MedLawPlus.com®
|
Comments Upon
Mary The Mother of Jesus, Who Was She?
- From: JJR
Subject: Anonymous comments received on Mary article
Date: 2-1-2007
I've received extensive comments from a professor in the department of religious studies at a US university, however, he or she requests to remain anonymous. The following is one of the more interesting points from the professor with my response thereto.
>>What is the evidence that Jesus himself claimed to be descended from David? This is an attribute by the Synoptics and Paul, and yet, absolutely necessary for any claim to messiahship. Note that the evangelists even "fudge" when it comes to putting this on Jesus's lips directly. John is much later, and doing his own thing, so I cannot take John as "historical" evidence.<<
The point of my article on Mary is to present the hypothesis that the genealogy given in Luke 3 contains Hasmonean kings coupled with the belief that this is Mary's genealogy. Conclusion: Mary was an Hasmonean princess descending from the last Jewish king--Antigonus.
True, the Hasmoneans never claimed to be descendants of David (or, at least, descendants of David through Solomon). Thus, if Jesus is an Hasmonean and not a descendant of David through Solomon, does he have a claim to messiahship? Is it absolutely necessary for Jesus to claim to be the messiah in order to claim the Jewish throne? Does a candidate for the throne / messiahship need to be from the house of David? I believe these questions are the thrust of the issue presented by the professor--i.e., my thesis of Jesus as Hasmonean royal (through Mary) disqualifies Jesus as messiah / king due to the lack of proper Davidic lineage. Ergo, big problem. A solid point and glad to have it brought up for discussion.
Here is a link to every instance in the gospels of the NT where the word "David" appears. Although others in the gospels are often recorded exclaiming that Jesus is a son of David, Jesus himself never makes such a claim. Although Jesus (as recorded in the gospels) never directly discusses the issue of whether he is a descendant of David, he does very clearly address the issue of whether the messiah (i.e., the Christ, the anointed-one) must be a son of David. In Matthew 22:41-45, Mark 12:35-37, and Luke 20:41-44, Jesus uses a passage from Psalm 110 to argue that as David addresses the Christ as "my Lord", then how could Christ be the son of David?
IMHO opinion, the clear implication of Matthew 22:41-45, Mark 12:35-37, and Luke 20:41-44 is that Jesus maintained that the messiah or Christ did not need to be a descendant of David. FN1. Why would Jesus bother making the argument unless he himself was not a "son of David"? Considering the sparse number of direct quotes from Jesus found in the gospels of the NT, why would the writers of the NT include this quote if it did not have something important to tell us about Jesus?
FN1 Interesting (Jesus citing Psalm 110 for authority as his qualifications for messiah) given that some scholars believe Psalm 110 was written during the period of Hasmonean rule and was explicitly written to buttress their claim to the high priesthood.
Add Comment
Index to Reader Comments
|
|
|
|
