Talk:Genealogy of Jesus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It would be good to have a source for the two Jesuses theory. Without reference to its originator some could read it as original research. - SimonP July 8, 2005 18:44 (UTC)
- Thank you. - SimonP July 8, 2005 20:15 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Adam
I removed Adam from the top paragraph. The line reads that both gospels trace Jesus to Adam but only Luke does this. The gospel of Matthew does not mention Adam, because the audience of this gospels was the Jewish people. Matthew only needs to appeal to Jews and mention Jesus' connection to Abraham and, thus, to the convenant between God and Abraham that only his line will inherit. It is more important that Luke mention Adam in order to link Jesus to God. Luke is a Gentile; thus, the convenent and a Jewish lineage mean less to him than Jesus actually linking to God. -- Psy guy Talk 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ?
Rahab —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.246.182 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] Inerrancy
I think the article is mistaken where it repeatedly says or implies that the only ones who think both genealogies can be "right" in any sense are the ones who believe in biblical inerrancy. This isn't a requirement at all. Also, the idea that one book reports Joseph's genealogy and the other Mary's isn't new. If I'm not mistaken, John Chrysostom suggested this in his homilies back in the fourth century. Wesley 21:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wrong Term Used
Strictly specking, the descents displayed in the article are pedigrees, not genealogies. Fergananim 21:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Matthew 1:9
The collapsing of Matthew 1:9 into this article has lead to the following problems:
- References to Matthew 1:9 come here rather than to a discussion of that topic.
- A lot of information has been lost.
- The distinction between the Matthean and Lucian geneolgies is blurred.
Rich Farmbrough 16:12 27 May 2006 (UTC).}
I disagree.
- This IS the topic of Matthew 1:9 (and 1:8, 1:7, ...).
- No encyclopedic information has been lost.
- The distinction between the Matthew and Luke genealogies is made clear in the two distinct genealogies. That they refer to different people (mary + joseph), is a religiously motivated opinion not a fact, and is given no more value than it deserves as a mere opinion (nor is the opposing opinion).
Clinkophonist 18:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Overhaul
This article, I perceived, was highly tainted by an un (really anti) neutral viewpoint. For instance, “most scholarly” seems to be a favorite choice of words of one particular writer, the style of which appears to confirm one identity behind the quill-bearing hand, as if to give credibility to a subtlel argument which was disguised as neutral, but lacking that quality. I’ve also included explanations of other edits below, and why those appeared to have “interested,” rather than neutral, connotations. I also request that sources of information be included.
I have edited the following to reflect what is said in the actual Greek, because those reading only the English have created a huge string of controversies unnecessary if they’d only consulted the manuscripts from which the English was translated. I have also amended the text because under analysis the words used were subtly biased, for instance, “More modern advocates” and “produce the suggestion.” “More modern” produces a sense that this suggestions they “produce”—as if fabricated—is somehow new, though it is not by any means: history and opinions must be fairly presented as is and plainly, without extra innuendos. I’ve also made the Matthan/Matthat theory more explicit as to which would be the biological father of Jacob and Heli as, if this were the case (though it’s entirey unnecessary if one knows the Greek), Matthew contains the detail that “Matthan begot Jacob” (NKJV), which would preclude Matthat from taking the wife of Matthan in Levirite Marriage because such a marriage only took place when there was no heir born to a man’s brother: this would mean that if such were the case, the only possible participant would have been Matthan, because “begot” “means [biologically] fathered.” Such a union, however, is pure speculation, and improbable, because Levirite marriage risked a man’s own heir, and therefore was avoided by them when possible by passing the duty on to a willing brother: such action was improper and frowned upon, but occurred.
The genealogy of Luke and Matthew diverge at David. While Matthew continues through Solomon and the subsequent kings, Luke links to Nathan, David's less well known son, and goes on to list 40 before Joseph, almost none of which match Matthew or appear in any historical documents. Zerubbabel and Shealtiel are listed in both the genealogy in Luke and that in Matthew, but in Luke Shealtiel is not listed as the son of Jechoniah but rather of Neri - this is further complicated as 1 Chronicles 3:19 states that the father of Zerubbabel was Pedaiah, a brother of Shealtiel. Both lines also end at quite different names, with Luke ending at Heli, and Matthew at Jacob.
