@ Jesus not married.

I guess I'll pop in with a quasi Jewish point of view on the "historical" Jesus, based on very little scholarly knowledge.

- he was a practicing Jew & teacher of his time & place
- therefore the religious doctrines that arose after after his (corporeal) death approximately 33 AD "do not apply" to attempts to understand his "personal" life & times

So if we can work from that premise, he was married at an average age & his wife would not have been mentioned, as most wives were not.

In other words, he was not that only rabble rouser tweaking the Romans & the power structures; and their wives are not retained in historical records, either.

Hope that helps; this is a genealogy site.

Alex
Nowhere in the bible does it say He didn't marry and also nowhere in the bible does it say He did.

But don't you think either way it would have been mentioned but it's not.
So I guess we will know one day.

Alex Moes I like your response on the last page. Thank you.

Adding a marriage relationship because it is found in gnostic writings, is adding a theological view to a family tree. Also this is not evidence of relationship nor even actual or realistic citation. Beyond the fact that It is not even a widely accepted view, anywhere.
Pagan Norse deities popping up in trees is to be expected, although largely legendary, there is, in most of these cases, a basis for their origins in actual ancestry - real people who over the course of time attained legendary status. Cart loads of ancient genealogies mostly confirm this.
On the other hand, 'evidence' for Jesus of Nazareth, regardless of theological views, a verified historical figure, being married to anyone, is beyond spurious, considering the VERY late gnostic sources for such assertions. Paleographic examination of any and ALL of the mss 'evidence' has conclusively returned and determined 6th c origins at the very earliest, and ranging upwards from there to the 9th c. This is for the earliest known, which is a SINGLE source and only a fragment at that. Everything else offered as evidence is 11th c and onward. There is no basis for this relationship to be included in this tree.
Since this acknowledged historical figure has great religious signifcance for millions, this is definitely a hot-button issue. In light of the the academic and forensic findings on the examination of the mss 'evidence' alone, not to mention the repugnance that the majority view this relationship with - it ought to be removed. It is simply bad scholarship and bad genealogy.

Agreed. The 3rd century Gospel of Philip can be read in a way that implies Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife. It's early enough that it could preserve an authentic tradition but the late date, combined with the ambiguity, make it highly problematic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Philip#Mary_Magdalene

This relationship would be just an obscure scholarly debate if it weren't for the popular books by pseudo-historian Laurence Gardner. People read his books, get excited, and start entering his very entertaining theories as fact. The Internet is full of these pseudo-genealogies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Gardner

The idea that Saint Sarah of Egypt was a daughter of Jesus and Mary Magdalene rests on even flimsier grounds. It's wholly invented by Gardner and his ilk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Sarah

"Jesus of Nazareth, regardless of theological views, a verified historical figure"

How is he a verified historical figure?

@ Alex Moes - I assume you are being facetious or are ignorant of history. Perhaps even uneducated as to the SEVERAL criteria used in evaluating mss.
Here are several early source citations:
Tacitus, Annals Vol. 15 ch. 44.
Josephus, Antiquities Vols. 18 and 20.
Letter to Trajan - Pliny the Younger
Mara bar Sarapion, letter
Suetonius, Claudius ch. 25, Nero ch. 16
Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a
Tosefta Hullin II 22
Lucian of Samosata
Thallus - references from Eusebius & Julius Africanus
Celsus
Quadratus
Census - Quirinius
etc etc
Almost unanimously, modern scholars of antiquity are in agreement that Jesus did indeed exist, AND the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, classical historians etc, conclude that all theories of non-existence have been effectively refuted.
That is, unless you have some of your own independent scholarship to offer that will take the world of palaeography by storm. Shivering with anticipation.

If you want answers to your questions about any thing biblical all you have to do is simply read the Bible. We can debate this for ever. There is a lot of people that don't want to believe what the Bible says it is God's word and it is the same today as it was written lone ago. God is the same today as God was in the beginning he never changes.

