Census Before Cyrenius was Governor

So I have become aware of another solution to the Luke 2 Census issue thanks to this PDF.

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=sor_fac_pubs

THE CENSUS AND QUIRINIUS: LUKE 2:2 by Wayne Brinale

This answer is Section for starting on Page 7 of the PDF saying page 48 at the top. 

I shall now Copy/Paste some form it.

Feldman, in his edition of Josephus, states that "Luke 2:2 can be vindicated only if we translate ... , This census was the first before that under the prefectureship of Quirinius in Syria.'  The adjective prötos may mean "first" or "earlier," "former,".

"First census" must be taken in its Hellenistic connotation as the first of two, and then we must expand the clause a little. "This census was before the census which Quirinius, governor of Syria, made."

I am personally annoyed on why so many think the well known Census of the Empire taken in 8 BC can't fit this even when they are not identifying it with AD 6. Is it just lack of a formal "Decree"?

Again Tertulian says Saturninus was Governor of Syria when Jesus was born without any acknowledgment of how Luke seemingly says someone else was Governor.

Sunday is not Pagan

 First I want to state clearly that I disagree with the notion that Sunday replaces the Sabbath or that any weekly observance on the “first Day of the Week” is Biblically ordained.  

And that I strongly believe Biblically The Lord’s Day is The Sabbath.  I believe Paulian Christians kept keeping the Sabbath into the 2nd Century and that even in the Fourth Century many Seventh Day Sabbath keeping Christians still saw themselves as Paulian like the Nazarenes.

But this idea that Sunday was chosen because Pagan at Heart Emperors wanted to worship Jesus on a day for Sun Worship is absurd.

Christians well before Nicaea did start doing First day of the Week Observances because they misunderstood certain “first day of the week” references in 1 Corinthians 16:2 and Acts 20:7.

There was no Seven Day Week among Pre-Christian Greco-Romans, the idea of a Seven Day Week with one day in particular as more Holy than the others is inherently Abrahamic no matter which day you choose.

I'm going to copy and paste a Quote from Tacitus at this link, skim down to [4].

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/tacitus/tacitus-on-the-jews/

“We are told that the seventh day was set aside for rest because this marked the end of their toils. In course of time the seductions of idleness made them devote every seventh year to indolence as well. Others say that this is a mark of respect to Saturn, either because they owe the basic principles of their religion to the Idaei, who, we are told, were expelled in the company of Saturn and became the founders of the Jewish race, or because, among the seven stars that rule mankind, the one that describes the highest orbit and exerts the greatest influence is Saturn. A further argument is that most of the heavenly bodies complete their path and revolutions in multiples of seven.”

First of all we see a hint that the very idea of a day of rest was revolting to Roman Pagans, this is all the more reason why I believe Capitalist “Work Ethic” Values are Roman in Origin not Protestant.

When at some point Christianized Greco-Romans started identifying the days of the weeks with the visible wandering heavenly bodies since there were seven of them, Saturday was named for Saturn probably because of the influence of what Tacitus said here, or the older sources he got these ideas from.  

Now Biblically we know from Amos 5:26 and Acts 7:43 that the Israelites were departing from the proper worship of YHWH when they worshiped the planet we now call Saturn.  But there would have been a pagan affiliation no matter which Planet was assigned to the Seventh Day, Saturn’s Harvesting and Agriculture characteristics do fit some of the Sabbath associations.  And Tacitus’s observation that Saturn is the farthest from us of the visible Planets is worthy of note.  It appearing to move through the night sky the slowest could be a good reason to associate it with rest.

The day on which Jesus Rose from the Dead was associated with The Sun because of the Biblical reasons for viewing The Sun as a symbol of Jesus (Malachi 4:2) and Sunrise as a Symbol of Resurrection (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 1:78-79, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 5:45, 2 Peter 1:19, 2 Samuel 23:4, Psalm 110:3).

And the SDA belief that it's specifically about attacking the Sabbath is also silly.  The fact is none of the earliest Christian Sunday observance based laws even post Nicaea forbid also resting on the Sabbath.  If you wanted to make another day the day of rest with the intention of making Sabbath observance more difficult, what would make sense is making the Sixth Day, the Biblical Preparation Day, the legally enforced day of rest.

Tabernacles should always happen in October (Or at least after the Fall Equinox).

I recently became aware that among Hebrew Roots type Christians there is a common opinion that the current official Rabbinic Jewish Calendar was doing everything a month late during 2024, or rather 5785.

