|
|
NOTES
[1] See my essay, "Biblical Authority, Canonical Criticism, and Generative
Exegesis," The Quest for Context and Meaning. Studies in Biblical
Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders: Biblical Interpretation
Series 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1997) 343-355.
[2] This is well expressed in Mishnah Qiddushin 3:12: "And in
any situation in which a woman has no right to enter betrothal with this man but
has the right to enter into betrothal with others, the offspring is a mamzer."
[3] Here the exclusion is as explicit as one could ask: "The male Ammonite
and Moabite are prohibited [from entering the congregation of the Lord], and the
prohibition concerning them is forever….Mamzerim and Netin are prohibited, and
the prohibition concerning them is forever, all the same being males and
females."
[4] See the now classic treatment of Jacob Neusner, Introduction to
Rabbinic Literature: The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York:
Doubleday, 1994).
[5] See the translations of Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth (Gateshead:
Judaica, 1983) and Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah. A New Translation (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), which I have here adapted.
[6] This text states, "He who says, This, my son, is a mamzer is not
believed. And even if both parties say concerning the foetus in the mother's
womb, He is a mamzer, they are not believed. Rabbi Judah says, They are
believed." Although it may seem odd to wish the status of mamzerut upon
one’s son, that attests the evolution of its meaning, as explored below.
[7] So that relatively speaking the status of mamzerut lifted (hence
the apparently odd stance of Mishnah Qiddushin 4:8, cited above.
[8] Cf. Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness. Boundaries,
Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999)
273-307.
[9] Cf. H. Freedman, Kiddushin : The Babylonian Talmud (London:
Soncino, 1936); Jacob Neusner, Bavli Tractate Qiddushin:: The Talmud of
Babylonia (Atlanta: Scholars, 1996); Qiddushin min Talmud Bavli
(Jerusalem: Vagshal, 1980).
[10] I owe this formulation to William Horbury, during discussions in the
seminar on the Gospels and Rabbinic Literature which I chaired
for the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas (August 2000 in Tel Aviv). I am
grateful for the encouraging, engaged discussion that took place; my
presentation there is available as "Jésus, le mamzer (Mt 1.18)," New
Testament Studies 46 (2001) 222-227.
[11] Dismissed by Johann Maier in Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen
Überlieferung: Erträge der Forschung 82 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1978), this legend which Celsus circulated c. 178 CE had
recently been championed by John J. Rousseau and Rami Arav, Jesus and His
World. An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1995) 223-225. They maintain that an epitaph in Bingerbück, probably from the
time of Germanicus and bearing the name of a soldier whose sobriquet was
"Panther," attests the identity of Jesus’ real father. But if "Panther" was a
common cognomen, that better explains the phraseology of the Talmudic legend
than anything about Jesus’ paternity. Otherwise, why not ask whether Milne’s
Tigger might be the true progenitor of Tiger Woods?
[12] See Marianne Sawicki, Crossing Galilee. Architectures of Contact in
the Occupied Land of Jesus (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000),
171-173; Jane Schaberg, The Illegitimacy of Jesus. A Feminist Theological
Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1987).
[13] See Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness, 276-280. But
he goes too far when he says on p. 276, "M. Yevamot 7: 5 states that the
offspring of a Jewish mother and a gentile or slave father is a mamzer."
This text in fact relates to a woman of priestly descent: "An Israelite girl
married to a priest, a priestly girl married an Israelite, when she produced a
daughter with him, and the daughter went and married a slave or a gentile and
produced a son from him, this son is a mamzer." This may well
have been a precedent for the later, broader rule, but the two should not be
confused. The pertinent text, which Cohen cites and explains on pp. 277-280, is
Talmudic, b. Yebamot 45b.
[14] Sotah 2:6 establishes by consensus that this only applied between the
time of betrothal and divorce, not before of after.
[15] Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (London: Chapman,
1993) 124, "According to later Jewish commentary [sic] (Mishnah
Ketuboth 1:5; TalBab Ketuboth 9b, 12a), in parts of Judea it
was not unusual for the husband to be alone with his wife on at least one
occasion in the interval between exchange of consent and the move to the home
(and so interim marital relations were not absolutely condemned). But in
Galilee no such leniency was tolerated and the wife had to be taken to her
husband’s home as a virgin."
[16] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus
(New York: Doubleday, 1991) 245-246.
