Talk:Genealogy of Jesus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Terminology

Strictly specking, the descents displayed in the article are pedigrees, not genealogies. Fergananim 21:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Desposyni

I think the separate article at Desposyni is a confusing overlap to this one. — Reinyday, 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep separate. Desposyni are an encyclopaedic entry of their own.82.6.29.26 (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I too disagree with the merge. Desposyni deals with the immediate relatives of Jesus, where as this article is dedicated to the bloodline and ancestry of Jesus. They do, of course, include some necesary overlap, but they address two diffeerent topics. A merge would be more confusing and create a cumbersome, disjoint article. BobertWABC (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the two articles should remain seperate "Genealogy of Jesus" deals primarily with the ancestors of Jesus, whereas "Desposyni" deals with his contemporary relatives and their descendants. Besides, if we merged all of the info on Desposyni here it would make the article too long. The way the two articles stand now, with a brief mention of the Desposyni here and a link to that article is the best way to go. MishaPan (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul & Archive

I archived most of the talk, which has mostly been dead for a year or more.

I gave the article a much-needed (IMHO) overhaul. Too many sections, a bloated introduction, pet theories and conjectures and "so-and-so thinks that" scattered everywhere (which inevitably accumulate in an article of this nature), duplications, and general disunity. Having done the deed, let me briefly explain my rationale.

In organizing the commentary on the two genealogies, I found remarkably that practically every topic was referring just to Matthew's gospel. If Luke was mentioned at all, it was usually along the lines of "Matthew's genealogy is much too short to be plausible, unlike Luke's." There is very little to say in comparing the two gospels. So I made a short section on Luke and a much longer section on Matthew, making clear what pertains to each.

A central issue for this article is the apparent contradiction between the two genealogies, and how that contradiction might be explained. There is the major contradiction of Joseph having two fathers, besides minor inconsistencies such as the omissions in Matthew (which can be addressed separately). Clearly this is important, but the article discusses other topics too. So, let's keep discussion of the divergence and its possible explanations collected (with neutral treatment) in a single section.

Specifically—Though some say the divergence is unremarkable since the genealogies are obviously false, this is way too POV and ignores the importance of the controversy in history and scholarship. I'll illustrate the significance of the issue by reference to Augustine in the article. The Mary-daughter-of-Heli hypothesis has its fanboys who consider it an undisputed fact, but that view should not leak into the rest of the article. And the Levirate marriage, while important as a hypothesis, is also mentioned in the early sources as a tradition, so the content of this tradition is suitable for inclusion among other early extra-biblical traditions.

I left most of the article text intact, though reorganized, but I still think there is plenty of polishing to be done. Matthew, especially, is still a dumping ground, as is the Purpose and implications section I hastily added. I would like to trim down and balance some of the modern commentary, while documenting as many relevant facts as possible.

--SlothMcCarty (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking through the archives, and found some peculiar history to this article. It was created in 2005 as a stub, with little progress. On 7 Apr 2006, Clinkophonist merged all of the individual articles for Matthew 1:1 through Matthew 1:17 into this article. These articles were originally written by the illustrious SimonP (Simon Pulsifer), drawing primarily from Albright, Brown, and Gundry.

200 verses of Matthew was a lengthy discussion, or the last stages thereof, on whether to do a merge of some two hundred of SimonP's individual verse articles into chapter articles. According to SimonP, the idea had been previously discussed many times and always rejected, until a coup emerged that somehow met with little resistance. SimonP was particularly concerned that a merge would inevitably involve wholesale trimming down, which I must say is a fully justified concern. -Ril- (who has since been banned from Wikipedia) made an example merge of the Matthew 1:1–17 articles, comprising Mathew's genealogy of Jesus, on 5 Feb 2006. This example merge was apparently the basis of Clinkophonist's actual merge.

Now, you can see a number of consequences of this mode of development. The article, in its structure and content, was focused almost entirely on Matthew's text, rather than a well-planned and well-balanced treatment of the subject at hand. I like to respect the work of those who have gone before me, but in light of this, I think being bold is in order.

--SlothMcCarty (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the complimentary words. Since those deeply frustrating events I've avoided this subject area. I do still have them on my watchlist, and have remarked on the great work you have done with this article. The page has really improved. It's changed from a random collection of information on Matthew into a good overarching analysis. You know what you are doing, and should feel to proceed with whatever you feel is best for this article. - SimonP (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, SimonP, and I appreciate your kind words as well. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: these were excellent articles which I believe demonstrated that any blanket - or near blanket - condemnation of an article on a bible verse, which was the agenda being pushed, is invalid. While some of the arguments for having, for example, this article, are sound, there is still value in detailed analysis. It is notable that after this wholesale merger even my attempts to set a series of verse-by-verse redirects to other parts of the bible met with opposition. Part of the presumption of several Wikipedia editors on re-ordering of biblical content into a thematic-only approach, is a recentist approach which fails to realise that the divisions of the biblical books and other associated texts into chapters and verses was a very well informed process. I happened on the debate at the time and made some small contribution to one of the articles Matthew 1:9, partly as an experiment to see how much could be written about what, on the face of it is one of the most boring verses of the bible .. X begat Y... - it turns out to be quite a lot, and reasonably interesting, even without going deeply into textual variations or having ready access to a theological library. Certainly most if not all the information I added was dumped - as the editors of the day put it "consensus was redirect, not merge and redirect." Ineidentaly the redirect was originally to Matthew 1, itself now a redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 14:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC).

