There is a passage in the Christian "gospels" in which Jesus is referred to by his community in an unusual way. The text [Mark 6:3] was originally written in Greek, but the English translation is:

"Is not this the craftsman, Jesus, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.

The Aramaic would render "Jesus, the son of Mary" as "Yeshua bar [or "ben"] Maryam"

I have been led to believe that this (i.e., "Yeshua bar Maryam" as opposed to "Yeshua bar Yossef") would be a breach of etiquette in first century Galillean society, and implies that the identity of Jesus' father is in question. According to this interpretation, the implication is that Jesus is a bastard, born out of wedlock.

Would this be considered offensive to a Jewish firstborn son in the first century?

  • 1
    This seems to be a question about social convention among Jews, and not about Judaism at all. I think it should be closed for that reason. See also meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/q/1473.
    – msh210
    Aug 12 '15 at 23:03
  • 1
    There are various possibilities, but in this case it would be because his father was either unknown or not a Jew. There could be cases in which the mother's family was significant or so important that this might have been done. However, it is obvious that the second possibility does not apply here. Aug 12 '15 at 23:21
  • 1
    Note: this is not a case in which the father died before the son was born. He is still the son of his father. Aug 12 '15 at 23:44
  • 1
    Your quote doesn't make sense. The text was originally in Greek, but if translated into Aramaic it would look like this in English? Why not just tell us the scriptural reference, or how it appears in an English translation of the NT?
    – Shimon bM
    Aug 12 '15 at 23:58
  • 1
    @ShimonbM - Point taken. See edit.
    – Wad Cheber
    Aug 13 '15 at 0:02

I am hesitant because I am not sure this is the right forum for your question or that we can offer a properly sourced answer but until one of those two questions are answered I will suggest the following:

Insofar as it was typical under most circumstances to refer to someone as the son of their father, the deviation from this norm would likely raise question and/or not done for naught. Consequently it seems reasonable that someone reflected on how this would be received and hypothesized that it would imply a question of paternity. Subsequently this hypothesis was passed along without any indication of its speculative nature.

While this hypothesis isn't entirely unreasonable it is worth emphasizing that it is likely speculative (after all, your asking the question implies your source didn't cite their evidence). Insofar as Joseph is said to have originally intended to divorce Mary quietly (and ultimately married her) it is difficult imagine that he or Mary chose to publicize any questions about paternity. The traditional prohibition against remaining married (and "betrothed" was a form of marriage that required divorce) to an adulteress (see Mishneh Torah: Gerushin 11:14) would have likely led to Joseph's continued marriage to Mary as taking responsibility for the pregnancy.

Furthermore, we have to remember that this type of nomenclature is descriptive. In colloquial use it would make more sense to describe someone as the mother's son when those listening are acquainted with the mother and not the father (in the same way we would identify someone by their relations today).

Finally, insofar as the author of the selection you have provided did not include the background story about the Nazarene's conception it is hard to imagine he was obliquely referring to it here.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .