Talk:Genealogy of Jesus/Archive 1

message: I removed Adam from the top paragraph.  The line reads that both gospels trace Jesus to Adam but only Luke does this. The gospel of Matthew does not mention Adam, because the audience of this gospels was the Jewish people.  Matthew only needs to appeal to Jews and mention Jesus' connection to Abraham and, thus, to the convenant between God and Abraham that only his line will inherit.  It is more important that Luke mention Adam in order to link Jesus to God.  Luke is a Gentile; thus, the convenent and a Jewish lineage mean less to him than Jesus actually linking to God.  --  Psy guy Talk 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam 

message: I think the article is mistaken where it repeatedly says or implies that the only ones who think both genealogies can be "right" in any sense are the ones who believe in biblical inerrancy. This isn't a requirement at all. Also, the idea that one book reports Joseph's genealogy and the other Mary's isn't new. If I'm not mistaken, John Chrysostom suggested this in his homilies back in the fourth century. Wesley 21:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inerrancy 

message: The collapsing of Matthew 1:9 into this article has lead to the following problems:
# References to Matthew 1:9 come here rather than to a discussion of that topic.
# A lot of information has been lost.
# The distinction between the Matthean and Lucian geneolgies is blurred.
Rich  Farmbrough 16:12 27  May 2006 (UTC).}
I disagree. 
#This IS the topic of Matthew 1:9 (and 1:8, 1:7, ...).
#No encyclopedic information has been lost.
#The distinction between the Matthew and Luke genealogies is made clear in the two distinct genealogies. That they refer to different people (mary + joseph), is a religiously motivated opinion not a fact, and is given no more value than it deserves as a mere opinion (nor is the opposing opinion).
Clinkophonist 18:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matthew 1:9 

