Contents ...
udn網路城邦
私生子耶穌與祂的降生
2026/11/08 00:29
瀏覽2
迴響0
推薦0
引用0
私生子耶穌與祂的降生


為什麼有些人會指控耶穌是因淫亂生的（porneia，《約翰福音》8:41）？這是否與祂在自己的家鄉被稱為「馬利亞的兒子」（《馬可福音》6:3），而非「約瑟的兒子」是出於同一個原因？結合拉比文獻（以及奧利振的補充）與《新約聖經》所展現的訊息，耶穌的母親顯然是眾所周知的，但祂父親的身份卻存在爭議。


作者：布魯斯·查爾頓（Bruce Chilton） 巴德學院貝爾講座宗教學教授 


《新約聖經》對耶穌受孕的過程並非只給出一種說法，而是提出了三種理論。這種意涵上的多元性，推翻了任何假設文本只是單純反映事實、或發明單一教理主張並將其視為事實的研究方法。若要真正理解《福音書》，就必須對這三種理論都進行考量。這種連結早期猶太教、耶穌與早期基督教的生成性關注，已不再停留在主張或否定事實本身，而是轉向評估文本如何產生、以及當時人們抱持著何種理解。這種自1940年代起在歐洲開展的轉向，在當今北美洲的《新約聖經》研究中仍尚未完全普及。像「耶穌研討會」（The Jesus  Seminar）這樣的團體，依然基於「文本偽造了歷史」的假設來對待文本；而保守派的福音派則將文本的歷史價值視為理所當然。[1] 已經成為人文學科的標準方法；然而，它在聖經研究中仍在努力爭取應有的地位。


第一種《新約聖經》理論將耶穌的降生呈現為聖靈干預的結果（透過未明確說明的方式），因為馬利亞尚未與男人發生過性關係。這是《路加福音》最明確的解釋（《路加福音》1:34-35），而《馬太福音》也以較不直接的方式予以支持（《馬太福音》1:18-25）。


第二種解釋則是由腓力在成為耶穌的門徒後於《約翰福音》中提出，他主張耶穌實際上是約瑟的兒子（《約翰福音》1:45）。這點也在迦百農會堂裡的「猶太人」（《約翰福音》6:42）以及拿撒勒的《路加福音》會眾（《路加福音》4:22）口中，相當明確且有些古怪地被重複提及。雖然語境中的後者可能帶有輕蔑意味，但腓力的表述卻並非如此。此外，若非基於這第二種理論的假設，實在很難解釋《馬太福音》（1:1-17）與《路加福音》（3:23-38）所各自呈現的耶穌家譜是如何發展出來的（《馬太福音》1:16 與《路加福音》3:23 試圖對此問題進行修飾，但這些調整似乎都是馬後炮事後補救的）。再者，耶穌作為「大衛之子」的身份——這不僅受到《福音書》的承認（《馬太福音》1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30, 31; 21:9, 15；《馬太福音》10:47, 48；《路加福音》18:38, 39），也受到保羅及後續文獻的承認（《羅馬書》1:3，參見《提摩太後書》2:8；《啟示錄》5:5; 22:16）——隱含地調用了這個理論，因為只有約瑟（在《馬太福音》1:20 中他自己也被稱為大衛之子，參見《路加福音》1:27, 32; 2:4）才能將這樣的世系傳遞給耶穌。


最後，在《約翰福音》中，反對者似乎以耶穌是「淫亂...」所生來嘲弄祂。


在其連結的文章中，布魯斯·查爾頓（2005）透過分析《福音書》中呈現的三種受孕理論，檢視了圍繞耶穌降生的社會與法律環境。第一種是《路加福音》和《馬太福音》所強調的童貞女受孕。第二種假設約瑟為生物學上的父親且非神聖起源，這得到了將耶穌與大衛世系聯繫起來的家譜支持。第三種理論則涉及淫亂的指控，如《約翰福音》8:41 所見，以及《馬可福音》6:3 將祂稱為「馬利亞的兒子」而非約瑟的兒子所隱含的意思。


