Talk:Davidic line

Untitled
Discussions from this page can be found in the following link due to the article size
 * /Archive1- 04 January 2006
 * /Archive2- 11 January 2006 (Topics mostly include BUPC view of davidic line and discussion thereof)

Rewrite of Baha'i View
I did a rewrite of the Baha'i section on this page. Hopefully the whole question of who believes what, and to what extent they claim or don't claim it should be clear. No claim is made on behalf of the majority group, specifically the fact the the universal house of justice in haifa has not made any official statement is mentioned. Also, I think it's a little easier to read and cleaner (I hope), without removing any information. I did remove the reference about BUPC believing that christ means messiah, because that's not a belief, that's the common translation, and it's common to christians and linguists too. It seemed too obvious and not to add anything, so I removed it. Lastly, I moved the external bupc site link to a reference to the beliefs-section in the bupc wiki page in the See Also section. The external link is redundant, since it's already on the bupc wiki page -- Christian Edward Gruber 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
Shouldn't the bulk of the arguments presented earlier as BUPC beliefs be re-phrased into an article that's part of the BUPC set of pages? Why it's all on this talk page I'm not really sure. This is not the best forum to present the perspective of the BUPC, I think. Just a thought -- Christian Edward Gruber 00:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

BUPC "Adoptions"
I don't know why noting the tradition of adoptions as particular to the BUPC is termed POV. Jensen's The Most Mighty Document is certainly particular to the BUPC, outlines the group's rather broad interpretations of "adoption", and is a foundational document to Chase's claims to the Exilarchy and Guardianship. Neglecting to state that this string of adoptions includes several of this type could lead a reader to think that each of these were what would be regularly termed "legal adoptions." MARussellPESE 13:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Noone said the statement was POV. I removed it because it's an extraneous comment, but if you're going to make a federal case about it, whatever.  It was removed along with other things that were POV, biased, or unverified.  That comment is spurious and uneccessary in my POV, for it implies that the adoptions are not valid and "particular" only to the BUPC, which they most certainly are not.  They are all legal adoptions, and Chases has been recognized in more than one court case, most recently by the U.N. WIPO hearings where the BUPC was awarded UHJ.NET over the headless UHJ. So I guess one could say "particular to the BUPC, the Montana Supreme Court, and the United Nations", right?User:Jeffmichaud 06:10 12 January 2006


 * The WIPC case is so completely off-point as to not deserve mention beyond noting that this is characteristic of the non sequitur reasoning throughout this discussion. The WIPC didn't care who adopted whom, only who was the organization brought before the arbitration.


 * As noted previously, all that would be necessary to close the "adoptions" question would be to present adoption papers recorded in such-and-such a government office. That's too much to ask, however, as Mason Remey's adoption is not so recorded. But we are, nevertheless, expected to acquiesce and accept that this and all the others "most certainly are" "all legal adoptions". MARussellPESE 15:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

~Wrong again. But, like I said, whatever. The Jews didn't accept Jesus because he didn't fullfill their expectations of the Messiah. This is not to draw a comparison to their stations, but their failure to meet others expectations; Neal and Mason's adoptions are not invalid because they don't meet your expectations of a legal adoption. The fact is they are, and have been upheld in legal proceedings more than once.

In the WIPO case they did take into consideration who is the true UHJ, for that was in question, and the question was resolved by looking into the Will&Testament. We have a Guardian who meets the criteria of the W&T (Aghsan and appointed), whereas the sans-Guardian UHJ doesn't even have one to point to, so are obviously operating outside the established Charter for the Institution. You're just plain wrong, and as in most such cases, are attacking the messanger instead of righting your wrongs. You're obviously unfamiliar with the case, and are shooting from the hip. Furthermore, when it comes to succession of leadership of a religious organization, these matters are protected by the 1st Amendment, under freedom of religion. It's not even worth explaining any further. You've won your great victory. Congratulations. Whatever! User:Jeffmichaud 02:01 14 January 2006

Use of the term sect
One of the biggest thing I've seen in the latest little edit match between MARussellPESE and jeffmichaud is switching which groups claiming to be Baha'is get use the term "group", or are labelled with "sect". While "sect" is a reasonable term applied without point of view, it nevertheless has a flavour of diminuation to it, and the way it's been re-applied by members of "the other" group in this page and others is particularly troubling.

I would like to propose (and I may be a culprit here, by the way) that we abandon the use of hte term "sect" in any reference to any group claiming to be Baha'i. Period. We can use the terms "organization", "group", or in the cases of specific institutions use their names.

What I want to do is, frankly, to keep MAR and Jeff (currently) and others in general from flipping back and forth between unseemly re-edits of the beliefs. I'd also appreciate it if each could consider the edits of the other for a little while before re-editing it. Cool heads need to consider this. This is not a forum for advantage, this is a service to the wider community. Admittedly, that's my own POV, but nevertheless. I think we're close to a fair presentation of both, and we're now in the process of jockeying for position with subtleties. I think we need to stop it and be fair. -- Christian Edward Gruber 14:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed — "sect" is terribly loaded; especially when applied to the larger of two groups. One doesn't refer to Sunnis as a sect; nor the Shia. Ismailis might be correctly referred to as such, but would likely take offense.


 * Respectfully, I deleted references to either group as a "sect" on 09:41, 11 January 2006. I prefer to use proper names.


 * I'm not comfortable with edits that obfuscate verifiable issues — such as stating that the House of Justice is the only institution with nothing to say, or neglecting to state that the adoptions, which are at the center of the BUPC's institutions, are not based upon their particular views of them.


 * I agree with Christian that the BUPC POV this belongs on the BUPC page with a brief reference here that these beliefs are specifically theirs and not the Baha'is. The "Christian point of view" section is a very good model. MARussellPESE 19:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

~While I would normally maintain that Christian is the most disciplined NPOV contributor I've come across, I just have to point out that in this particular case it was he who first used the label "sect" to describe the BUPC, and "mainstream group" for his own sect. Hence, the "loading". As this whole section was reworked recently by him, it was in fact he who created the dynamic of the term "sect" being used to describe the BUPC; I therefore chose to apply it across the board. No offense, right?

It is my own POV that this whole recent rewrite, while it is far superior to any previous versions I've seen, still contains far too many redundancies. I say this for the conclusion of the statements from the Haifans is that they have no position on the matter. Well neither do the Mormons, or the Republicans, etc. Let's just list everyone who has no position on the matter. Oh that would be redundant, right? If the point is to distinguish the Haifans (who have nothing to contibute to the subject) from the BUPC, then what was wrong with the article (which included the "Note:" of distinction) in the first place? I can't see how this is even a "Baha'i View" when clearly the only Baha'is with a view on the matter are the BUPC alone. What was wrong with the original "BUPC View" version?

Furthermore, MARussell would like the reader to believe that the "Central Figures" take no position on it when Baha'u'llah stated he was "seated on the throne of David" (Proclamation), Abdu'l-Baha stated that the verses from Isaiah 11 applied "word for word" to his father in SAQ, and Shoghi Effendi confirms this stating he was the "Glory of the Lord", "established on the Throne of David" in GPB. The statement is therefore NOT TRUE according to the Explicit Texts of 3 of the 4 "Central Figures", and should be stricken. And, as the UHJ is only to have opinions on matters not contained in the Explicit Text, they of course cannot take a position contrary to the Explicit Text, which in this case maintain that he was in fact seated on the throne of David, as do "the histories of by-gone ages". To this I have completely and thoroughly documented in /Archive2 to wit none of my final presentation of facts and sources has been challenged. Therefore I contend that this whole matter be stricken from the "Baha'i View", as the statements contained therein completely contradict reality, for the reasons stated. User:Jeffmichaud 01:54 12 January 2006


 * Well someone is contradicting reality. Without getting into the same details again, normal Baha'is, including Shoghi Effendi, interpreted the throne of David figuratively, and never have placed any emphasis on a literal physical descent. There is a huge vault of poetic scripture that speak figuratively of things like that, and another huge vault of commentary by Shoghi Effendi making explicit comments about everything of importance, down to minute details. Nowhere is there the emphasis that Mr. Leland has on the matter, so it's important to note that, rather than making the reader think that it's a fundamental Baha'i belief.


 * The link to the article on the Davidic Dynasty was deleted again. Just for the record, I think that should be on there. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  02:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

~Welcome to this 2 month old discussion. Thanks for contributing nothing verifiable, or sourced, but simply weighing in with a superiority complex the size of Oregon. Those broad sweeping statements would surely have put me in my place, and would be impressive if they could be shown true. The Central Figures must be so proud at your valiant effort at defending the Covenant against us un-normal Baha'is. User:Jeffmichaud 12:50 13 January 2006

Please stop - please everybody for the love of Baha'u'llah please stop. This is ludicrous. Not only that, this is bad for Baha'u'llah's cause, whichever flavour you adhere to. It casts ridicule upon His community.

Let me first just say that I already admitted that I was likely a culprit (at the time I couldn't remember, nor be bothered to check) about the "sect" term use. Please take it as read that I have re-considered my use of the term, and stated so above. Second, it is reasonable to mention that the leadership of the group that leads the vast (95%+) majority of Baha'is does not consider this belief a core doctrine (as interpreted literally by the BUPC). The reason it is reasonable so to mention is that to not mention it makes it seem that the BUPC view is more widely held among Baha'is, or more importantly, that it's officially held by the group headed by that body. Regardless of the truth or falsehood of this interpretation, the literal lineal descent by birth-and-blood is not "doctrine". If one doesn't accept that Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God, one can reasonably say that one is not a Baha'i. If one doesn't accept the lineal, literal, suitable-for-property-inheritance descent of Baha'u'llah from David, then that is not heterodox. If I follow the Universal House of Justice, and believe in the above doctrine - I suspect they would not care. However, more to the point, they have never written that I must care. Shoghi Effendi has not provided explicit clarification of the details of the above. He has said things that lead Jeff and others to conclude that he meant the above doctrine, but "seated on the throne" does not mean literally descended, however much someone may see it as implying the same. Baha'i books, baha'i communities, in the main, just don't talk about it. Jeff is asking for a source for the negative. You cannot prove a negative. If the majority of Baha'is don't care, they're not going to bother to write that they don't care. It's reasonable to not say "baha'is don't care" as a firm assertion, but the wording "many baha'is don't care" is reasonable both in letter and in spirit. In my 16 years of exposure to Baha'is in several communities all over north-america, including ex-christian evangelicals who would conceivably care about such prophesies, they mostly just don't. This whole discussion is ludicrous. We should find a reasonable way of expressing the BUPC position on the matter, identify that "as a doctrine" it is of primary importance only to them (or that evidence that it is important to other Baha'i groups is not available - can't prove a negative after all), and move the heck on. We all seem to have way too much time on our hands. If we love Baha'u'llah, we will not subject his community to ridicule this way. -- Christian Edward Gruber 18:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hughes' Davidic Dynasty
Since my original comments about David Hughes are now buried in Archive 2, I feel I must quote them here, as it is being stated that "This is a bona-fide source Jeffmichaud referenced". Here's my one mention of this URL:
 * "In briefly surfing the web for more information I find that David Hughes in his article on the “Davidic Dynasty” (see below attached) has also published Baha’u’llah’s Genealogy back to exilarch Bostanai in the unbroken male line as well giving all the ancestors each and everyone by the Baduspanid reckoning that Fadl wrote about and Baha’u’llah Himself confirmed in His Tablets." ~12/28/05

In section 16 of that page an unbroken chain of father to son descendents is listed from Bostanai to Baha'u'llah. The lineages of David Hughes Davidic Dynasty have been misrepresented and misunderstood by MARussell. I made an exhaustive effort to point out the flawed conclusions reached by MARussell following his exhaustive under-educated rant about the site's genealogies. Instead of acknowledging these clarifications, my comments went unacknowledged, and have since been archived. It is now being falsely asserted that the discrepencies between Hughes' flawed data and the BUPC's exhaustively researched genealogy chart somehow indicates that the BUPC is in error, as it is being assumed that Hughes is a final authority on the matter. Even though this couldn't be further from the truth, Hughes' genealogy is nearly identical to the BUPC genealogy chart, save a generation or two where he can be shown to be in error. Since the thoroughly sourced proof of this has been ignored and now buried in Archive 2 (7 days from it's creation), I'll have to restate some of it here; because 1) his chart contains flaws of which are dwarfed only by the flaws of MARussell's conclusions, and 2) he's in no way an expert on the subject, as this will show, and shouldn't be referenced as such. Note above, that my only reference to him was in light of the fact that other non-Baha'i sources have linked Baha'u'llah to Bostanai. Showing that I'm once again being maligned and marginalized by misrepresentations of clearly stated views. So that there can be no further confusion, here is what else I've stated on the matter.
 * Fullly sourced explanation available in final post, 4 January 2006, in Archive 2 (repetitive quotes contained in this original message removed by me out of politeness). User:Jeffmichaud 12:46 13 January 2006


 * Whether Jeffmichaud or the BUPC considers the Hughes documentation bona fide or not is irrelevant. It exists, and is the only documentation available for inspection. That the BUPC "documentation" is not available for inspection leaves the reader with only the Hughes work to consider; and the question as to whether or not it exists.


 * That the Hughes work contradicts the BUPC charts in not irrelevant. Ignoring this is dishonest; and excising it from the article is suppression.


 * Jeffmichaud makes the mistake that silence regarding his repetitive argumentation is acquiescence. It actually reflects the argument's lack of substance, and personal lack of interest.


 * Noting that Jeffmichaud is now quoting himself again and again out of the archive, this repetitive argumentation fails as argumentum ad nauseum, and is laced with ad hominem attacks, non sequitur reasoning, specious information, and unsubstatiable assertion. MARussellPESE 15:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

~Bravo on your command of the Latin language. We're all so impressed. How can you say that the subject has "lacked personal interest" when you've picked apart every sentence I've written for the last 6 weeks trying to disprove the BUPC position (who put you in charge of that, anyways?). Now that I've exhaustively sourced and baby-stepped you through the backround information one needs when approaching this subject, effectively shining a bright light on your ignorance, you claim this is not of personal interest? How convenient. For the love of God, stop. Everyone! We're not going to argue the truth of BUPC positions here. It's not relevant. What's relevant is what can be demonstrated (or the fact of what can't be demonstrated) with regards to this belief, and list such sources as are available. Absent any sources, you put what we know. Absent good sources, we put what crappy sources we have. If we don't like sources, we, using NPOV language, identify that the source is questioned by X group or X scholar, etc. If hughes thing is a source, he can be a total nut-case and he can still be sourced - qualify the bloody source. And I really wish that people could understand the point of archiving. We can link into the archive, but re-posting what has been archived is extremely impolite and near to spamming. Especially since the cited archived text is intended to argue a position. This page is not about arguing a position. Wikipedia is not about arguing a position. External web-pages are good for that, and link them in to support the existance of hte belief. But don't argue for the truth or falsehood of a belief here. Frankly even "Baha'is under the provisions of the Covenant" believe "X" is much better than just stating "X". Wikipedia is not a platform, it's an encyclopedia. Can we all just please deal with it? Plenty of things that Baha'is, Christians, Muslims, and others would prefer did not appear are on their relative pages - because this is a communal resource, and it should, insofar as it is worded, be accurate. -- Christian Edward Gruber 19:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) You claimed I cited it as a bonafide source, and now that you've been corrected with what I actually did say, you're calling foul for me being repetitive. Stop putting lies in my mouth and repeating myself won't be neccessary.  Now it doesn't matter whether he's a reliable source?  Is this a new policy?
 * 2) It is your contribution of "though there is disagreement about the accuracy of this descent" that I must take issue with. It cannot stand in this article, because unless you provide a source that actually DOES verify this, the statement is false with the link you provided.
 * 3) Hughes' work does not contradict the BUPC's, your uneducated interpretation of what you read does. There is one name that's different, and Fadl's work alone shows Hughes is the one in error.  Nothing else contradicts our chart, as the names in Hebrew are the same names in Persian.  You have falsely leapt to erroneously flawed conclusions showing how little you actually know about the subject.
 * 4) Otherwise his info is accurate, FTMP. It is YOUR interpretation of the work that is in disagreement, not the list of names, for that is all that entire cite is.  It's not a scholarly disertation, as you imply, but a list of names.  And you're entirely wrong as I showed in my reply. That the older children, for instance, have a superior claim is just plain ignorant, as is the rest of your "conclusions".
 * 5) I provide no less than a dozen sources, of the several dozen that went into the BUPC genealogy in my posts to Further Proof in Archive 2. How can you say that our sources have remained "unavailable"?  You believe that's a fair statement on your part?  Have you actually read anything I've written?  I've given author/title/page number for the sources I cited.  How much more available can I make them? User:Jeffmichaud 12:00 14 January 2006
 * Dually noted, sir. I absolutely agree with everything you've stated.  I'm happy to leave the article in it's current state, provided that MARussell's "though there is disagreement..." remains stricken for the reasons I have just stated in my last post above.  If the statement were accurate, I would certainly not object to it, but as I have just noted, they most certainly are not given that the URL has been either knowingly or unwittingly misinterpreted due to lack of subject knowledge.  I'm contending that if a URL can be provided that verifies the statement, then so be it.  But, as Hughes work actually contradicts the sentiment of the statement, it has no business there.  Most simply stated, if you want to say "though there is disagreement about the accuracy of this descent", then please provide a source that actually is in disagreement of him being a descendent.  The URL shows his is a descendent.  The question of whether he's seated on the throne is obviously a question of debate over how to intrepret these genealogies, but noone that I've ever come across questions whether or not he's a descendent of Bostanai's, which is what the statement clearly says.  If there are no further objections, let's put this baby to rest.  User:Jeffmichaud 01:37 14 January 2006


 * Sorry, but this is exactly what Hughes states: "those families which claim royal Davidic descent as a part of their family's tradition and can produce spotty evidence to support their claims, however, their genealogies have gaps and they can not fully document their claims". "Davidic Dynasty", Post-script ,¶(d). He, Hughes, clearly questions the accuracy of the descent. This point can hardly pass un-noticed, as it's part of the record. MARussellPESE 20:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but this is NOT what Hughes states at all! The “spotty evidence” and “genealogies that have gaps” cited by Hughes is NOT the line of Baha’u’llah through Bostanai’s Persian wife, but Hughes refers expressly to the line of the “Shaltiel Family and Berdugo families etc.” The “etc..” refers to all those so grouped as descendant of Hezekiah’s sons that fled to Spain and has nothing to do with the line of Baha’u’llah at all, as every one of the ancestors of Baha’u’llah in the male line from Isaac Iskoi II is given with NO GAPS at all. A glance at section 16 makes it clear, as every "Prince" is given with his death date, and there is not one gap in descent. Whereas the lines for these European families mentioned indicated the missing "gaps".

Kayumarth (1453) of Nur being the throne inheritor of both Kaus the son of Hasan Bawandid, and Bisitun the son of Gastham the son of Ziar Badustaniyan, thus uniting both the line of Bawand and Baduspan whose common ancestor is Bostanai. Therefore MARusell is using this postscript of Hughes' out of context, and is in error connecting Baha'u'llah's ancestors, noted as "Princes" in an unbroken chain, with these European families who notedly have "spotty evidence" to their claims.