Christopher,
I don't even know what "mss" is.
I do not consider myself ignorant of history but nor do i consider myself an expert.
I certainly was not being facetious though, i wanted to know what you meant by the term "verified historical figure", most respondents to these discussions make statements grounded in faith, Dale's is an example, which have no interests for me and in my opinion bring no value to the conversation.

"Mss." is the abbreviation for manucripts (plural). One manuscript is an "ms."

In fairness, some of the sources cited for Jesus' existence are suspect or late or might have been tampered with, but it doesn't change Christopher's underlying point -- the idea that Jesus might not have been real is a fringe view. Most scholars accept him as an historical person -- they just can't agree about what he taught.

Statements of religious faith have no place in genealogy. Too many people have different faiths to think that religious debate will result in agreement.

That sort of diminishes things a little Justin, Christopher's list did look very impressive though.

I started looking at each one, the only "contemporary" document would have been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius , just a pity it says nothing about Jesus and proves two of the gospels to be _wrong_.

All his other "sources" seem to be men that weren't even born until after Jesus' death. As i stated in an earlier post they, at BEST, MIGHT have spoken to an eye witness. Admittedly a few of the list i could not readily track down and Thallus confused me a little, apparently he "... is first mentioned around AD 180 by Theophilus..." which implies to me that Thallus' own works don't actually survive rather we have commentary on him from later authors.

I have never claimed that the man did not exist, only asked what EVIDENCE there is of him.
My point is not that he did not exist, my point is that the fragments of information we have about him are so fragmentary that making categorical statements is practically impossible.

Was he married? We don't know.
Does any source say he was not? No.
Does any source say he was? Some appear to.
Does our understanding of his society imply that he would have been married? Yes.

On balance it seems the more likely scenario that he was married.

Having said that just because i think it most likely he was married it does not follow that this is supporting evidence of any of the family structures or genealogies shown here on Geni nor anywhere else

I like to read the academic literature on this subject. In my opinion, most of it pushes the evidence further than it will go fairly. Interesting, still.

The best case for Jesus as a historical person (in my opinion) comes from the letters of St. Paul, who was his contemporary. Then too, Josephus says James the Just was a brother of Jesus, and Heggesippus describes the election of Jesus' cousin Simeon to succeed Jesus' brother James as head of the Christian community in Jerusalem. And, two grandsons of Jesus' brother Jude were brought before Domitian and accused of being descendants of King David. All of that seems to me like fragmentary references to a real person.

I don't have an opinion about whether Jesus was married, but I think the strongest argument that he wasn't was his (apparent, arguable) ties to the Essene community, a community that practiced celibacy. So, celibacy wasn't unknown to Judaism of the time. Then too, the fact that only two grandsons of brother Jude were alive in Domitian's time to be brought before the emperor suggests (to me) that this could have been a family devoted to celibacy.

"All of that seems to me like fragmentary references to a real person."
Agreed.
Perhaps these were the points Christopher was trying to highlight, obviously a morning with Google doesn't give me much insight.

"Then too, the fact that only two grandsons of brother Jude were alive in Domitian's time to be brought before the emperor suggests (to me) that this could have been a family devoted to celibacy."
A bit presumptive?
Again i don't have background knowledge so i'll just shut up now.

Much ofhistory is "fragmentary" evidence, it is the criteria used to evaluate each piece of evidence,with which conclusions are drawn. One criterion would be the language used by comparing extant mss from the same time period, for instance if you had an alleged fragment of an English language newspaper from 1880 you would not expect to find the word "selfie" or "bling" included. Since mss were copied 'normally' word for word as older ones wore out even late mss can be sourced to earlier periods, with a fair order of certainty, simply from vernacular and also making it very easy to identify later scribal additions as well.

I seem to remember reading that the problem with the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" was that it passed all the papyrus, ink composition, orthography, and vocabulary tests, but flunked in the end by being a exact "tracing" of the words from another text. Fun stuff.

