Posted on 12/19/2007 7:03:18 PM PST by Richard Poe
by Richard Lawrence Poe Monday, December 17, 2007 |
Permanent Link Past Columns |
AT CHRISTMASTIME, Nativity scenes help bring the family of Jesus to life. However, they present only a small portion of his family. Scripture informs us that Jesus grew up in a large, sprawling clan, with many relatives. What became of that clan? Some branches may have survived. It is possible that some people living today might be related to Jesus.
Dan Browns blockbuster novel The Da Vinci Code contends that Jesus wed Mary Magdalene and fathered a royal dynasty of France. The book sparked interest in Jesus bloodline. Unfortunately, Brown's wild speculations and burning hostility toward the Church tainted the subject with an odor of crankery.
The fictional bloodline of Jesus ballyhooed in Browns novel should not be confused with Jesus' real bloodline.
Ancient writings make clear that Jesus hailed from an old and honored family. The first sixteen verses of the Gospel of Matthew set forth a genealogy depicting Joseph, the father of Jesus, as the twenty-fourth great grandson of King David.
Early Christians plainly viewed Jesus as an heir of David, a legitimate claimant to the throne of Israel.
Of course, they also viewed Jesus as the son of God, not of Joseph. This complicates the picture, but an adopted prince is a prince nonetheless.
Mary, the mother of Jesus, also came from a prominent family. Luke 1:5 tells us that Marys cousin Elizabeth was a Levite, descended from a long line of Israelite priests.
Mary's parents Joachim and Anna (or Hannah) were a wealthy and pious couple favored by God, according to the Gospel of James. Though never included in the Bible, the Gospel of James has received respectful study from generations of Christian scholars.
Despite his illustrious pedigree, Jesus worked as a humble carpenter. This should not surprise us. In his day, the sons of Herod ruled Judea, serving as puppets of Rome. The House of David was out of power, out of favor, and, in Jesus' case, out of pocket as well.
The New Testament names other relatives of Jesus. "Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary, the wife of Cleophas...", states John 19:25.
It may seem odd that two sisters would share the same name, but these two Marys were probably cousins, not sisters.
Poor translation is to blame. The oldest known manuscripts of the New Testament are written in Greek. However, these Greek documents apparently drew on earlier sources composed in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke.
Neither Aramaic nor Hebrew has any word for cousin. In these ancient tongues, the only precise way to identify a cousin was to use a clumsy formula such as "the son of my uncle". Consequently, Hebrew and Aramaic scribes often referred to cousins and other relatives as "brother" or "sister".
For example, in Genesis 29:15, Laban calls Jacob, his nephew, "brother". Genesis 14:12-14 refers to Lot as the "brother" of his uncle Abraham.
Four men are called "brothers of the Lord" in the Gospels; James, Simon, Jude and Joseph. Mark 6:3 also mentions sisters of Jesus. These "brothers" and "sisters" were most likely cousins of Jesus.
Two of them -- James and Joseph -- are probably the sons of "Mary, wife of Cleophas" whose names appear in Matthew 27:56. This same Mary also had a daughter named Salome, according to Mark 15:40.
At least a dozen blood relatives of Jesus can be identified by name. Could any of these have living descendants today?
Written records provide only fragmentary clues. Other research methods are available, however.
One such approach was featured on a March 27, 2006 episode of the History Channel's archaeology series Digging for the Truth.
Former host Josh Bernstein put the Da Vinci Code to the test by comparing DNA from the bones of a French Merovingian queen with DNA from a community claiming kinship with ancient Galileans. Not surprisingly, the samples showed no match. However, Bernstein made a more important discovery.
He found that members of Jerusalems Syriac Orthodox Church claim descent from the family of Jesus. This ancient community still speaks and worships in Aramaic. Its origins are obscure.
These families can be traced all the way back to Jesus Christ?, Bernstein asked the church's Archbishop Severios Malki Murad.
Of course, he replied. We are from the same family.
Such claims may or may not withstand scientific scrutiny. But they are worth exploring.
By comparing oral history, DNA and whatever scraps of written records survive, we may yet succeed in locating the nearest living relatives of Jesus.
Richard Lawrence Poe is a contributing editor to Newsmax, an award-winning journalist and a New York Times bestselling author. His latest book is The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Siezed Control of the Democratic Party, co-written with David Horowitz. | |
Most western last names are based on a father, location, or profession.
If the Rosicrucian and Gnostic tendancies of advancing the StClair bloodline were true, then there should be no problems with them falling in line consistently with the more forceful policies of grace as provided by God to man through Christ in Scripture.
One fatal flaw in those theories is that the basics of Christian faith, as communicated throughout every book in the Bible, are completely ignored in their advancement.
Salvation is provided by God and only by God. He doesn’t need man nor does man have the power to give eternal life. Such power only comes from God the Holy Spirit. Even when our Lord Christ Jesus conducted miracles, He performed them by the doctrine of kenosis and in manifesting the Hypostatic Union.
This is certainly a legitimate concern. As Christians, our chief focus should be upon the improvement of our own souls, so that our example might inspire and encourage others to do likewise.
At the same time, I find it significant that the first words of the New Testament -- a full sixteen verses -- are devoted to a rigorous documentation of Joseph's descent from King David.
If God did not want us to ponder this subject, on some level, surely he would not have filled the Holy Scriptures with so many references to it.
I see what you are saying, but the genealogy given stopped with Christ. It was provided to validate his lineage.