Furthermore, concerning Hughes "(note: the descendants of Baha'u'llah are extinct in the male-line)" it the BUPC position that as Mason is the legally adopted son of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, this is continued in the male line through adoption of Mason. This is not a “tradition” of adoption particular to the BUPC but is a tradition of adoption for the purpose of succession” upheld by the Israeli State supreme Court, is the same “tradition” upheld from the Ottoman Law Code and is the same “tradition” upheld by the British mandate as well as a religious “tradition” upheld by the first amendment of the US concerning the successors to the head of a religion.

Bottom line, MARussll cites Hughes, but slashes out the direct reference to the “Shalitel and Burdogo familes”, that are descended from Bostanai through his Jewish wife and which has gaps that are dually noted in the descent lines. Baha’u’llah’s line has no gaps in the male–line from Bostanai (665 AD) to Kayumarth (1453) and from there to ‘Abdu’l-Baha (1921), and Hughes does not refer to it as such. Here is the full quote with the deleted section from MARussell restored:

“(d) those families which claim royal Davidic descent as a part of their family's tradition and can produce spotty evidence to support their claims, however, their genealogies have gaps and they can not fully document their claims, such as the Shaltiel Family, the Berdugo Family, etc. Though, these families have gaps in their genealogies, nevertheless, it is known who their family-ancestor was; thus, the ancestors of these families maybe found on the Davidic Dynasty Family-Tree. [note: the descendants of Baha'u'llah are extinct in the male-line, and, the pedigree of the modern-day claimant Mohammed Mohadjer is highly suspect]”

Therefore I give the section as rightly amended to reflect the facts, as there are no known "disagreements about the accuracy of this descent" in regards to Baha'u'llah's ancestors, at least not on this URL from David Hughes. As this is an article concerned with veririfiable facts, one would have to provide a reliable source to assert such a thing. User:Jeffmichaud 21:16 18 January 2006


 * Perhaps Jeffmichaud does not understand the term "etc." This is the abbreviation for et cetera which means "and the rest" or "and so on." Since Hughes viewed Bahá'u'lláh as having made such a claim, this note certainly covers him. Why else mention that his line is extinct?


 * Jeffmichaud assertion that Hughes' genealogy is correct and authoritative is strange. First, it contradicts the BUPC chart in several places. Second — and this is the problem with the Hughes work — it cites no sources for this genealogy in Section 16. (The presence of the disclaimer in the post-script is significant here.)


 * Jeffmichaud asserts that the Hughes genealogies are correct when it's convenient rhetorically to assert an un-broken male line; but asserts that these are not correct when they inconveniently contradict the BUPC chart.


 * MARussellPESE 15:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

~Why are we back to attacking the BUPC's position? So, Baha'u'llah did make a claim to the throne? I thought MARussell was arguing that he didn't. Which is it? Now MARussell believes he knows what Hughes' views are? Hilarious!

MAR has gone to the greatest lengths to try and disprove the fact that Baha'u'llah's the heir, and now that every arguement has been utterly destroyed, there is nothing left than this futile assertion of his insight into a postscript where he's adding words that aren't there. He's used his version of "logic" every step, instead of going on facts, and cannot show one instance where I've been shown in error. He opposed the Iqlim-i-Nur with no facts, but logic. He's opposed the line with "logic" regarding statistical analysis of the likelihood of Baha'u'llah's connection to Bostanai. I brought forward published sources and the URL to Hughes. He conveniently ignored my actual published sources, and chose to focus an attack on Hughes' research with logic about older siblings claims, etc., and was shown utterly wrong with a litiny of verifiable source in my final post to Archive 2 on 04 January 2006, all of which went completely unacknowledged or opposed. In every instance his "logic" was shown in error in light of actual facts that could be asserted. I am grateful for all this, for it has given a forum to this subject, which is dear to me, and helped to bring forward much of the evidence that exists for all to see. And for that, I would like to thank MARussell for his opposition. My response to the last statements are:
 * 1) I have NEVER stated that Hughes work is "authoritative", yet I continue to be misrepresented on this.
 * 2) I have explained more than once what MARussell believes to be "contradictions" to the work of the BUPC. Namely, that Hughes reckoned his descent from the Badustanian, i.e. the descent from Bostanai's Jewish wives, whereas the BUPC correctly reckons his descent from the Bawandid, or his Persian wife.  Both are acceptable, as they reconvene in Kajur, only Hughes would be more accurate, as were the BUPC and Gonzales, in reckoning the Bawandid line, for it can be shown that the Jewish wive's children had no claim ITFP.  Then, Hughes is wrong about one other name; it was Aziz, not Muhamad.  MINOR in the face of MARussell's conclusion that "there is disagreement about the accuracy" when Hughes even states that "nevertheless, it is known who their family-ancestor was; thus, the ancestors of these families maybe found on the Davidic Dynasty Family-Tree". So, according to Hughes, all the families on his list are from this lineage, even the ones with "spotty" genealogies like "the Shaltiel Family, the Berdugo Family, etc.". Therefore, MARussell cannot try to assert that there is disagreement about whether or not he's a male-line descendent of Bostanai's.  If he would like to then a URL that actually affirms this disagreement is neccessary.  Hughes is sourcing over 50 different families who all have links directly to David.  He's not contesting their claims to any of their "lineages"; whether they have gaps or not.  Moreover, in Baha'u'llah's lineage, there isn't one gap.  MARussell isn't even considering this, but instead is asserting an insight into what Hughes' views are, even though he's specifically mentioning Spanish royal families and their descendents in his stated postscript.  Connecting the "note:" to the previous statement requires this leap that MARussell takes, for it's not explicit.  It's his interpretation, whereas mine is obviously different.
 * 3) The way I see it, what MARussell appears to be concerned with is whether or not Baha'u'llah's the "heir" or not, which if he could prove that he's not, he destroys the BUPC position-his apparent goal here. It's not going to happen.  First of all, the only information he has on the subject is what I've provided.  His only recourse has been to try and tear down what I bring forward, but is obviously found wanting when it comes to bringing forth his own evidence.  Tearing down, never building upon something substantial.  Pathetic, really.  Regardless, he has nothing, and I've only brought forward the tip of the iceberg.
 * 4) The reason is that it's not the place to have to justify these beliefs with an exhaustive study. The issue is whether he's the heir, and to say the BUPC believes he is the heir simply requires a source for that belief.  We have it.  To state that there's disagreement simply about his lineage is definitely debateable, and sofar noone has been brought forward to show where this supposed disagreement lies.  It doesn't exist.
 * 5) In light of all this, I have reworded the sentiments that MARussell seems to be asserting into the article, and in the spirit of cooperation have tried to portray the spirit of MAR's position while keeping in line with what facts we have. It has been argued that whether it's accurate or not, Hughes work is a source and should not be "suppressed".  I made the same arguement about Gonzales' genealogy early on, and these same ones cried foul, no way, and no how in that case.  Now a double-standard is being levied.  If anyone would insist that one should be cited, then I must insist that on the very same grounds they will all be brought forward.  Or, maybe the rewording of the sentence can stand as is, and we can at last put this baby to rest.  User:Jeffmichaud 21 January 2006


 * Unless the BUPC will be participating in this 2007 conference, it's reference in the Bahá'í views is irrelevant. (I can probably say with certainty that the Bahá'í administration won't.)


 * Correct, Jeffmichaud has not claimed that the Hughes documents are authoritative. He's just cited it when it agrees with him ("Moreover, in Baha'u'llah's lineage, there isn't one gap.") and ignores it when it does not.


 * I'm not sure which refutation Jeffmichaud is referring to. If he's referring to the post where he highlighted the areas where Hughes differs with the BUPC and cited no supporting evidence to clarify the discrepancies or clarify his conclusions; then I have actually answered this by noting that it begs the question. There's no need to answer it point-for-point as the reasoning's flawed. This is a classic example as contrary information is dismissed without any source to so justify.


 * At best, one can say that they, Hughes and the BUPC, are in conflict — which is what is in the statements that Jeffmichaud finds offensive. One can not state that one, or the other, is correct because the background sources for both are unavailable.


 * Jeffmichaud has had ample time to offer verifiable sources for this. There's no way that the encylopedia can state, unequivocally, that this claim is verified. The original statement, that there are conflicting views, was intended to not draw attention to that. If Jeffmichaud insists that all the online sources be cited, then let's do so. The following points are clear:
 * None of these genealogies provide, or cite, verifiable sources.
 * The best source, perhaps, the Iqlim-i-Nur is out of print and in Farsi — this is hardly a verifiable source.
 * The Gonzales genealogy is incomplete.
 * The Hughes document and charts conflict with the BUPC genealogy — and Jeffmichaud has cited nothing verifiable that can demonstrate which is correct.


 * The clearest way to put this would be:
 * "This genealogy, attributed to Grover Gonzales and available on an online Bahá'í reference library, shows significant gaps in the line of descent to Bostanai. Comparing that chart to this genealogy and charts compiled by David Hughes, reveals differences such as where Hughes' Chart 38 identifies Aqá Fakhr Beg as Aqa Muhammad Alí's father, and Hají Muhammad Rida's grandfather; but Gonzales identifies Aqá Fakhr as Hají Muhammad Rida Big's father, omiting Aqa Muhammad Alí. Comparing these two to the genealogy prepared by the BUPC reveals other differences."


 * but that may cross the line to original research. Unbiased comment would be welcome.


 * If, on the other hand, Jeffmichaud insists that the conflicts not be addressed because the sources are exclusively online, then the only thing that can be said is that there is no published, verifiable data to support the claim that Bahá'u'lláh is a descendant, much less the heir, of David. MARussellPESE 02:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

~I'd like to thank MARussell for the sincere effort at considering the various concerns, remaining neutral and on point with this latest contribution to the "Baha'i View". I would like to ask for feedback on one thing that concerns me, before just changing it myself. I don't believe that the issue "is difficult to resolve as references and documentation available in English or Farsi are scant". I believe it's difficult to resolve for entirely other reasons, and that in fact there is an abundance of "documentation". I believe that, as there are several claimants, the over-abundance of documentation for all the families has lead to a juggerknot over interpreting it. Could my original statement of "Whereas some believe he was the heir of David's throne, the subject of who is the rightful heir to David is a subject of much debate, as there are several claimants to the title" be reconsidered for replacing this statement, or something more accurate?

This is not to open a new hornets nest, and may seem trivial, but I have a different take on all this. For one, the BUPC bibliography is available upon request at BUPC.org, and always has been. Where appropriate I've reference books to make certain points, although admittedly not on every occasion. The reason being that no one book contains the liteny of info on this subject (note: the Iqulim-i-Nur is another hornets nest altogether), as the genealogies from Bostanai to Baha'u'llah alone span three dynasties, some 1300 years. To reckon this descent alone requires over a dozen sources, and this is not the place for that. Just trying to explain to MARussell his errors in conclusions he reached required me referencing around 10 books, and took up 15k of space on this page, requiring it's archiving. As this discussion has unfolded I've brought forward sources, from the simplest, and now to the most complex renderings, all the while wishing only to meet satisfaction of the concerned editors. Somewhere along the way defending the BUPC's beliefs took precedent over staying on topic. This in not an easy subject to summarize, as it took the many members of the BUPC over 15 years to compile our findings.

Hughes bibliography has also always been available, and how MARussell can contend that "background sources for both are unavailable" over and over is puzzling, for on Hughes cite, probably for the same reasons above, it clearly states at the bottom of the page: "the bibliography and/or genealogical tables available upon request, contact  RdavidH218@AOL.com".

Well, I contacted him, via email and he sent me his bibliography, and freely answered all my questions, within 24 hours. His sources for Baha'u'llah's section (16) alone contained 15 books, and are very much in line with the BUPC's sources. Hardly "scant" documentation. I'll list them if anyone would like. His and the BUPC's bibliography's are quite similar, although how we've interpreted the info has varied, leading to differences, which I've attempted to explain above.

Wikipedia goes by facts. I have given these FACTS, innumerable time, but MARUSSEL misquotes and/or misinterprets these. So I wrote to Hughes, and like I said, there are NO GAPS is the Genealogy of Baha’u’llah in the male line, and in reference to "Post-script d.)", he explained that the “etc” DOES NOT refer to Baha’u’llah. Hughes further stated that: “his [Baha’u’llah’s] pedigree now would be accepted by academia”.

Hughes' email back to me citing my specific questions to him - Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:49:04 EST:
 * you [Jeff]: “My specific question is whether or not the "etc." in your note has to do with the family line from Bostanai to Baha'u'llah (section 16), for he is referred to in parenthesis in this post-script (d). Are you saying that Baha'u'llah's descent from Bostanai is also "spotty"? “


 * me [Hughes]: NO, the pedigree of Baha'u'llah has NO gaps -i guess i need to re-write that section”


 * you [JEFF]: Does his ancestry, as far as you know, also contain "spotty evidence"?


 * me [HUGHES]: “NONE, i think that all of the "bugs" have been worked out in his pedigree, and that his pedigree now would be accepted by academia”-David”

So there's that. He's welcomed anyone to write to him on his cite, so feel free. I would like to request feedback, based on these things, regarding the statement, "is difficult to resolve as references and documentation available in English or Farsi are scant". User:Jeffmichaud 23:47 23 January 2006


 * I'd tried to get a hold of Hughes via that email link and it was down when this site was originally brought up. Glad to see it's available now.


 * Actually, Jeffmichaud has not cited the sources for his "facts" at all along this eight-week plus oddysey. (The reader may review the record for themselves.) I've linked to verifiability several times, but apparently have to excerpt the appropriate section from it:
 * "Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." [Emphasis is Wikipedia's.]


 * Let me emphasize "published by a reputable or credible publisher." This doesn't include self-published, blogged, or stuff on websites per the policy. Personally, a simple rule-of-thumb is: If it's got an ISBN, it's credibly published.


 * Published data available does really appear to be indeed scant — at least based on the material presented to date here. Frankly, the vast majority of the "fact" presented in this discussion appears to have been original research.


 * I've linked to Hughes' work based on his own assertion that documentation is available. It's a marginal source, but is the only suite of documents available that allow the reader to critically compare to the BUPC chart.


 * So, if Hughes' bibliography includes published works, then please post them here. Please use Citing sources, or any style guide (Strunk & White's The Elements of Style is a solid stand-by, but any encyclopedic dictionary should have an abbreviated one.), so that the author, title, publication data (publisher and date) are clear. ISBN's would be ideal. It's all I've been asking for to support including the charts as supporting evidence — something that the reader can review for themselves.


 * The BUPC sources should be cited here as well, and as thoroughly — something that's been available from the beginning. That might explain the differences between the two sets of genealogies.


 * MARussellPESE 14:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Really, until there are cited sources for any of these genealogies the statements that published references and documentation is scant is true — even charitable — as they really appear, as of this writing, to be non-existent. Jeffmichaud has been given the benefit of the doubt pending his posting them. Over eight weeks have elapsed since I asked for them.


 * If he wants to note several claimants that's fine with me. MARussellPESE 13:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * After now ten weeks of this discussion, Jeffmichaud is not yet able to present a bibliography for the BUPC genealogy? The Hughes documents are interesting, but in Farsi mostly apparently, so the statement that references are scant in English is certainly still true. I'll look into them to see if they are all there. MARussellPESE 13:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent re-working of Baha'i section
I like the recent re-wording. It seems to flow better, and clarifies the extent of what documentation can be sourced on the topic nicely. -- Christian Edward Gruber 04:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy
Now the entire section on the throne of David is repeated on the BUPC belief section. I mentioned avoiding redundancy and putting it on one or the other, and now Jeffmichaud took the opportunity to copy-edit a bunch of stuff onto the BUPC page. Any suggestions? I think one of the pages should have a brief summary of a few sentences and the other a few paragraphs that aren't copy-edited. Cuñado  -  Talk  19:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the BUPC page is the appropriate place to expand on the topic. I don't see it as redundant. (There are other redundancies in those articles.) I think the Davidic line article is only a tad wordy.
 * This is a big deal to them, and if they can properly source the beliefs, they ought to have it on. The articles inter-link and as long as they continue to and one shows the available references, that's good enough for me. MARussellPESE 21:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hughes updated?
Jeff, I did not line up Gonzales with the BUPC chart for a side-by-side comparison. The gaps in Gonzales' chart were compelling enough. I wasn't aware (You may have told me, but I missed it?) that Gonzales is a foundational reference for the BUPC chart. Is there a reference for this? Without that, the charts do "conflict" because the gaps in Gonzales don't confirm all the statements in the BUPC chart.

I did do a detailed side-by-side comparison of the Hughes and BUPC charts. I spent the better part of a weekend highlighting the various differences. (An experience I'd like not to repeat.) Some of these are detailed above. To me the most significant differences were that Hughes noted several places where the lineage of Bahá'u'lláh passes through younger sons. This is a significant challenge to the BUPC position which the BUPC chart and their discussions glosses over this completely, which doesn't lend the BUPC position credibility. This is the heir-vs-descendant argument from above, which I don't believe the you've answered.

You said elsewhere that Hughes recently updated his genealogy after discussion with BUPC. On a cursory glance, the article has been reformated, but I don't initially see that it's been updated significantly. Most importantly, Hughes still notes several junior sons along Bahá'u'lláh's line of descent. Hughes' inclusion of Baha'u'llah in his Postscript note (h) "pretenders" doesn't suggenst that he's convinced that Baha'u'llah is "the" heir, just perhaps a descendant. So this independent source still conflicts with the BUPC position that he's the heir.

Arguing that any patrilineal descendant can, or is, the heir is a theological one, and would conflict with, what I understand the meaning of "heir" to be: first-born patrilineal descendant. The article as it stands seems clear, inclusive, and NPOV. The BUPC claim not only descent, which Hughes confirms but Gonzales can't support, but inheritance, which Hughes does not confirm and seems to actually disprove. The Baha'i response side-steps the question by asserting that this is largely symbolic. MARussellPESE 13:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point, I guess. FTR, I believe I shared with you the exact response from Hughes himself about the postscript, in that Baha'u'llah's descent has no gaps, and he believed his genealogy would be accepted by academia. His inclusion in the postscript was to note the line had ended with Shoghi Effendi "who had no issue". I also beleive that your understanding of hier is trumped by the Bible itself, for the King can appoint whomsoever he chooses, and is in no way bound by the first born issue. This only applies in the law of Primogeniture when there are no other siblings. David was the youngest of his father's eighth wife. Solomon was a younger brother, and so wasn't Rehobom. The first three descendents along this family line (among many others) were not the first-born. I don't believe your presumptions are accurate here. I do not intend to get into a whole big thing about it, for you haven't contributed anything to these articles that warrants a challenge. I'm just stating these things for the record. Jeff 19:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Many, many questions are raised by this. Does Old Testament law on succession apply? What about Quranic Law, when Abdul-Baha interprets OT prophecies using the Islamic calendar? These are not convincing to Jews and Christians.


 * More to the point: If the legacy is dependent upon the person being designated as the heir, have each-and-every one of Baha'u'llah's ancestors had the legacy formally passed on to them? Can each of those steps be documented explicitly? Wow, now that's a high bar to clear. Not trying to be flippant, but that's a very simple, yet inescapable, question when this is assumed to be literally true. And Hughes doesn't begin to address the documentation supporting that.