Several theories have been proposed to explain the discrepancy. The oldest one, ascribed to Julius Africanus, uses the concept of Levirate marriage, and suggests that Matthan (grandfather of Joseph according to Matthew), and Matthat (grandfather of Joseph according to Luke), were brothers, married to the same woman one after another - this would mean that Matthan's son (Jacob) could be Joseph's biological father, and Matthat's son (Heli), was his legal father. More modern advocates of biblical inerrancy produce the suggestion that Luke's genealogy is of Mary, with Heli being her father, while Matthew's describes the genealogy of Joseph, but this would mean that "son" of Heli" actually means "son-in-law" of Heli, apparently contradicting Luke clearly stating that Heli is Joseph's father. The Greek article "tou" means "of the" both "son" or "son-in-law" were added to the English bible in italics. "of Eli, of Matthat..."
Most scholarly explanation generally give one of four possibilities. The first is that Matthew records the passing on of kingship, while Luke records biological parentage, though this fails to explain why kings that were not father to the next have been excluded from Matthew's list. An alternative, is that Luke gives the actual genealogy while Matthew presents a "ceremonial" one, for example, Neri being Shealtiel's natural father, but Jeconiah being the prior leader of the Jewish people. Other scholars suggest that at least one, and possibly both, of the genealogies is simply fabricated, thus explaining the divergence.
The following was unnecessary because the Genealogies are for two separate people, and it is also deceiving because of: “almost none of which match Matthew”; though it’s true, the presentation is not neutral, especially with the addition of the latter part of the sentence and no documentation as support. The fact that the Genealogies don’t match is apparent, “almost none of which” has anti-neutral connotations. I’m trying to fine-tune this article that it’s neutral as well as factual. Here is the text:
“almost none of which match Matthew or appear in any historical documents.”
I’ve also removed this, because it’s questionable without a source, partly because I’ve never heard this from secular or religious authorities on Biblical matters, and mainly because it smacks of someone promoting their own views:
“Other scholars suggest that at least one, and possibly both, of the genealogies is simply fabricated, thus explaining the divergence.”
This statement is ignorant of the actual statement by Luke, which was in Greek: the English rendition of it appears, and so it is therefore “apparent,” that Luke states Heli is Joseph’s father, however clearly, because the original is Greek, Luke does not state Heli is Joseph’s father, but: “Joseph, as reckoned by law the son of Heli.”
- apparently contradicting Luke clearly stating that Heli is Joseph's father.
I removed the following because it’s unnecessary to the edited text, and complete unrelated: Heli can be a different name of Joachim, mentioned in the apocryphal Gospel of James. The Greek article "tou" means "of the" both "son" or "son-in-law" were added to the English bible in italics. "of Eli, of Matthat..."
I have removed the following paragraph, which is accounted for by one book, on a questionable site: it’s unclear if this might not have been some way to get people to go to that site and buy the book. The source in question is also a book the author of which founded a cult. I concur with SimonP that more information for that text is needed. It is also well established, historically, that Jesus was a real, single, person: this both by secular and religious scholars alike: it’s in recent years this has on occasion come under attack, by and for various interests. There is documentation of this outside the early Church and believers as well, by way of letters. Here is the text removed for future reference:
Among the most radical theories explaining the discrepancy is the one that suggests that the Gospel writers have given accounts of the childhoods of two distinct people, whose only common features were that they were both named Jesus and both their families lived in Nazareth at one time or another, and neither of which are necessarily the Jesus involved in the remainder of the New Testament. The birth narratives in Matthew and in Luke are sufficiently different to allow this, and, furthermore, the events surrounding the birth narratives can be dated to quite separate eras: Luke's - AD 6, Matthew's - likely around 6 BC, thus giving at least some credibility to the theory. In addition, Jesus derives from the Greek name Iesu, which is thought to be a translation made by the Gospel writers of the Hebrew name Yehoshua, i.e. Joshua, a terribly common name in the era; likewise, Zerubbabel, meaning born in Babylon was a common name at the time of return from the babylonian exile, and it is entirely plausible that there are two different Zerubbabels. [1].
infinitelink 04:00 (Mountain) 2006, 4 July
[edit] Revert and Restore
Oops. I entered my own edit to the article because did it while not signed-in, and therefore didn't want the system to see this giant, anonymous, edit. and think there might have been vandalism; not to mention, that if anyone thinks "this jerk screwed this up," as opinions often lean towards, and if they don't read the discussion page, they'll be able to see who dunnit', and contact me accordingly. I now put the over-haul back, while signed in. infinitelink 04:12 (Mountain) 2006, 4 July
[edit] Additional Editing
I also made quite a few changes to the current article. It, in the first few sections, looks favorably on the idea of Matthew being Mary's account and Luke's Joseph's now. However, later, when issues of translation indicating Luke's as Mary's came up, i left it as it was, for the sake of scholarship and balance.
Also, some of my points come from theologians and Christian brothers with whom i am acquainted, so that the one who mentioned earlier the bias of the scholars might be, in some small way, appeased. Because i agree that throughout the older article there was a strong emphasis solely on scholarship that seemed to disregard and ignore invidual church interpretations, which are usually based in large ways BY scholarship to begin with. Seeing this, i hope my changes have helped.
I would very much like to see my editing hold, and hope that grammar corrections are the only thing to differ in the current article, simply because i believe it might take if we give it time.
I hope my additions are not looked upon as "vadalism" ...
(MrLigit was responsible for this comment and the alterations)
[edit] What has happened to this article
I propose reverting back to the August 12 version. The intro has been stuffed with arguments concerning the Mary vs. Joseph line. While this information is important and should have its own section, the paragraph in the opening is misplaced. A number of the "interpreations" recently added are unsourced and possibly original research. I'd say revert to the previous version, and then discuss what changed need to be made.--Andrew c 20:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ha, ha! Sorry for the changes! No, this is no original research; it is misstated research! I mixed the geneaologies up, but once i realised that Jehoiakim was in Luke's, i managed to sort it out ... sorry for that. Luke's is, with little doubt, Mary's, and Joseph's Matthew's. Sorry for the confusion! MrLigit
[edit] This article is way way way too POV
We have stuff like this in the opening paragraphs:
- even though Joseph was probably only the son-in-law of Heli (making Heli Mary's true father), Joseph was still referred to as the 'son' of Heli, or by other translations, Heli was called the 'father' of Joseph, generating even more confusion.
as though it was clearly established that Heli was Mary's father and that settles everything. The possiblity that one or both of the genealogies was fabricated or simply incorrect is almost completely ignored. The old version of this article was much less biased: we should at the very least reintroduce its clear list of the competing theories to explain the apparent discrepancies. Grover cleveland 02:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at resolving some of the POV issues with this article. I've moved material advocating the Heli-Mary theory to the section clearly devoted to that theory, and reintroduced the list of competing theories that was in the old article. Grover cleveland 03:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mary daughter of Heli?
- In other words, people believed Jesus was the son of Joseph, but really he was the son of Mary's father Heli. Thus Joseph would be irrelevant to this genealogy.
Can someone please explain how this makes sense? It seems to say that Jesus was really the son of Heli. Surely that can't be right. Grover cleveland 06:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Genealogy through Joseph is useless
I don't believe in Jesus but if christians are right and Mary gave a virgin birth then wouldn't Josephs ancestors be useless. The Tanach says that the Messiah will be of Davids stock. Ignoring the fact that it means he will be human it also means he will not be adopted. For example if an African-American adopts a Chinese child that does not make the Chinese child any bit Black, does it? My suggestion is get rid of any lineage of the father or you're admitting Mary was not a virgin.