查爾頓將其分析集中在第三種理論上，藉此解釋《福音書》記載耶穌所面臨的歷史性阻力。他主張，早期猶太法律框架關於混合世系的規定，會將非法或存在爭議的結合所產生的後代歸類為 mamzer（私生子/私生後代）。


該歷史背景的一個關鍵要素，涉及西元一世紀與二世紀的法律學者如何評估父權的主張。根據查爾頓（2005）的說法，《密什拿·婚書篇》（Mishnah Ketubot）1:9 指出了一場重大法律爭辯，即孕婦在法律上或可靠性上是否能夠確認其孩子的父親。約書亞拉比（Rabbi Joshua）明確拒絕了這種做法。約書亞主張，在這些情況下，婦女未經證實的證詞在法律上是不可靠的。畢竟，她在結果中擁有重大的個人利益。他堅持父權需要更多客觀的旁證，例如獨立證人證明該對夫婦共居於婚寢。因此，根據當時較為嚴格的法律標準，孕婦關於父權的證詞會面臨強烈質疑並被駁回。


這種嚴格的法律環境也挑戰了基督教的錯誤主張——即正式的訂婚契約足以使懷孕合法化，並防止孩子被指定為 mamzer（即「私生子」）。查爾頓（2005）證明，拉比法律嚴格將合法的性接觸與實際的身體距離及同居聯繫在一起。法律學者確立了實際的身體距離是推斷允許性接觸的前提。雖然馬利亞和約瑟在法律上已經訂婚，但當她的懷孕為人所知時，他們尚未同居一室。由於嚴格的法律解釋需要同居證明才能確立合法父權，僅憑訂婚契約無法提供任何法律保護來抵禦非法性行為的指控。拿撒勒當地的社區會套用這些法律標準，並將該孩子視為未經證實之結合產生的後代。


最終，在當時的舉證標準下，由於無法在法律上證明約瑟為父親，耶穌很可能承受了作為 mamzer 私生子的社會烙印。查爾頓（2001）總結認為，這種來自社區的強烈排斥，可能塑造了耶穌的心理發展。這種邊緣化的身份也或許解釋了祂日後為何發展出具包容性的教義。


參考文獻


Chilton, B. (2001). Jésus, le mamzer (Mt 1.18). New Testament Studies, 47, 222-227.


Chilton, B.. The mamzer Jesus and his birth. The Bible and Interpretation.


Jesus the Mamzer (aka “bastard”)


The Mamzer Jesus and His Birth


So why did some people accuse Jesus of being born of fornication (porneia, John 8:41)? Was it for the same reason he was called "son of Mary" in his own town (Mark 6:3) rather than "son of Joseph"? What emerges from both Rabbinic literature (supplemented by Origen) and the New Testament is that Jesus' mother was clearly known and that the identity of his father was contested. By Bruce Chilton Bernard Iddings Bell Professor of Religion Bard College October 2005 The New Testament offers not one, but three theories of Jesus' conception. This pluralism of meaning undermines any approach that assumes that the texts simply reflect facts or that they invent a single doctrinal proposition which they present as fact. All three theories need to be accounted for if an appreciation of the Gospels is to be attained. The generative concern, which establishes a continuum among early Judaism, Jesus, and early Christianity, moves away from the assertion or denial of fact to the assessment of how texts arose and with what understandings. That shift, under way in Europe since the 1940s, is still not complete in the study of the New Testament in North America today. Groups such as "The Jesus Seminar" continue to treat texts on the assumption that they falsify history, while conservative Evangelicals assume that their historical value is a given. [1] has become standard in the humanities; however, it still struggles to receive its place in the study of the Bible. One New Testament theory presents Jesus' birth as the consequence of an intervention of a holy spirit (by an unspecified mechanism) since Mary had not had sexual relations with a man. That is the explanation of Luke's Gospel most emphatically (Luke 1:34-35), seconded less straightforwardly by the Gospel according to Matthew (Matthew 1:18-25). A second explanation, expressed by Philip in John's Gospel after he had become Jesus' disciple, maintains that Jesus was in fact the son of Joseph (John 1:45), and it is -- emphatically and rather oddly -- repeated both by John's "Jews" in the synagogue at Capernaum (John 6:42) and by Luke's congregation in Nazareth (Luke 4:22). Although the latter references are or may be dismissive, Philip's is not, and it is difficult to see how the genealogies of Jesus, variously presented by Matthew (1:1-17) and Luke (3:23-38), can have been developed except on the supposition of this second theory. (Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 try to finesse the issue, but these adjustments seem to be post hoc ). Further, Jesus' identity as David's son – recognized by the Gospels (Matthew 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30, 31; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47, 48; Luke 18:38, 39) as well as by Paul and later sources (Romans 1:3, cf. 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5; 22:16) implicitly invokes this theory since only Joseph (himself called David's son in Matthew 1:20, cf. Luke 1:27, 32; 2:4) can have mediated that pedigree to Jesus. Finally, in John's Gospel opponents appear to taunt Jesus with being born of "fornicati