 * Discussions of "rightful heirs" is almost always a dark alley. English history alone is replete with this. German history of alliances, marriages and successions is almost opaque. The successive reigns of Mary I and Elizabeth I were steeped sectarian violence. Her successor James I was supposed to resolve that, but only opened a long period of unrest with Parliament (His authoritarianism and their religious intolerance were an ugly mix.) setting the stage for the English Civil War, and later Parliamentary gymnastics bringing George I to the throne. Although wildly unpopular personally, he was preferable to a Catholic.


 * This is just one example of why I don't set my belief on Baha'u'llah being the literal heir. Proving that to sceptical inquiry would be next to impossible.


 * Lastly, I was noting the current Hughes footnote, not the old one. MARussellPESE 21:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no Jewish view
Why is there no Jewish view???????????

That is called the "History" section Johnbod 13:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Java, your "Jewish view" doesn't cite any references, and is basically 2 or 3 run-on sentences. I have further concerns that it's written not so much as a "Jewish veiw" of the Davidic line, but "Java's view" of why Jesus isn't the Messiah. That's not the purpose of this article, or frankly Wikipedia. This isn't a message board for debunking other peoples beliefs. Even if you did contribute such a thing, it's not written from a NPOV, so it can't stay. Frankly I don't even disagree with you, so this has nothing to do with my religious inclinations. It's not an appropriate contributions for these specific reasons. Jeff 19:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I edited out of it anything offensive--Java7837 22:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC) and kept only useful stuff such as it's importance being the messiah is of the davidic line i also commented on the fact that king david was of the tribe of judah etc. nothing offensive--Java7837 22:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The language is still hardly encyclopedic, and the main section of the article is the Jewish view of the subject in general - what you are giving is the Jewish view of the Christian view! Johnbod 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My original comments about the value of this new section are still the main reason I have removed this section again. Citing references and maintaining Neutral Point of View is Wiki policy, not my preference. Please don't mistake these edits as personal in nature, for they are not. It's not about what's "offensive", for that is a subjective thing, which isn't relevent to Wikipedia. If you can cite sources for these statement then they are valid contributions. As of now they are not.


 * You may also want to note that there are already entire articles devoted to the ideas you're putting forward, and that one possible remedy to the void you're trying to fill might be to simply link to one of them, like the article Judaism's view of Jesus. One or two lines in the body of the existing "History" section might fill this apparent void you have struck upon while maintaining Wiki-appropriateness (I made that word up). Jeff 02:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hughes material removed...
I am suspicious of the merits of a "historical genealogy" that needs to make its home on an AOL page and has nothing to back itself up except itself. There's also too much "if you look at this, you see this"-type of drawing conclusions from said materials, so I have removed the Hughes materials, because without the conclusions, they aren't necessary. The argument was "verifiability, not truth", and that is precisely the concern I have here. MSJapan 19:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Baha'i view deleted
I've struck this section as the BUPC POV is WP:UNDUE by any stretch of the imagination (I'm much more familiar w/WP's Policies now and should never have been arguing based on WP:V because UNDUE trumps), and the Baha'i points essentially say that they have nothing to say - which is no contribution at all. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly an accurate characterization to say the Baha'i points are that they have nothing to say. This might come as a surprise to you and your cabal of Baha'i editors, but your finite understanding of this particular subject is in opposition to Writings them self. You've taken it upon yourself to interpret Explicit Writings from Shoghi Effendi and the Master, and would like it to be understood that your interpolations are THE way to read them, and that you're in any sort of position to interpret Writings in the first place. What a farce that the Baha'i position is that there's no position to speak of when Baha'u'llah emphatically stated he was seated on the throne (noted in the article). Moreover the Master and Shoghi Effendi confirmed that the allusion to Isaiah 9 (which states the "Prince of Peace" was "seated on the Throne") applied "word for word to Baha'u'llah (something censored from the article). This coupled with the fact that Shoghi Effendi commisioned Dr. Gonzales to confirm this by tracing the genealogy back to Bostanai is obviously not "no contribution at all". Your assertion that because there are gaps in his genealogy irresponsibly concludes that therefore no connection exists. Yet the good Dr. found the connection existed, so theres obviously something there that he drew the connection from, even though he couldn't account for each name. You're making uneducated assumptions without all the facts, and giving his research (which is noteworthy enough to be included in the Baha'i Resource Library) no benefit of the doubt.


 * I wouldn't oppose rewording, rearranging, or scaling down this section, but it's an absolute farce and quite a ways off from reality to claim the Baha'i view has "nothing to say" merely because you are uneducated about what it DOES have to say. MARussell, it was you alone who concluded what "the majority" of Baha'is think, which is contradicted by the Writings. MARussell you have misleadingly contributed that the "Central Figures" have taken no positions on this, when if fact they obviously most certainly have. I am glad you resurrected this discussion. I'll get to excising the MARussell interpretations directly, and expand this section to include the relevent mentions in the writings.  Baha'i Under the CovenantJeff  05:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeff, I am quite educated in Baha'i history and its teachings. The very first thing out of your mouth is a personal attack. The best you seem to offer here is to criticize me for failing to prove a negative, which is logically impossible, and insulting my understanding of subject with which I've been associated with longer than you've been alive. I have no patience for your ad hominen, trying to make sense of your thinking, nor am I interested in a debate on anything other than WP:POLICY.


 * No Baha'i primary or secondary texts make claim that Baha'u'llah is a direct descendant of David, much less the direct descendant. These passages are, one and all, taken as figurative.


 * To wit: Peter Smith's A Concise Encyclopedia of the Baha'i Faith clearly states that Baha'u'llah's ancestry is traced back to the Sassanid kings of Persia, and notes that Baha'is believe him to be a descendant of Abraham and Zoroaster - but it conspicuously omits discussion of David. The descent to Abraham is believed to be via Keturah who was not in David's line. Nobody makes reference to the Gonzales genealogy, probably because it's got holes in it.


 * As the point of this article is about David's descendants, any figurative perspective is out of place.


 * As the BUPC would, in this article, barely rate as an "vastly limited minority", any mention of its views here are WP:UNDUE as stated above. As you haven't responded to that, and have even acknowledged that the section should be shortened, I take it that you acknowledge that. If you want to open this subject on Jensen's page, or the BUPC page, that would be appropriate. There's no objection to witheringly obscure points being made in stand-alone articles, provided that they pass muster with respect to WP:POLICIES. If you try to ascribe those to the general Baha'i community, however, be prepared to have the majority Baha'i view presented there fairly. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While that is a clever attempt at redirection, it's patently flawed as I never questioned your knowledge of "Baha'i history". Pointing out that you're uneducated about "this particular subject" is not a personal attack; it's a FACT that I provided specifics to validate.
 * Let's review what's verifiable here and consider whether there's "nothing to say about this subject" with a NPOV. Baha'u'llah states he's seated on the Throne on page 89 of His Proclamation, right? There's no need for your personal POV/interpolation of this EXPLICIT statement; let's just take these at face value. Furthermore, Shoghi Effendi states on page 94 in God Passes By that "To Him Isaiah, the greatest of the Jewish prophets, had alluded as the "Glory of the Lord," the "Everlasting Father," the "Prince of Peace,"... the "Rod come forth out of the stem of Jesse[David's Father!]" and the "Branch grown out of His roots," Who "shall be established upon the throne of David,". Here among these exhortations is the quite EXPLICIT "shall be SEATED ON THE THRONE OF DAVID". This "Glory of the Lord" that both Isaiah and Ezekial refer to are emphatically connected again and again to the throne of David, and here Shoghi Effendi is proclaiming that in fact all these statements refer word for word to Baha'u'llah. You are claiming to speak as an interpreter stating "these things are taken as figurative". "shall be seated on the Throne of David" doesn't appear figurative, but rather Explicit. Can you provide a reference that states these are figurative, or is that just YOU think these are?
 * As I pointed out early pilgrims, like Lua Gestinger, used to refer to Abdu'l-Baha as "the Prince of the House of David", so clearly early Baha'is were aware of the connection. Although this in and of itself is no proof, and pilgrim's notes are not Writings, it is empirical evidence that early Baha'is were familiar with this; how can this be denied?
 * The very reference you've provided from Smith actually has been shown to you previously to prove beyond a doubt that there is a connection to the Exilarchate. This connection to Keturah and later the Sassanid kings of Persia is traced through his ancestor King Yazdigird III (the last Sassanid king), but through this king's daughter Dara. Yazdigird gave his daughter Dara over in marriage to the Exilarch Bostanai, the most famous of all the heirs of David. So it is correct that through this marriage he was connected to Zoroaster and hence back to Keturah matrilineally, but it also follows as true that he was connected to Bostanai and henced David patrilineally. This marriage is also found noted in the Iqlim-i-Nur as well as in Gozales' research. These verifiable facts are well documented for anyone truly interested in availing themselves of the facts. Obviously nowhere here fits that description or we wouldn't be having this tedious discussion.
 * This all brings us to a place where there's quite a bit more than "nothing to say" about this. I personally presented you and yours these verifiable facts previously. Having been provided and made aware of the above references previously it's puzzling why you would stand in the way of presenting them. You seem to be suffering from a delusion that your limited understanding of this subject is in fact "the majority Baha'i view", when in fact you have ZERO authority to speak on behalf of the majority, and have ZERO authority to interpret Explicit Writings that have been explained by Shoghi Effendi. These are not ad hominem attacks, but FACTS. I'm terribly sorry that if you have spent 40 or so years as a Baha'i that you don't know more about this than you do. It's truly a tragedy. Baha'i Under the CovenantJeff  06:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is peurile reasoning in its most basic form. It's argument by assertion, and quite tedious.

Since you've been asked to produce a single clear statement that proves your positive, and failed, it appears that I must prove that it is taken as symbolic.

The single statement, in the hundreds of letters and several books Baha'u'llah wrote, asserting that he's "seated on the throne of David" is not at all a claim to be the direct, or even an indirect, descendant. This is as figurative a statement as his assertion that he's renewed the kingdom of Jerusalem.