There is not a shred of verifiable evidence that Jesus, as this idealized person has become known, ever lived. Of the four references three only refer to "Christos" which is the Greek word for "King." The one other reference is from Flavius Josephus and was long ago proven to be a forgery. Ergo there is no real evidence as yet. I personally believe he lived, but was a man like any other and the disinherited crown prince of Judaea and son of the disinherited King, his true father, Joseph ab Heli. I believe Jesus married Mary Magdalene (a.k.a. Taricheae), 'possessor of the heritage of the castle of Bethany' - or tower (migdal) of Bethany, daughter of Syro / Syrus (the Jairus) the Chief Priest, and (Mary) the daughter of Eucharia, wife of Syro, and a royal kindred of Jesus. In other word Mary would have been of the Hasmonaean House of the Maccabees. And thereby Jesus in this marriage would have inherited both Judaea from his father and Israel from Mary, his wife.
It is just sad that much too many people have to think with the dogma instead of their brain. As for me, my Dogma was run over by my Karma.

Bishop Spong has made interesting observations to certain items of the New Testament. Such as 1 Corinthians 1:5 regarding the apostles' wives and sisters in accompanying Jesus:

"How does Mary Magdalene become the senior of this group of wives (the Apostle of Apostles), her name always first in the list, if she is not the consort of Jesus?

How would she have the right to claim the body of Jesus for taking away (as in John 20:15) if she were not his next of kin?

Why would she presume the wifely duty of anointing Jesus for burial if not his wife?"