I have express skepticism of the very concept of using a Lunar based Calendar.  But if we are going to use a Lunaisolar Calendar with a potential 29-30 day margin of error on when to the year, there is good Biblical reason why airing on the side Caution means starting it later rather then sooner.

Deuteronomy 16:13 is clear that The Feast of Tabernacles (The 15th-21st day of the Seventh Month) is held AFTER the harvesting of the Corn and Wine is done, not during, after, that's also why it's called Ingathering in it's two Exodus references.  This is also shown by Leviticus 23:39-40.  The Grape Harvest extents through the entirety of September even potentially into early October.

So those who say the Hebrew Calendar is an entire Lunar Month late this year would be having Tabernacles start in the middle of September when the Grape Harvest is far from over.

The completely non Lunar Equinox based system I think should be used would be to begin the year the day after the Spring Equinox, which currently most often happens on March 20th but in antiquity often fell a bit later.  Starting the Torah year on March 21st presuming 30 Day minimum months with no Intercalary days in the first 7 months places the first day of Tabernacles on October 1st (and the Feast of Jeroboam on October 31st).

But perhaps even later then that is best to be safe. March 25th is the Feast of the Annunciation because ancient Greco-Roman Christian considered that day the Spring Equinox even if that wasn't usually astronomically correct.  That would begin the Seventh Month on the 21st of September and place Tabernacles on October 5th-11th with the Eighth day as October 12th.

I firmly believe that the origins of Michaelmas are in part early Christianization of one of the Seventh Month Holy Days, but which one is complicated to determine.

Michaelmas is currently officially September 29th, but there is evidence it was originally September 30th with the 29th being the Eve of Miachaelmas and thus a day a certain Church Building was consecrated in preparation for the Feast.

Michaelmas is largely viewed as a Feast Day in the strictest sense linked to the Fall Harvest and thus would fit being Tabernacles.

But the traditional Scripture Readings for Miachaelmas include Revelation 12:7-12 the account of Satan being cast out of Heaven.  And I see logic to associating that with Yom Kippur and the casting out of the  Azazel goat in Leviticus 16.  Plus the complicated relationship between September 30th and the 29th could parallel the complicated relationship between the 10th and 9th of the Seventh month in determining  Yom Kippur in Leviticus 23.

Hanukkah is a Biblical Holy Day

I've seen one random online forum filled with Christians really offended by the notion that Jesus was observing Hanukkah in John 10:22-23.  "And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.  And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch."

They insist Jesus could not have been observing a Holy Day never actually ordained in The Hebrew Bible.  That Daniel foretells the history that produced Hanukkah isn't enough for them.

They insist this "dedication" refers either to the second of Adar when the Second Temple was first dedicated.  Or to how Solomon originally Dedicated the Temple with an expansion of Tabernacles to 14 days, and feel that's backed up by this following John 7-9.

The latter requires expanding the definition of Winter, (maybe so does the former, but sometimes Adar can fall during a pretty cold period).  But the point is it doesn't say the anniversary of the dedication, it said the Feast of Dedication was being observed.  The 25th of Kislev is the only Feast the Jews ever celebrated by that name.

Also I firmly believe the Expansion of the Festival Solomon did was the prior week not the following Week, since it clearly defines the 22nd as the day the Festival ended, and the 23rd as the day everyone went home.  Also 2 Chronicles 7:9 says "And in the eighth day they made a solemn assembly: for they kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days." Which clearly defines the extra 7 days as coming first.

The only objection offered to it being the prior week is the assumption of Yom Kippr being a Fast Day.  The Bible never links the word Fast to Yom Kippur, in fact God expressed disapproval of annual Fast Days in Zachariah.  The basis for making Yom Kippur a fast day is that the people were to "afflict your souls", fasting is a way to do that but not the only way (Jesus was afflicting His soul without fasting in Gethsemane).  Either way it would be merely the 2nd or 3rd day of a two week festival being toned down by people doing whatever they feel is best to keep that command.  Besides with what is supposed to go on in The Temple that day I could easily see it being treated as part of the Festival.

As far as the lack of Old Testament precedent they complain about, leaving Daniel aside for a moment.

Haggai 2:10-23 is a revelation God gave to Haggai on the 24th of Kislev, and it foretells that very day being a time to rededicate the Temple.  Reading 1 Maccabees chapter 4 (it's at the end pretty much) it would seem the 24th was the day they were actually done rebuilding and cleansing everything, the 25th was the day the new Sacrifices were made.

