Now
indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old
age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren
//Were Jesus and John, son of Elizabeth, really related? Most scholars
doubt it, assuming this relationship to be a literary creation of Luke.
Or, equally likely, a story Luke had collected. More evidence points to
the idea that Jesus was originally a follower of John the Baptist. I've
discussed this topic before, so I won't repeat myself.
But
if it isn't true, why does Luke report them as cousins? It seems to be
Luke's personal conclusion, based on a typology of Old Testament
relations. Here's how it works.
Jesus'
mother's name is Mary. John's mother's name, according to Luke (only),
is Elizabeth. The only other Elizabeth (written in Hebrew as Elisheba) in the Bible is the wife of Aaron, the brother of Moses. Moses' sister's
name was Miriam, a form of Mary. So, in the story of Moses, Mary and
Elizabeth are sisters-in-law, and their offspring would be first
cousins.
Thus, concludes Luke, Jesus and John were also cousins.
Haha, Moses' wife's name wasn't Miriam! Read the Bible if you are going to comment on it. It was Zipporah. Miriam was his sister. Please do not make to conclusions when you do not know what you are talking about. It seems likely Luke's conclusions have a firmer foundation than yours do.
ReplyDelete:) Thank you! That's a rather embarrassing typo. I've corrected the post to read "sister", not "wife." The result is the same: first cousins.
ReplyDelete