@MichaelBarnes Everything you wrote is completely INCORRECT, EVERYTHING
1) "...There is not a shred of verifiable evidence that Jesus, as this idealized person has become known, ever lived..."
Unfortunately you are WRONG, this is an incredibly ignorant and ill-informed statement. An ABBREVIATED listing of sources, which is more than ample, has already been provided.
2) "..."Christos" which is the Greek word for "King."..."
WRONG AGAIN, perhaps you need to actually study Greek for yourself, the WORDS for king in Greek are ANAX and BASILEUS, basileus being the most common. Seriously, did you check any facts? This is foolish on such a basic level, setting the stage for the rest of this gibberish - an incredibly large number of people with no Greek knowledge know what the word 'christos' actually means in English, yet somehow you do not.
"Chrisma" (not charisma) however, is used in the LXX to denote kings who were 'anointed' as such, but neither is this the word for 'king'. Christos is not present anywhere in the LXX translation, but the same word, - 'basileus' is used throughout. And in the Greek NT.
3)"...the...reference...from Flavius Josephus...proven to be a forgery..." Care to cite some sources? Unfortunately the OVERWHELMING majority of scholars are against you.
4) "...the disinherited crown prince of Judaea and son of the disinherited King, his true father, Joseph ab Heli..."(Luke 3.23) Fringe and CRACKPOT theory with absolutely NO evidence from antiquity, NONE. The ONLY source (which is NOT evidence) is the James 'protoevangelium' (ca 145 AD) which was already noted as 'dubious' and a 'forgery' by the 3d c. ("Brethren of Jeus" Commnetary on Matthew 10.17, Origen) There is a great deal of ACTUAL scholarship refuting the 'disinherited' proposal, perhaps you should read it.
5) In referring to Mary Magdalene and the alleged 'marriage', once again you have given ZERO sources, the sources that do exist are ALL LATE period, gnostic writings. The most damning of evidences against your crazed ravings, is the total lack of any mention of this scenario in any of the MILLIONS of writings or fragments from EARLY antiquity, they DO NOT EXIST. If Mary Magdelene was of the high social status you described, she most certainly would not have been a prostitute, she would have been too closely sheltered and insulated for such a storyline. Lack of cultural knowledge.
6)If she was indeed the daughter of the Chief Priest, she most certainly would NOT have been bought before a common rabbi for a judgement. You show an utter lack of understanding of the custom and culture of 1st c Judea. Even more appalling - you posit yourself as an expert, when it is clear you have been reading material from fringe conspiracy websites.
7) "...thereby Jesus in this marriage would have inherited both Judaea from his father and Israel from Mary, his wife..."
Except the Hasmonean monarchs were LEVITES and not Judahites, so they were NOT kings according to established Jewish law, so this assertion is also spurious. Beyond that the current 'king' Herod, was not even Hasmonean, and ruled over <kingdoms> which were fragmented from greater Israel by the Romans. (ethnarchs, tetrarchs, kings) read your history.
8) "...It is just sad that much too many people have to think with the dogma instead of their brain..."
And what have you done but presented your personal dogma? As for use of the brain, it has been demonstrated that you put very little thought (if any) and NO research whatsoever into promoting your position. To conclude your post with such an arrogant assertion, is laughable and opens you up to well deserved ridicule, low regard and scorn. This in addition to that garnered by your specious, psuedo-fact assertions.
9) Bishop Spong is on the leading edge of liberalism as opposed to orthodoxy. His conclusions are expected. Putting his 'unorthodox' position aside, he is also on the wrong side of historical method, scholarship and most sadly, fact, as well. Let's take a look at his 'conclusions':
(A) "How does Mary Magdalene become the senior of this group of wives (the Apostle of Apostles), her name always first in the list, if she is not the consort of Jesus?"
In NO way does this indicate she is 'senior' to anyone, nor even a wife. In fact if she was the "wife" (or 'consort') of Jesus, it would have been noted as - The wife of jesus and the Apostles - or something similar, which it is NOT. The method Spong uses is known as eisegesis. Forcing his own conclusions INTO the text to 'make' it read as he wishes. To fit his liberal and scripture bereft theology. Thereby disregarding the actual intent, meaning and facts the writer presents.
(B) How would she have the right to claim the body of Jesus for taking away (as in John 20:15) if she were not his next of kin?
Again, EISEGESIS. No where in the text is it even suggested she had a special 'right' or was trying to assert this 'right'. The referrence you give ignores the preceding and following context.
a) She refers to him as "lord" (vs 2, 13 and 18) the SAME Greek kurios which is used in the LXX translation in referrence to God. She did NOT address him as 'husband'. But,then again, you have already exhibited your ignorance of Greek.
b) she did not know him (v 14), surely a wife would know her own husband?
c) She next addresses him as "teacher" (v 16) again, not, "honey", "cuddlecakes", "my man" etc - and definitely NOT "husband'.
(C) "Why would she presume the wifely duty of anointing Jesus for burial if not his wife?"
Again with the eisegesis. Does Spong (or you) have any citation that limits this practice to a wife? Or even that it is an actual 'duty' beyond simple custom?
Let me answer that - NO. It was only custom, (however necessary) in fact in the narrative of Lazurus, it is evident that he was not so treated with spices since it is said "he stinketh" And such a ceremony could have included, parents, neighbors, friends, servants or even a paid contractor with no family present at all.This theory also "stinketh", I'm afraid.
Maybe try some actual scholarship for a change. Fringe anti-scholarship really has no place in any debate. Perhaps you should not watch late night television either.
It is best to actually be informed when presenting something as "factual" in public. It is VERY obvious you do not know what you are talking about.

A reminder -- calling people names in a public discussion is always going to get you reported. Don't go there.

The 'Desposyni' was the most hallowed of distinctions in early Christian times. It meant 'Heirs of the Lord.' According to Father Martin (1958) "it was reserved uniquely for Jesus' blood relatives'. 'Only those in the bloodline with Jesus through his mother qualified as Desposyni'. Herod-Antipas , son of Herod the Great, had ordered the destruction of all aristocratic genealogies. But, according to Julius Africanus, 'A few careful people had private records of their own...and took a pride in preserving the memory of their aristocratic origin.' These included the people...known as Desposyni. In Hegesippus's Hypomnenata he reported that Domitian ordered the execution of all Desposyni. This would seem a reason to keep quite.
(1) If Jesus were the one and only son of Mary, the Desposyni could only be of his descent.