The whole "Menorah burning for 8 days on 1 day's worth of oil" is a made up fairy tale from much later tradition.  2 Maccabees 10:1-8 tells us it was an 8 day festival because it was done in the manner of the Feast of Tabernacles.  Some have conjectured the original logic was a counterpart for Tabernacles of the Second Passover law from Numbers 9.  One reason to make it two months later rather then one would be the Eight Month's affiliation with The Feast of Jeroboam.  But if that was the only factor it'd have been on the 15th not the 25th.  Haggai's prophecy I'm convinced is why this was when it was whether they knew it or not.  Actually the text of Haggai in question discuses the same issues that make Second Passover necessary in Numbers 9, and since Haggai's previous vision was during Tabernacles, it seems valid to interpret him as validating a Second Tabernacles Law.

The Hebrew word Hanukkah (Dedication) first appears in The Bible in Number 7:84&88 ("Dedicating" was used twice much earlier in the same chapter) this Chapter is about the original Dedication of the Tabernacle and may be one likely drawn on at the first Hanukkah.  That right after this Aaron is instructed to light The Menorah could be the original reason The Menorah became important to Hanukkah.

Also if you do the math in Genesis, the 26th or 27th of Kislev is when the 40 days of rain that caused the Flood stopped.  And it's been popular to see the Nine Candle Menorah of Hanukkah foreshadowed by Zechariah 4.

Back to Daniel, some people, especially those who want to late date Daniel but knowing they can't make it too late due to DSS manuscripts.  Will insist it discuses Antiochus Epiphanes and his persecution, but not the Maccabees actual victory.

Daniel 11:32 "And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits."  One Bible I have in it's marginal footnotes suggests "Take Action" as an alternate translation of "do exploits".

But more directly relevant to the idea of The Re-dedication being Biblical is Daniel 8:13-14.

"Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?  And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred mornings and evenings; then shall the  sanctuary be cleansed."

The Number 2300 mornings and evenings (1150 days) is the main reason this verse in it's details I feel applies more to Antiochus then The Antichrist, I like Chris White's explanation of it, It does fit to say the time from Antiochus' Abomination first being set up until the Maccabees rededicated The Temple.  But it's pretty hard to make it line up perfectly with Revelation where it's always 1260 days or 42 months being mentioned.

The point is, that the Cleansing of The Temple in 164 BC was part of Bible Prophecy.

Josephus talks about the origin of Hanukkah in Antiquities of The Jews, Book 12, Chapter 7 in section 6 and 7, the last part of the chapter.  He there directly links it to Daniel's Prophecy, which I will admit the Books of Maccabees failed to do.

An argument might also be made that John 10 doesn't tell us Jesus was celebrating or observing Hanukkah, He just happened to be there at that time.

During His ministry I find it interesting that Jesus was in Jerusalem only on Holy Days, with John in particular linking Holy Days to anytime He was even in Judea.  In fact in the entire Gospel account of his life the only time we are told He was in Jerusalem when it wasn't specifically a Holy Day was to fulfill the Torah's law about being presented in The Temple 40 days after His Birth.

I'm convinced every detail of Scripture is there for a reason, and The Holy Spirit wanted us to take note of the fact that Jesus was in Jerusalem during Hanukkah.

I rant more against anti-Hanukkah Christians here.  But in that old post I do express certain views I don't hold anymore, especially on Eschatology.

I also found a site online called "Why Yahshuah Refused to Celebrate Hanukkah".

First of all "Yahshuah" is an interpretation of how to properly render Yeshua affiliated with a peculiar brand of the Sacred Name movement.  So be warned.

First this site claims John 7 is about Hanukkah, (it talks about the connection between Tabernacles and Hanukkah that I talk about above), then says the John 10 reference is just continuing the same narrative.  However an unqualified reference to Tabernacles always means the Tishri celebration just as an unqualified reference to a Feast of Dedication means the Kislev one.  And John 10:22-23 stylistically is clearly the start of a new incident that clearly dates itself to a different time then what came just before.

This site actually claims The Jews of this period stopped observing Tishri Tabernacles all together and just replaced it with Hanukkah.  There is no evidence of that, 2 Maccabees 10:6-7 says it was observed in the manner of Tabernacles but in no way says it replaced that feast.

Josephus has I'm pretty sure made clear references to Tabernacles still being observed in Tishri at this time.   When Josephus describes the origin of Hanukkah which I mentioned above he doesn't mention the link to Tabernacles that only 2 Maccabees directly makes (Josephus seemed to only know 1 Maccabees) and only called it the Festival of Lights.  So it's highly unlikely Josephus ever meant that any time he refereed to Tabernacles.

