy has Joseph, Jesus' alleged father, as a descendant of David.
Fourth, Galatians 1.19 says that James, apparently James the Just, was the brother of the Lord.
However, the purpose of this thread has been to evaluate evidence that Jesus/Joshua was sometimes thought of as an Ephraimite, not as a Judahite.
Also, some early Christians seem to have denied that Jesus was of David (Barnabas 12.10-11).
Furthermore, it is interesting that certain texts, such as Acts, James, and Jude, never connect James and Jude to Jesus as his brothers. Jude [1.]1 identifies the author as the brother of James, but says nothing about being the brother of Jesus.
Finally, as per the OP, it is easily understandable why at least some Christians would desperately want to turn Jesus into a descendant of David, even if he was not originally considered to have been such.
My suggested trajectory is as follows:
- Jesus was originally conceived of as Jesus/Joshua, the War Messiah, Messiah ben Ephraim, Messiah ben Joseph. He was thought of as Galilean. His actual parentage, however, was unknown.
- There was a family in Judea which claimed Davidic descent; this family consisted of the parents: Clopas and Mary, and several sons: Jacob/James, Joseph/Joses, Judas/Jude, and Symeon/Simon. The claimed Davidic descent was no idle fancy; it was an expression of nationalistic zeal.
- Clopas had, as per Hegesippus, a(n older) brother named Joseph, who bore for himself a genealogy testifying to his Davidic heritage.
- This Joseph, however, died without male issue. The genealogy was, with the addition of some notes about brothers, pressed instead into service as a justification for Clopas being the father of at least two leaders of the revolutionary cult in Jerusalem: James and Symeon (assuming that Mark 6.3 lists the sons in birth order, perhaps Joses and Jude were dead by the time Symeon took over; or perhaps Joses was the black sheep, never on board with the family enterprise).
- Various individuals, including at least three of these brothers, called themselves "the brothers of the Lord" (Galatians 1.19; 1 Corinthians 9.5). As per Wells, Jesus himself even calls certain followers "my brothers" in various passages (John 19.17, Matthew 25.40; 28.10). These are not all Christians in general; nor are they blood brothers. Originally, "the Lord" in question may simply have been Yahweh; later on, of course, it would have been "remembered" as having applied to Jesus.
- In addition to James famously being called "the brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1.19, Jesus himself was supposedly a ben Joseph = a "son of Joseph." This was originally with reference to his messianic status as Ephraim's heir, but Clopas has that brother named Joseph, too.
- So the table was set. The urge to make Jesus Davidic, as well as to ensure that he is of sound parentage, would have seized upon James being "the brother of the Lord" as an invitation to retroactively adopt him into this purportedly Davidic family. But the fit was not perfect, since Joseph was not James' father, but rather his uncle. So some juggling had to be done, and things got a bit confused/confusing. Joseph became the father, not only of Jesus, but also of Clopas' rightful sons. Usually he pulled Clopas' wife Mary with him in the tradition (creating the famous Christmas pair: Joseph and Mary), but (as we have seen in John 19.25b) not always.
- James, being extremely famous in his own right, was seldom if ever identified by his father's name. So his name permeates the tradition as "James the brother of the Lord" (or, later, "of Jesus"), "James the Just," and "James of Jerusalem." Sometimes he could even be introduced as just plain James, with no qualifier (Acts 12.17; and notice, "James and the brethren"). His brother Symeon, however, was less famous, and was therefore identified far more often by his father's name. But, as we have seen, his father was Clopas, not Joseph, and this is how Hegesippus preserves his legacy, turning him accidentally into a cousin of Jesus and James (whereas he was actually James' brother, and Jesus actually had nothing genetically to do with this family).
- Thus, Jesus/Joshua was originally the Messiah ben Joseph, but came to be known as the Messiah ben David instead, owing to the natural southward pull of the tradition. This whole process of integrating Jesus into a good Davidic family parallels the process by which a narrative originally centered on Galilee (as is still apparent in Matthew and Mark, especially as pertains to the venue for the resurrection appearances) was transformed into a narrative centered on Judea and Jerusalem.
This reconstruction accounts for a
lot of data, as well as a fair number of the tensions, contradictions, and confusions endemic in the tradition. So, obviously, it is ripe for getting as many holes poked in it as reasonably possible. What do you think?
- Holy Family.png (48.89 KiB) Viewed 26885 times
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:33 amIt is worth noting that John also expresses the tradition that Jesus was a Samaritan. Ephraim was the pre-eminent portion of Samaria.
I have been thinking a lot recently about John 8.48 in this connection, since you are right: the original territory of Ephraim all by itself is basically Samaria. John 4.9 has a Samari(t)an woman calling him a Judean/Jew, however, and John 8.48 could just be a slur fit for any northerner. Or perhaps he actually was originally thought of as a Samari(t)an (cue all the Simon Magus lore) in an even earlier layer than I am exploring right now. I am honestly not at all sure yet. (I was actually going to post a thread about how Jesus is called a Samari(t)an, a Jew/Judean, and a Galilean at various junctures, but then that Argentinian article came to my attention, and I changed course for the time being.)
ETA: The following outlier may also reflect a belief in a Messiah ben Joseph destined to die at the time of the end:
4 Ezra 7.26-34: 26 For behold, the time will come, when the signs which I have foretold to you will come to pass, that the city which now is not seen shall appear, and the land which now is hidden shall be disclosed. 27 And every one who has been delivered from the evils that I have foretold shall see my wonders. 28 For my son the Messiah [Filius meus Iesus, Vulgate] shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years. 29 And after these years my son the Messiah [Filius meus Christus, Vulgate] shall die, and all who draw human breath. 30 And the world shall be turned back to primeval silence for seven days, as it was at the first beginnings; so that no one shall be left. 31 And after seven days the world, which is not yet awake, shall be roused, and that which is corruptible shall perish. 32 And the earth shall give up those who are asleep in it, and the dust those who dwell silently in it; and the chambers shall give up the souls which have been committed to them. 33 And the Most High shall be revealed upon the seat of judgment, and compassion shall pass away, and patience shall be withdrawn; 34 but only judgment shall remain, truth shall stand, and faithfulness shall grow strong.
The Vulgate has a Jesus/Joshua dying at the end of a messianic period of 400 years (assuming that the Messiah is the same figure in both verses). If this is a Jewish variant, then this is more evidence of belief in a dying Joshua Messiah. If it is a Christian variant, then what kind of Christian would confuse Jesus with a Messiah destined to die at the end of the messianic era? Perhaps a Jewish Christian steeped in Ephraimite rather than Judahite eschatology?