Talk:Genealogy of Jesus

Thumbnail picture
Hi everyone, I was wondering if the thumbnail picture was intended to have the word "Jesus" in black overlaying the Hebrew (text in white)? TattersallOriginal Duke Of Earl (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Should Mary be added to the Genealogy?
This is already done so on the OrthodoxWiki, but I'm mainly asking this question because she is mentioned in the Genealogy in Matthew:

and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. - Matthew 1:16

We already have this though mentioned in the article, but Mary's name seems to be implicitly mentioned in Matthew, does this contradict this paragraph?: "According to R. A. Torrey, the reason Mary is not implicitly mentioned by name is because the ancient Hebrews never permitted the name of a woman to enter the genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law." RileyAntonis (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not certain that the writers were Hebrews. And the Gospel of Matthew explicitly mentions the most prominent female ancestors of Jesus: Tamar, Rachab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. Dimadick (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Set something straight
About : Asprem's book is not WP:FRINGE, but Steiner's claim is WP:FRINGE. Asprem is a bona fide scholar of Western esotericism. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Asprem (2018): ‘Among the eccentricities of Steiner's esoteric Christianity [1909] was the notion of two different Jesuses ...'. But Steiner's genealogies of two Messiahs both named Jesus were not as eccentric as his fringe claims of Zarathustra's and Buddha's involvement.
 * Tonmajoor (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That is, the claim about two Jesus kids is WP:FRINGE, but we have to be very clear about who is WP:FRINGE.
 * Objectively seen, Steiner was just a cult leader. The opinions of the Jehovah's Witnesses are more theologically notable than Steiner's opinions. Anthroposophists have something over 50 thousands members, JW have over 8 million members. That's why. And there are close to 1.4 billion Catholics. Faith in Zeus and other Greek/Roman gods is notable for historical reasons. Steiner's claim about the two Jesus kids does not have the WP:WEIGHT necessary for being included in this article.
 * If you're speaking about Mashiach ben David and Mashiach ben Yossef, yup, that's a notable view, but it isn't Steiner's view, and it isn't about Jesus. It's a view non-Christian Jews have about their Messiah. Steiner wasn't a religion scholar, he wasn't a theologian, he was simply a guru. Steiner's view is irrelevant to this article, simply because he spoke in the name of tiny cult. We cannot render the views of every WP:FRINGE small sect out there. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In his original statement, Steiner (1909) did refer to the kingly and priestly Messiah: "Thus at the beginning of our era there were two couples in Palestine, both bearing the names of ‘Joseph’ and ‘Mary’. The Bethlehem couple traced back its origin to the ‘Solomon’ or kingly line of the House of David, and the other (the Nazareth couple) to the ‘Nathan’ or priestly line."
 * Cf. Godfrey (2017): "Matthew’s genealogy represented one school of thought; Luke’s genealogy represented another school of thought that believed the “curse of Jeconiah” in the book of Jeremiah made any messianic line through David’s royal line impossible."
 * Tonmajoor (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Godfrey is WP:RS. Anyway, this isn't an article in Western esotericism. Steiner's claim could have been included if it were. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Godfrey's article was based upon Johnson (2002, see literature), who stressed the Jewish tradition of Nathan's prophetic status besides being 'Son of David' in Luke.
 * In his own logical explanation of the two genealogies, Steiner (1910) had referred to the 'rejected knowledge' (Hanegraaff) of two births in the (Greek) ‘Gospel of the Egyptians’:
 * "In the so-called ‘Gospel of the Egyptians’ there is a passage which already in the early centuries of our era was regarded as extremely heretical, because Christian circles either did not want to hear the truth or did not want the truth to come to light. Something was nevertheless preserved in an apocryphal writing where it is said in effect that salvation (the Kingdom) will come to the world when the Two become One and the Outer becomes as the Inner."
 * Tonmajoor (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * &mdash;see WP:THETRUTH. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course, Steiner had added: the truth about 'the relevant facts', i.e. about two birth narratives and two Messiahs.