After making that argument they make a thing out of Jesus refusing to go up to the Feast when it started.  Then says when He did show up He condemned them for not following The Law.

Read John 7 more carefully, He did go up at the same time his brothers did more or less, but was simply in secret till the midst of the Feast.  And what Jesus talks about at this time the site misrepresents completely.  He was observing that Feast as much as He was Passover during the Passion Week, where he also argued with the Pharisees and Sadducees.

When Jesus was 12?

Earlier this year in my post on Age of Consent and Adulthood I argued against using Luke 2:42 as evidence for in any sense considering Adulthood to begin at age Twelve.  And while doing so suggested that maybe the Passover of this story is the first Passover after Herod Archelaus was removed in AD 6.

Again, it's a big IF on even assuming Jesus wasn't brought with for prior Passovers, but if it is the intent to imply this is the first time they brought Jesus with, it's notable to remember that Matthew 2:22 Archelaus being in power was the reason they didn't want to bring Jesus to Jerusalem.

It seems that some place the removal Archelaus very early in AD 6 having that year's Passover be the one that happens after his removal.  Remembering that there is no year Zero that counts us backwards to a Nativity in 8 or 7 BC.  But if it was instead the Passover of AD 7 then that puts the Nativity in 7 or 6 BC.  Either way fits the Census of Luke 2:1-2 being the 8 BC Census when Saturninus was governor of Syria as Tertullian claimed.

I haven't made up my mind on the Chronology of The Incarnation yet, this is just one possibility I'm considering.

King James only Baptists baffle me

I myself am very sympathetic to the King James Onlists on certain matters, like which source texts to use and which books, chapters and verses are and are not Canon, and the biggest issues I have with the KJV aren’t fixed by newer translations but often made worse.  I even consider the KJV compatible with certain doctrines many assume you have to reject the KJV to support like Universal Salvation.

The most Extreme KJV Onlists tend to be Baptists or younger sects of partially Baptist origin (Like Millerites and Pentecostals).

Baptists are at their core Hyper Congregationalists, yet part of the agenda behind the King James Bible was doubling down on High Church Translation decisions of the Geneva Bible like translating Ekklesia as Church, Episcopas as Bishop and Diakonos as Deacon.

KJV onlyists get around these issues by simply repeatedly saying that “Church in the Bible just means a gathering of believers”, and that is accurate to what the Greek word Ekklesia means, but that’s not what the English word Church means.  In its origin the English word Church refers to a type of building.  Words can change meaning over time, some of my issues with the KJV are words that were correct at the time but not anymore.  You can’t however simply force it to happen, the word Church still first and foremost puts the idea of either a religious building or a hierarchical organized religion in people's minds.

William Tyndale used the word Congregation for Ekklesia which is why our position on Ecclesiastical Polity is called Congregational Polity. But perhaps an even better English translation would be Assembly, that’s how Ekklesia is usually translated when discussing the word’s use in Secular Greek Politics where it means the gathering together of the Citizenry of a Polis to discuss an issue and then Vote.  But nowadays the word Assembly in politics is used by some bodies of Representatives rather than Direct Democracy, but the same has happened to the root of Congregation thanks to Congress.

As a Christian Weeb the word I would suggest if consulting on a Japanese Bible is Shukai.

Episcopas means Overseer and Diakanos means Servant or Minister or Messenger, I think even Secretary could work.

Bishop and Deacon are hard to call absolutely wrong when they are technically just evolutions of the original Greek words.  But it’s precisely their lack of nativeness to the English Language that makes them sound like grander positions of prestige than the Scriptures themselves intended.  Further reinforced by all the High Church baggage attached to them by Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Episcopalian usage where Bishop has come to mean the clerical Monarch of at least an entire City.

KJV Only Baptists don’t usually use the word Bishop outside of directly quoting Scripture because they know the word doesn’t to most people mean what they want it to.

Priest is a uniquely Biblically awkward word since it etymologically derives from the Greek Presbyter but in modern English Bibles isn't used to translate that word instead being used in the Hebrew Bible for Kohen (and the Hurrian loan word Komer) and in the Greek New Testament for Hiereus. All the more reason to just not use it at all anymore.

As someone who does believe in honoring the Hebrew Roots of the faith in certain contexts I would just use Kohen to translate Kohen (and Kehuna for Priesthood) and for Hiereus when it’s referring to the Israelite Priesthood as well as that of Melchizedek and All Believers. 

