Queries & Comments

045

The Double Paternity of Jesus

To the Editor:

Permit me to call attention to a small but important error in your June issue. Professor Cyrus Gordon there begins his article, “The Double Paternity of Jesus,” BAR 04:02, with the statement: “The two variant genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1–16 and Luke 3:23–38 agree on the essential point that he was descended from King David through Joseph, the husband of Mary.”

This is false. Matthew 1:16 says only that Joseph was “the husband of Mary from whom (feminine) Jesus was born,” and Matthew 1:18ff. make it quite clear that Joseph was not the child’s father.

Luke 3:23 speaks of Jesus as “the son, as was supposed, of Joseph.” “As was supposed” is ambiguous: It might mean that the supposition was correct, or it might imply that the supposition was false. That Luke intended the latter implication is proved by his story of the annunciation (Luke 1:30ff.): he makes the angel tell Mary she has found favor with God and will (therefore) bear a son. Mary replies, “How shall this be, since I do not know (have had no sexual relationship with) a man?” The angel answers, “The holy spirit will come upon you and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore the (child) born will be called holy, son of God.”

Given this explicit evidence, most scholars would agree that although the genealogies in Matthew and Luke once reported that Jesus was the son of Joseph, both have now been changed by the evangelists or earlier editors to avoid this report, in favor of the claim that he was the son of God. In other words, the evangelists did exactly what Queen Hatshepsut, according to Professor Gordon, did not do: they thought divine and human paternity incompatible and therefore changed the earlier genealogies, which had reported human paternity, so as to discredit that report and make room for the divine. Their regrettable neglect of the example of Hatshepsut (who had then been dead for fifteen hundred years) is less surprising than the negligence with which modern writers discover ancient near eastern precedents for Roman imperial data that contradict them.

Cyrus Gordon replies:

Professor Morton Smith’s observation that “Matthew 1:16 says Joseph was ‘the husband of Mary from whom (feminine) Jesus was born’” confirms the consensus of opinion that only women can bear children. I never thought otherwise!

The crux of the misunderstanding between my critic and me is that I deal with the Biblical text as it exists. My critic claims to know that “although the genealogies in Matthew and Luke once reported that Jesus was the son of Joseph, both have now been changed by the evangelists or earlier editors to avoid this report.” Claiming no knowledge of non-existent evidence, I cannot argue the point with someone conversant with the unknown.

On the other hand, I can follow the straightforward remarks of W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann (Anchor Bible commentary on Matthew, 1971, p. 6): “That there is a formal inconsistency here is not to be doubted; both evangelists claiming Davidic descent through Joseph, while at the same time giving us a tradition of virginal conception and birth.” To make charges of dishonesty or to impugn the motives of the writers is—at this remove of time—perilous. Allowing for the very tenacious tradition with respect to ancestry among Jews at the time of Jesus, we are certainly entitled to say that both evangelists were faithfully recording the traditions which they had received, whatever the inconsistencies. My article aims at getting an unsolved problem off dead center. I stand by every word I have written.

My critic speaks of the “negligence with which modern writers discover ancient near eastern precedents for Roman imperial data that contradict them.” Coeval as well as background material are legitimate elements of the scholarly apparatus, though they appeal unequally, depending on one’s viewpoint or predilection. As for contradictions, no two parallels are identical, as I made clear. This holds not only for Roman vis-a-vis Egyptian data but even for the two genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. I did not stress Greco-Roman material because it is quite familiar. To be sure, there are new additional texts such as the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran (N.B. the marvelous infant Noah and the misgivings of his father Lemech about the child’s paternity). I can think of no one better qualified than Dr. Smith to deal with such material. But if he prefers to find in what I have written “a small but important error” I can only reply that I find his critique small and unimportant.

To the Editor:

The June 1978 issue of your quarterly has come, and I would like to make a few comments on the article, “The Double Paternity of Jesus,” BAR 04:02, by Cyrus H. Gordon.

The very first sentence is false, for Matthew and Luke do not agree in declaring that Jesus “was descended from King David through Joseph.” What they do agree on is that His conception was not of Joseph, but of the Holy Spirit. However, there is absolutely nothing in either Gospel to represent the Holy Spirit as being the father of the One of whom Mary was the mother. The very idea is preposterous, for He Who is only spirit could not possibly participate in what is an action of flesh.