If God wanted us to ponder genealogy beyond the birth of our Savior, He would have provided additional information.....
Bump for later...
So what we have here is that most of academia in the field believes that the NT was written in Greek.
The reason I linked to the Wikipedia article on Aramaic Primacy is that it provides numerous links to arguments on both sides of the issue.
The main flaw with the Wikipedia article is that it gives readers the mistaken impression that radical Aramaic Primacy and radical Greek Primacy are the only two possible positions, when in fact there are many degrees in between. The question is not whether or not Aramaic sources existed. Of course they did. The question is to what extent they influenced the Greek version.
Defenders of radical Aramaic Primacy contend that the entire New Testament was written in Aramaic and that the Greek version is not only a translation, but a very bad one.
Defenders of radical Greek Primacy contend that the only parts of the New Testament which were translated from Aramaic are the sayings of Jesus.
No mainstream scholar goes so far as to deny any Aramaic influence at all.
The sayings of Jesus were all spoken originally in Aramaic. Yet somehow they found their way into the Greek New Testament. Somebody, somewhere along the line, had to translate those sayings from Aramaic into Greek. No one denies this.
For a good example of radical Greek Primacy, see Dr. Orville Boyd Jenkins' online refutation of Aramaic Primacy and his online review of Christopher Lataster's Aramaic Primacy for Dummies.
While savaging Lataster's theories on Aramaic Primacy, Jenkins nonetheless acknowledges: "Lancaster, Lamsa and company have it right in that regard the Aramaic version was primary. But not because the Gospel and definitely not because the whole New Testament collection was written originally in Aramaic. But rather, because the base of the teachings of Jesus were in Aramaic, and circulated freely and copiously in the years and decades following his life on earth."
In short, Jenkins acknowledges Aramaic influence on the New Testament, but insists that this Aramaic influence came from oral traditions, memorized and passed down by word of mouth, rather than from written sources.
Personally, I do not see why it would make much difference if the Gospel writers were drawing their material from oral or written sources. The point is, at least some of those sources were originally Aramaic.
Hmmm. I don't think this is really a Protestant vs. Catholic issue. Roman Catholic scholars are not leaning toward Aramaic Primacy, as far as I know -- at least not toward the radical position which is so hotly debated nowadays.
The most passionate defenders of Aramaic Primacy seem to be people of Middle Eastern descent who are motivated by pride in their Aramaic heritage, and, in some cases, by their belief in the special sanctity of the Aramaic Bible, as taught by the Assyrian Church of the East.
Most of these folks are fiercely anti-Catholic. They accuse the Roman Catholic Church of suppressing Aramaic and of mistranslating the Bible.
My interest in this topic is probably more historical than theological.
That said, if these Syriac Orthodox folks can really prove they are descended from cousins or other relatives of Jesus, it increases the likelihood that they may have valid oral traditions which could shed light on theological questions.
I am not saying that I would consider converting to their church, in such a case. As a confirmed Catholic, I would not. However, these people could very well possess traditional knowledge which might enrich my understanding of Scripture.
Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. These people sound like there’s some relevance to the physical bloodline of Christ, I don’t believe for a second there is.
So, I guess my comment is - “What’s the point?”
>>If God wanted us to ponder genealogy beyond the birth of our Savior, He would have provided additional information.....<<
Well said, thank you.
It’s along the same lines as those who salivate over the news to find connections to the Jenkins/LaHaye version of eschatology. There’s a certain mystical nature to it that appeals to our fleshly need to figure out a good mystery. It appeals to sinful desires, and ultimately profits nothing.
We always want something that's just not there.
Ever hear Mike Horton talk about the church of his youth? When you joined that church they skimmed over the atonement, but you needed to sign off, word for word, on the whole premil dispy scheme.
Being an undeserving, sinful wretch who was saved by grace alone from an eternity in hell is more than enough drama for me!
We have a startling knack for wanting to make things more complicated than they are. But, I can’t poke at anyone - my heart is sick enough to believe anything, so I’m grateful that in this particular way, He’s seen fit to give me the truth.
Well, we have the names of a dozen-odd relatives of Jesus who survived his crucifixion, several of whom became prominent in the Church, and at least two of whom apparently contributed books to the New Testament (James and Jude).
Surely that qualifies as "additional information".
I do not believe that someone could actually trace their family bloodline back 2,000 years. But the fact is, even if they did, being distantly related to someone related to Mary or Joseph might be an interesting topic of conversation, but it wouldn’t mean anything else.
But the trail goes cold at that point, wouldn’t you say?
I have a sister-in-law who can trace her ancestry back 1,000 years. She is Finnish, and virtually every Finn can do the same.
Ever since Christianity came to Finland about 1,000 years ago, the Church there has kept meticulous records of every birth, death, marriage and baptism, and those records have been preserved to this day.
Perhaps the Syriac Orthodox Church has similar records, either written or oral. Personally, I would be curious to find out. But, of course, I don't fault anyone else for being uninterested.
I happen to be fascinated by genealogy, in general.
“I hear that the family settled in and around the Alabama/Tennesee border...
I think they were mostly Thompsons.”
Holy crap. I grew up in Northern Alabama and my schoolbus driver was Johnny Thompson.
“I hear that the family settled in and around the Alabama/Tennesee border...
I think they were mostly Thompsons.”
Holy crap. I grew up in Northern Alabama and my schoolbus driver was Johnny Thompson. Now, I feel bad about cussing him under my breath every day. :)
Seems like good advice to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.