And to add some Anti-Papist flavor I’d use Pontiff for Komer and the Hiereus of Dios/Zeus/Jupiter in Acts 14:13.  But since a Japanese Bible isn’t likely to want to be so directly Anti-Catholic it should just use words for Shinto Priests and Priesthood for Komer and Acts 14:13.

Translating Presbyter as Elder isn’t really wrong in any way, but I do feel connotatively many readers will first think a Fifty at the youngest type of Elder.  The alternative Senior has a similar problem but at least most people remember it being associated with High School Students.  As I’ve said before I very much like identifying Presbyter with Senpai and Newtron with Kohai for Japanese.  Senpai however is in the English Urban Dictionary now so is not out of the question for an English Translation, and lacks the potential misunderstanding as a word that refers inherently to someone grandfather aged. Presbuterion I would just translate depending on context either Elders or Council.

1 Timothy 4:14 is the only time Presbuterion is used among Believers, the other two times it’s of the Judean Sanhedrin.  So I imagine this verse plays a role in debates between Congregationalists and Presbyterians.  I don’t know how most Baptists explain this but I feel it’s just a reference to the believers doing the laying on of hands being older than the person receiving.  Nothing here to justify a committee meeting of elders who lead different congregations meeting in a Sanhedrin like fashion.

However I identify as a Congregationalist principally because of my belief in Ecclesiastical Direct Democracy.  In terms of the Localism vs Regionalism aspect of where Congregationalists and Presbyterians differ, I kind of fall between them.  There is no Biblical support for a single City having more then one Ekklesia, remember an Ekklesia means the entire citizenry of a Polis a City.  Fortunately thanks to Galatians 3:28 we know the Ekklesia of Christ does not exclude Women, Slaves or Ethnic Foreigners.  When all Believers regardless of location are referred to as one Ekklesia like 1 Timothy 3:15 that's the Ekklesia of the Heavenly Zion/New Jerusalem of Hebrew 12:22. Revelation 3:12, 20:9, and 21-22.

Calvin and Zwingli were also only ever devising Church Governmental structures for City-States, the Swiss regional Synods came after Calvin died and the formation of the Dutch Reformed Church and Church of Scotland came even later then that.  But I still think even on a city level their models were too organized and hierarchical, there should be no Council with a fixed membership, when the different congregations in a city need to meet they should send representatives chosen for that specific meeting.

Of course we also need to consider how much bigger many modern cities are then even the largest of Ancient Cities.  The Anime Durarara!! Is set in Ikebukuro, Ikebukuro is part of Toshima which is part of Tokyo.  The greater Tokyo Metropolitan Area has a population probably larger even then first century Galatia much less Ephesus.  In this Anime it sure seems like Ikubukuro alone could be an entire Classical Greek Polis.

I am more Congregationalist even then most Baptists because I don’t believe in there being a single Episcopas even for a local congregation of less than 70 people.  I reject the very notion that the primary structure of a gathering of believers is one person giving a speech and everyone else just nodding in agreement, the picture 1 Corinthians paints involves lots of people talking.  The Overseer(s) of a given meeting oversee it, nothing more.  Sermons have a place, but that’s not what the weekly gathering is for.

Going back to the word Church I actually would consider using it to translate a New Testament Greek word, Naos.  There are three Greek words translated Temple in the KJV, one accounts for only one KJV appearance of Temple and is like the Hebrew Beth a word for House so I'd just translate it House.  The main two are Hieron and Naos.  Hieron is the broader term that can refer to indoor Temples and outdoor Temples and complexes that contain both, that’s the word I’d keep translating as Temple.  Naos however very specifically means an enclosed structure containing a god or a representation of one.

It is Naos that is used of the all believers being God’s Temple doctrine in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:19, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 2:20-22 and Revelation 3:12, as well each individual believer's Body, and when John 2 calls Jesus’s Body “this Temple”.   In The Hebrew Bible I’d likewise translate Dybir as Church which is a rarely used word for the building that contains the Holy of Holies in Solomon’s Temple. 

But for a Japanese Bible I’d translate Dybir and Naos as Honden.

The Adopted Son of Joseph Son of David

Another objection to the Genealogy of Jesus as presented in Matthew and Luke is that Jesus couldn't become an Heir to the Throne of David by Adoption.  Now I still stand by my past arguments for Luke's genealogy actually being Mary's, and even without that nothing anywhere says Mary wasn't a descendant of David.  But considering the value I place on Adoption both morally and theologically, it's about time I said "so what".  Because after all there must be a reason we're given Joseph's genealogy in at least Matthew.

