In this post I will be citing Dr. David H. Stern’s Jewish New Testament Commentary, published by Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc. 1992, pp. 42-43, where Stern explains how Joseph made Jesus his legal heir by accepting him as his son, thereby conferring upon the Lord his legal descent from David. Stern even acknowledges that the Greek of Matthew 1:25 provides no conclusive proof against Mary’s perpetual virginity, even though he denies that she remained such after giving birth to the Messiah. All emphasis will be mine:
24–25 Yosef’s behavior shows that he accepted Yeshua as his son. According to the Mishna, “If one say, ‘This is my son,’ he is to be believed” (Bava Batra 8:6). The Gemara explains that he is believed “as regards the right of inheritance” (Bava Batra 134a). Thus Yeshua, as a legally acknowledged son, is entitled to inherit the throne of King David from Yosef, a descendant of David (v. 8). (This point is made in Phillip Goble, How to Point to Yeshua in Your Rabbi’s Bible, New York: Artists for Israel, 1986.)
25 Until she had given birth. Protestants generally affirm that Miryam was a virgin when Yeshua was born, but that “his sisters” (plural: at least two) and four brothers (13:55–56, Mk 6:3) were Miryam and Yosef’s natural children. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Miryam remained a virgin all her life, and that the terms “brothers” and “sisters” are used loosely to refer to more distant relatives (compare Genesis 14:12–16, 31:32, Leviticus 10:4). The Greek phrase “eôs ou” (“until”) is inconclusive because it does not necessarily imply a change; that is, the Greek could mean either that they did not have relations during the period before she gave birth but did afterwards, or that they remained celibate afterwards as well. But celibacy in particular and asceticism in general, though regarded by pagans as spiritually meritorious, were and are the exception in Judaism and in New Covenant faith, as both Yeshua and Sha’ul teach (see 19:10–12&N, 1C 7:1–40&NN, Co 2:18–23&NN, 1 Ti 4:3a&N).
Here are the citations from Bava Bathra, which Stern alluded to:
MISHNA: One who says: This is my son, is deemed credible. One who says: This is my brother, is not deemed credible with regard to his other brothers’ obligation to share the inheritance with the subject of his statement. When one claims that this man is his brother, this claim is accepted with regard to the speaker’s own portion, and the man in question takes a share of their father’s inheritance with him, i.e., from his portion…
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who says: This is my son, is deemed credible. With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is stated with regard to inheriting from him, i.e., the son inherits from the speaker, and with regard to rendering his wife exempt from levirate marriage. Because he claims that the person in question is his son, his wife is not required to enter into levirate marriage after his death, as he has a child…
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that his claim is deemed credible with regard to someone inheriting from him? Since he could have given this person his property as a gift, it need not be stated that his claim is accepted with regard to his inheritance. The Gemara responds: It was necessary for the mishna to state that his claim is deemed credible with regard to rendering his wife exempt from levirate marriage despite the fact that it is not in his power to render her exempt, but the halakha of inheritance is not a novelty…
The Gemara asks: We already learned this in a mishna (Kiddushin 64a) as well: One who said at the time of his death: I have children, is deemed credible, and his wife is thereby exempt from levirate marriage. If he said: I have brothers, and his wife therefore must enter levirate marriage, he is not deemed credible. (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Bathra 134a https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Batra.134a.10?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en)
Stern further explains Matthew’s statement in 2:23 that Jesus would be called a Nazarene:
23 This is a problematical verse. In every instance where Mattityahu is showing the fulfillment of a Scriptural prophecy (see list in 1:23N), a specific writer — Isaiah, Jeremiah, David — is named, or “the prophet,” or “the Tanakh” followed by a verse or passage. Here the prophets (uniquely plural) are mentioned, and no text is quoted. This is clear from the fact that Mattityahu leaves out “legontos” (“saying”), the Greek keyword he uses to cite Scripture. Rather, he seems to be alluding to a general concept found in several prophets, capable of being fulfilled by the Messiah’s being what the Greek text here calls a Nazôraios (in some other places the word is “Nazarênos”). The questions: Which prophets? What did they actually say? And what is a Nazôraios/Nazarênos?
Some have suggested that the verse has to do with Yeshua’s taking the vows of a Nazirite (Numbers 6:1–23). But this is improbable, since there is no record that Yeshua, who was not an ascetic (11:16–19), ever did such a thing.
A second possibility is that since Natzeret (Nazareth, see Lk 1:26N) was a place people made fun of — as in Natan’el’s remark, “Natzeret? Can anything good come from there?” (Yn 1:46) — Mattityahu is referring to the many Tanakh prophecies that say the Messiah would be despised (e.g., Psalm 22, Isaiah 52:13–53:12) and is informing us that these prophecies would be fulfilled, in part, by his having the onus of being a Natzrati, a resident of Natzeret.
The third possibility is that Mattityahu is speaking of the prediction that the Messiah will be a netzer (“branch”) from the stock of Yishai, King David’s father (Isaiah 11:1); but compare Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15; Zechariah 3:8, 6:12, where the word is “tzemach” (“sprout”). Thus several prophets use the idea, though not the word “netzer.” (For more on “the prophets” see 5:17N.)
What I consider most probable is that Mattityahu is combining the second and third alternatives by means of wordplay, a technique very common in Jewish writing, including the Bible. Yeshua is both netzer and Natzrati.
Finally, although one of the earliest names for the Jewish believers was “Notzrim” (“Nazareth-ites,” that is, “followers of the man from Nazareth,” Acts 24:5&N), it would be odd for Mattityahu to use the same term for the one they followed. The Talmud refers to him as Yeshu HaNotzri (B’rakhot 17b, Sotah 47a). In modern Hebrew “Notzri” remains the everyday word for “Christian”; but it is wrong and confusing to speak of “Yeshua the Christian,” i.e., the follower of Christ — he could not follow himself! The Talmud’s expression should be understood as meaning “Yeshua the Natzrati, Yeshua from Natzeret.” I use the term “Natzrati” instead of “Notzri” (both are acceptable modern Hebrew) in order to get away from the modern connotations of “Notzri” in Hebrew. (Ibid., pp. 52-53; emphasis mine)
FURTHER READING
Answering Islam Blog 