https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2005/10/chi298001


In the linked article, Bruce Chilton (2005) examines the social and legal circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus by analyzing three different conception theories presented in the Gospels. The first is a virginal conception highlighted by Luke and Matthew. The second assumes Joseph's biological paternity, and non-divine origin, which is supported by the genealogies linking Jesus to the Davidic line. The third theory involves accusations of fornication, as seen in John 8:41 and implied by Mark 6:3 calling him the "son of Mary" rather than the son of Joseph.


Chilton centers his analysis on the third theory to explain the historical resistance that the gospels say Jesus faced. He argues that early Jewish legal frameworks regarding mixed genealogy classified the offspring of an illicit or contested union as a mamzer.


A key element of this historical context involves how legal scholars of the first and second centuries evaluated claims of paternity. According to Chilton (2005), Mishnah Ketubot 1:9 points to a significant legal debate as to whether a pregnant woman could legally or reliably identify the father of her child. Rabbi Joshua explicitly rejected this approach. Joshua argued that the unsupported testimony of a woman was not legally reliable in these circumstances. After all, she has substantial self-interest in the outcome. He insisted that paternity required more objective supporting evidence such as independent witnesses to the couple sharing a marital domicile. Consequently, the testimony of a pregnant woman regarding paternity would have been heavily contested and dismissed by stricter legal standards of the era.


This stringent legal environment also challenges the false Christian claims that a formal betrothal contract was sufficient to legitimize a pregnancy and prevent a child from being designated a mamzer (aka, a “bastard”). Chilton (2005) demonstrates that Rabbinic law strictly linked legitimate sexual contact to physical proximity and cohabitation. Legal scholars established that physical proximity allowed for the assumption of permitted sexual contact. Although Mary and Joseph were legally betrothed, they did not yet share a common domicile when her pregnancy became known. Because strict legal interpretations required proof of cohabitation to establish legitimate paternity, the betrothal contract alone provided no legal protection against accusations of illicit sexual behavior. The local community in Nazareth would have applied these legal standards and viewed the child as the product of an unverified union.


Ultimately, the inability to legally prove Joseph as the father, under the evidentiary standards of the time, likely would have resulted in Jesus bearing the social stigma of a mamzer. Chilton (2001) concludes that this intense communal rejection potentially shaped the psychological development of Jesus. This marginalized identity may also explain his more inclusive later teachings.


References


Chilton, B. (2001). Jésus, le mamzer (Mt 1.18). New Testament Studies, 47, 222-227. Jésus, le mamzer (Mt 1.18) | New Testament Studies | Cambridge Core


Chilton, B. (2005, October). The mamzer Jesus and his birth. The Bible and Interpretation. https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2005/10/chi298001