 * "Out of Zion hath gone forth the Law of God, and Jerusalem, and the hills and land thereof, are filled with the glory of His Revelation."
 * (Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 12)

As Baha'u'llah never set foot in Jerusalem, the City, here it must mean something else:


 * "We are told in the Holy Scripture that the New Jerusalem shall appear on earth. Now it is evident that this celestial city is not built of material stones and mortar, but that it is a city not made with hands, eternal in the Heavens.
 * "This is a prophetic symbol, meaning the coming again of the Divine Teaching to enlighten the hearts of men. It is long since this Holy Guidance has governed the lives of humanity. But now, at last, the Holy City of the New Jerusalem has come again to the world, it has appeared anew under an Eastern sky; from the horizon of Persia has its effulgence arisen to be a light to lighten the whole world."
 * (Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 84) [Emphasis mine]

and,


 * "Identifying His Revelation with the 'third woe,' he, moreover, had extolled His Law as 'a new heaven and a new earth,' as the "Tabernacle of God," as the 'Holy City,' as the 'New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.'"
 * (Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 95) [Emphasis again mine]

So, as the New Jerusalem is a symbolic reference to his "revelation", then as it's "revealer", he is its head; and to continue the analogy, he is "seated upon the throne of a new Jerusalem" or "David's throne".

The literal assertion that Baha'u'llah is a direct descendant of David is not supported in Baha'i primary sources. "Seated upon the throne of David" is figurative. Q.E.D.

There is no place for a "Baha'i view" that is quitessentially figurative on this page.

No published Baha'i source draws connection to Bostonai. If it did you'd have produced the source by now. You've had years. The Gonzales genealogy itself identifies no sources and was never published. It fails WP:RS and is out. MARussellPESE (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This absolutely fails as "sound reasoning". In your conclusion, after waxing on about the symbolism of the New Jerusalem you created a fictitious quote which doesn't exist; "seated upon the throne of a new Jerusalem" is your term, not one found from any writing; provide or otherwise. You completely made that up, and are putting it in quotes as if it should be considered as originating with the Writings? Are you kidding?


 * I did in fact provide the quote from GPB which employs no symbolism by any stretch. He confirms here what Isaiah prophesied is fullfilled in Baha'u'llah; that he is the "Glory of the Lord", and who in dozens of referenced prophecies which are fullfilled in Baha'u'llah is seated on the Throne. Here specifically the statement clearly states "shall be established upon the throne of David". There's nothing symbolic or figurative about this. You're connecting the symbolism of the New Jerusalem with the statements about the Throne where none exist; neither figurative or explicit. Dismissing this quote and inventing non-existent connections hardly proves anything other than you can't justify excising this with anything substantial. Baha'u'llah himself states he's on the Throne, and Shoghi Effendi in no uncertain terms confirms this. The statements in this article are all referenced, and steers wide of drawing conclusions, but just presents what is verifiable. You've failed to prove these statements are figurative by all accounts as the figurative New Jerusalem has nothing to do with being "established upon the Throne of David". Nice try though. Baha'i Under the CovenantJeff  01:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry — can't resist. "Fictitious" connection between David and the "Kingdom of Jerusalem"? Refresh my uneducated memory then. So what throne did David occupy? Was it the Throne of Missoula? MARussellPESE (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of being a smarty-pants, why not provide the reference for the quote you used? Oh yeah, you made it up and shamelessly attempted to pass it off as authentic by putting it in quotes; who were you quoting? You weren't quoting references about the "Kingdom of Jerusalem", but to the future "New Jerusalem" which is said will "float down from the sky" [obviously figurative]. In fact no reference exists that even alludes the statements I quoted, or any other about David are "figurative", are there Mr. Smarty? Baha'i Under the CovenantJeff  02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:PSTS, which is part of the WP:OR policy page. You need a secondary source that makes the same interpretation as the one your including.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk)
 * As this subject is not mentioned or given any importance in the wealth of Baha'i primary and secondary sources, it doesn't need to be on this page. This single reference by Baha'u'llah is one of hundreds of figurative references to spiritual fulfillment, and his writings are full of subtle references to himself being connected to past religious figures, the more prominent one being Imam Husayn. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  17:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what more I can add that hasn't already been said here, but I'll just reiterate that using a phrase like "seated on the throne of David" to explicitly refer to anything other than literally sitting on his throne is original research, unless your source specifically states a different interpretation. A figurative phrase like that can be interpreted many ways: a direct descendant of David, a spiritual leader in the same vein as David, or merely someone who uses the same men's room as David. ;-)  --Managerpants (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've revemoved the section again. That Baha'u'llah is related to Jesse doesn't make any of the first paragraph of the section I removed not original research. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are absolutely no conclusions, evaluations, or analysis being drawn; this is simply providing what the primary sources state, and therefore by no means original research. Baha'i Under the CovenantJeff  16:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is original research, because the prominence of it's inclusion in this article is not warranted by any sources. Connection to Jesse, is not a connection to David.  Find a source, and in my opinion multiple sources to meet the notability requirements, that states a connection to David, which is the subject of this article.  Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're mistaken regarding these creative interpretations of original research. The explanation I referenced in Some Answered Questions provides what you're asking for. I don't quite understand these objections, and to answer them we have to begin debating doctrine again. I'm not going there. Abdu'l-Baha says he's a descendant of David's through Jesse on page 63 of SAQ in no uncertain terms, and this is reconfirmed by the GPB reference, so these extraneous demands you're asking for don't appear warranted. Baha'i Under the CovenantJeff 19:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry. He's right. Drawing a connection to David using a source that states a connection to Jesse is WP:OR.


 * Even if that connection were rock-solid, a Baha'i view here is WP:Undue. Continuing to try to force this issue creates a strong argument for WP:COI. MARussellPESE (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please indulge me in explaining how "a Baha'i view here is WP:Undue"? How exactly? This has never been raised as a concern in the over two years of it's existence. It appears every time I resolve a raised concern, new ones arise. This is confirmed in the writings, so its not tangential, or irrelevant. Its in his bio that he's a descendant of David's, and Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi's writings acknowledge this. It's not original research for this information to be presented in this article; it's entirely on topic. Baha'i Under the CovenantJeff 22:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, being a descendant of Jesse, does not make him a descendant of David. My cousin is not a descendant of my father, even though they are both descendants of my grandfather. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why must we discuss doctrine of things Explicit to the Writings? Please give page 63 of SAQ a cursory glance; Abdu'l-Baha confirms he's from David. Both GPB, and SAQ confirm he's the descendant of David that the Jews were awaiting. The context in both cases is regarding descendancy and not figurative. These are non-issues as they are explicit in the Writings; please elaborate how this is WP:UNDUE. Baha'i Under the CovenantJeff  23:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the references.
 * SAQ page 63:      Abdu'l-Baha states that "In Isaiah, chapter 11, verses 1 to 10, it is said:' And there  shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a  Branch shall grow out of his root'".  and that these words apply to Baha'u'llah.  There is no mention of David here, and thus my example above with the cousin applies. The only mention of David in the supplied reference is that Jesse was the father of David.
 * GPB pg 94: Shoghi Effendi, similarly to Abdu'l-Baha mentions the prophecy in Isaiah "Rod come forth out of the stem of Jesse" and also states "Who 'shall be established upon the throne of David,'". The Throne of David quote does not state in any definite manner that Baha'u'llah was a descendent of David.  You can intepret it that way, but as Shoghi Effendi has not interpreted the statement, but refers to it, we need a secondary source that interprets it for us.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeff: Please stop. Your point has been asked and answered and answered and answered. The Baha'i view is that it's figurative. Enough already.


 * Like I said earlier: Two years ago I wasn't familiar with WP:Undue. Now I am. I'm rather fond of it 'cause it is a tool that can keep the garbage out of Wikipedia. I've used it myself many times on the "Baha'i view" in articles all over the place. Sorry, but now it's your turn.


 * If you read Undue it should be very clear. David's lineal descent is of interest to Jews (15 million), Christians (2 billion) and the BUPC (200?). That's a microscopic minority. My local parish church has more people at Sunday Mass.


 * If this point were of interest to Baha'is (7 million) — and the deafaning silence in its texts and apologia suggests even to the casual observer that it isn't — then it might warrant passing reference — not the detail you've been trying to add. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian View
I notice the following statement in the Christian view section: ''Matthew shows a lineage from David, father of Solomon and Luke shows a lineage through Nathan, a son of David. A common explanation offered by Christian biblical scholars is that Matthew is stating Joseph's line and Luke is stating Mary's line. Under this interpretation, Jesus would be a biological descendant of David through his mother.'' The last sentence seems a rather ambiguous statement and I am not sure that I may be missing something. In either case, Matthews lineage or Luke's, Jesus is still a descendant of David. If the inclusion is to show an apparent conflict between the two accounts then we need to allow someone to harmonize the two accounts. I'll post here and await some input before making changes. -JodyBtalk 12:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's clear that the whole thing could be regarded as WP:OR. There are likely references that draw these conclusions about the two genealogies, but the editor who wrote this didn't provide even one. But this whole section is void of reference, and reeks of original research. I'm aware of references that contradict these conclusions as well, but I don't know that adding that type of thing improves the article. This subject of his descent is an unsettled debacle with many different views. Perhaps that is worthy of noting? It's current state implies these conclusions are widely accepted.