Luke, the physician, records that Gabriel, in addressing Mary, borrowed an Old Testament expression, used to set forth the Holy Spirit’s action when He inspired the prophets. Luke said: “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,” and added, “And the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee,” employing the verb used of the Shekinah cloud at Jesus’ transfiguration (Luke 9:34). From all that is stated, it is plain that the production of Jesus’ manhood was due to a creative act of the Spirit. As a result, that manhood was to be called “the Son of God” 046(Luke 1:35)—just as Adam, through creation, is termed “the son of God” in Luke 3:38. But this title is also given to Jesus with reference to His uncreated Person. He is presented, therefore, as the Son of God in two respects: in respect to His human nature born of Mary, and in respect to His divine personality antedating the origin of the world (John 17:5).

In the third sentence of his article, Dr. Gordon says: “The question that puzzles the modern reader is: If Mary conceived Jesus of the Holy Spirit, without having had any carnal union with Joseph or any other man, how can Jesus the Son of God be descended from David or anyone else through Joseph?” Nobody except Dr. Gordon and his associates, ancient and modern, has ever said that Jesus was “descended from David or anyone else through Joseph.” Certainly no one who accepts the New Testament ever said so; the Church down the centuries has never said so. Accordingly, there is nothing for any reader, however modern, to be puzzled about.

In the rest of his article, Dr. Gordon errs further when he says that what the Gospels record about Jesus’ sonship is a reflection of “a concept widely known and accepted by East Mediterranean people from at least the Bronze Age to Roman times.” He refers to instances wherein kings were viewed as being the sons both of gods and of men, and thinks it “strange that … Egyptologists have not compared the dual paternity of Jesus and the Pharaohs,” and “equally strange that the modern commentaries of the New Testament have failed to compare Egyptian dual paternity with the Gospels.” Why should they, when the Gospels deny that Jesus was the son of any man whatsoever?

I should add that Jesus’ favorite designation for Himself—the Son of Man—does not denote that He was the son of a man. It is simply a title which, while indicating that He is man, also indicates that He is more than man.

047

Cyrus Gordon replies:

Mr. Douty and I agree on the same ground rules; namely, to take the Biblical text on its own terms. We should therefore be able to reach a meeting of minds.

I did not say that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. I carefully noted that the “virgin birth” differentiates His case from all the other cases discussed or alluded to in my article. What I did say was that “one’s position in society, notably kingship, was transmitted not through one’s Father in Heaven but through the human husband of one’s mother.”

The key to the dilemma is the sense in which Joseph is the “father” of Jesus, on Biblical terms. Both Testaments recognize the institution of legal, as distinct from biological, fatherhood. Any comprehensive Bible Dictionary will have an article on adoption covering the essential elements of information. Of the extensive Biblical evidence we may single out Galatians 4:6 which refers to the institution of adoption that makes you a son when you address your adoptive father as abba ho pater, “abba = the father.” This should be easy for us to understand because adoption, conveying legal paternity and genealogy, is common in American life. All of us know adopted people whose “father” is not related to them biologically.

The Holy Family includes the “Father” Joseph, the Mother Mary, and “their” Child Jesus. That Family fits into the human milieu of Roman Palestine. The Trinity includes the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is the province of the theologian. My critic and I both reckon with Jesus Christ, the Son of God. We must at the same time also reckon with the opening verse of the New Testament that labels the genealogy that follows as “The book of the birth of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

It is well known that Jesus who died as the basileus (“king”) of the Jews bore that title as the legitimate (= “legal”) descendant of David, the basileus of the Jews. What is not so well known is that in the Greek Bible Abraham is always called basileus (Genesis 23:6). Accordingly, it is possible that in the circle of the Evangelists, it was known that Joseph (whose genealogy legitimizes the kingship of Jesus) was descended not only from David, the basileus, but also from Abraham, who was not only the first ancestor of the Jews, but also their first basileus. In any case, this is in keeping with the Biblical text if you read the Old as well as New Testament in Greek.

To the Editor:

I was looking forward to my first issue of your publication with great enthusiasm. When I received it, one of the titles of your articles turned me off: “The Double Paternity of Jesus,” BAR 04:02.

Let me quote Scripture found in Matthew 1:25 (speaking of Joseph): “And knew her not [I repeat NOT] until she had brought forth her first born son.”

I have begun reading several of your other articles. So far, so good. The pictures are excellent.