message: This article, I perceived, was highly tainted by an un (really anti) neutral viewpoint. For instance, “most scholarly” seems to be a favorite choice of words of one particular writer, the style of which appears to confirm one identity behind the quill-bearing hand, as if to give credibility to a subtlel argument which was disguised as neutral, but lacking that quality. I’ve also included explanations of other edits below, and why those appeared to have “interested,” rather than neutral, connotations.
I also request that sources of information be included. 
I have edited the following to reflect what is said in the actual Greek, because those reading only the English have created a huge string of controversies unnecessary if they’d only consulted the manuscripts from which the English was translated. I have also amended the text because under analysis the words used were subtly biased, for instance, “More modern advocates” and “produce the suggestion.” “More modern” produces a sense that this suggestions they “produce”—as if fabricated—is somehow new, though it is not by any means: history and opinions must be fairly presented as is and plainly, without extra innuendos. I’ve also made the Matthan/Matthat theory more explicit as to which would be the biological father of Jacob and Heli as, if this were the case (though it’s entirey unnecessary if one knows the Greek), Matthew contains the detail that “Matthan begot Jacob” (NKJV), which would preclude Matthat from taking the wife of Matthan in Levirite Marriage because such a marriage only took place when there was no heir born to a man’s brother: this would mean that if such were the case, the only possible participant would have been Matthan, because “begot” “means [biologically] fathered.” Such a union, however, is pure speculation, and improbable, because Levirite marriage risked a man’s own heir, and therefore was avoided by them when possible by passing the duty on to a willing brother: such action was improper and frowned upon, but occurred. 
The genealogy of Luke and Matthew diverge at David. While Matthew continues through Solomon and the subsequent kings, Luke links to Nathan, David's less well known son, and goes on to list 40 before Joseph, almost none of which match Matthew or appear in any historical documents. Zerubbabel and Shealtiel are listed in both the genealogy in Luke and that in Matthew, but in Luke Shealtiel is not listed as the son of Jechoniah but rather of Neri - this is further complicated as 1 Chronicles 3:19 states that the father of Zerubbabel was Pedaiah, a brother of Shealtiel. Both lines also end at quite different names, with Luke ending at Heli, and Matthew at Jacob. 
Several theories have been proposed to explain the discrepancy. The oldest one, ascribed to Julius Africanus, uses the concept of Levirate marriage, and suggests that Matthan (grandfather of Joseph according to Matthew), and Matthat (grandfather of Joseph according to Luke), were brothers, married to the same woman one after another - this would mean that Matthan's son (Jacob) could be Joseph's biological father, and Matthat's son (Heli), was his legal father. More modern advocates of biblical inerrancy produce the suggestion that Luke's genealogy is of Mary, with Heli being her father, while Matthew's describes the genealogy of Joseph, but this would mean that "son" of Heli" actually means "son-in-law" of Heli, apparently contradicting Luke clearly stating that Heli is Joseph's father. The Greek article "tou" means "of the" both "son" or "son-in-law" were added to the English bible in italics.  "of Eli, of Matthat..."
Most scholarly explanation generally give one of four possibilities. The first is that Matthew records the passing on of kingship, while Luke records biological parentage, though this fails to explain why kings that were not father to the next have been excluded from Matthew's list. An alternative, is that Luke gives the actual genealogy while Matthew presents a "ceremonial" one, for example, Neri being Shealtiel's natural father, but Jeconiah being the prior leader of the Jewish people. Other scholars suggest that at least one, and possibly both, of the genealogies is simply fabricated, thus explaining the divergence. 
The following was unnecessary because the Genealogies are for two separate people, and it is also deceiving because of: “almost none of which match Matthew”; though it’s true, the presentation is not neutral, especially with the addition of the latter part of the sentence and no documentation as support. The fact that the Genealogies don’t match is apparent, “almost none of which” has anti-neutral connotations. I’m trying to fine-tune this article that it’s neutral as well as factual. Here is the text:
	“almost none of which match Matthew or appear in any historical documents.”
I’ve also removed this, because it’s questionable without a source, partly because I’ve never heard this from secular or religious authorities on Biblical matters, and mainly because it smacks of someone promoting their own views:
	“Other scholars suggest that at least one, and possibly both, of the genealogies is simply fabricated, thus explaining the divergence.”
This statement is ignorant of the actual statement by Luke, which was in Greek: the English rendition of it appears, and so it is therefore “apparent,” that Luke states Heli is Joseph’s father, however clearly, because the original is Greek, Luke does not state Heli is Joseph’s father, but: “Joseph, as reckoned by law the son of Heli.”
: apparently contradicting Luke clearly stating that Heli is Joseph's father.
I removed the following because it’s unnecessary to the edited text, and complete unrelated:
Heli can be a different name of Joachim, mentioned in the apocryphal Gospel of James.  The Greek article "tou" means "of the" both "son" or "son-in-law" were added to the English bible in italics.  "of Eli, of Matthat..."