 * I wish this article took a different turn and was more of a history of the House, pre and post exile. It doesn't have to focus on the Messiah like it does. It just happens to have taken them on by happenstance; and without references. That's not the only matter worth noting about the Davidic line, IMHO. Baha'i Under the CovenantJeff  15:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you have a point. I may give it a day and then do a re-write of the section with sourcing. I'm kind of fanatical about proper sources. -JodyBtalk 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The part about Matthew 1 having "A was the father of B, B was the father of C" is incorrect. It should read "A fathered[or begot] B, B fathered[or begot] C". The Greek (in Latin transliteration with parsing) text is of the form {N-NSM or N-PRI} de{CONJ} egennhsen {V-AAI-3S} ton {T-ASM} {N-ASM or N-PRI}. You can find that in any morphologically analyzed Greek text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.134.37 (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

question
im pretty sure that given the citation needed tag im not going to get an answer to this, but are any of you aware of the iggeret by sherrira gaon that says that hillel is only a descendent of david on his mothers side, or, to put it more succinctly, where can i find a link to it, if such exists, much thanks g.j.g (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Intro missing mention of myth
The introduction as it stands reads, to someone unfamiliar with the bible, as though the article is presenting an actual royal bloodline starting with a real historic figure. No mention is made of the fictional/mythical nature of King David, this needs to be fixed. --NEMT (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't because the common view is that he was an historic figure: in addition to the Biblical histories, there is the Tel Dan Stele (dated c. 850–835 BC) which contains the phrase (Beit David), read as "House of David", which most scholars take as confirmation of the existence in the mid-9th century BC of a Judean royal dynasty called the House of David.. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Virginal conception and divine incarnation of Jesus
I'm not sure this section, added by an unregistered editor, belongs in this article. It should either be deleted as not relevant or, if we think it is relevant, we need to do something about its line of argument which ends in the unsourced statement "... and thus it is not a messianic prophecy." My understanding is that it has been the subject of hot debate and that scholars hold to various views about the Isiaah prophecy: it is about a contemporary event; it is messianic; it is messianic and points to Christ's birth; it is both contemporary and messianic. What do others think - do we delete it or improve it? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The first thing I did is make the two subsets under "Geneologies" sections rather than set apart with a semi-colon as it took me 5 min to figure out what you were even talking about since it wasn't listed in the contents.
 * That being said, the whole thing looks like a pile of WP:OR to me. Just looking at it and trying to figure out what would be needed to either "fix it" or balance out the clearly non-NPOV text makes my head spin. The part about the Virgin birth is clearly cherry-picking the issue as there are many Biblical scholars (both Christian and non) that have stated firmly that the word "almah" is ONLY used in the Bible to refer to a virgin. So you can "say" that the word can also mean young girl, but the "context" (meaning how the word is used in the rest of the book) is that the word means "virgin". So basically you'd have to double that second section just to equal out the IP's argument. In the previous section on Jesus' "two geneologies", the IP has a very circular argument (he first says its bad and then at the end he says it was used to prove that Jesus was who he said he was) that when distilled basically says "nothing". I don't know what to do with that one... Ckruschke (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * You're right. I didn't scrutinize the previous section, but that looks a mess too. The first main paragraph beginning "Matthew traces..." looks reasonable and coincides with my understanding of the usual explanation for the different genealogies. The second paragraph is confusing and the phrase "According to Christian belief..." sort of contradicts the preceding paragraph.
 * I'm still inclined to remove the Virgin Birth paragraph on grounds that it's a side issue not really relevant to the Davidic line. It's thrashed to death anyway at Isaiah 7:14 --Bermicourt (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering how much work you'd have to put into making this entire section "right", something that I've tried several times in order to "save" content that is "kinda right", I'd still suggest going beyond your suggestion and deleting the whole thing. In fact, I just did so. If someone comes back and complains, I will honestly explain that I was BOLD and removed content with multiple issues. If he wants to perform the massive rewrite that it needs to fix it, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Ckruschke (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Good call. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

"Jeremiah's curse on the Solomonic line"
I'm removing this section. The "curse" (prophecy, rather) was specifically about descendents of Jehoiachin, and not of Solomon. It's clear that the reason it was added by User:In ictu oculi (diff) was a POV christological one. Christians trace Jesus' descent (in one of the genealogies) through a purported brother of Solomon named Nathan. Referring to this prophecy as being "on the Solomonic line", when it's only on the line of one of Solomon's many descendents, is inaccurate, and POV. Furthermore, the bulk of the section is a violation of WP:FRINGE. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Lisa, we don't normally count Christianity as WP:FRINGE on en.wp, any more than Judaism or Islam is WP:FRINGE. The point of WP:FRINGE is to exclude non-notable views.
 * As regards that the source is a "POV christological one", meaning "a Christian" one. You're suggesting that this source cannot be used to comment on Christian interpretations of the article subject, Davidic line, because the author H. Wayne House is a Christian? (I have no idea, I expect he probably is), well what else would any source explaining


 * So what are you suggesting, that non-Jewish sources be banned from use in explaining Christian interpretations in this article?
 * You're welcome to supplement the section with additional and/or alternative sources, but you can't just delete a source because it is written by a Christian. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Boy, is that typical. No, I didn't say Christianity was FRINGE.  I said that the business about the throne of Judah going to Ireland.  All the British Israelism stuff.


 * You're also ignoring the main issue, which is the title you chose for the section. First, this is an article about the Davidic Line, not the "Solomonic Line".  So it's completely off topic.  Second of all, it refers to Solomon's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson's line, so calling it "the Solomonic line" is incredibly inaccurate, and fairly difficult to understand, unless you were trying to lend weight to the whole "Nathan" thing.  And since Wikipedia isn't a place for Christian polemics, it doesn't belong here.


 * If you want to write something about Jeremiah's prophecy that none of Jehoiachin's line would be king, that's fine. But it would belong in Jehoiachin, and not here.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Lisa,
 * 1. then please write more clearly.
 * 2. we don't have a separate Solomonic line article since the Hebrew Bible only records the Solomonic line and the Davidic line is in the Hebrew Bible the same thing. I suggest you take a few hours to find a reliable source to compliment the existing H. Wayne House Israel: Land and the People 1998. If no better source is forthcoming I will restore Harvey, we cannot delete sources on Christianity simply because the authors may be Christian. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3. just to make it clear, content about the curse on Jehoiachin's tail of the Solomonic line also belongs in Jehoiachin and Zerubbabel but you cannot block inclusion of WP:RS sources relating to the Davidic line in the article on the Davidic line.
 * 4. do you object to Kenneth Pomykala The Davidic dynasty tradition in early Judaism 1995, Timothy Wardle The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity, James M. Trotter Reading Hosea in Achaemenid Yehud， Meyers and Meyers Haggai and Zechariah,  as possible sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The book you're quiting from isn't a scholarly source in any way, shape, or form. And again, what Jeremiah said was neither about the Davidic line nor the Solomonic line.  It's about the line of Yehoiachin.  Pretending that it's about either the Solomonic or Davidic line is counter-factual and mere polemic.  And bringing a non-scholarly book to back up the counter-factual claim won't work.  I'm very happy to call for outside arbitration if you continue.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't need arbitration if (a) you object to all sources, (b) you provide no sources, (c) you are simply opposed content related to the Davidic line being retained in the article. You are being presented with a range of sources, so please either respond: which do you accept? Or if not what alternative sources on the post-Jehoiachin tail of the Davidic line do you propose? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think it's material that's relevant to this article at all? And why you labeled it as referring to the "Solomonic line".  Because the descendents of Yehoiachin are just as much parts of the Davidic line as they are parts of the Solomonic line.  The only reason to possibly refer to it as the latter would be because referring to it as the former would make that prophecy refer to all descendents of David, including the Christian putative messiah.  And, of course, the Jewish Messiah as well.  It's a clear example of POV, and would be whether it was done by a Jew or a Christian.


 * You say that I "object to all sources". That's untrue.  I would object to a section appearing in this article about the TV show The Blacklist, as well, because it's off topic.  You could bring a ton of sources about some aspect of The Blacklist, and I'd still object, but claiming that I "object to all sources" would be missing the point.  You say that I "provide no sources".  Sources about what?  Why would I provide sources about material irrelevant to this article?  The material doesn't belong here, period.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I see here no reason not to have WP:RS sourced content relating to secular/Christian interpretations of the Davidic line in the Davidic line article. I will break up Jewish interpretations and Christian interpretations into 2 sections, allowing sourced content relating to either not to be seen as "POV". I am not at this point sectioning a third "In Islam" section only because of lack of immediate source. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have also placed an Unsourced section tag on the Jewish interpretations section. By rights it should have been that section - as unsourced and probably OR - which should have been deleted. Lisa, how long do you think it will take you to dig up reliable academic sources to support that section? Or do want me to source it up? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Davidic line. 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/20021220182918/http://www.moshiach.com/discover/tutorials/moshiach_ben_yossef.php to http://www.moshiach.com/discover/tutorials/moshiach_ben_yossef.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Genealogy table
I noticed an error in the table.

The legend indicates blue for the united kingdom of Israel under David and Solomon, which is factually incorrect. Archaeologists have found no evidence of either a united kingdom, or of a great kingdom in Jerusalem in the time of David.

Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed

From the book - “Judah remained relatively empty of permanent population, quite isolated and very marginal up to and past the supposed time of David and Solomon, with no major urban centers and with no pronounced hierarchies of villages and towns.”

“The kingdom of Israel was never particularly Israelite in either ethnic, cultural, or religious connotations. The Israeliteness of the northern kingdom was in many ways a late monarchic Judahite idea.”

From the video documentary - “Iron Age Jerusalem in the 10th century was a small, backwater village; no fortifications or monuments; texts and archaeology do not agree on the nature of the site.”

“David’s Jerusalem was a simple mountain village, covering three to four hectares. We can agree, David did not build a prestigious capital.”

“In Jerusalem, it’s a small village; nothing monumental, no real evidence for a big capital. No evidence for a great Solomonic capital, ruling over a great, rich state. And here at Megiddo, the monumental buildings which had been described as the symbol of Solomonic greatness, in fact, date a bit later, they don’t date to the time of Solomon, they don’t date to the tenth century. So, we are in a situation of a complete negative picture, negative evidence from coast to coast.”