Recent edit wars

1. Jesus vs. Jose (generation 49 in Luke)—Actually Jesus is correct. Jose is the reading of the KJV, while Jesus is the reading of the more critical NA27/UBS4. I have also seen it "translated" as Joshua, which is arguably valid, but obscures an interesting point. Bauckham, for example, sees immense schematic significance in another Jesus occupying the "jubliee" (49th) position.

2. The intro, regarding the Luke/Mary hypothesis—Firstly, the bit about "traditional since 1490" is rather off. AFAIK, Annius of Viterbo published this in 1498, in a notorious forgery. The work was accepted by many at first, held in suspicion by others, and thoroughly refuted a century later. In the meantime, the notion was accepted by so many influential theologians (Luther, etc.) that it took on a life of its own. In other words, it was thought that the forgery had stumbled upon the correct solution. And it was not so much a tradition as a popular, though still hotly contested, theory.

Now, why is this particular hypothesis singled out at the end of the intro (it does not belong in the second paragraph, which lists contrasts rather than focusing on harmonization)? For one thing, it is a service to the reader who may elsewhere (e.g. other Wikipedia articles I can think of) encounter the hypothesis stated as fact. It is also notable that among harmonizations—i.e., excluding the possibility that the Gospels are not both correct—this is by far the most widely accepted. Not that there is any firm consensus. Now, how do we cite this? I can cite a particular author who surveys the literature and notes the trend among worthy scholars (worthy in someone's opinion, anyway). The author's own opinion would not be terribly relevant, except that authors tend to disproportionately cite those with whom they agree.

Arguments against the hypothesis are out of place in the intro. In fact, the statements recently inserted are not so much against this particular harmonization as against harmonization in general. There is a "fabrication or error" section to address that, though ideally we should do more than quote an unsupported dismissal from one or two authors.

--SlothMcCarty (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Not sure where to put this (since I think the virgin birth page (link from near top of this article) was vandalized, rather than this one), but the link to virgin birth of Jesus is redirecting to "Lie" 207.171.242.90 (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Fabrication or Error section

I've been trying to add an item which keeps being undone. The point of the item being: the divergence between the two genealogies can be seen as part of a larger pattern of inconsistencies between the two birth narratives in which they appear, problems which have been well documented by mainstream scholars including the one I sourced. This would tend to strengthen the case that the genealogies are a result of fabrication or error, which is the subject of the section being edited. As this section is only one of five under the heading of "Explanations for divergence", expanding it should be seen as contributing to an overall NPOV. Pekoebrew (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

First, the material added only talked about other alleged inconsistencies, unrelated to genealogy. Furthermore, you've presented only one pov, scholars have also argued that the birth narratives are consistent.Flash 01:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

The genealogies are both parts of the two birth narratives. Mainstream scholars have long recognized other inconsistencies between the birth narratives, which raise doubts about their overall historicity. The divergence between the genealogies can thus be seen as part of a larger pattern. In a section titled "Fabrication or Error", what other POV would you expect? Several other sections provide NPOV balance. Pekoebrew (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Mary before Joseph

The part right before Jesus should say "Mary and Joseph" not "Joseph and Mary"! I understand that this would make Mary the only female full member of the succession (by which I mean the main person at that point), but that is quite deliberate. Jesus was virgin born, which means Joseph was only Mary's husband and not actually Jesus' father. Jesus had no father except the Father. This is not a detail, but rather a main point. Because humans are incapable of parthenogenesis, no regular human can be born from a virgin. This is part of how we verify Jesus' divinity. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Aramaic

Should it be mentiond that in Aramaic versions of Matthew there are indeed 14 generations?
Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abihud, Abner, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eliezer, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus. 210.185.16.120 (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits regarding Heli

The quote that I restored here comes legitimately from a very real book. The book was obviously republished many years after the author's death. (The book, according to google books, was published in 1987, while the author, John Gresham Machen, died in 1937.) The theologian's point of view regarding the discrepancy in the genealogies is perfectly germane to the article and should stay. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverted on "The Adam and Eve Family Tree"

When I came to this article, I was looking for an unabridged, fully compiled lineage of Christ. Instead, all I found was a list of criticisms against the chapters Matthew 1 and Luke 3. As I was contemplating this problem, I stumbled across the Good Things Company. There it was, everything I wanted, all I had to do was cite it in Wikipedia. As usual for me, some cynic feels it necessary to delete my edit, no matter how many references I give. Ah, well, some people are just like that I guess.--Nate5713 (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. It is not a reliable source, and it is a commercial site and makes the article appear to be promoting the sale of their products. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, mentor, a most enlightening piece of literature, I must say, and can be boiled down to 3 words: 'reliable', 'verifiable', and 'sources'.