I have removed the following paragraph, which is accounted for by one book, on a questionable site: it’s unclear if this might not have been some way to get people to go to that site and buy the book. The source in question is also a book the author of which founded a cult. I concur with SimonP that more information for that text is needed. It is also well established, historically, that Jesus was a real, single, person: this both by secular and religious scholars alike: it’s in recent years this has on occasion come under attack, by and for various interests. There is documentation of this outside the early Church and believers as well, by way of letters. Here is the text removed for future reference:
Among the most radical theories explaining the discrepancy is the one that suggests that the Gospel writers have given accounts of the childhoods of two distinct people, whose only common features were that they were both named Jesus and both their families lived in Nazareth at one time or another, and neither of which are necessarily the Jesus involved in the remainder of the New Testament. The birth narratives in Matthew and in Luke are sufficiently different to allow this, and, furthermore, the events surrounding the birth narratives can be dated to quite separate eras: Luke's - AD 6, Matthew's - likely around 6 BC, thus giving at least some credibility to the theory. In addition, Jesus derives from the Greek name Iesu, which is thought to be a translation made by the Gospel writers of the Hebrew name Yehoshua, i.e. Joshua, a terribly common name in the era; likewise, Zerubbabel, meaning born in Babylon was a common name at the time of return from the babylonian exile, and it is entirely plausible that there are two different Zerubbabels. .
infinitelink 04:00 (Mountain) 2006, 4 July
::comparatively minor overhauls
:::==Brevity==
:::Amongst others, Brown has remarked that Matthew's genealogy seems to be moving much too quickly - it gives 28 generations between David and Joseph
::Italics removed and replaced with new text. The first 16 of the 28 have obvious textual jumps, based on the otherwise complete Scripture records of the genealogies between King Joram and King Jechonias and make complete sense.  Those 16 actually encompass 20 generations over about 500 years, perfectly plausible with an average of about 25 years each.  The final 12 generations of the 28 listed in the Gospel According to Matthew, list a number of comparatively insignificant and otherwise unknown names after Zerubbabel, to span about 600 years.  The math for this final 12 generations coincide with the point made in the article better than the totality of the 28.
:::==Spelling==
:::Additionally, Rahab's position is also peculiar, as all other traditions place her as the wife of Joshua not of Salmon and consequently place her in a different historic time period..
::Italics removed.  Salmon is mentioned in several places of the Bible, coinciding with crossing the Jordan prior to Joshua’s attack on Jericho.  The two would be in the same exact historic time period.  
::Suggest referencing the other traditions if available.
::Clarification.  Salmon’s father is noted as Nahshon (eg Numbers 1:7; 2:3; 10:14; Ruth 4:20, etc).  He is listed in the census aforementioned at the beginning of the Exodus.  Since Nahshon is at least twenty years of age in that census; and he is not Caleb or Joshua, the biblical account says that he does not cross the Jordan River.  His son Salmon, however, does cross it in time to see the Jericho campaign.
::Link added to Wikiarticle Salmon (biblical) 
:::Herezon is mentioned in Genesis 46:12 in connection with Joseph going to Egypt, while Amminadab, the man that Matthew states is the grandson of Herezon, is mentioned in Numbers 1:7 in connection with post Exodus events, leaving only three generations covering the entire period of the Israelites in Egypt, that supposedly lasted several centuries.
::Entire side-note removed.  This is related to the census controversies found in the Wikiarticles on Exodus.  Neither this speculation or original research are required here.  This speculation is an age-old hang-up for many who have not carefully read the narratives.
::Isrealites (descendants of Jacob who is renamed Israel) were in Egypt for arguably only three generations.  On the other hand Hebrews (descendants of Eber of which the Israelites would have initially been a subset) were in Egypt for as many as fifteen generations, in Egypt long enough to have participated in the building of the great pyramids centuries before the Exodus.  Although the Israelites would initially have been a subset of the Hebrew people, it is apparent that the Hebrew people become one and the same as the Israelites during the Exile.  Examples are many and would include Joshua, son of Nun, a Kennezite, a descendant of Esau and not of Jacob; but yet included with the Israelites.  A second point of exception would be Caleb, son of Jephunneh, simply listed as part of the tribe of Judah, with no lineage mentioned to Judah himself.  A third point of exception would be King Saul.  According to 1 Samuel 9:1, he is a descendant of Aphiah, simply noted as a Benjamite in a similar fashion as is Caleb to Judah.  The Hebrews who were already in Egypt were apparently absorbed into the twelve tribes of Israel during the Exile.
::The genealogy of Moses would also support the idea of only three generations being in Exile from the time of Jacob’s move through the Exodus.  Kohath, son of Levi is listed among the men that enters Egypt with Jacob in Genesis 46.  Kohath’s sister is Jochebed.  Kohath’s son Amram marries Jochebed.  And Jochebed becomes Moses’ mother. (ref Exodus 6:20).  Jochebed's weird but unique participation in the genealogy makes abbreviation of this segment of genealogy impossible.  From Kohath’s entry into Egypt with Jacob, there are only two generations to Moses; and thus to the Exodus.
::Ep9206 05:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: I propose reverting back to the August 12 version. The intro has been stuffed with arguments concerning the Mary vs. Joseph line. While this information is important and should have its own section, the paragraph in the opening is misplaced. A number of the "interpreations" recently added are unsourced and possibly original research. I'd say revert to the previous version, and then discuss what changed need to be made.--Andrew c 20:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What has happened to this article 

