Tribal lineage passes only to children of Jewish mothers whose father is also Jewish and the father has a tribe. It is quite possible that a Jewish child has no tribe at all (because the father isn't Jewish for example). In my example the son of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father would be a Jew, but that man would never have a tribe and none of his children would have a tribal status.
In Book 4 of his series Brown says that we have an example of genealogy passing from mother to son and he references I Chronicles 2:34-36 as "proof" that one can have a non-Jewish father and still inherit a Jewish tribe (e.g. the tribe of Judah, or the tribe of Levi. . .) .
1 Chronicles says nothing whatsoever about the children of a non-Jew inheriting a tribe. Brown is deceiving his readers by claiming that one thing is really something else entirely -- as in a red pencil is the same as an orange park bench. In fact the two may be physical "things" but that are not the same thing.
The fact that Judaism is inherited from a Jewish mother (which it is) has nothing at all to do with tribal inheritance which passes ONLY from Jewish father to Jewish children who must first have a Jewish mother.
Let's look at the quote given by Brown:
"And Sheshan had no sons but daughters, and Sheshan had an Egyptian slave named Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his slave for a wife, and she bore him Attai. And Attai begot Nathan, and Nathan begot Zabad."
Yet again Brown is misleading his readers. First of all Brown is melding together two completely different things. "Who is a Jew" passes only maternally from mother to son. Therefore if Mary was Jewish, Jsus was Jewish.
The second thing is tribal lineage. Tribal lineage only passes from Jewish father to Jewish child (so the child must have a Jewish mother or there is no tribe). If the father is Jewish and he belongs to a specific tribe the child inherits the father's tribal status. This is true for boys and girls. When a girl marries she assumes her husband's tribe and leaves behind that of her father.
Two totally different things. In Brown's example (1 Chronicles 2) the Jewish daughter marries the Egyptian.
The daughter was Jewish, ergo her children would be Jewish. They would not have a tribal status since their father had no tribe (being Egyptian). The last statement in verse 33 makes it clear that the children are not counted in the lineage. So Sheshan’s grandchildren from his daughter were not considered a continuation of his family’s lineage. Again, scripture’s consistent teaching is that tribal lineage can only flow through the male line.
Brown has been selective (proof texting) starting with line 33. Go back to 1 Chronicles 2:25. The line begins by listing the descendants of Jerahmeel (mentioned previously in verse 2:9). In verse 33 the list concludes with the words "these were the children of Jerahmeel".
After this concluding statement in line 25 we are told that one of Jerahmeel’s great grandchildren (a fellow named Sheshan who was 7 generations removed from Jerahmeel) had no sons but a daughter who was given in marriage to an Egyptian slave. Nowhere does it say that this slave inherited any tribal rights. Brown uses it of an example of something it does not in any way claim!
Line 33 makes it clear that the children of the daughter and Egyptian were not considered descendants of Jerahmeel. That list was closed in verse 33, yet Brown uses lines 33-34 to support something that is in no way supported by 1 Chronicles 2, lines 33 or 34 or any of the rest of them.
