Who is Jesus Christ to you?

quote:

---

What is your evidence for such a matrilineal tradition before Ezra?

---

Well, this discussion got kicking back in post # 62, which was a reply to my post #33 and which concerns Jesus, who lived some 450 years after Ezra. I don't really need to go further back for my statement to stand.At any rate, Lev. 24:10 hints at matrilineal descent by refering to the son of an egyptian man and an Isrealite woman as being among the community of Israel-- ie. Jewish.The Talmud derives the practice from Deut. 7:4, for what that is worth. It could be a justification for the practice or it could be a reflection of older tradition.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Your response dealt with the traditions of "ancient Jews". So, what is your evidence for matrilinear descent? Derives or justifies?I noticed that you chose not to address either of my references, relying instead on hints and 2nd century CE apologetics. Your choice ...

quote:

---

Your response dealt with the traditions of "ancient Jews".

---

Bloody hell!My comment was about Jesus. The response was that this was not correct-- the ancient Jews did not trace descent through the mother. See for yourself...

quote:

---

John: He almost certainly would have been Jewish by descent, at least through Mary, and that would have made him officially Jewish by Jewish law.

​

Actually, this is not correct.

​

Ancient Jews did not trace descent thrugh the mother - this is a modern idea - the human egg was only discovered in the 19th century.

---

This exchange sets the timeline. Your conception of what is and isn't 'ancient' is irrelevant.

quote:

---

So, what is your evidence for matrilinear descent?

---

Did you miss that we are talking about circa 1 AD, plus or minus? See, the funny thing is that we both agree that the tradition of matrilineal descent was in effect at the time of Christ.

quote:

---

Derives or justifies?

---

Read carefully.

quote:

---

I noticed that you chose not to address either of my references

---

Yes, the ones that place the origin of the tradition of matrilineal descent well before the time of Christ-- which, may I remind you, is the time in question. See above. In other words, I didn't comment on your references because I have no reason to comment. Nothing I have said is contradicted by said references.

quote:

---

relying instead on hints and 2nd century CE apologetics.

---

Relying? No, just pointing them out. What I am relying on is that matrilineal descent was practiced by the Jews around the time of Christ. Do you have an objection to that?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 07-05-2003]

Greetings John et al,Thanks for your reply(s).It appears I was mistaken, Jewish matrilineal descent is not modern, and has nothing to do with the human egg and its discovery.John is correct, the subject was originally about Jesus' time, I confused the issue by using the vague term "ancient Jews" - I will try and be more clear and specific :-)However,
John's and others' comments notwithstanding,
the evidence is NOT clear - this practice is not clearly outlined in the Torah, which has patrilineal descent.Apparently by 200CE a "Jewish law" defined a Jew as someone with a Jewish mother (can anyone provide the details - perhaps the Mishna in Tractate Kiddushin 66b ?)But it is not known when this practice started - opinions vary from 400BCE or 200BCE to 200CE or even 500CE.The following scripture is cited (e.g. by Judaism 101 site at
Who Is A Jew? - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ)) -

quote:

---

In Deuteronomy 7:1-5, in expressing the prohibition against intermarriage, G-d says "he [ie, the non-Jewish male spouse] will cause your child to turn away from Me and they will worship the gods of others." No such concern is expressed about the child of a non-Jewish female spouse. From this, we infer that the child of a non-Jewish male spouse is Jewish (and can therefore be turned away from Judaism), but the child of a non-Jewish female spouse is not Jewish (and therefore turning away is not an issue).

​

Leviticus 24:10 speaks of the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man as being "among the community of Israel" (ie, a Jew).

​

On the other hand, in Ezra 10:2-3, the Jews returning to Israel vowed to put aside their non-Jewish wives and the children born to those wives. They could not have put aside those children if those children were Jews.

---

Note the last item, from Ezra, which argues AGAINST matrilineal descent - however, this very Ezra passage is sometimes cited as the basis for matrilineal descent - perhaps someone here can explain the reasoning?So,
in summary, it is NOT clear whether Jews of Jesus' time practiced matrilineal descent -
although it is possible, or even probable.Iasion

Has anyone considered the implication of Genesis 2:24 in relation to this discussion?

We have now. Of course!!! The passage very much implies matrilocality, at least, and that puts a bias toward the mother's lineage. Why didn't you think of that?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Why didn't you think of that?

---

I did think of it, of course. But I am late coming to this thread and was not about to read every tedious argument and repetition of argument and rebuttal and repetition of rebuttal until my eyes glazed over. It read as much of that falderall as I could stand and rather than repeat words of wisdom which yourself or other esteemed colleague may have proferred, I assert myself tenuously.That said, one of my professors of religion, many years ago, explained this verse as evidence of just that: Matrilineal Heritage. Do you suppose that matrilineal heritage and patrilineal genealogy can coexist, or perhaps did exist at one time? (If I understand what I am saying, then the money comes down through mom but the guys are keeping score on their score, if I know what I mean). Know what I mean?db