Is my source reliable? What is "reliable"? You seem to be making your own definition, "it must be unreliable because it is a commercial enterprise". Well, I get my definition from Wikipedia's policy, specifically WP:RS. I quote, "Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both.". That is why I gave as much information as I could on the publication. So that there would be no confusion as to the publication process for my source. The only thing this company does is make Biblical genealogies for a living; they certainly have authority on the subject. Do you know any other company that devotes their entire study to the completion of biblical Genealogies? If so, they would probably make a better source then mine. Otherwise, I have the most reliable source.

Is my source verifiable? You don't seem to question this, but just in case you do, I have the definition from the dictionary, Wikipedia's dictionary that is: Verifiable Adj., Etymology: Verify + Able. 1. Able to be verified or confirmed. This is the frustrating part with Wikipedia. Of course my sources are verifiable!. If you don't believe the Good Things Company, just open a Bible and verify or confirm their sources.

But can the poster, "the Adam and Eve Family Tree" be counted as a source, in the first place? After all, it's not a book, journal, or magazine, it's something that hangs on the wall. But does a source really need to have tunable pages in order to used on Wikipedia? Let's get back to your favorite article, WP:RS. I quote again, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." Let's see... A poster that only talks about the genealogy of Jesus Christ, and an article titled, "The genealogy of Jesus Christ". You know, I can't find anything similar, can you?--Nate5713 (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a notice board where you can ask if a source is a reliable source, take this to WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Luke's genealogy

It is interesting to note that every time the word "son" is mentioned in Luke 3, it is in italics in the English translation. This indicates that the word "son" was not in the original chapter 3 of Luke but was added in the English version for clarity. Thereby the original translation was: "23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the of Heli, 24 of Matthat, of Levi, of Melki,... " Etc. Perhaps Luke the Evangelist was not trying to show a genealogy, per say, but to show the general connection from Jesus to the prophet Nathan. We must remember that the Jewish hall of records was not destroyed until 70 A.D., so if Luke made a mistake, it would be instantly recognized. --Nate5713 (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the original Greek version I have here has the word son in it as:νἱὀς it is actually a word in there, it is not missing, so you will have to explain the italics in a different way. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If it adds anything to this discussion, the original Greek version can be viewed here. The word "νἱὀς" is not used, and is nowhere in the chapter. Please remember to cite your sources, even on a discussions page. LutherVinci (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Move material from Gospel of Matthew

We're currently revising Gospel of Matthew. That article has a long section on the genealogy which seems superfluous in that place given the excellent article here (hyperlinks exist precisely to allow us to avoid repeating material on various articles). I'll paste it here so editors of this article can mine it for anything that might be valuable to add. PiCo (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Material from Gospel of Matthew

After giving a genealogy from Abraham to Jesus, Matthew gives the number of generations from Abraham to David, from David to the deportation to Babylon, and from the deportation to Jesus as fourteen each. (In fact, the total number of men in the list, including both Abraham and Jesus, is only 41 in the Greek texts whereas the Syriac Curetonian, Syriac Sinaitic, and Dutillet Matthew have 42). Matthew traces the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, not Mary. Matthew puts Joseph a descendant of David's son Solomon while in Luke he is descended from another son of David, Nathan. After David, the lists coincide again at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (founder of the second temple) but then again part company until they reach Joseph through his father (Jacob according to Matthew; Heli in Luke).

These and other differences between Matthew's and Luke's genealogy have presented a problem for both ancient and modern readers of the Gospels. An early explanation given by Julius Africanus, was that supposedly on the authority of Jesus family, involving levirate marriage, Joseph's official father was not his biological father (see Genealogy of Jesus). Some have suggested that Matthew wants to underscore the birth of a messianic child of royal lineage (mentioning Solomon) whereas Luke's genealogy is priestly (mentioning Levi, but note that the Levi in question is not the ancestor of the Levites but rather the grandfather of Heli). According to Scott Gregory Brown, the reason for the difference between the two genealogies is that it was not included in the written accounts that the writers of the two Gospels shared (Gospel of Mark and Q). According to Howard W. Clarke, the two accounts cannot be harmonized and today the genealogy accounts are generally taken to be "theological" constructs.