To the Editor:

As a reader of and a subscriber to The Biblical Archaeology Review, I wish to commend the editor for publishing articles which are thought-provoking, clear, and succinct. Such an article is “The Double Paternity of Jesus,” BAR 04:02, by Cyrus H. Gordon (June 1978, Vol. IV, No. 2). Dr. Gordon is well-known for his economy of language in presenting what often is a provocative thesis.

We should be grateful to Dr. Gordon for presenting in this way a matter that has troubled many Christians for hundreds of years and one that few scholars have approached so forthrightly.

Greece, the Levant, and Egypt, dating back to the Bronze Age and before, have been parts of the same cultural setting. If the concept of dual paternity may be perceived among the ancients in one part of the East Mediterranean ecumene (a term used by Gordon elsewhere), it should not be surprising to find it in the other parts.

Please permit me to add two more examples of the dual paternity of a king or hero as expressed in Homer. In addition to the one cited by Gordon (Iliad 10:144) where Odysseus is addressed as the “Zeus-sired son of Laertes,” there is a passage in the Odyssey (2:32) where Odysseus is again referred to as “Zeus-sired.” Then in the Iliad (1:337), Achilles addresses his friend Patroclus as “Zeus-sired.” It is true that, unlike Gordon’s reference, these passages omit the name of the human father. But in the case of Odysseus, Homer makes clear in so many passages that Laertes is the father of Odysseus, that any question to the contrary would be inane. The identity of Patroclus’ father has also been well-known: Menoetius. 048He is mentioned explicitly as the father of Patroclus in the Iliad (9:202). Thus, in addition to having the necessary human fathers, both Odysseus and Patroclus have Zeus as a divine father.

Dual paternity is indeed a complex subject and deserves much study, but Dr. Gordon is to be thanked for presenting clearly and succinctly the problem as it pertains to Jesus, and The Biblical Archaeology Review should be thanked for bringing the article to the attention of its readers.

Solomon’s Copper Mines and Velikovsky

To the Editor:

I am amazed at the credence Suzanne Singer (“From These Hills … ,” BAR 04:02) gives to the odd notion that the copper mines at Timna slept blissfully, as though guarded by a pharaonic curse, while a few kilometers to the south Solomon and his senior partner, that venturesome capitalist Hiram of Tyre, were building a port and fleet for overseas trade of enormous value. As an economist, I can state with absolute certainty that this account violates the most elementary laws of economics.

Copper was a precious metal in the Bronze Age. It also happened to be Israel’s only mineral resource. Wheat and oil were exported to Phoenicia, but surely not to Ophir whatever places that name signifies. It so happens that the west coast of India has plentiful deposits of gold and silver, but none at all of copper. Being scarcer than gold, copper there had to be correspondingly more valuable than gold. Exactly the opposite was the case at Ezion-Geber. Jewish and Arabian traditions ascribe many-hued miracles to Solomon, but none of them is as hard to believe as that he was able to import 049all that gold and silver and ivory and almug-wood, all those apes, peacocks, precious stones, and slaves, without paying for them in good green copper.

But what of those 19th and 20th dynasty cartouches and the destroyed 18th dynasty temple—is it probable that the Cambridge Ancient History is mistaken in dating all these pharaohs centuries before Solomon, and that in reality all who left their names there lived centuries after him? One might reply, in the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, that once the impossible is ruled out what remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Or one might say in addition, after having read carefully “Ages in Chaos” by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, that such a radically revised chronology is in fact not at all improbable. I venture this much further: that the renowned trading firm Hiram & Solomon, Ltd. dealt in Timna copper is certain.

048

Lady in the Lintel House

To the Editor:

What a hopeful picture you published! Digs are apparently not only for the young. Who is the lovely and lively woman sweeping the threshold of the Lintel House on page 35 of my June 1978 BAR? (“Digging the Talmud in Ancient Meiron,” BAR 04:02.) I’ll bet other readers will be interested as well.

We also wondered about the lady in the Lintel House. She is Mary McCormick from Tampa, Florida who celebrated her 81st birthday at the Meiron dig on the first day of the 1977 season last summer.

“I was exhibit No. 1”, she said. “The oldest volunteer worker.”

