SON OF JOSEPH ?
So we would seem to be left with little reason to believe that Jesus was produced by miraculous conception. The irreducible historical datum would have to be that Joseph was his father (or perhaps Pandera). But I fear we are not on secure ground even here. For the possibility remains that for Jesus to have been called "son of Joseph" may be another historicizing reinterpretation of an obsolete messianic title, namely, that of Messiah ben-Joseph, the northern Messiah. I have already cautioned that Vermes might be wrong about the Messiah ben-Joseph being a reflection of Simon bar-Kochba. If he is, then we would have to look for a different origin for the whole conception, and it would not be too hard to find. The two-Messiah doctrine would just be a harmonization of rival Galilean and Judean Messiah expectations. The north, too, had ample traditions of a powerful monarchy led by such kings as Omri and Jeroboam. It is no surprise that the Assyrian conquest should have long ago bred in the Galileans a hope for a restoration of a throne in Samaria. And the Genesis traditions of Joseph as one day destined to rule all the tribes (Gen. 37:5-10) would have fed this flame of messianic (but non-Davidic) hope.
We have already seen how there was an early stage in which Christians regarded Jesus as a non-Davidic Messiah. He was thought to have been a Galilean, so presumably at this stage of belief he would have been Messiah ben-Joseph. We might even have a fossil remnant of that Joseph-messianism surviving in one of the Christian interpolations (as most scholars reckon it) into the Testament of Benjamin, one of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha:
Elsewhere in this fascinating document we hear that Levi or Judah or some combination of the two tribes will provide the seed of the coming Messiah, but here, all of a sudden, the Messiah is to stem from Joseph, that is, either Ephraim or Manasseh. I submit that this text demands an origin in circles where a Messiah-ben-Joseph was hoped for.
But what would have happened once Christians abandoned the non-Davidic messiahship notion and sought instead to secure a Davidic genealogy for their Lord? Obviously, Jesus' earlier status as Messiah son of Joseph would have to be forgotten or reinterpreted, just as "Jesus the Nazorean" was reinterpreted after "Nazorean" as the understanding of a sectarian tag was left behind. It came to be imagined that Jesus was the son of a man named Joseph. But as for the real name of Jesus' own biological father, none can say.
So we would seem to be left with little reason to believe that Jesus was produced by miraculous conception. The irreducible historical datum would have to be that Joseph was his father (or perhaps Pandera). But I fear we are not on secure ground even here. For the possibility remains that for Jesus to have been called "son of Joseph" may be another historicizing reinterpretation of an obsolete messianic title, namely, that of Messiah ben-Joseph, the northern Messiah. I have already cautioned that Vermes might be wrong about the Messiah ben-Joseph being a reflection of Simon bar-Kochba. If he is, then we would have to look for a different origin for the whole conception, and it would not be too hard to find. The two-Messiah doctrine would just be a harmonization of rival Galilean and Judean Messiah expectations. The north, too, had ample traditions of a powerful monarchy led by such kings as Omri and Jeroboam. It is no surprise that the Assyrian conquest should have long ago bred in the Galileans a hope for a restoration of a throne in Samaria. And the Genesis traditions of Joseph as one day destined to rule all the tribes (Gen. 37:5-10) would have fed this flame of messianic (but non-Davidic) hope.
We have already seen how there was an early stage in which Christians regarded Jesus as a non-Davidic Messiah. He was thought to have been a Galilean, so presumably at this stage of belief he would have been Messiah ben-Joseph. We might even have a fossil remnant of that Joseph-messianism surviving in one of the Christian interpolations (as most scholars reckon it) into the Testament of Benjamin, one of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha:
"Jacob cried out, 'My child Joseph, you good child, you have won your father's heart.' And he embraced him and kissed him for two hours, and said, 'In you shall be fulfilled the prophecy of heaven about the Lamb of God and Savior of the world—that one without blemish shall be offered up on behalf of sinners, and one without sin shall die on behalf of the ungodly, in the blood of the covenant, for the salvation of the Gentiles and of Israel, and he shall destroy Beliar and those who serve him'" (3:8).
Elsewhere in this fascinating document we hear that Levi or Judah or some combination of the two tribes will provide the seed of the coming Messiah, but here, all of a sudden, the Messiah is to stem from Joseph, that is, either Ephraim or Manasseh. I submit that this text demands an origin in circles where a Messiah-ben-Joseph was hoped for.
But what would have happened once Christians abandoned the non-Davidic messiahship notion and sought instead to secure a Davidic genealogy for their Lord? Obviously, Jesus' earlier status as Messiah son of Joseph would have to be forgotten or reinterpreted, just as "Jesus the Nazorean" was reinterpreted after "Nazorean" as the understanding of a sectarian tag was left behind. It came to be imagined that Jesus was the son of a man named Joseph. But as for the real name of Jesus' own biological father, none can say.
(The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, my bold)
- I wonder to what extent the mere existence of cult of a Samaritan Jesus implies that Jesus existed and was the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate.
- We have evidence of a cult of a Judean (davidic) Jesus, only we don't have evidence, in Josephus, of the crucifixion of a Judean Jesus by Pilate.