Taken this way, writes Stanton, the genealogy foreshadows acceptance of Gentiles into the Kingdom of God: in reference to Jesus as "the Son of Abraham", the author has in mind the promise given to Abraham in Gen 22:18. Matthew holds that due to Israel's failure to produce the "fruits of the kingdom" and her rejection of Jesus, God's kingdom is now taken away from Israel and given to Gentiles. Another foreshadowing of the acceptance of Gentiles is the inclusion of four women in the genealogy (three of whom were Gentiles), something unexpected to a 1st century reader. According to Stanton, women are probably representing non-Jews to a 1st century reader. According to Markus Bockmuehl et al., Matthew is mentioning this to prepare his reader for the apparent scandal surrounding Jesus' birth by emphasizing the point that God's purpose is sometimes worked out in unorthodox and surprising ways.

A minority of scholars contend that the genealogies are authentic. They offer two possible explanations for the discrepancies in the genealogies: (1) Luke presents Mary’s genealogy, while Matthew relates Joseph’s; (2) Luke has Jesus’ actual human ancestry through Joseph, while Matthew gives his legal ancestry by which he was the legitimate successor to the throne of David.

Matrilineal genealogy

This article covers well the various patrilineal genealogies of Jesus. In its form as it stands today little is said about his matrilineal genealogy, apart from Mary's Mother, Anne/Hannah. This is no doubt due to paucity of sources and the patriarchal thinking of those who chose which books should comprise the gospels, and those who wrote them. Nevertheless, materials exist which mention Christs female ancestry at least back to his Great Grandmother; Emerentia (or possibly Ismeria). Surely this genealogy needs to be recorded here too, perhaps with caveats about the possibility that some of these may be later inventions. To fail to include this bloodline simply conspires with those who excluded Christ's female ancestry from the records in the first place, and leaves at least half the story untold. Riversider (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just created the WP article Emerentia, it references links to sculptures showing Emerentia, Anne, Mary and Jesus together http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/emerentia.html. I think this sculpture might be an interesting addition to the article giving an alternative matrilineal genealogy for the Christ.

Riversider (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Great article

Well done people! I guess there's more that can be done on this article, but basically, a lot of quite different theories are given fair treatment, and some guidelines for evaluating them are suggested in a helpful way. I'm really impressed, I hope we can achieve similar things with other articles. Alastair Haines 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

May have been then, but for the last year or two seems to have been unkempt, rundown and full of random entries by a number of drive-through editors... Seriously in need of help now. History2007 (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Genealogies prove Jesus was not an authentic Jew

The article fails to point out the simple fact that, in ancient times, Jewish women made Jews and not Jewish men. No Jew was authentic unless their mother was a Jew. One's patrilineal descent was only relevant in terms of identifying a Jew's particular tribe/house. But patrilineality was entirely irrelevant in terms of validating whether or not a person was an authentic, blood Jew.

It's only in the aftermath of the Roman/Jewish war (67-70AD) and the rise of pharisaical Judaism, that this basic fundamental constraint has been liberalized. Up until then, patrilineal Jews were of a lower caste, above converts, but below authentic blood Jews of matrilineal descent. Consequently, the assumption that Jesus was an authentic Jew is, literally, not born out by either the Matthew or Luke genealogies.

Furthermore, the suggestion that the Luke genealogy is a matrilineal genealogy defies common sense. A true matrilineal genealogy would not be a list of male names with the name of Mary conveniently placed at the bottom of the list in order to validate it, as such. It only stands to reason, that a matrilineal genealogy to establish the authenticity of a Jew would have to be a list of female and not male names.

These New Testament genealogies are undeniable proof of how The Bible is actually misleading in terms of being a reliable, historical, text; or, more importantly, how academic opinion fails to question biblical data as a factual source, but attempts to use it, as such. These genealogies do absolutely nothing in terms of establishing Jesus as a Jewish Messiah simply because they fail to validate the requirement that Jesus must be an authentic blood Jew (as determined by matrilineal and not patrilineal descent) in order to be a valid candidate for The Messiah. But the real failure, here, rests with Wikipedia's decision not to properly research and point out these very simple facts. Pvsalsedo (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source, and secondary sources to support that point of view? Otherwise this is just a statement from Pvsalsedo, and not something that can be included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a set on unsupported statements. No big deal there. But the rest of the article is no gem either now that I have looked at it. Reminds me of a late Saturday afternoon on a busy shopping street - with trash strewn all over... It needs a rewrite - by someone other than myself - I will not be working on it. History2007 (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Son of David, Son of Abraham: It seems clear that Jesus is of Abraham, and more specifically, He is of Israel, and more specifically, He is of Judah, and more specifically, He is of David, and more specifically, He is of Jeconiah. The complete lineage in the book of Mathew ends with Joseph the husband of Mary and it doe's not suggest that Jesus was included on that lineage. After giving that lineage Mathew states that there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David,fourteen from David to Jeconiah, and fourteen from Jeconiah to Jesus. This indicates that Jesus was on a lineage including Abraham, David and Jeconiah. Mathew did not give as much detail on the lineage to Jesus as he did on the lineage to Joseph. RCNesland (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Article is rundown, low quality, unkempt

