Who Was Jesus’ Biological Father?
Examining the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke
Was Joseph Jesus’ biological father or adoptive father? Joseph is a major figure in the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke. Along with Mary, he is depicted at Jesus’ birth in this 16th-century painting by Lorenzo Lotto. Photo: Courtesy National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC.
Was Joseph Jesus’ biological father? If not, who was Jesus’ biological father?
The annunciation stories in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke recount that Jesus was conceived without the participation of a human male. Ancient views on the biology of conception—based on Aristotelian theory—differed from our modern understanding of genetics and biology. For Jesus to have been considered fully human by our modern standards—and not a semi-divine or special being—he would have needed complete human DNA. While Mary would have supplied the X chromosome, who supplied the essential Y chromosome? God? Joseph?
Andrew Lincoln of the University of Gloucestershire tackles these questions in his article “How Babies Were Made in Jesus’ Time” in the November/December 2014 issue of BAR. Starting with the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke, he examines what early Christians thought about conception and explains how views about this subject have changed over time.
Who was Jesus’ biological father? As modern readers, we might wonder how the product of a virginal conception could truly be human—since the Y chromosome did not come from a human father. Andrew Lincoln explains that this issue would not have been troubling to an ancient audience or to the writers of the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke:
Their understanding of conception, shaped by a patriarchal culture, would have been some variation of the dominant Aristotelian theory. On this view, the male semen provides the formative principle for life. The female menstrual blood supplies the matter for the fetus, and the womb the medium for the semen’s nurture. The man’s seed transmits his logos (rational cause) and pneuma (vital heat/animating spirit), for which the woman’s body is the receptacle. In this way the male functions as the active, efficient cause of reproduction, and the female functions as the provider of the matter to which the male seed gives definition. In short, the bodily substance necessary for a human fetus comes from the mother, while the life force originates with the father.
Those who heard the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke would have considered Jesus to be fully human since his mother supplied all of his bodily substance. Lincoln clarifies: “In terms of ancient biology, even without a human father, Jesus would have been seen as fully human. His mother, Mary, provided his human substance, and in this case God, through the agency of the divine Spirit, supplied the animating principle instead of a human father.”
FREE ebook: The First Christmas: The Story of Jesus’ Birth in History and Tradition. Download now.
According to the New Testament, was Joseph Jesus’ biological father or just his adoptive father?
The annunciation stories in Matthew and Luke claim that Jesus was conceived without a human father, but later in the Gospel of Luke, Joseph is listed as Jesus’ parent and father (Luke 2:27, 33, 48; 4:22). Indeed, through Joseph’s lineage, Jesus is shown to have descended from King David (Luke 3:23–38). Do these accounts contradict the annunciation stories?
The traditional way of reconciling these seemingly incongruous accounts is that Joseph was Jesus’ adoptive father.
In his article, Lincoln offers another way: He posits that knowing the genre of the Gospels helps make sense of this apparent contradiction. As a subset of ancient Greco-Roman biography, the Gospels can be compared to other Greco-Roman biographies, such as Plutarch’s biographies of Theseus, Romulus and Alexander the Great. In these examples, the central character is given two conception stories, one natural and the other supernatural.
Read “Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible” by Lawrence Mykytiuk from the January/February 2015 issue of BAR >>
Dual conception stories for the same figure was not uncommon in Greco-Roman biographies, and Lincoln suggests that this was a way of assigning significance and worth to those “who were perceived to have achieved greatness in their later lives.” In this genre, those who accomplished great things in their adult lives deserved an equally great—even supernatural—conception story.
Lincoln’s approach is certainly intriguing—especially when applied to the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke. To read Lincoln’s entire treatment of the matter and learn more about what early Christians thought about conception, read the full article “How Babies Were Made in Jesus’ Time” by Andrew Lincoln in the November/December 2014 issue of BAR.
All-Access Subscribers: Read the full article “How Babies Were Made in Jesus’ Time” by Andrew Lincoln in the November/December 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on November 3, 2014.
Related reading in Bible History Daily
All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
Related Posts
Must-Read Free eBooks
Want more Bible history?
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
According to Jewish believe the father was Joseph Pandira. But he denied and said in court it was a Roman soldier.
I think the ones who think Joseph was Jesus father are not reading the Bible to find out who his father really was. The account I read is Joseph was worried when he found out Mary was pregnant and was thinking of putting her away meaning he was sending her somewhere and he was not going to marry her. But read where God gave him a dream and said ” do not put her away” because she is pregnant of the Holy Ghost”. That is why Jesus was human and spiritual. People do not read the bible word for word only take something some man wrote and RUN WITH it. Search it out and find the truth The Bible says what really happened. Some people do not want to know the truth..