 * "In very ancient records there are often remarkable utterances which cannot be understood unless the relevant facts are known."
 * Tonmajoor (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that Christian dogma would be objectively true. But Christian dogma is notable. The claims of a small cult aren't. At least in an article about a mainstream subject. WP:ONEWAY. Claims that Jesus was the Messiah cannot be objectively true. Regardless of whether there was one Jesus, or two Jesuses. Since the truth cannot be established, we rely upon learned opinions (theologians, and Bible scholars). Steiner was neither a theologian, nor a Bible scholar. So his opinion may be mentioned at Anthroposophy, but not here. In Steiner's time there were academics whose specialism was the history of religion; Steiner wasn't one of them. Steiner never had a career as an academic, but not for lack of trying. A PhD was required for an academic career, but did not guarantee having such career.
 * And if Johnson stated something to that extent, we WP:CITE Johnson, not Steiner. Since Johnson was an expert speaking within his own academic specialism, Steiner wasn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The wiki article itself gives 'undue weight' to traditional Christian explanations of divergence, levirate marriage, adoption and maternal ancestry. Unlike Steiner's double birth explanation, they contradict Jewish laws and traditions. They are speculative inventions and complex constructions, as the text duly shows.
 * Tonmajoor (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, we should WP:CITE theologians and Bible scholars, not Steiner. If you are willing to WP:CITE WP:N Jewish theologians, be my guest.
 * Immanuel Kant does not say that religious dogma is not valid, he says it's subjective. Søren Kierkegaard agrees.
 * Just to be sure: Steiner is not a scholar of Judaism, whatever he says about Judaism has to be taken with a pillar of salt. Michael Coogan, Shaye J. D. Cohen, Joel S. Baden, Paula Fredriksen, Amy-Jill Levine are scholars of Judaism. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The genealogy article does cite Judaism scholars like Vermes and the Encyclopaedia Judaica, but not systematically. See also the wiki articles Davidic_line and, without citations,  Davidic_dynasty_in_Bible_prophecy.
 * Tonmajoor (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, I'm not opposed to citing WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Steiner's works aren't WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Steiner's idea about the two Jesus kids isn't WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it is a dogma of a tiny cult. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Steiner's scholarly activities included editing of the collected work of Goethe, Schopenhauer and Jean Paul, besides popular books on Nietzsche and Western mysticism and esotericism.
 * Two Jesus births (patrilineage, no legal adoption) seems to be a rationalistic explanation of a dogmatic Biblical problem.
 * Tonmajoor (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * According to WP:OR, we do not make the call, WP:RS make the call. Steiner's works are not WP:RS. According to WP:ONEWAY, we default to not rendering Steiner's view.
 * Editing the scientific works of Goethe was a low-paid and low-prestige job, since those were considered wrong science and worthless prose.
 * It's the word of an editor vs. the word of a WP:RS. Guess who are we going to trust?
 * His philological work did not make him an academic, it made him a minor scribe. And since Goethe's scientific works were kind of disreputable, it did not mean worldly fame.
 * While Steiner's books might have been popular, those were neither mainstream, nor WP:SCHOLARSHIP. They were guru teachings, just like Ramana Maharishi's or Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov's. Such books were popular inside what scholars call "the cultic milieu", not inside the mainstream academia. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Johnson (2002, p.144) seems to be the only RS for Steiner's idea: "Perhaps the most bizarre attempt has been made by the 'anthroposophist' Rudolph Steiner ... two different individualities, born of parents with the same names!"
 * Tonmajoor (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't lack WP:RS that it's Steiner's idea, we lack evidence that it is even remotely a mainstream academic idea. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, Johnson adds: "Other attempts at harmonizing the two lists have been attempted only sporadically."
 * Tonmajoor (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have WP:CITED two WP:RS, and both of them say Steiner's idea is WP:CB. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, both Asprem (on Anthroposophy) and Johnson (on Genealogy) are RS and One-Way ...