The last year or two seems to have taken their toll on this article. It has been unkempt, rundown and is now full of random entries by a number of drive-through editors. No cohesion, plenty of errors, and even the 3rd parag of the lede has reference numbers with no references! So many items have gone through so many changes that it will be very hard to check them all. It would be best o take the tables, key issues and produce a shorter reliable article. I will not not be working on this, however. But it is in serious need of help. Can not be relied on at all. Will tag as such. History2007 (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sinful relationship of David and Bathsheba

While I am the first to admit that the initial stage of the relationship between David and Bathsheba was sinful, and that David compounded that sin by having Uriah placed in a position of certain death, I do have to disagree with the following: "Solomon's claim to the throne was doubtful because he was not the oldest son of David, but one of the younger sons. Also, Solomon was the son of David with Bathsheba, which was a sinful relationship." David and Bathsheba had married after her time of mourning had passed and she gave birth to a son. But 2 Samuel 12 describes how Nathan was sent to confront David with a story of two men, one rich, one poor. The rich man had a large number of animals while the poor man had only one sheep which he treated as if it were a child. The rich man had a traveler visiting and he did not wish to take from his flock to feed the traveler. Instead he took the poor man's lamb. David was angry and condemned the rich man to death as well as stating that he must make restitution to the poor man. The restitution he required was that stated in Exodus 22:1 which required a four-fold restitution for theft of a sheep. In pronouncing this sentence, David was essentially condemning himself to death. Nathan explained that HE was the man in the story. For that, the "sword would never depart [his] house" and that the Lord would "raise up adversity against [him] from [his] own house." He also would have his wives taken from him. They would be given to his neighbor, who would "lie with them in the sight of the sun". All of this was fulfilled in a number of events: the rape of David's daughter Tamar by his son Amnon (2 Sam. 13:1-14); the murder of Amnon by Absalom, who was the sister of Absalom (2 Sam. 13:28, 29); the rebellion of Absalom against David (2 Sam. 15:1-12); and finally David's concubines being appropriated by Absalom during his rebellion (16:21, 22). David realized his sin and admitted it without making excuses or rationalizing his behavior. Nathan then told him, "The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.". He then told David that his sin, which caused the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, would mean that the child born to him and Bathsheba would die (2 Sam. 12:13-14). The fact that God "put away" the sin of David constituted forgiveness, but did not remove the consequences of that sin. When the child became ill, David fasted and prayed that God would not take the child. The servants were afraid to tell him the child had died, but David knew from their whisperings that the child was dead. He then rose from where he lay and ate, which caused his servants much confusion. They asked him why he had behaved that way. He responded that while the child lived, there was still hope that God would change His mind, but after the death of the child, his fasting and prayers would not bring the child back. He stated that instead, he would one day go to the child. (2 Sam. 12:22-24). After this, the chapter concludes that David comforted Bathsheba and she bore a son whom they named Solomon, which means either "God is peace" or "His replacement". 2 Samuel:24-25 states, "Now the Lord loved him, 25 and He sent word by the hand of Nathan the prophet: So he called his name Jedidiah, because of the Lord". The first two meanings of Solomon's name happened to be true in that he was essentially a replacement (as much as one child can replace another) for the child who died and because unlike David who fought on all sides it seems, Solomon's reign was a time of relative peace. The name Jedidiah meant "Beloved of the Lord" which was also shown later to be true.

In the beginning chapter of 1 Kings, we see that the fourth son of David, Adonijah, who was also probably the oldest living son of David after the death's of Amnon and Absalom that were told of in the previous book, as well as a son named Chileah, who is not mentioned after his birth and likely died during his youth, tried to garnish support for his reign when the death of David occurred. He invited men such as: Joab (David's nephew as well as commander of the army of Israel and supporter of David's kingship who also was guilty of the killings of Abner and Amasa); Abiathar (one of the two High-Priests who served during David's reign); the men of Judah; the king's servants; and the rest of David's sons, who were his brothers (David had at least , aside from Solomon. He invited them to what was essentially a political event that was to secure his claim to the throne. Also not invited were the second High-Priest, Zadok, Nathan, the prophet; Benaiah, commander of David's guards the Cherethites and Pelethites who had been cited for their bravery (2 Sam. 23:20); or the "mighty men" (2 Sam. 23:8-39).

Nathan spoke to Bathsheba and counseled her to remind David of his promise to make Solomon king and to inform him of Adonijah's activities. His advice was a reminder essentially that had Adonijah been made king, the lives of Bathsheba and Solomon were likely at risk because it happened that other potential claimants to a throne along with their families were put to death to ensure they did not try to make their claim to the throne. As she was speaking to David, Nathan arrived to tell David what Adonijah had done. This resulted in David making Solomon his co-regent that very day. David essentially had those that were not invited by Adonijah called to him and ordered that his own mule be given to Solomon to ride and that they take him to Gihon and have Zadok and Nathan anoint him as king. David also stated they were to sound the horn and proclaim "Long live King Solomon!" and that he was then to sit on David's throne and be king in his place. Adonijah and the men gathered with him heard the horn and the rejoicing of the people and they wondered why the city was in an uproar. Abiathar's son Jonathan was a messenger and came to tell Adonijah the news of Solomon's coronation which caused Adonijah to take refuge by grabbing the horns of the altar.