[17] Hermann L. Strack et Paul Billerbeck, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus
erläutert aus Talmud und Midrasch: Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud
und Midrasch I (München: Beck, 1922). W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel according to Saint Matthew 1:
The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1988) 199-200 cite
comparable texts (m.Yeb. 4.10; m. Ketub. 1.5; 4.12; b. Ketub. 12a), and draw the
same distinction between Galilean and Judean custom. See also Craig S. Keener in
A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 92;
he makes reference to S. Safrai, "Home and Family," The Jewish People in the
First Century 2: Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum (eds S,
Safrai and M. Stern; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976)728-792, 756-757 and to Louis
Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith 1
(Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962) 45. These
citations support Billerbeck’s observation, but Tosefta remains crucial to any
discussion of regional difference. Davies and Allison are less speculative when
they observe: "To judge from the rabbinic sources (which may be late), betrothal
or engagement (‘erusin or qiddushim ) in ancient Judaism took
place at a very early age, usually at twelve to twelve and a half years (b.
Yeb. 62b; SB 2, p. 274). Following courtship and the completion of the
marriage contract (Tob 7:14), the marriage was considered established: the woman
had passed from her father’s authority to that of her husband. But about a year
typically passed before the woman moved from her parents’ house to her husband’s
house (m. Ket. 5.2; m. Ned. 10.5; b. Ket. 57b). During that
time, although marriage was not yet consummated, the woman was ‘wife’ (Deut
20.7; 28.30; Judg 14.15; 15.1; 2 Sam 3.14), and she could become a widow (m.
Yeb. 4.10; 6.4; Ket. 1.2) or be punished for adultery (Deut 22:23-4;
11QTemple 61). Thus betrothal was the legal equivalent of marriage, and its
cancellation divorce (m. Ket. 1.2; 4.2; m. Yeb. 2.6; m. Git.
6.2)."
[18] But the formulation is actually that of Louis Finkelstein, The
Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith 1 (Philadelphia: The
Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962) 45.
[19] See Sean Freyne, Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1988), Richard A.Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society in
Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis (Valley Forge, Pa.:
Trinity Press International, 1996), James F. Strange, "First Century Galilee
from Archaeology and from the Texts," Archaeology and the Galilee. Texts and
Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods: South Florida Studies in
the History of Judaism 143 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 39-48, Marianne
Sawicki, Crossing Galilee; Jonathan L. Reed,
Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus. A Re-examination of the Evidence
(Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000).
[20] Évangile selon Saint Matthieu: Études Bibliques (Paris: Gabalda,
1941) 10.
[21] Bible Review 16.1 (2000) 31-51.
[22] See Adolf Neubauer, La Géographie du Talmud (Paris, 1868)
189-191, discussed in Chilton, God in Strength. Jesus’ announcement of the
kingdom: Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 1 (Freistadt: Plöchl,
1979), reprinted in "The Biblical Seminar" (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987) 311-313. For
a recent, critical treatment of Bethlehem of Galilee in relation to other Jewish
settlements, see James F. Strange, "First Century Galilee from Archaeology and
from the Texts," Archaeology and the Galilee. Texts and Contexts in the
Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods: South Florida Studies in the History of
Judaism 143 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 39-48.
[23] Rabbi Jesus. An Intimate Biography (New York: Doubleday, 2000).
[24] See Mishnah Qiddushin 3:13: "Rabbi Tarfon says, Mamzerim can be
purified. How so? A mamzer who married a slave girl -- the offspring is a slave.
[If] freed, the son turns out to be a free man. Rabbi Eliezer says, This is a
slave who also is in the status of a mamzer."
[25] See Scot McKnight, "Calling Jesus Mamzer,"
Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1.1 (2003) 73-103.
[26] See Charles Quarles, "Jesus as Mamzer:
A Response to Bruce Chilton’s Reconstruction of the Circumstances Surrounding
Jesus’ Birth in Rabbi Jesus," Bulletin for Biblical Research 14.2
(2004) 243-255.
[27] Since I identified Jesus as a mamzer in Rabbi Jesus, 3-23,
a considerable literature on this subject has emerged: Meir Bar Ilan, "The
attitude toward mamzerim in Jewish society in late antiquity," Jewish
History 14.2 (2000) 125-170; Shaye D. Cohen, "Some thoughts on ‘The attitude
toward mamzerim in Jewish society in late antiquity,’" Jewish History
14.2 (2000) 171-174; Marianne Sawicki, Crossing Galilee, 171-173; Andries
van Aarde, Fatherless in Galilee. Jesus as child of God (Harrisburg:
Trinity Press International 2001); Chilton, "Jésus, le mamzer (Mt 1.18),"
New Testament Studies 46 (2001) 222-227; Chilton, "Recovering Jesus’
Mamzerut," Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity in Contemporary
Perspective: Essays in Memory of Karl-Johan Illman (ed. J. Neusner: Lanham:
University Press of America, 2005).
|Page 1|
Look
for academic tools and books for biblical studies at Dove
Books.
Return to Home Page
Return to Articles and Commentary
|