The Genealogy of Jesus
Part Three
THE POST-EXILIC HOUSE OF DAVID
Israel had no king after Jechoniah. In Babylon, his descendants (mainly
in the line of Hananiah son of Zerubbabel) led the exiled community as
Exilarchs. The Exilarchs enjoyed a life of ease and much of the pomp
and pageantry associated with royalty, but their actual authority was
restricted to internal Jewish matters. In the land of Israel, the
post-exilic fortunes of the house of David are a bit more murky.
The Lay Nobility
In Eretz Israel, those who reorganized the nation following the Exile
made the ancient ruling families the basis of order. Originally, the
heads of these prominent families were the rulers of the various
tribes. Probably, these dominant families had already assumed
leadership of the people during the exile, where they may have served
as rulers and judges (Eze 8:1; 20:1). Later, many Jews returned to
their homeland, at which point these family patriarchs functioned as
representatives of the people. It was they who negotiated with the
Persian provincial governor (Ezr 5:9ff) and, in association with the
"governor of the Jews," directed the reconstruction of the Temple (Ezr
5:5, 9; 6:7-8, 14).
This lay nobility is often described in rabbinic literature as
"the eminent men of the generation," "the eminent men of Jerusalem," or
"the leading men of Jerusalem" (Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus
[Fortress, 1969] 225). We read of them in the New Testament, where Luke
speaks of “the principle men of the people” (Lk 19:47). Jeremias argues
that the many references to "the elders" of Israel, who with the chief
priests and scribes constituted the Sanhedrin, in fact describe this
lay nobility. For the most part, they would have held to Sadducean
values and beliefs (Jeremias, 228-229). Joseph of Arimathea (Mk 15:43;
Mt 27:57; Lk 23:50-51; Jn 19:38-42), a rich landownder, was probably a
representative member of this group.
Who were the members of the lay nobility? A passage from the Mishnah (m.Taan 4:5) provides a list of the
privileged families who were entitled to supply wood for the altar.
These families are:
- "on the 1st of Nisan, by the family
of Arah of the tribe of Judah [cf. Ezr 2:5; Neh 7:10];
- on the 20th of Tammuz, by the family of David of the tribe of
Judah
[cf. Ezr 8:2];
- on the 5th of Ab, by the family of Parosh of the tribe of Judah
[cf. Ezr 2:3; 8:3; 10:25; Neh 3:25; 7:8; 10:15];
- on the 7th of the self-same month, by the family of Jonadab the
son
of Rechab [cf. 2 Ki 10:15, 23; Jer 35:8; 1 Ch 2:55];
- on the 10th by the family of Senaa of the tribe of Benjamin [cf.
Ezr 2:35; Neh 3:3; 7:38; 11:9];
- on the 15th by the family of Zattuel of the tribe of Judah [cf.
Zattu: Ezr 2:9; 10:27; Neh 7:13; 10:15] together with the priests and
Levites and all whose tribal descent was in doubt and [or "namely"] the
family of the Pestle-smugglers [or Mortar-smugglers: b.Taan 28a] and the family of
Fig-pressers;
- on the 20th of the same month [it was brought] by the family of
Pahath Moab of the tribe of Judah [cf. Ezr 2:6; 8:4; 10:30; Neh 3:11;
7:11; 10:15];
- on the 20th of Elul, by the family of Adin of the tribe of Judah
[cf. Ezr 2:15; 8:6; Neh 7:20; 10:17];
- on the 1st of Tebet…an additional offering, and a wood offering
[by
the family of Parosh]." (Jeremias 226-227).
This list is most likely from the early post-exilic period, probably
deriving directly from the casting of lots to provide wood recorded in
Neh 10:35-37 and 13:31 (Jeremias 227). Their ability to provide wood
needed for the sacrificial cultus indicates that they were people of
some means, and that their position could involve financial sacrifice.
The family of David is indeed included among the patrician families of
post-exilic Israel, as would be expected. The entire patrician class,
however, comprised a very small group. Elishah ben Abuyah (born before
AD 70) stated: "My father Abuyah was one of the notable men of
Jerusalem. At my circumcision he invited all the notables of Jerusalem"
(Jeremias 225). This suggests that the "notables of Jerusalem" could
all gather in one room and formed a close social circle. As we have
seen, five distinct Davidic lines issued from Zerubbabel. It is likely
that the full prestige of Davidic ancestry—and the full burden of civic
responsibilities—would fall only on the full-blooded senior line of
Meshullam. (The lines from Zerubbabel and his non-Jewish wives are not
even recorded in the Bible; it is unlikely that, after Ezra’s
legislation against intermarriage, they would have been included if
such inclusion could be avoided.)
Social Function of the House of David
In practical terms, what did membership in the house of David mean in
the time of Jesus? Senior members of the family would have been members
of the Sanhedrin, as discussed above. With the rest of the Sanhedrin,
they had a ceremonial duty on the Day of Atonement in accompanying the
man who led the "goat for Azazel" into the wilderness (m.Yom 1:5). They would also have
been responsible for their family’s offering of wood for the altar on
the 20th of Tammuz every year.
Overall, however, the importance of the lay nobility in general was not
very great in the time of Jesus, as is demonstrated by the meagerness
of the evidence (Jeremias, 222). The Talmud
relates that the custom during the Second Temple period was that the
kingship belonged to the Hasmonean and Herodian dynasties, which
wielded political power. On religious matters, however, the people were
led by a "Prince" or "Patriarch" (Nasi).
The Nesi'im were either of
Davidic descent or, if not, were appointed by an assembly of judges or
by the Sanhedrin.
Hillel the Great, who was the spiritual leader in Israel ca. 30 BC – AD
10, rose to that position when Shemaiah and Abtalion, the non-Davidic
leaders who preceded him, conceded his prowess at halachic
interpretation(see t.Pes 4; b.Pes 66a; y.Pes 33a). He thus became Nasi because of his scholarship,
not his bloodline.
The social role of the Davidic dynasty was thus much different in the
time of Jesus than it was 500 years previously. Rather than being kings
and warriors, the most prominent heirs of David were looked to for
halachic interpretations. This shift no doubt served to enhance the
general expectation of a Davidic messiah, both by highlighting the
religious significance of the dynasty and by simultaneously denying it
the trappings--and the accompanying power--of royalty.
Economic Standing
What might life have been like for members of the house of David who
did not occupy the most senior positions in the family? Here there are
numerous traditions, both Jewish and Christian, that point to the
possibility that many Davidides lived quite modestly.
Hillel was born to a wealthy family of merchants in Babylonia (b.Sotah 21a). He wanted to study
the Torah, however, and his parents did not approve of this decision.
He traveled to Jerusalem without their financial support and worked as
a woodcutter. It is said
that he lived in such great poverty that he was sometimes unable
to pay the admission fee to study Torah, and because of him that
fee was abolished.
According to tradition, Mary’s father Joachim was a shepherd with a
sizeable flock, but he consistently donated most of it for sacrifice in
the temple or for the poor, resulting in a very modest lifestyle for
him and his wife.
The common thread in both of these stories is the theme of voluntary
poverty in the service of God. Hillel turned his back on a life of ease
in order to study the Torah; Joachim gave away much of his wealth in
the service of God.
It is beyond dispute that Joseph and Mary were poor. According to Luke
2:24, they did not offer the customary offering of a pigeon or
turtledove and a lamb when presenting Jesus in the Temple (Lev 12:6-8).
Rather, they took advantage of a provision in the Mosaic law that
allowed those of modest means to offer a less costly sacrifice: "a pair
of turtledoves or two young pigeons" (Lk 2:24). This was real
poverty--more like Hillel who legitimately could not pay for his
classes than like Joachim who gave freely out of his abundance.
Everything we know about Joseph and Mary's character indicate that if
they had the means to provide a lamb, they would have done so.
But how did they arrive at this state of poverty? Was it by choice like
Hillel? Hillel became poor because he separated himself from his
father’s financial support in order to study Torah. Was there some
motivation for Joseph to cut himself off from a ready source of wealth
for some religious goal? It may well be that Joseph, "a righteous man,"
customarily gave as much to charity as possible. In other words, he had
wealth enough but chose to spend almost all of it on others. Perhaps
this is what he did with the gifts of the Magi (Mt 2:12). But again,
this theory does not jibe with his inability to offer a lamb for
Jesus—which was also a religious obligation a righteous man would be
duty-bound to honor if at all possible.
Other factors were almost certainly involved. One possibility has to do
with Herod’s rise to power in 37 BC. At this time, Josephus reports,
Herod put to death "all the members" of the Sanhedrin (Ant. 14:175).
According to Antiquities 15:6, he also put to death "forty-five of the
principal men of the party of [the Hasmonean priest-king] Antigonus."
In short, Herod would not tolerate any threats to his power and dealt
with any potential rivals with swift brutality. Throughout his long
reign not even his own wives and sons were safe from his jealousy. His
later action in ordering the slaughter of the Holy Innocents (Mt 2:16)
was not at all out of character with what we know of Herod from
extrabiblical sources.
Furthermore, we should note that Herod’s own precarious claim to the
throne rested more in his alliance with Rome than with his own
pedigree. In fact, Herod was not even fully Jewish: his father was an
Idumean. This fact helps to explain his agitation at news of one "born
king of the Jews" in Matthew 2:2.
It is thus entirely possible that any Davidic claimant might have
become a victim of Herod’s thirst for power. Clearly, some Davidides
(those who were members of the Sanhedrin when Herod came to power, as
well as any partisans of Antigonus) were
killed outright. It does not require much imagination to envision
others fleeing houses and lands to protect themselves and their
families. In this light, I will shortly raise the possibility that
Joseph’s father was involved in a levirate marriage, meaning that he
was conceived in order to bear sons "in the name of" someone else who
had died without issue. Did this "someone" die childless because Herod
killed him?
Perhaps Joseph’s father lost his life or livelihood in Herod’s rampage.
In such a situation, Joseph (or his father) may well have been reduced
to poverty and chose to "lay low" as it were, living in Nazareth—far
from Jerusalem—and supporting himself by working as a simple carpenter.
Bauckham
raises the intriguing possibility that there may in fact by documentary
evidence about Joseph’s net worth. He draws attention to the tradition,
preserved by Hegesippus, that Zoker and James, the grandsons of Jude,
“the Lord’s brother,” were poor farmers. When asked about their
possessions by the emperor Domitian,
they said that between the two of them
they had only nine thousand denarii, half belonging to each of them;
and this they asserted they had not as money, but only in thirty-nine
plethora of land, so valued, from which by their own labor they both
paid the taxes and supported themselves.
Some of the details of this story are historically improbable, as
Bauckham admits. Even so, the size and value given for the land the two
brothers held in common is so specific that it is hard not to believe
it rests on some kernel of accurate tradition. The size of the family’s
smallholding in Nazareth may have been well known in the circle of
Jesus’ followers. Bauckham raises the possibility that this parcel of
land belonged to the family of Jesus for several generations. He writes,
The farm was not divided between the
brothers, but owned jointly, no doubt because this family continued the
old Jewish tradition of keeping a smallholding undivided as the joint
property of the ‘father’s house,’ rather than dividing it between
heirs. So, two [sic] generations back, this farm would have
belonged to Joseph and his brother Clopas. Unfortunately, because there
are two possible sizes of the plethron, it seems impossible to be sure
of the size of the farm: it may be either about 24 acres or about 12
acres. In either case, this is not much land to support two families…
Especially two families among which there were at least seven children.
Bauckham thus suggests that it would not be surprising for Joseph--and
Jesus--to supplement the family income by working as a carpenter. He
continues,
As in the case of many village
artisans, Joseph’s trade was not an alternative to working the land,
but a way of surviving when the family smallholding could no longer
fully support the family. It did not necessarily put Jesus’ family any
higher on the social ladder than most of the peasant farmers of
Nazareth.
THE IMMEDIATE ANCESTORS OF JESUS
After Zerubbabel, Matthew and Luke once again diverge before they both
end with Joseph. How are we to understand the biblical accounts of
Jesus’ most immediate natural and legal ancestors?
The Line of Joseph
The theory that Matthew reports Joseph’s bloodline and Luke reports
Mary's is of relatively recent invention (Annius de Viterbo, 1502),
although Augustine alluded to the possibility. Most of the early
Fathers claimed that the Bible was silent about Mary’s lineage and that
both Matthew and Luke traced the ancestry of Joseph. How to make sense
of these two admittedly contradictory accounts is probably best
understood according to the theory of Julius Africanus (Epistle to Aristides, ca. 200-225),
who claimed to have received his information from descendants of James
"the Lord's brother." By this account, a woman named Estha married
Matthan, a descendant of Solomon (Mt) and became the mother of Jacob.
After Matthan's death Estha took Matthat, a descendant of Nathan as her
second husband (Lk) and by him became the mother of Heli. Thus, Jacob
and Heli were half-brothers, having the same mother. Heli married, but
died without offspring. His widow then became the levirate wife of
Jacob and gave birth to Joseph. Joseph was thus the son of Jacob
biologically, but the son of Heli legally--thus combining in his person
two lineages of David’s descendants.
This is plausible generally, but there is a problem. In Jewish
reckoning, the levirate son would be listed in a genealogy as if he
were the natural son of the deceased father and would not likely appear
in the genealogy of his natural father. It is unlikely that someone as
well-versed in Jewish thought as the author of the First Gospel would
make the error of including Joseph in his genealogy if in fact he were
the levirate son of Heli. In other words, for this theory to work,
Matthew would have to reproduce the genealogy in Luke. But there is no
reason why the direction of the levirate relationships could not be
reversed, i.e., that Joseph was the natural son of Heli and the
levirate son of Jacob. Somehow the information must have become
garbled, either in Julius’ understanding or in the subsequent textual
tradition.
This switch places Jesus legally within the royal bloodline from
Solomon. Luke, a non-Jew writing for a non-Jewish audience, may not
have been as concerned about such matters. The point of the genealogy
for Luke seems to be that Jesus was a descendant of Adam and thus
identified with all of humanity. Luke therefore simply traced Joseph’s
natural bloodline from Nathan. (Friedrich Schleiermacher suggested that
Luke may have had access to the genealogy of Clopas, Joseph’s younger
brother and the father of at least two of the apostles. Clopas would
have been listed as a son of Heli in any genealogy, and Luke may not
have known or cared about the technicalities of the levirate custom.)
All of this may be represented graphically as follows:
1 Estha
+ Matthan
2 Jacob (died without
issue)
+ Wife of Jacob
+ Matthat
2 Heli
+ Wife of Jacob, married Heli after Jacob’s death
3 Joseph, levirate son
of Jacob
(People listed in Matthew's genealogy are in blue; those in Luke's are in red; those in both are in purple.)
The Line Through Mary
(1) Mary’s
Paternal Line. The early church Fathers insisted that Mary was
herself a descendant of David, and thus that Jesus was a "son of David"
not just legally through adoption by Joseph, but naturally through Mary
(cf. Ro 1:3). From 150 at the latest, tradition establishes the names
of Mary’s parents as Joachim and Anna. According to a tradition known
to John of Damascus (On the Orthodox
Faith, ca. 750), Mary’s great grandfather was named Panther (in
one source called Levi; Panther or Panthera was a byname of Greek
origin), a brother of Matthat. Her grandfather was bar-Panther, a
cousin of Heli. Her father Joachim was thus a cousin of Joseph, the
natural son of Heli. (The text used by John, Julius Africanus,
Irenaeus, Ambrose, and Gregory of Nazianzus has Melchi, not Matthat;
the two generations separating Heli from Melchi being omitted. The
correct name would be Matthat.) It is difficult to have much confidence
in such a late tradition, but it does not contradict any biblical data
or any earlier line of tradition.
It should be noted that there is some justification for Panthera as a
Greek byname adopted by a Semite. In Germany archeologists have
unearthed a tombstone which reads: "Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera of
Sidon, aged 62, a soldier of 40 years’ service, of the first cohort of
archers, lies here." More famously, it is known that a "Jesus ben
Pantera" was a religious figure reviled by the Jews, whose exploits--no
doubt somewhat garbled and exaggerated--are recorded in the Sepher Toledot Yeshu ("Book of the
Generations of Jesu"). He lived about a hundred years before Christ
during the reign of the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus, and should not be
confused with the biblical Jesus. The Talmud’s Ben Pantera and
John’s Bar Panther would have both lived at approximately the same time
(b. ca. 100 BC), but at this point equating the two would be pure
speculation.
At any rate, tradition presents Mary as descending from David through
Nathan on her father’s side:
1 Levi
2 Matthat
3 Heli
4 Joseph
2 Levi, called Panthera or Pantera
3 bar-Pantera
4 Joachim
+ Anna
5 Mary
Tradition has it that Joachim was a shepherd from Nazareth who by
custom gave away much of his flock every year to the Temple and to the
poor. One tradition known to the Coptic Church has Mary born after
Joachim and Anna had been married six years. The prevalent tradition,
however, asserts that Joachim and Anna were quite old and had all but
given up on ever having children. Mary was conceived in answer to their
prayers for a child. If Joachim and Anna were in their fifties when
Mary was born, their own birth dates would fall ca. 78–68 BC.
There is a much less reliable tradition that makes Joseph of Arimathea
a paternal uncle of Mary. This would make him a son of bar-Pantera and
a brother of Joachim. According to this tradition, Joseph was an early
missionary to the British Isles, where his daughter Enygeus (or Anna)
married into a British royal family. As appealing as this theory might
be especially for those with British roots, it is highly unlikely.
There is no attestation for this genealogy before the Dark Ages. And
if, as tradition states, Joachim was an old man when Mary was born, his
brother would be extremely old by the earliest years of the Christian
movement.
(2) Mary’s
Maternal Line. The Protevangelium
of James (ca. 150), a document granted great authority in the
Eastern churches, names Mary’s mother Anna. Other early traditions
depict Mary as of priestly lineage through her mother. It is a
documented fact that the lines of David and Aaron frequently
intermarried in biblical and intertestamental times.
In later Coptic and Eastern Orthodox tradition, Mary's grandfather was
a priest named Nathan (or perhaps Matthan, but this may be the result
of confusion with the Matthat in Luke's genealogy). Nathan had three
daughters: Mary, who became the mother of Salome (Mk 15:40; Jn 19:25),
Soba (or Sovin, or Sophia, or Zoia), who became the mother of
Elizabeth, and Anna who became the mother of Mary.
This tradition, if true, would explain how Mary's relative Elizabeth
can be a descendant of Aaron (Lk 1:5). Furthermore, if Salome (Mk
15:40) is equated with "[Jesus'] mother's sister" (Jn 19:25), and "the
mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Mt 27:56), it provides an explanation
for the curious fact that John, seemingly an obscure fisherman from
Galilee, was "known to the high priest" (Jn 19:15): his mother came
from a priestly family and his uncle was the priest Zechariah!