What Did Jesus's Contemporaries Know About His Familial Beginnings?

[RedFan]

Mark 6:3 reports that people in Nazareth called Jesus “the son of Mary.” that is unusual in the extreme; Jewish men were almost always referred to by their father's name -- so the people of Nazareth would have preferred “the son of Joseph” IF they believed Joseph was his biological father. See John 6:42 (“They were saying, ‘Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?”).

What was Mark on to here? John 8:37-41 has an interesting colloquy between Jesus and the Jewish authorities:

“I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have]seen with your father.”

They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”

Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. You do the deeds of your father.”

Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.”

This "we were not born of fornication" comment adds nothing to the debate and is a curious comment to make -- unless it was a barb directed at Jesus, stemming from the rumor that Joseph was NOT his biological father.

Might that rumor have been in currency?

 

[quietthinker]

Might that rumor have been in currency?

Of course it was. They also knew who Jesus was but didn't want to know it. Not only were the details of his birth known but a record of Herod's massacre; Jesus' encounter with the top brass in the Temple at age 12 did not escape them and so on.

When one doesn't want to know and denies certain information because one might be caught out is a phenomena as old as time. Consider Peter's denial of Jesus or the foot work Adam engaged when caught out.