But first, before I even get into that argument. I should address what may sometimes be an internal debate among Christians.  Does Jesus qualify as even an adopted son of Joseph?

Because in the story at the end of Luke 2 when Mary finds Jesus she refers to Joseph as His father, but some people like to say what Jesus goes on to say about doing His Father's business as correcting her.  That has it's origin as an over reaction to how some seek to use what Mary said here against The Virgin Birth.

I feel many American Conservative Christians have dug their heels in on that because of their obsession with the modern nuclear family.  They feel an Adopted or Step father is only needed if the physical sire is a deadbeat or just plain dead, because you can't have "two daddies" that would be horrible.  This is also why so many commentaries refuse to acknowledge that Jacob is referring to Leah as Joseph's mother in Genesis 37.

Luke 4:22 and John 1:45 clearly show that Jesus was legally regarded as a Son of Joseph.

In the past I'd focused more on Luke's Genealogy because even though I've always valued Adoption I felt that Jesus had to be a Blood descendant of everyone Prophecy required Him to descend from so that by His shed Blood gentiles can become Abraham's Seed and mortals can become Sons of God.  And I still think He was, but I've come to realize that Jesus is himself an adopted Son for a reason.

Now when this comes up as a Jewish objection to Jesus, it's not because Jews oppose Adoption or anything, The Torah clearly says anyone Circumcised who follows The Torah is to be considered an Israelite.  It's a claim that Royal Inheritance specifically has to be biological.

II Samuel 7:12 does specifically say Seed.  But it'd be hypocritical to use that against Jesus since these objectors to Jesus often reject dual fulfillment elsewhere.  The immediate context of that verse was clearly the Seed of David who took the throne right after David died.  What's interesting is verse 14 talks about this Son of David being an adopted Son of God.  So the New Testament brings it full circle, The Son of God becomes an adopted Son of David.  And that is why David calls The Messiah his Lord in Psalm 110.

The last verse of Jeremiah 33 seems to say that Israel won't be ruled by the Seed of David anymore when they return from Captivity.  The Root in Isaiah 11 is of Jesse rather then David.  Some Psalms speak of David's Seed, but there is room for interpretation there too.

I stumbled recently unto an online book by a Jew who argues that The Messiah will not be a Son of David but David himself Resurrected, arguing that the Branch is an idiom for a Resurrected Body and looking specifically at Ezekiel 34&37.  As a Christian I obviously disagree with that overall premise, but I do agree that Ezekiel is describing David himself Resurrected as the future Nasi, not using the name David as a code for Jesus as some Christians prefer to look at it.  

I think David himself would take offense at excluding adopted sons from Royal Inheritance, since he was a Son but not by blood of Saul.  In 1 Samuel 24:9-11 David calls Saul "father" and in 1 Samuel 24:16 and 26:17-21-25 Saul calls David his Son.

Now David's Kingship ultimately came from God choosing his line over Saul's.  But likewise the Son of God incarnate doesn't need descent from any specific mortal to be the rightful ruler of The World.  David became a Son of Saul regardless.

Now you may respond that David was the Son in Law of Saul because he married Michal.  To which I first would say, "like how Christian apologists argue Luke's genealogy sometimes means Son in Law when it says Son".  This is also a good time to bring up The Bride of Christ, who is also the Daughter of Zion The City of David.

But another reason David was a Son of Saul was 1 Samuel 18:1-4 where David's Blood Covenant with Johnathon made him Johnathon's joint heir.

What Moses says of Joseph in Deuteronomy 33 is one of the foundations of the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine that's become popular in Rabbinic Judaism.  It's the basis for saying it's the Son of Joseph not David who will be killed and then Resurrected.  Something I brought up in my Human Sacrifice in The Torah post, which in turn referenced back to my Nazareth post where I suggested that Mary could have been of the Tribe of Manasseh.  For the sacrificial offering alluded to in that blessing it's being a Maternal Firstborn that mattered, the first to Open the Womb.

But the Messiah Ben-Joseph doctrine also needs it to be a Son of Joseph who's pierced in Zechariah 12:10, even though the context of that verse is all about the House of David.  Chapter 12 begins with a new "The Word of YHWH came unto me saying" so no it's not a continuation of the previous three chapters where Joseph and Ephraim came up a lot.  These three chapters seem to be strictly about the Southern Kingdom.  So the only way the one Pierced can be a Son of Joseph, is if he's a Son of Joseph adopted into the House of David.