The Lord appeared to Solomon one night in a dream after he had gone to Gibeon to make a sacrifice. God asked Solomon what he should be given by the Lord. Solomon acknowledged the Lord's kindness in putting him on the throne, and stated that he was a child (he was likely around 20 years old) and did not have the experience or wisdom that he needed to judge the people he referred to as "a great people, too numerous to be numbered or counted" and he asked for "an understanding heart to judge" the people. He asked to be able to judge God's great people (1 Kings 3:4-9). To me, this does NOT suggest that his claim to the throne was doubtful due to the prior sinful relationship of his parents. When he was born, they were a married couple that had repented, or at least David had, and had been forgiven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WayneyP (talk • contribs) 13:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Nathan the third son?

I'm tempted to change, in reference to Nathan, "a minor son", which is rather vague, to "the third son", which is more specific, but I hesitate to do so, because although I came across a statement that he was the third son of David and Bathsheba in Jerusalem, I'm not sure whether he was indeed David's third son. Funfree (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Jeconiah ben Josiah

Jeconiah, the father of Shealtiel, the father of Zerubbabel, the father of Abihud, the father of Eliakim, the father of Azor, the father of Zadok, the father of Achim, the father of Eliud, the father of Eliazar, the father of Matthan, The father of Jacob, The father of Joseph was an ancestor of Jesus. Joseph was a thirteenth generation decendant from Jeconiah while Jesus was a decendant of Jeconiah in the forteenth generation. This suggests that Jesus was related to Joseph as an eleventh cousin once removed. RCNesland (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm befuddled. Are you implying that Joseph, the father (adoptive or not) of Jesus, was related to Jesus through Mary? In your long opening sentence, it isn't clear what the subject is, of "was an ancestor of Jesus". Are you referring to Jeconiah, and saying that Jesus was a fourteenth-generation descendent through Mary, while her husband was a thirteenth-generation descendent of Jeconiah, too? That seems reasonable. Of interest, too, would be whether Jesus was descended from Zadok not only through Mary, but also through Joseph, giving him a legitimate claim, not only to kingship through the (disputed) Davidic line, but also to the priesthood, as a patrilineal descendent.

(I must confess to confusion over "high priest", "chief priest", and various other priests, whether full-time, part-time, rotating, or simply serving, and the connections of all of these to their genealogies.)

I've heard it said that Jesus was prophet, king, priest, and Messiah, not only de facto (in fact), but also de jure (legitimately). Funfree (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"or and to"

Is there a mistake here? Funfree (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Genealogies as inventions

There appears to be a slow edit war over "Modern biblical scholars see both genealogies as inventions". I cannot see the reference to see if it says this, but even if it does, the statement is an over-generalisation. Perhaps it should say "Liberal biblical scholars see both genealogies as inventions" as there are still biblical scholars around that say they are literally true, or it could say "most", "many" or "some" depending on references that adequately represent the range of opinions extant that can be found. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

New articles on the Genealogies of Jesus

Dear editors, I ask you to examine the possibility of including information and quotation of my articles "The Genealogies of Jesus" and "The Genealogies of Jesus: a complementation" in your text to improve it and bring it up to date. The articles can be found at the following addresses: http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/revista-biblica/71_3-4_193.pdf and http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/revista-biblica/73_3-4_117.pdf They were published in Spanish in "Revista Biblica" (Buenos Aires, Argentina); but they appear translated into English, Spanish and Portuguese in those addresses. They contain new details and data on the issue. Thank you for your attention and analysis. 191.205.231.253 (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Adylson Valdez. March/22/2016.

New details and data on new articles on the Genealogies of Jesus

Dear editors, I ask you to examine the possibility of including information and quotation of my articles "The Genealogies of Jesus" and "The Genealogies of Jesus: a complementation" in your text to improve it and bring it up to date. The articles can be found at the following addresses: http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/revista-biblica/71_3-4_193.pdf and http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/revista-biblica/73_3-4_117.pdf They were published in Spanish in "Revista Biblica" (Buenos Aires, Argentina); but they appear translated into English, Spanish and Portuguese in those addresses. They contain new details and data on the issue. Thank you for your attention and analysis. Adylson Valdez. March/22/2016. 187.57.120.191 (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

* Legal inheritance * and *Virgin Birth*/Clarification of adoption and lineage according to Jewish law.

I entered a comment at the end of the "Legal Inheritance" section of the article, clarifying Jewish law, Biblical and later, as it relates to genealogical reckoning and to adoption, on 24 March 2016. I see now that it has been deleted, indeed, that it was deleted almost immediately on the same day by Ryn78. Other brief references to the same topic that I entered into the sections on "Virgin Birth" and "New Testament Apocrypha" were also deleted in toto.