Theories about davidic line in European royal families
Several books stated in the past that the French Bourbon were from the davidic line. It's also something that is sometimes said of the English monarchy. It's not modern urban legends, there have been many books about it in the last centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Seen https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford every living Jew from Jesus's time was of Davidic lineage;
 * As Bart Ehrman says, Jews did not keep extensive genealogical records, so it is impossible to know if Jesus was of royal lineage (other than what I stated above); genealogies from the Bible are mostly spurious;
 * Conclusion: there is no way to know if French and English kings were of Davidic lineage, if they were, they're pretty much like any European: any European is of Davidic lineage. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Issue with Christian Tradition
Under paragraph one of the Christian Tradition, the last sentence says, "One Christian interpretation of the Davidic line counts the line as continuing to Jesus son of Joseph, according to the genealogies which are written in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 through the line of Mary, who is descendant from Solomon." This is textually and Theologically inaccurate. Consider the following:

Textually, the tables in Matthew 1 trace Jesus of Nazareth's ancestry through Solomon. But the tables in Luke 3 trace His ancestry through another son of David called Nathan. From Abraham to David the tables are the same with the exception being that Matthew includes women (Tamar [Mat. 1:3], Rahab, and Ruth [Mat. 1:5]). From David to Jesus, the tables are entirely different. The reason for this is that Matthew's table is Joseph's ancestry while Luke's is of Mary's.

Theologically, consider first that it was common for a woman's genealogical tables to substitute a woman's husband in her place. Since Matthew include three women already, it's believed that if it was Mary's genealogy, the author would have no need to use her husband as a place holder. Additionally, God declared that no blood relative of Jehoiakim or Jeconiah would sit on the throne of Israel. This presents a problem for the Jewish tradition, who believe the Messiah will be a descendant of the royal line through the Kings of Judah. But, Mary's ancestry in Luke is traced through an entirely different son of David. Given that Jesus is believed by Christians to have been devinely conceived (satisfying Isaiah 7:14), He therefore is not a blood descendant of Jehoiakim (satisfying Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30).

I can provide sources if needed. DGTubbs (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of other threads discussing removal of content which alluded to my discussion. At the very least, the line I referenced is textually incorrect. Anyone with a Bible out access to one online can see it's just patently wrong. DGTubbs (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Standard
's standard of the Davidic line is ipse dixit. Everyone who claims he is one, he is one. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Branch Davidians and British Israelism propounders certainly claimed the descendancy. Why is he and the other Jewish religious fundamentalist sock-puppet removing them? warshy (¥¥) 21:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I should first note that I am not Jewish and a professional historian, and that should be enough said there. I would strongly urge you not to use those kind of blind indictments in the future, as they may be interpreted to disparaging of religion and specifically to the Jewish people.

More importantly, to answer your statements:

Yes, Branch Davidians, as a theological precept, look for the restoration of the coming Davidic monarchy. Yet, as a function of their internal leadership, no, they do not claim descent from the figure of David. Thus they are irrelevant to an article about his descendants.

Similarly, British Israelism claims Davidic descent through the alleged figure of Tephi-Tea or Tephi-Tamar. While she is famously a literary invention of the 19th century, her lack of historicity is ultimately not the point. British-Israelism's claim to the Davidic descent of Queen Elizabeth is non-patrilineal, which is pertinent as both Jewish claims of the exilarch and the Christian claims of Christ are of their patrilineal descent from David. In all good faith, I have no doubt that Elizabeth might share a genealogical relationship with the Jewish royal line. However, as a point of genomic statistics, so does the majority of the planet. I believe that this was the point that Mr. (talk) was attempting to delineate in his own crass way.
 * I should note here that both my parents were Jewish ethnically and religiously, and I am therefore myself also Jewish ethnically (and circumcised), even though I profess no religion. I prefer to define myself as an agnostic. There is no need to discuss any historical details here regarding Branch Davidians and/or British Israelism proponents. Those links where just in the "See also" section, and seeing that they are definitely related to the general subject of this article, there is no reason whatsoever to remove the links as you did. That is why I reverted your removal of the links, and that is all there should be to it. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 18:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Minor issues
I hope we can all agree on the following: Debresser (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To remove the red links to the Dayan family and Berduga family.
 * "Monachrist" should probably be spelled "monarchist", with lowercase and without the hilarious "r".
 * According to the website of the registrar of political parties in Israel, no Malchut Israel party exists. The Facebook page says "This is a proposal to start a new Knesset Party in Israel". So perhaps we should rephrase "the founder of the Monachrist party Malchut Israel" to ", who proposed to found a monarchist part Malchut Israel".
 * Agreed. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 22:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Evidence
general lack of material evidence explicitly indicating a United Monarchy is not something "invented" by Finkelstein and Sliberman, but an objective reality. While we cannot predict that no evidence will ever be found, it has not been found yet. tgeorgescu (talk)
 * Seconding this statement. That said, I did neglect to actually cite the source of the statement by Finkelstein and Silberman when I added it to the section, so Karma was not totally unwarranted in removing it for being unsourced. I'll rectify this immediately. Zhomron (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not stating that Silberman and Finkelstein invented it, I'm simply stating that their particular view is not necessarily "the majority view", since there currently seems to be no consensus over the United Monarchy topic.-Karma1998 (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Except for the bytdwd inscription there's absolutely no archaeological trace of either David or Solomon. I mean there is nothing which can be directly and unequivocally linked to either of them. There are just imaginative reconstructions of the past, and a thing is clear: Israeli archaeologists do no lack imagination.
 * There is a little game of "oh yes it is, oh no it isn't" going on here. Why? Because there is no conclusive evidence, one way or another.
 * The trust in the United Monarchy has been shaken due to accumulating evidence that it was sparsely populated. And only positive evidence can bring the United Monarchy back&mdash;speculation is insufficient.
 * Honestly, I cannot affirm there was no United Monarchy. But I can honestly affirm there is no evidence that there was a United Monarchy. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do understand your point, which you have repeatedly explained to me several times in the past. However, it is not up to us to make judgements, we must simply refer what scholars report. And since there's a relevant field of scholarship which does not agree with the "Finkelstein school", their opinion must also be reported. Anyway, I won't edit the page until a consensus is reached.-Karma1998 (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Forget about Finkelstein, this is not about Finkelstein, it is about evidence. There is some agreement that something like a United Monarchy has existed, but... very different from the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you might be misunderstanding Karma's point. They aren't saying that Finkelstein is incorrect or inaccurate, I think they're just hesitant to classify it as the "majority position". In all fairness, we don't have a source to indicate the consensus is harmonious specifically with Finkelstein's claims. That's my interpretation, at least. That said, I am the one who wrote the entire "historicity" section, including that tidbit – it's my own fault for not providing a source explicitly stating that Finkelstein is the go-to interpretation. Zhomron (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I've told repeatedly, I'm not here to "prove" the Bible, simply to relate what scholars state. My early edits were kinda nasty and I apologize for that, but now I've mended my ways.-Karma1998 (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, many scholars posit that the United Monarchy has existed. However, it is still unclear what the words United Monarchy mean. I mean even for the archaeological evidence they uncovered, there is nothing linking it to David-Solomon-Israelites-Judahites rather than to Philistines-Canaanites. Maybe just a lack of pig bones in a place built directly on stone, and therefore very easy to clean.
 * I will grant you there is a majority of scholars who support the United Monarchy if you grant my point that such United Monarchy has very little in common with the Davidic-Solomonic Empire described in the Bible.
 * What I am not saying:
 * David did not exist.
 * David wasn't a king.
 * The United Monarchy did not exist.
 * What I am saying:
 * king could mean everything from village head to mighty emperor.
 * David and Solomon did not have an empire/mini-empire.
 * There is no evidence that David and Solomon ruled over a state from Jerusalem to Shephelah.
 * So, what I am basically saying is: there is no evidence for the existence of such state, I do not even claim that David and Solomon did not have a state (since maybe that was a city-state or whatever). tgeorgescu (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I have seen of Finkelstein's work, he still supposes that David ruled from Jerusalem. Much of the debate between archaeologists in recent decades concerns the population size of Jerusalem in the early 1st millennium BC and the dating of various administrative buildings located there. Dimadick (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think many scholars would say that David ruled from Hebron. But I do not make a big deal of it. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

To be clear to everybody, I will explain my point of view.
 * What I am not saying:
 * 1) David and Solomon had an empire/kingdom as wealthy and powerful as the one described in the Bible. That is not supported by archaeological evidence;
 * 2) The Bible is literally historical and accurate. It clearly isn't, since it is a mixture of historical, theological and mythical data, like most of documents of that time (the Histories of Herodotus make a good comparison, on the matter);
 * What I am saying:
 * 1) David and Solomon existed;
 * 2) They had a kingdom, whose dimensions are not clear (I find Dever and Halpern's proposals to be the most convincing, but that's my point of view);
 * 3) Their kingdom can be proven archeologically, unless we discard lots of archaeological findings in Jerusalem, Khirbet el-Qeyiafa, Megiddo, Gesher and other places or we accept discredited chronologies;
 * 4) Accusing Israeli and US archaeologist of "having a lot of fantasy" or of distorting their work for theological reasons is unwarranted at best. That could be the case for some evangelical scholars, but not for secular and moderate religious ones;
 * 5) The Bible, if analyzed using the historical-critical method, can be an historical source;
 * 6) We should simply report what scholars say, leaving our opinions aside;--Karma1998 (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually Dever's opinion is that the United Monarchy was an "early inchoate state". Google it (including the quote marks). So, the quarrel between Dever and Finkelstein is about the Solomonic gates, and for the rest is about parsing words. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)