Modern surrogacy has two forms, ‘Traditional’ where the mother supplies half the DNA and the womb and ‘Gestational’ where she just supplies the womb. The author assumes that what the ancients believed was incorrect. Historically believed was that YHWH employed The Blessed Virgin Mary as a gestational surrogate, which is what I believe. God created the second Adam as He did the first Adam, without the need for human input. The author twists the story to fit his limited understanding of surrogacy. Jesu was fully tou Theou ( Luke 3:37) become man.
All this nonsense regarding parthenogenesis is based on a huge cultural misunderstanding.
1. Marriage was a two-stage process during the Common Era – the betrothal/sanctification (erusin/kiddushin) and the nuptials (nisuin). The betrothal (kiddushin) was followed a year later by the “taking” (kichah; cf. the Parable of the Ten Virgins) and the nisuin (nuptials), when the groom “takes” his wife from her father’s house and brings her to his home. The kiddushin was not merely an engagement. The couple were deemed husband and wife from that point onward and if things didn’t work out the groom would have to give his bride a bill of divorce.
2. The religio-legal ruling (halakah) during this period held that a man could obtain a wife via a declaration of intent (shetar), money (kesef), and sexual intercourse (bi’ah). In “The Jewish Way In Love And Marriage,” author Maurice Lamm writes (p. 146), “After the man has addressed the marriage formula [contained in the shetar] to the woman before two witnesses, the couple retires to a private place with the intent of effecting the betrothal [kiddushin] through intercourse.”
3. The marriage customs of the Galilean disciples of Hillel the Elder were different from those of the Judean disciples of Shammai the Elder.
4. It was only in the 3rd century C.E., that the halakah was changed and the Judean custom of separating the act of giving kesef (money) from the act of bi’ah (sexual intercourse), by a span of one year, was made the social and legal norm – paying money to one’s father-in-law remained part of the kiddushin (betrothal), while sexual intercourse became part of the nisuin (nuptials).
Why the change? Because, at least as far as some religious extremists were concerned, having sex with the bride to determine if she was in fact a virgin immediately after the act of paying (or making arrangements to pay) the girl’s father the full price for a virgin bride (3,100 to 3,700 USD) smacked of prostitution — sex for money.
The plebeian class of (Galilean) Orthodox Jews had a long standing kiddushin tradition of following the kesef with bi’ah, in order that the groom could take immediate action to recover (or adjust) his payment if the bride wasn’t in fact a virgin. However, this whole custom of “kesef followed by bi’ah” as part of the kiddushin was regarded with disdain by the patrician class of (Judean) Orthodox Jews, who eschewed any hint of prostitution by waiting until the nisuin (nuptial-elevation) to have sexual intercourse with the bride.
5. Yosef, being a (plebeian-Hillelite) Galilean, obviously had sex with Miriam as part of the kiddushin and thus began the year long wait for their nisuin. Why wait a year? Because the groom had just given his life savings to his father-in-law. The reason for the year long separation was to give the groom sufficient time to save up money for the wedding feast and/or to finish preparing a suitable home for his wife.
6. Why did Yosef think about divorcing Miriam after learning that she was pregnant? It wasn’t because he thought she’d committed adultery! He knew her to have been a virgin and he knew that the child was his! What he sought to avoid were the insults from the religious extremists and gossips, who regarded the custom of “kesef and bi’ah” during the kiddushin to be tantamount to fornication (lit., prostitution).
7. It was this “whisper of prostitution” that eventually led to a change in the halakah, but it took three centuries for this change to come about! That’s why Yosef initially thought about divorcing Miriam in secret, but he eventually decided against it, because – per the confirmation by the angel in his dream – Yosef knew that the halakah permitted having sexual intercourse as part of the kiddushin. That said, legally speaking, Yosef didn’t have to wait for the nisuin in order to have sex with his bride, as was the custom in Judea. Still, to mitigate whatever accusations others were bound to throw at him, his wife, and their offspring, Yosef immediately took Miriam from her father’s home and brought her into his home and shortly thereafter sent her away to visit relatives.
8. If all this be the case, then why didn’t Yosef have sex with Miriam while she was pregnant?
“R. Bebai recited before R. Nahman: Three [categories of] women must use a ‘mokh’ in marital intercourse; a minor, a pregnant woman, and a nursing mother. The minor, because [otherwise] she might become pregnant and die. A pregnant woman, because [otherwise] she might cause her fetus to become a sandal [i.e., a flat fish-shaped abortion due to superfetation]…..” (Y’vamot 12b).
The use of a “mokh” (i.e., a tuft of wool or cotton padding) is rather problematic, because the religio-legal rulings (halakhot) states that the “mokh” must effectively block the cervix in order to prevent the sperm from entering the uterus, while not preventing the man’s phallus from having unimpeded contact with the woman’s vaginal wall, in order that the two might literally become “one flesh” (Gen 2:24).