 * Tonmajoor (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Meaning: two mainstream scholars made sport of Steiner's crazy idea. So, no, you cannot whitewash his crazy idea merely because mainstream scholars have laughed at it.
 * That idea is correctly mentioned at Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner, but this article isn't the place for it. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Asprem and Johnson say unorthodox, eccentric, most bizarre (Johnson via books.google). From a Jewish point of view (which should be added to the article), the Christian harmonizations of the two lists would be laughable, too.
 * Tonmajoor (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, the mainstream academic view, even endorsed by Bible scholars who are Christians (not of the fundamentalist sort), is that those two genealogies are figments of imagination.
 * "Osuaggiefan November 9, 2023 at 8:25 amLog in to ReplyIt seems to me that it is widely believed that in the era of the second temple Jewish people kept massive genealogical records in the temple. Why do people believe that? Is there any attestation for that either inside the canonical Bible or outside? Thank you so much for your time.BDEhrman November 13, 2023 at 7:18 pmLog in to ReplyNo, no attestation. Modern myth. Nothing to it."
 * "BDEhrman November 27, 2023 at 12:03 pmLog in to Reply1. There were no genealogical records in the Temple. If someone says there were, they’re makin’ stuff up. 2.Luke’s genealogy can’t be Mary’s. Read it closely: it goes to Joseph, not Mary, explicitly. The idea that it is comes from an attempt to reconcile the two by noting that the Infancy narrative in Matthew focuses on Joseph and the one in Luke on Mary so, hey, maybe they’re different genealogies. They are indeed different. But they are both of Joseph, not Mary."
 * "Marc LipshitzFollowI am an Orthodox Jew and have studied in Kollel and Yeshivah.5yWhat happened to the Jewish genealogical records after AD 70?There never were Jewish genealogical records. I don’t know who came up with the idea that all the records were stored in the Temple- the simple reality is that there were no genealogical records. Simply think about the impossibility of gathering and storing information in an era where travel between places took months or years…."
 * "24:33 contrary to what people say ancient jews did not keep their genealogies 24:38 people tell you this all the time it's absolutely not true jews did not so some jew living in the 24:46 year you know 29 a.d he didn't know who his 24:51 great-great-grandfather was any more than you do they didn't do that but people think because they reading the 24:56 bible you've got all these genealogies this is what jews are doing the whole time no they absolutely did not do that 25:01 so they had two they had no sources of information they wanted to trace jesus 25:07 lying back to david because he's the son of david well what if you don't know who his great-great-great-great-grandfather 25:12 is well you got to make something up and so they came up with something 25:18 whether you agree with that explanation or not it's a contradiction"
 * Christine Hayes, Bible professor, Yale University: "People who equate truth with historical fact will certainly end up viewing the Bible dismissively, as a naïve and unsophisticated web of lies, since it is replete with elements that cannot be literally true. But to view it this way is to make a genre mistake. Shakespeare's Hamlet, while set in Denmark, an actual place, is not historical fact."
 * Shaye J. D. Cohen, Bible professor, Harvard University: "Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?);"
 * MBS=modern Bible scholars.
 * So, you see, a literal reading of those stories is very much outdated.
 * "No, it's not a contradiction, the event happened twice!" is and it was then a trick specific to apologists bereft of proper theological education. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Steiner's historical view of the two contradictory genealogy lists is not mainstream from a neutral point of view, but could be a 'significant minority view' (unorthodox, eccentric, bizarre), and is worth mentioning for that reason.
 * Tonmajoor (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * His view does get mentioned, just not in an article about a mainstream topic. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "No, it's not a contradiction, the event happened twice!" is and it was then a trick specific to apologists bereft of proper theological education. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Steiner's historical view of the two contradictory genealogy lists is not mainstream from a neutral point of view, but could be a 'significant minority view' (unorthodox, eccentric, bizarre), and is worth mentioning for that reason.
 * Tonmajoor (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * His view does get mentioned, just not in an article about a mainstream topic. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)