message: We have stuff like this in the opening paragraphs:
: even though Joseph was probably only the son-in-law of Heli (making Heli Mary's true father), Joseph was still referred to as the 'son' of Heli, or by other translations, Heli was called the 'father' of Joseph, generating even more confusion.
as though it was clearly established that Heli was Mary's father and that settles everything.  The possiblity that one or both of the genealogies was fabricated or simply incorrect is almost completely ignored. The old version of this article was much less biased:  we should at the very least reintroduce its clear list of the competing theories to explain the apparent discrepancies. Grover cleveland 02:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is way way way too POV 

message: :In other words, people believed Jesus was the son of Joseph, but really he was the son of Mary's father Heli. Thus Joseph would be irrelevant to this genealogy.
Can someone please explain how this makes sense?  It seems to say that Jesus was really the son of Heli.  Surely that can't be right. Grover cleveland 06:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Mary's father is Heli, Jesus is not son of Heli, but grandson of Heli.  Yes, in some senses, Joseph's genealogy is irrelevant, except by Levite marriage, he has two fathers--his own genetic father and his father-in-law.Ep9206 03:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mary daughter of Heli?

message: I don't believe in Jesus but if christians are right and Mary gave a virgin birth then wouldn't Josephs ancestors be useless. The Tanach says that the Messiah will be of Davids stock. Ignoring the fact that it means he will be human it also means he will not be adopted. For example if an African-American adopts a Chinese child that does not make the Chinese child any bit Black, does it? My suggestion is get rid of any lineage of the father or you're admitting Mary was not a virgin.
:One important aspect of knowing the genealogy of Joseph may be proving his right to be king by inheritance, thus making Jesus heir to the title "King of the Jews" by adoption.  I'm no expert, but that's what I understood from reading Jesus the Christ (book). B Fizz (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how this proves his right by inheritance. He is not Joseph's legitimate child.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.137.144.70 (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is worthy to note that this talk page is to discuss the article.  Despite the fact that you do not find Joseph's lineage relevant, some biblical scholars do.  I (though not a biblical scholar) feel the information on Joseph's lineage is useful and important to the topic.  Consider the phrase currently in the article's introductory paragraphs: "John Gill (theologian), for example, claimed that Matthew's gospel gives Jesus' legal lineage through Joseph."  This wikipedia article is not here to decide what the genealogy of Jesus is, but rather to present relevant information for all notable points of view.  --B Fizz (e•t•c) 17:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genealogy through Joseph is useless 

message: that article says (Christian view section) :"It is stated in the Christian Gospels that Jesus was descended from David and has been Head of his dynastic house since birth, and is thereby the lawful King of Israel." - I think that is rather more than the Gospels say, but am no expert. I've added a cite tag, but perhaps someone who is could confirm/edit there. Johnbod 02:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Davidic line]] 

message: I've tagged this section as original research.  Feel free to remove this when this section is supported by citations of scholars who have advanced this argument. Grover cleveland 19:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. From what source had A. C. Emmerich that? Summer Song (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mary daughter of Heli original research

message: Luke 3's list is written down twice (column + orig. bibl. text). Dunno whodonit. This is my advice : Once's OK. What do you think ? -- DLL   .. T 21:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man you've got a mind (Luke 3) 

message: There is a little known theory that states that the geneology in Matthew is actually that of Mary and the one in Luke is actually the one of Joseph.  There are several problems with the theory of course but there are some interesting points in it.  They claim that in Matthew the original aramaic word for husband was simply stated as man.  The Greek and Aramaic versions that we have today show this.  In the geneology where it says Joseph the husband of Mary it is actually saying simply Joseph the Man of Mary.  Scholars easily point out that this use of the word Man was taken to mean Husband.  However, some have proposed the theory that in Aramaic, the word for man really means both Husband as well as Father.  They claim that the Joseph spoken of in Matthew is not Joseph the Husband of Mary Father of Jesus but was a Joseph the Father of Mary the Grandfather of Jesus.  
This theory of course clashes with tradition when it comes to naming the father of Mary, for this would increase the number of names from 2 to 3.  It also clashes with accepted theology about the mission of Jesus and the meaning of the fact that he was decended from kings (women not being able to inheirite the kingship or pass it on).  I personally do subscribe to this theory but it is a theory that is being taught out there and if it has any merit at all then we should probably think about getting facts on it so see if it should be included in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: suggested addition

message: No one has mentioned that all theories of Mary's descent from Judah instead of Joachim of the house of Amram along with her paternal uncle Zakarya and her cousin John the baptist, are as a result of protestant rejection of traditions in the wide and varied catholic churches explaining both Heli and Jacob as the Father and Stepfather (respectively) of Joseph.82.6.29.26 (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone should be free to mention it. But remember the difference between the apochryphic histories and church traditions and the Bible that is considered canon by all christians. Anyway, all priests were descendants of Aaron, and thus Amram. Summer Song (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

text: And, I suppose, the belief that Mary was from Levi alone is actually controversial. At least, it is new for me. I have heard most people suppose that her mother could be from Levi but her father from Judah. Her mother could be the sister of Elisabeth's mother. Summer Song (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Protestant doctrine of Biblical exegesis by Bible alone

message: I consider myself fairly well-read on the topic and I have to say, I have never heard of this idea that Jesus was the actual physical son of David, who died and then was resurrected 900 years later or whatever.  That sounds fairly silly to me. Wjhonson (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The section uses biblical references to support the POV but does not present whose POV it is.  I would suggest removing the section unless proper citation is provided.  If indeed this theory or POV is held by a notable amount of people, it might be more suitable as an article of its own, since it has little to do with the genealogies of Jesus presented in the Gospels. B Fizz (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be a view held by many, but I fail to see how it is any sillier than Jesus being the literal offspring of God.  The resurrection of a son of David -- one who died for David's sins -- to be Jesus who dies for everyone's sins, makes more sense than the Greek demigod doctrine taught by most Christians. Anyway some other sections could stand removing too, like Sons of Zerubbabel, unless they get sourced, that one is a big pile of maybes and what ifs. My two cents. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Son of David

message: I have removed the section for the reasons stated above.  --B Fizz (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: The text used to say "Problematic for rationalist readers".  I can't see how a rationalist position makes two divergent genealogies more problematic than another position, and there was no justification for the qualification in the text, so I removed the word "rationalist". --Dsaff (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the entire paragraph had problems.  Saying the differences were "problematic" was a bit POV.  Also, we say problematic for ancients, but only mention recents.  I tried rewriting. --Bertrc (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationalist

message: I propose organizing a section to address two intertwined topics: (1) what early extrabiblical sources have to say as to reconciling the two genealogies (specifically, levirate marriages); and (2) Jesus' maternal ancestry through Mary, which of course is only explicitly given in extrabiblical sources. 
The current article touches on these only in in giving Africanus's account of the Levirate marriage, and in suggesting that Heli might be father of Mary rather than of Joseph.
Although "genealogy of Jesus" could refer simply to the pedigrees from the gospels, the article title suggests this is the proper place to address Mary's genealogy as well, especially since it is little discussed in the Mary article and since her ultimate descent from David or from Levi is of special concern in this article. 
Extrabiblical accounts worth mentioning, perhaps even quoting: (1) Gospel of James, (2) Africanus, (3) Doctrina Jacobi, (4) John of Damascus. 
--SlothMcCarty (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extrabiblical sources and Mary's genealogy