Talk:Jeconiah

message: The bulk of the article on Jeconiah, as it stands, is concerned with arguing about the exact dating of Jeconiah's reign. The dating discussion, in turn, is almost entirely about whether the destruction of Jerusalem was in 586 or 587 BC. In addition to the article being dominated by fairly convoluted details of chronology, the tone is very strange. It's as if two or more anonymous editors are using the Wikipedia article as a forum to argue with each other about the date, but because they both speak with one voice (editors don't name themselves in a wikipedia article), it sounds as if Wikipedia is carrying on an argument with itself that 99/100 readers won't be able to follow. My suggestion would be to do radical surgery on the article and just strip all that discussion way down to a single paragraphs along these lines: "Some scholars prefer a 586 date and here are some of their names. Others prefer a 587 date and here are some of their names. The end." However, I'd very likely be stepping on some toes if I just went to town on this article, so I'm just going to leave this note in the Talk page unless some other editors think I should give Jeconiah a radical chronectomy.Alephb (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestion sound fairly reasonable. I second you. (But in fact I don't know, whether I can be of any help, in case you should get dragged into an edit war.) --johayek (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Johayek. In my mind, this is a small enough issue that I wouldn't push very hard for it if I got some opposition. Plus, I haven't done that much editing on Wikipedia yet, so I'm not all that certain about what some of the unspoken norms are about serious reductions in article size. Right now the 586/587 discussion is a little bit of an eyesore, but it's not as if its something that going to seriously mislead a reader. Anyone can scroll past it and get the meat of the article still pretty easily. If anyone thinks the dating sections should stay, then there's other edits that can be made: a lot of small edits to work on the organization and flow, some citations added here and there. Maybe I'm just fresh and naive, but I'd imagine there's ways to improve the article without an edit war.Alephb (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: The Dating Sections Are a Problem

message: The current article has an entire section called "Release from captivity," which is flat wrong. 
The story is not about Jeconiah being released, but his father Jehoiakim. 
This is easily confirmed by simply clicking of the source, and reading it. Jeremiah chapter 52 tells the same story. 
I don't want to delete an entire section, and start an edit war, but the section has to go.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Stornoway (talk • contribs) 13:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. "And it was in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, that Evil-Merodach, king of Babylonia, in the year of his coronation, lifted up the head of Jehoiachin, king of Judah and released him from prison." https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15931 Bruceman138 (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Release from captivity" 

message: This entire section should be deleted.
It begins: "Jeremiah (22:28–30) cursed Jeconiah that none of his descendants would ever sit on the throne of Israel...Chapter 1, verses 11–12 of the Gospel of Matthew lists Jeconiah in the lineage of Jesus Christ, through Joseph."
This is false. 
The ancestor of Jesus is Jeconiah the son of Josiah.
Matthew 1:11-12 "and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon. After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,…" https://biblehub.com/matthew/1-11.htm#lexicon
The person cursed in the Jeremiah passage is Coniah, the son of Jehoiakim. 
Jeremiah 22:24: "As I live, says the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, be a signet on My right hand, from there I will remove you."
22:28-30: "Is this man, Coniah, a despised, shattered image, or a vessel in which there is no use? Why were he and his seed cast away, thrown to a land they know not? O land, land, land, hearken to the word of the Lord. So said the Lord: Inscribe this man childless, a man who will not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling anymore in Judah."
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16019
Moreover, even if the curse did carry through the line of the Jeconiah mentioned in Matthew, it was reversed with his grandson Zerubbabel.
Haggai 2:23: "On that day, says the Lord of Hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, My servant; says the Lord, and I will make you as a signet; for I have chosen you, says the Lord of Hosts."
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16204/jewish/Chapter-2.htm Bruceman138 (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Curse" section 

message: "In listing the genealogy of Jesus Christ, Matthew 1:11 records Jeconiah the son of Josiah as an ancestor of Joseph, the father of Mary. This Jeconiah is uncle of Jeconiah son of Jehoiakim (1 Chron 3:16), which the Jeconiah/Jehoiakim lineage was cursed (Jer 22:24,30). The Jeconiah/Josiah (Matt 1:11) lineage to Jesus is not cursed."
First off, Joseph is the husband of Mary, not her father. I changed this.
Second, I'm not sure where Jeconiah son of Josiah being the uncle of Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim comes from, unless it's the fact that some translations use "Jehoiachin" instead of Jeconiah? https://biblehub.com/1_chronicles/3-16.htm
Clarification on this would be greatly appreciated. Bruceman138 (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Genealogy" section