The "Legal inheritance" comment came at the end of that section. It was as follows:

″However, all of the above assumes that Jewish law relating to adoption, the law followed in Judea by all observant Jews and stated by Jesus in Matt. 23:1-3 to be obligatory on his followers, was identical to Roman law. It was not. Actually, there is no adoption in Jewish law, either Biblical or Rabbinic, Written Torah or Oral Torah. Furthermore, lineage is always passed on in the male line, not the female line. The mother passes on Jewish identity, but not formal lineage." [The footnote citation here was:]"See, on this, the articles "Adoption" by Lewis Dembitz and Kaufmann Kohler in The Jewish Encyclopaedia (1906), now available online at: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/852-adoption, and "Adoption" by Jeffrey H. Tigay and Ben-Zion (Benno) Schereschewsky in the Encyclopaedia Judaica (1st ed. 1972; the entry is reproduced again in the 2nd ed.), Vol. 2, col. 298-303. Lineage cannot be artificially transferred; one's natural parents are always one's parents. Guardianship, however, conveys most other rights and duties. Schereschewsky summarizes, col. 301: "Adoption is not known as a legal institution in Jewish law. According to halakhah [Jewish law] the personal status of parent and child is based on the natural family relationship only and there is no recognized way of creating this status artificially by a legal act or fiction. However, Jewish law does provide for consequences essentially similar to those caused by adoption to be created by legal means. These consequences are the right and obligation of a person to assume responsibility for (a) a child's physical and mental welfare and (b) his financial position, including matters of inheritance and maintenance."

I leave this for editors at this webpage to re-introduce into the article at the appropriate points. I am not interested in an edit-war, so I will withdraw from the discussion after this. But I would like to add the following references: the above-mentioned Encyclopaedia Judaica article, in its 2008 2nd edition version is available on the internet (the quoted passage is retained verbatim: see the opening sentences of the section "Later Jewish Law," written by Ben-Zion (Benno) Schereschewsky), at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0001_0_00486.html. The article reviews Biblical law and precedents as well as Talmudic and later Jewish law. Also relevant is the same Encyclopaedia's article on "Apotropos," i.e., guardianship, at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01191.html, and the introduction to these two articles helpfully summarizing the main points, by the editors of the Jewish Virtual Library, "Issues in Jewish Ethics: Adoption," at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/adoption.html Also see the series of five articles or chapters by R. Michael J. Broyde, "The Establishment of Maternity and Paternity in Jewish and American Law," at the Jewish Law website http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/maternity1.html, in particular the opening comments to the first chapter and the whole discussion in its chapter "IV. Adoption and Establishing Parental Status," at http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/maternity4.html.

There actually is a very powerful theological reason for these features of Jewish law. I offer it here as an aside and clarification, but need not expand on it. According to Biblical teaching, already in the first chapter of Genesis, humanity is created in the divine image refracted into and actualized in the complementary communion and roles of male and female, with loving creation itself mirrored in the procreation and raising of children. At each conception, according to Rabbinic teachings, there are three involved and present, the two parents, and God as enabler, witness and sealer of the new life. What God has enabled, witnessed and sealed, no human court can abolish. One therefore always has the ancestry of one's natural parents. "Honoring your parents" is therefore part of the Ten Commandments and in the first set of five commandments said to be about the relationship between humanity and God, not in the second set which is about the concomitant relationships of humanity to each other. The honoring of parents as a commandment always refers therefore first of all to the natural parents, even though in many respects, it is taught, guardian- or custodial-parents should also be honored in the same way.110.22.140.136 (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genealogy of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327165542/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Luke.pdf to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Luke.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Matthew - Omissions

In the sub-section 'Omissions' in 'Matthew', it says 'The author probably felt justified in omitting them in creating a second set of fourteen.' Is this the opinion of the user who edited the entry, or is it the opinion of John Nolland, the cited source's author? If it is the opinion of the former, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If it is the opinion of the latter, it should say, 'According to John Nolland, ...'--Jcvamp (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jcvamp: Nolland writes: "The loss of three generations of kings is necessary to achieve the required fourteen generations from David to the Exile. [...] Matthew has [...] been able not only to ensure the symmetry of his fourteen generation pattern [...] but also to evoke the curse on the household of Ahab to the third generation which engulfed, as well, these three generations of the kings of Judah." (p. 142)

It's more of a factual statement, attributed to Nolland, than his opinion: it's necessary to remove some kings to have only 14 generations from this period, and, with that it becomes possible to omit the really embarrassing ones. "The author probably felt justified in omitting them in creating a second set of fourteen" is not, strictly speaking, what the source says. It should say: "The author could have omitted them to create a second set of fourteen".– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've change it to say that and remove the tag. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The ones omitted are Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah.:

• Ahaziah of Judah is a rather obscure king, whose reign reportedly lasted for a year. He allied himself with his maternal uncle Jehoram of Israel. According to the Books of Kings, Ahaziah was mortally wounded in battle by Jehu and died shortly after. According to the Books of Chronicles, he was simply assassinated on orders by Jehu. The Tel Dan Stele features an Aramean king (possibly Hazael) bragging that he killed Ahaziah. Which means that we have three different death accounts for the same person.
• Jehoash of Judah ruled for an estimated 40 years. He rose to the throne in a coup d'état, deposing and killing his grandmother Athaliah. His reign begins with a bloodbath, killing the priests of Baal and destroying their altars. For over 20 years, Jehoash seems to have been a loyalist of Yahweh, then he forsake him and started worshipping other deities. Jehoash reportedly executed the prophet Zechariah ben Jehoiada, for daring to criticize him. He also lost wars against his enemy Hazael. He was eventually assassinated in a palace conspiracy. His name appears in the Jehoash Inscription, but most scholars consider it a forgery.
• Amaziah of Judah ruled for an estimated 29 years. He is commemorated for an act of mercy early in his reign: he executed the assassins who killed his father, but spared their children and avoided collective punishment. His next great act was invading Edom, defeating and possibly reconquering it. However, he reportedly started worshipping the gods of Edom. An overconfident Amaziah next challenged Jehoash of Israel in warfare. The armies of Israel managed to capture Amaziah himself, captured and looted Jerusalem, and left with much treasure and hostages. The increasingly unpopular Amaziah was then assassinated. The Books of Chronicles comment that Amaziah "did what was right in the sight of the Lord, but not with a loyal heart".

Among them only Jehoash has a reputation for cruelty. The Gospel on Matthew instead commemorates Uzziah, who is not exactly a beloved figure in the Bible. While pious to Yahweh, Uzziah attempted to "usurp the prerogatives of the priest" and to act as a priest in his own right. He was supposedly punished for his excessive pride with leprosy. Even after his death, people feared to approach Uzziah's tomb: "That lonely grave in the royal necropolis would eloquently testify to coming generations that all earthly monarchy must bow before the inviolable order of the divine will, and that no interference could be tolerated with that unfolding of the purposes of God. Dimadick (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ahaziah

In the genealogy of Matthew, no. 21 is given as Ahaziah. it is linked to the article Uzziah which says "also known as Azariah" Is this a mistake? Ahaziah is someone else, not actually listed in Matthew's genealogy. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Uzziah should not be called Ahaziah, I've corrected it. - Lindert (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Descendant ? Error

when I heard Jesus was the son of David immediately made me wonder; If jesus's link to David is from joesph his [adopted] father's side, then he wouldn't/couldn't be a descendant of David. Unless the following statement is not true "Mary mother of Jesus is a virgin and God is jesus' father" only way he could be a direct descendant. This would then mean Jesus is not divine just a human rather than both God and human. Does My thoughts/argument make sense? Wild like to hear others thoughts. Cbrieeze (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"Mary mother of Jesus is a virgin and God is jesus' father" That is clearly not true. The supposed virginity of Mary is based on the accounts of the Gospel of Luke and Gospel of Matthew, but neither the Gospel of Mark nor the Gospel of John mention anything of this sort. The Gospel accounts go to pains to trace Jesus' genealogy back to David, because the true Messiah was supposed to originate from the Davidic line. Dimadick (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Eliakim

Incorrect link in list of Matthew's genealogy. List item 32. Bud Hiram (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Revert

Reason for revert: WP:SPS. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

John Damascene issues

Two separate issues involving John Damascene:

(1) The "Explanations for divergence" section states that John Damascene argued that Jacob died childless, and that Heli took his wife and begat Joseph. However, the quoted citation states the reverse: that Heli died childless, and that Jacob took his wife and begat Joseph.

(2) Near the end of the section on Luke's genealogy, John of Damascus (same guy) is portrayed as endorsing the idea that Heli was the maternal grandfather of Jesus, thus that Luke traced the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. The 1882 citation (Philip Schaff) endorses that idea, but nowhere mentions John of Damascus. The same portrayal for John's view appears elsewhere in the article, no citation given. Would he really have argued for both explanations?

I may take a shot at cleaning this up, unless somebody else wants to take it on. Assambrew (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I have edited as described above; more edits are probably needed. John of Damascus endorsed a Levirate marriage argument to explain the variant geneologies. Despite claims to the contrary, he did NOT originate nor endorse the "Mary ancestry in Luke" idea, as this quote demonstrates: "Matthew derives Joseph from David through Solomon, while Luke does so through Nathan; while over the Virgin's origin both pass in silence." (An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:14) Assambrew (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I have completed edits correcting the John of Damascus references. Also edited intro to Doctrina Jacobi quote which does not relate Mary to Luke's genealogy, rather gives a different genealogy that ascribes Davidic ancestry to Mary. Assambrew (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)