Also, the man’s seed must be sown in the woman, rather than in the “mokh,” which means that the ejaculate must come into contact with the vaginal wall before being absorbed by the “mokh.” The “mokh” is simply meant to block the cervix by absorbing any semen that tries to make its way into the uterus. See the problems involved here? [Ref. “Birth Control and Jewish Law: Marital Relations, Contraception, and Abortion as set forth in the classic texts of Jewish Law” by David M. Feldman, pp. 180-193].
Given all this, the Essene solution to the problematic use of the “mokh” was to focus on the higher ethics involved. Josephus states of certain Essenes that, “They do not approach those with child, showing that they marry not for self-indulgence, but for the procreation of children” (War 2.160-61). No, I’m not saying that Yosef was a card-carrying Essene. I’m just saying that the (plebeian-Hillelite) Galilean Jews had their own customs and chumrot (strict measures) regarding intercourse with a pregnant woman.
The bottom line…? Yeshua (Jesus) was the biological offspring of Yosef and Miriam. Further, according to Judaism, God’s Spirit is an agent in the conception of each and every child, because we are all the Offspring of our Heavenly Father. In short, the God’s Spirit overshadows each and every woman during the conception of her offspring:
“There are three partners in man … his father supplies the … substance out of which are formed the child’s bones, sinews, nails, brain and the white in his eye. His mother supplies the … substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair and black of his eye. God gives him the soul and breath, beauty of features, eyesight, hearing, speech, understanding, and discernment. When his time comes to depart this world, God takes his share and leaves the shares of his mother and father with them” – Niddah 31a; cf. She’iltot, Yitro, 56; Leviticus Rabbah 14.5 (on Psalms 27:10).
One must place this material back into its proper historical, linguistic and cultural context. I submit that the Church’s belief in parthenogenesis is based on a cultural, linguistic, and historical misunderstanding of the texts in question.
@ Simone Venturini’s Blog, which states, “Therefore, the pre-eminent role in the physical conception of a new human being is played by women and not by men.”
That’s not what Judaism maintains and it certainly wasn’t a notion that one finds in proto-Rabbinic Judaism, which was the faith of the historical man, Yeshua ben Yosef.
“There are three partners in man … his father supplies the … substance out of which are formed the child’s bones, sinews, nails, brain and the white in his eye. His mother supplies the … substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair and black of his eye. God gives him the soul and breath, beauty of features, eyesight, hearing, speech, understanding, and discernment. When his time comes to depart this world, God takes his share and leaves the shares of his mother and father with them” – Niddah 31a; cf. She’iltot, Yitro, 56; Leviticus Rabbah 14.5 (on Psalms 27:10).
We are all the literal Offspring of Our Heavenly Father! Please, put this material back into its proper context and stop slanting it to jive with your dogmatic assertions!
@ Steven B – #14-15:
Very interesting “opinion” about Miriam’s virginity and the halakah, and 2nd Temple marriage customs. Would you mind detailing your historical assertions for me? I don’t see any cites or quotes of the “authorities” on which you base your reasoning. If you’d be so kind, please post all the legal citations, with a brief quote in context, for all the assertions you make above in your “opinion”.
Thanx!
@ Chris – Thanks for taking the time to read my comment(s)! As to Second Temple marriage customs…. I would strongly urge you (and others) to read, “The Jewish Way In Love And Marriage,” by Maurice Lamm and “Birth Control and Jewish Law: Marital Relations, Contraception, and Abortion as set forth in the classic texts of Jewish Law” by David M. Feldman, which I referenced and quoted in my above comment.
As to the differences that existed between the plebeian-Galilean Separatists (P’rushim) from the House of Hillel and the patrician-Judean Separatists (Pharisees) from the House of Shammai…. I would strongly urge you (and others) to read, “The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith,” by Louis Finkelstein, and “A Hidden Revolution: The Pharisee’s Search for the Kingdom Within” by Ellis Rivkin, and “Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus,” by Harvey Falk. I don’t agree with Rabbi Falk’s final conclusion, but his insights regarding the tensions between the disciples of Hillel and Shammai and how their differences later fueled the anti-Semitism of the Church is well worth the read. To that end, one might also read, “The Halakah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew,” by Phillip Sigal.
BTW, the text of Matthew in the Peshitta actually states that Miriam was found to be pregnant while Yosef was scraping together the kesef (money) to pay his father-in-law the full bridal price (for a virgin), which was 200 zuz (approx. $3,100 to $3,700 USD). Not every plebeian had the means and wherewithal to make a payment in full, so a token payment during the shetar (declaration of intent) with an agreed upon installment plan was the norm. (See further the works cited above). Additionally, the year long separation of husband and wife also gave the parties involved enough time to hash out the details of the ketubah (marriage contract), which would be read at the wedding feast as part of the nisuin (nuptials). Here again, I would urge you to read Lamm’s work, which will give you all the applicable references to Jewish Law on the subject.
I’m not sure what you mean by “authorities,” but I believe my “opinions” were sufficiently laced with references to scholarly works and the source material said scholars used. The problem is that we’re all attempting to reconstruct the events of a period and culture that is completely foreign to us. Worse! We’re doing so with the added burden of 1,700 years of religious dogma, which makes it difficult to place this material back into its proper historical, linguistic and cultural context.
Is there a specific “opinion” that you want me to elaborate on and/or provide a source for? The only reason I don’t write a book on this subject is because I’d simply be plagiarizing a plethora of scholarly works. Also, I don’t have a lamb skin hanging on my wall. At best, I’m just a student of comparative religions and my “opinions” frequently rub people the wrong way. Feel free to contact me – steven(dot)madewell(at)yahoo(dot)com.
@ Chris – “When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together (συνελθεῖν), she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (KJV Matt. 1:18).
During the Second Temple Period, the betrothal (kiddushin) came first, which was followed a year later by the “taking” (kichah; cf. the Parable of the Ten Virgins) and the nisuin (nuptials), when the husband “takes” (kichah) his wife from her father’s house and brings her to the home that he’s prepared for his bride.
I submit that the use of συνελθεῖν (came together) in Matthew 1:18 refers to the nisuin (nuptials), when the ketubah is read aloud and the husband and wife publicly “come together” (συνέρχομαι) as a couple.
The Church assumes that the Greek word συνελθεῖν alludes to the couple “coming together” in a sexual union. Yet, the word συνέρχομαι is used of Yeshua (Jesus) “coming together” with his disciples (Acts 1:6) and it’s used of Cornelius’ kinsmen and near friends “coming together” (Acts 10:24-27) and it’s used of Paul and the chief of the Jews “coming together” (Acts 28:17), etc. In short, the word συνέρχομαι needn’t be interpreted as “coming together” in a sexual union.
Prior to the 3rd century C.E., Jewish law held that a man obtained a bride by (1) paying the bridal price (kessef) to the virgin’s father (i.e., 200 zuz, about 3,100 to 3,700 USD), (2) a written declaration of intent (shetar), and (3) sexual intercourse (bi’ah) – Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1. (See also, “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage” by Maurice Lamm, pp. 143ff).
It was the custom among the plebeian class of Jews to have sexual intercourse as part of the betrothal (kiddushin). Why? Aside from tradition, it was only logical for the groom to ensure that his wife was indeed a virgin, rather than pay the kessef (bridal price) and wait a full year only to find out at the nisuin (nuptials) that his wife wasn’t actually a virgin.
All the account in Matthew is stating is that Miriam was found to be pregnant by Yosef prior to their coming together at the nuptials (nisuin). As for the role played by God’s Spirit in the conception, it was the belief in proto-Rabbinic Judaism that:
“There are three partners in man … his father supplies the … substance out of which are formed the child’s bones, sinews, nails, brain and the white in his eye. His mother supplies the … substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair and black of his eye. God gives him the soul and breath, beauty of features, eyesight, hearing, speech, understanding, and discernment. When his time comes to depart this world, God takes his share and leaves the shares of his mother and father with them” – Niddah 31a; cf. She’iltot, Yitro, 56; Leviticus Rabbah 14.5 (on Psalms 27:10).
In short, the Holy Spirit is an agent in the conception of each and every child. I hope this sufficiently clarifies my “opinion” on this matter.
@ Steven – #17 & #18:
Thanx for your interesting comments.
I really wanted to see the historical primary source quotes and cites for all the things you say.
I’ve discovered that reading these religious books by 3rd and 4th parties requires a lot of time and energy I don’t have. That’s why I asked for you to “brief me” on your assertions. That way, I could go to the primary sources and read the quotes in their greater context and see if I can determine the value of them. That’s how I would test the “scholar” to see where he’s coming from.
The one scholar I have read a lot of is David Flusser. His writings are some of the best reading I’ve done, except that all his writings are infused w/his political agenda. The older he got, the worse it got. It gets on my nerves after a while. He was one of the top scholars of our time. If I can hardly stomach his perverted conclusions due to his hidden agenda, how much more contemporary scholars.
That’s why I asked for a brief of your opinion w/full authority. That is not the same as plagurizing.
Cheers … Chris
Steven,
One scholar I enjoy reading, who’s writings serve as a patter for all scholars, is George Foote Moore. I refer to “Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era”. I had his method in mind when I requested you to “brief me” on your assertions. His “opinions” are based on historical primary sources, and he makes few conclusions t/o his scholarly work.
Cheers … Chris