Mrs. McCormick told us that two events were the high points of her summer digging at Meiron. The first was the surprise birthday celebration—complete with roses, gin and a card which said “Since you have reached 70 (they couldn’t believe 81) may you live to be 120” (the traditional Jewish birthday wish).

The second big moment was when she uncovered a Tyrian shekel,—in mint condition although almost 2000 years old. Mrs. McCormick returned to Tampa with only a photo of the coin. Excavators don’t share in finds. She was very pleased, however, to see in the March 1978 BAR a color photograph of the same type of shekel as the one she found and left behind.

Mrs. McCormick had not heard about BAR before we called to talk with her. (She’s a subscriber now.) From the article in which her picture appeared, she learned many things about the Meiron dig she hadn’t known before.

Mary and her husband “Mac” were missionaries in Nigeria from 1925 to 1941 where she served as a nurse. After World War II, they worked together in Hawaii until retirement in 1960.

Widowed since 1975, Mary McCormick has continued the adventurous life she and her husband shared for so many years. When we spoke to her recently, she was about to leave for a four week trip to Nigeria and Europe. She said that she would visit the BAR offices when she is in Washington.—Ed.

Digs BAR

To the Editor:

Continue your great work in your great magazine—I “dig it”.

You Don’t Have To Be Loyal, Just Renew Your Subscription

We recently offered a price reduction to readers whose BAR subscriptions were about to expire. In our letter to these subscribers, we referred to them as “old and loyal readers.” One of these subscribers replied as follows:

I have enjoyed my initial subscription and am ready to renew. However, I am in no sense a loyal reader, and if that is a requirement I ask that you return my check and end our relationship.

It is true that I am not disloyal either. I simply fail to see where loyalty enters in.

What Are the Red and White Rods?

To the Editor:

Please explain the purpose of the object shown in many of the pictures in BAR. The object I refer to appears to be a wooden rod, square and either painted red and white or black and white. Different pictures show them to appear to be different lengths.

I would guess that their purpose is to give the reader an accurate size of whatever is pictured; but I’m lost because I don’t know how long the different colored sections are or, for that matter, the length of the rod. Any information you can give me will be greatly appreciated. I thoroughly enjoy BAR. I have never been to those places and really don’t ever expect to go (although I really would like to) and BAR is the next best thing. Keep up the good work.

Your presumptions are correct. The rods, or meter sticks as they are called, are divided into ten black and white or red and white bands of ten centimeters each. In confined areas, a half-meter stick, divided into five bands is used.
In pictures of smaller objects, the stick is divided into black and white bands of one centimeter each. Whether the black and white bands are one centimeter each or ten is usually obvious from the object pictured.—Ed.

BAR T-shirts

To the Editor:

BAR T-shirts—what an original idea; shows that you’re not a bunch of stuffed shirts!!

Maritime Museum Committee Needs Volunteers

To the Editor:

An organization has been recently established known as the American Friends of the National Maritime Museum in Haifa. We appeal to persons interested in maritime history and archaeology to participate voluntarily on a committee whose objective is to encourage the growth of the American Friends.

The National Maritime Museum was founded in 1951 and is the only Maritime 050Museum in the Middle East. It is a beautiful, stone, three-story structure overlooking the Mediterranean Sea in Haifa, Israel.

The museum is an institution for research in maritime history and ship building in the Mediterranean Basin, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, with particular reference to the maritime history of Israel. The museum has departments in Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration, Ship Models, Coins and Atlases, Maritime Views, Marine Ethnology, Civilizations of Ancient Peoples, and the Sea in Art.

In addition to the exhibition galleries, the Maritime Museum contains a maritime and historical library, research rooms for underwater exploration and for guest researchers, an auditorium, a workshop, laboratories for restoration and photography, and a classroom for school children.

Although, one of the major objectives of The Friends will be to devise ways and means to assist the museum financially, it will also have a much broader scope. The ultimate form and purpose of the Friends will be determined by the committee. Persons interested in participating in the committee are requested to write to Professor Greenberg at 471 East 26th Street, Brooklyn, New York 11226.

Jerusalem Population Figure Confirmed by Scripture

To the Editor:

The article by Magen Broshi on “Estimating the Population of Ancient Jerusalem,” BAR 04:02, was much appreciated. It was presented in a way that the layman could understand. I feel that this is the type of article that can be very helpful to BAR and to all of us who read the journal avidly. May I make one comment on Broshi’s article in support of the population of Jerusalem just prior to its destruction in A.D. 70. He estimated the population at about 80,000. This figure is very compatible with what the Book of Revelation, in the Christian Scriptures, has to say about the matter. In Revelation 11:13 it says: “And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand.” I believe this was written in the decade just before the destruction of the Temple (many theologians feel it was 30 years later or so). But does this not indicate the population was about 70,000? It looks like it. At least, I offer this as a corroboration of Broshi’s excellent survey.

Estimating Ancient Populations

To the Editor:

A comment on “Estimating the Population of Ancient Jerusalem,” BAR 04:02. Josephus’ population figures for Jerusalem of 1,100,000 dead in 70 A.D. as well as the 137,000 captives, includes mostly people who came to celebrate Passover and were trapped in the city when the gates were closed by the Zealots.

While I do agree that a population of 15,000 per village in Galilee appears high, even if it includes the surrounding area and other suburbs more sparsely settled, we do not know the basis of Josephus’ figures. As an eyewitness, his point is that the Galilee had a “very high population density”.

Unless an ancient writer specifies the area in question as “within the walls” etc., a population including suburbs may be involved, as is implied for metropolitan Nineveh and its suburbs (Jonah 3:3 and Jonah 4:11).

A BAR Study Group

To the Editor:

On May 31, 1978, in New Haven, Connecticut, fifteen people gathered together. Some had traveled from as far as fifty miles away. The uniting factor of these individuals: All are subscribers to BAR and had come to this first meeting with the intent of sharing, learning and understanding. On all three counts the meeting fulfilled everyone’s expectations.

The initiator of the meeting is a gracious, knowledgeable doctor, Isaac Horowitz, who based the content of the meeting upon recent issues of BAR. The topic for the evening was Jerusalem. Dr. Horowitz supplied Biblical, historical, archaeological and topographical information, showing the transitions of the City of David, Jerusalem, from the period of the first Temple through the Turkish period. There was a great deal of sharing by everyone, and we are thankful to BAR for providing the impetus.

Anyone who wishes is welcome to join our next meeting in September. The topic will be Masada. We hope that other subscribers to BAR will try to initiate the same type of BAR study. It is most rewarding, and it provides a climate for interaction, sharing experiences, and receiving new insights. We thank BAR and Dr. Horowitz.

047

Life of Jesus New Hit on London Stage—Read the Play

London theatre-goers are the most demanding and sophisticated in the world. When we heard that a life of Jesus was among the biggest hits of the new season, we thought it might be a coup to reprint the text in BAR.

We soon learned, however, that BAR readers already had a copy of the text in their homes—they were right up to the minute.

The text of the new smash hit on the London stage is—word for word—the Gospel According to St. Mark in the King James translation.

The play is a one-man recitation of the Gospel by the well-known British actor Alec McCowen. The stage is bare except for three wooden chairs and a table. On the table are a pitcher of water and a glass.

Mr. McCowen recreates Galilee or Jerusalem simply by moving to different places on the stage. With his voice, he evokes anger, compassion, bewilderment, humor, and grief.

The rave-review performance is expected to be brought to New York sometime this fall.

049

New Journal on Northwest Semitic Languages and Literature

MAARAV, A Journal for the study of Northwest Semitic Languages and Literature, will begin its semiannual publication this October. MAARAV’s two editory, both of Yale University, aim to reach a wider audience than the scholarly community by publishing English translations of important articles about Northwest Semitic texts. MAARAV will select these articles from the abundant significant material published in languages other than English, especially in modern Hebrew. MAARAV also expects to publish high quality photographs of new and already published epigraphic material in order to enable more scholars to work on interpreting inscriptions which are not easily seen firsthand. Subscription cost is $10.00 per year. MAARAV; Suite 510, Dept. P; 2444 Wilshire Blvd.; Santa Monica, Ca. 90403.

050

Illustration Credits

In past issues, we have sometimes forgotten to give illustration credits. Among those who have been most helpful to us have been: Zev Radovan, official photographer for many archaeological excavations in Israel; Avinoam Glick, official photographer for the excavations at the Southern Wall of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and the Israel Department of Antiquities. We are grateful to the Jerusalem Excavation Fund, Kathleen Kenyon, Director, for the picture which appeared in “The Mystery of the Horses of the Sun at the Temple Entrance,” BAR 04:02.

The Double Paternity of Jesus

To the Editor: