(I feel like I should declare that I’m a long time reader of the blogernacle but I contribute only like the youth avoiding eye contact with the Bishop on testimony Sunday.)

First answer: who cares? So you get something wrong in class that a bunch of other people got wrong. You’re trying but you’re not perfect. Don’t sweat it.

Second answer: I found BCC by following links to from other LDS blogs or aggregators. But the way I knew that BCC was worth reading is that I paid attention to the comments being made by the authors on the site when they commented on other blogs. They seem to know what they’re talking about, so I figured BCC was a good reference.

Third answer: don’t sweat it. (bears repeating)

“John the Baptist was a small child, just six mo. older than Jesus, who also lived with his parents in the vincinity of Bethlehem when Heord gave out the order to murder the babies. John escaped murder by the selfless courage of his father, Zacharias. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: ‘When Herod’s edict went forth to destroy the young children, John was about six months older than Jesus, and came under this hellish edict, and Zacharias caused his mother to take him into the mountains, where he was raised on locusts and wild honey. When his father refused to disclose his hiding place, and being the officiating high priest at the Temple that year, was slain by Herod’s order, between the porch and the altar, as Jesus said.’ (See Matt. 23:35) Teachings, p. 261. Zacharias died, then, to save his son; he died a noble martyr, perhaps the first of the Christina era.” Excerpt from the Institute Manual, pg. 23.

On the temple, this series of revelations of God seems very important. Zacharias’s vision leads to the birth of an Elias, but then the shepherd’s vision, like a Day of Atonement vision, of the heavenly host and the glory of the Lord, witnesses of the incarnation of Christ. It takes place near Bethlehem (God’s house) and perhaps we can read into it that a true priesthood is that which guards the flock. To such is revealed the glory of God. To move from the theatre of the temple to the world is nice because it reminds us that the temple is a representation of something much greater, and that God’s power is over all. Maybe a stretch, but interesting.

If they were both from the house of David, wouldn’t their relatives have to show up too?

Why do people think that the account in Luke is of Mary’s ancestry? Just because it differs from the account in Matthew?

Thanks,
Rebecca

As for swaddling clothes, I’m fascinated by the quotation Robert pulled out. Some years ago I attended a Christmas discourse by Russell M. Nelson, and he mentioned that “some authorities” believe the swaddling clothes were actually a many-colored garment made of strips that was placed on the Davidic heir only. That fascinated me, but I had not come across any such reference until Robert posted that. I think there may be something to that.

Rebecca, let me just say that I loved your comment on the women and Jesus’ birth. I couldn’t agree more with your sentiments (and the way you explain the scriptural content without denigrating it).

In addition to what’s been said about Mary’s ancestry, it is worth taking a look at Kent Brown’s work on _Mary and Elizabeth_. He gives some background information that may explain why Joseph (and/or Mary) was in Nazareth in the first place. Essentially, he argues that because of the Hasmonean overthrow of internal Jewish government, those most closely related to the Davidic heirship moved into the Galilee to get away from retaliatory action. That both Mary and Joseph were up there may well suggest that they were both direct descendants of David.

The point about Nazareth also jumped out at me this morning, even before I read Robert’s response to it. Though the OT makes no reference to it whatsoever, it is interesting to me that Nephi sees it and apparently knows it in 1 Nephi 11. Following some of the recent arguments that Nephi and his brethren’s “land of our inheritance” was in the Galilee, it may well be that Nephi was already acquainted with Nazareth (even from Nazareth?). Though the archaeological record shows the town as tiny (no more than a few dozen houses, if I remember right), its appearance in Nephite prophecy may suggest that there were other prophecies known in Jesus’ day that no longer survive. Totally speculation, here.

One last comment, I really like Jim’s point about how prevalent a role the temple plays in Luke’s gospel (and this might well bear on themes of adoption–which I think Luke is very interested in). How did the Gentiles understand the temple when they first swarmed into the gospel? There is abundant evidence for its continued sanctity among the Jewish Christians, but does anyone know of any studies that take up the question of the first Gentile Christians and the temple? I’d be very interested in following that question out.

The most attractive of the harmonizing solutions is that proposed by Holzmeister (ZKT 47 [1923] 184–218) and cf. Nolle (Scr 2 [1947] 38–42). Holzmeister argues that Mary was an heiress (i.e., had no brothers) whose father Eli, in line with a biblical tradition concerned with the maintenance of the family line in cases where there was no male heir (Ezra 2:61 = Neh 7:63; Num 32:41 cf. 1 Chr 2:21–22, 34–35; Num 27:3–8), on the marriage of his daughter to Joseph, adopted Joseph as his own son. Matthew gives Joseph’s ancestry by birth, Luke that by adoption. [Nolland, J. (2002). Vol. 35A: Word Biblical Commentary : Luke 1:1-9:20. Word Biblical Commentary (170). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.]

So, on Nolland’s view, adoption is important, but for Joseph instead of Jesus. Clearly adoption is an important theme in Paul’s writing, but I don’t know if it’s an important theme in Luke’s gospel–does anyone know?

Interesting question about relatives attending the birth. There is no evidence that Mary or even Joseph had any relatives in the village. Yes, Joseph was Bethlehemite (sp?) by lineage, but it may have been generations since any of his relatives lived there. It’s also possible that the owner of the stable would have been there to help, etc. Since we really can’t say either way, I think the other part of your question is more interesting: why did Matthew and Luke (who is famous for highlighting women) not care to mention the delivery at all? Was it oversight or were they trying to make a point (such as the one you suggest)?

4. As for the circumstances of your birth, on the day you were born your umbilical cord was not cut,b you were not washed with a view to oiling you. you were not rubbed with salt nor were you wrapped in swathing cloths. . . . 9. “I washed you with water, rinsing off your blood, and rubbed oil on you. 10. I clothed you in a robe of many colors and put leathera sandals on you. [Allen, L. C. (2002). Vol. 28: Word Biblical Commentary : Ezekiel 1-19. Word Biblical Commentary (224). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.]

The Word Biblical Commentary notes (albeit skeptically) that some scholars have pointed out similarities with the description of Christ’s being wrapped for the tomb in Luke 23:53. Even if these connections to temple robes is a bit thin, I think the symbolic meaning of the swaddling clothes surely includes loving care.

Barker discusses this a fair amount, how the branch is an important menorah-temple symbol. Barker also conects this to the seven candlesticks mentioned in Rev 1:13 as well as many other Old Testament passages (usually with the keyword lamp) as important references to first temple themes.

Are they a symbol of mortality? priesthood? chosen/firstborn son? certainly love and care and a reminder that Mary is the implicit author of this history.

Question #2
We often “see” the Nativity as it has been carefully arranged in so many creche scenes. One woman, beautifully composed, surrounded by men: husband, shepherds, sometimes wisemen. Isn’t it more likely that in a place where all her relatives had gathered, Mary would be surrounded by the women of her family? Surely they didn’t travel alone and surely there were many there who knew of her situation and would be there to help, as they would at any birth. Luke may mention the shepherds, and Matthew the wisemen, precisely because their attendance was only possible through a miraculous manifestation and thus was a testimony to Christ’s divinity. Yet is seems that the daily miracle of women’s work, a work so customary you probably wouldn’t even mention it, may have brought women to the same bedside to see the new-born babe (dare I say “first”?).

#3 What evidence do we have that Mary descended from David? Christ is called the son of David by the writers who give us Joseph’s geneology. I am perfectly willing to believe that she is a descendant of David, but I wonder if the idea of adoption isn’t also a powerful one.

Thanks for any input!

These [Lukan] passages suggest that Luke’s source of information knew of Jesus’ contact with the mystics who had preserved the traditions of the first temple, and gives added significance to two other incidents recorded only by Luke: first that Jesus met the tempole teachers when he was only twelve years old and made a great impression on them (Luke 2.41-51); and second, that when he read from the scroll of Isaiah in his home synangogue, he claimed that he was fulfilling the Jubilee prophecy (Luke 4.21). [The Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 65]

Elsewhere (I like her academically cautious wording of what many would surely consider a very radical idea):

It would be tempting to read Luke’s story about Jesus and the temple teachers as one of Mary’s memories, significant not because the young Jesus was missing for a while, but because this was his first contact with the mystics. [The Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 10]

I don’t read this as conflation but as two (or possibly three) separate events: 1) the sin offering of two birds on behalf of Mary and 2) the presentation of Jesus as the first-born male, which they waited to do until Mary could join them. 3) As the NET Bible points out, Joseph may have needed to make a sin offering as well if he participated in the delivery. (Note that the NET also argues that it should read “their purification” instead of “her purification.”)

So I read the verses this way: “And when Mary had completed her quarantine, they brought Jesus to the temple to present him to the Lord (like they were supposed to)—and Mary made the required sin offering so that she would not defile the temple during Jesus’ presentation.”

What is particularly interesting to me is that the events with Simeon and Anna apparently occured before Mary, Joseph, and Jesus did any of the required purification, presentation, etc (verse 39). Contrast the heavenly manifestations that occur after Jesus’ baptism, not before.

Matthew, if the wiki continues to grow as it should, eventually it would take the place of sets of questions like mine. I assume that is your intention, but if it isn’t, it should be. Good work.

In case you aren’t familiar with how a wiki works, anyone can edit the information on those pages so long as they follow the policies. The idea is that over time these pages should get better and better. Dad, thanks for the questions. They are a great addition.