(2.) If there were some Desposyni in descent from Mary, but not from Jesus, the Mary must have had offspring other than Jesus.

'And the consort of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene.
But Christ loved her more than all the disciples, and
used to kiss her often on the ( mouth?). The rest of the
disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval.
They said unto him, why do you love her more than all of us?
The Saviour answered and said to them, Why do I not love her like you?...
Great is the mystery of marriage, for without it the world would not have existed. Now the existence of the world depends on man, and the existence of man on marriage. - Gospel of Philip

did you really thinking bringing up this topic would not have any negativity attached at all?

The passage regarding Jesus in Josephus,' - 'Antiquities of the Jews,' is called (Testimonium Flavianum) or ("TF") for short.

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars." - Dr. Gordon Stein

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

Once again you are wrong. As is Stein. Since Stein was a radical atheist and promoted religious skepticism throughout his life, his "conclusions" are to be expected.
Stein was NOT a scholar, nor a historian - his doctorate was in PHYSIOLOGY, by the way.
His 'scholarship' (shoddy at best) is immediately suspect because of his narrowly focused agenda.
It is no wonder that a crackpot like Dorothy Murdock, would have this garbage on her website. Murdock, who has been repeatedly rebutted and refuted (also had her facebook page permanently removed) claims she is an "independent scholar" which simply means she is so lunatic fringe that she has zero reputation in actual academic circles. Her main premise is that Jesus is a myth (refuted everywhere) and just about every other biblical figure she also catagorizes as fiction as well, despite archealogical evidences. She goes by an obscure hindu name as well. It is interesting that her website should be "truthbeknown.com" as there is not a scrap of truth on it. Instead, every little cast-off trace of deranged conspiracy theory is given a little niche for the gullible to consume and parade their insane delusions.
If this is where you are getting your 'information' from, there may be no hope for you.
Laying all of that aside, again the VAST MAJORITY of real and reasoned scholarship is against Stein (and Murdock). The preponderance of the physical evidence in the fields of archealogy and paleography belie his inferior "expertise" in fields he claims to be an authority in.
Judging by your SINGLE citation of Stein as an authoritative source, it becomes clear that you also have the same agenda.
Looking back at your original posting, your spurious pronouncements of "facts" - ALL of which were EASILY refuted (some were just plain laughable, especially your Greek definitions) It is plain that if you really want to know anything, you should re-examine your motivations and drop your agenda. It is clouding your judgement.
Now, it is "POSSIBLE" that the Josephus source MAY indeed be a forgery, as you (regurgitating Stein) propose - although unlikely. Yet the "VAST MAJORITY" (as you, again regurgitaing Stein, contend) have by no means come to this conclusion. This still does not address the list of other mss and fragments which reference the historicity of Jesus, the subject of your original posting.
You are wrong, it's as simple as that. And Stein (+Murdock) is niether an acceptable nor even remotely reliable source for fact.

Let's settle down a bit, shall we? No one ever in the history of the Internet won a religious argument.

The majority opinion about the passage from Josephus is that it is not original in its current form. It is probably a later elaboration of a brief mention.

Both the idea that it is a total forgery and the idea that it is totally authentic are extreme, minority views although there are respectable scholars in each camp.

If scholars can disagree, what makes anyone think the question can be settled on an amateur website devoted to genealogy??

Private said: did you really thinking bringing up this topic would not have any negativity attached at all?

If that was for me, I don't truly care if they argue. At least it has "them" talking about it. I'm atheist, so I don't believe I even was created out of the breath of a "God" or the rib of a man, or that I'm going into flaming pits of hell for what I do believe in. Some Polynesian genealogies make the first humans born of a volcano, while the Iroquois believe that Sky Woman fell down to earth by the Great Spirit and created twins (good and bad) and the good twin put his mother's head into the sky and she became the sun.

Religions are all mythological to me, so I can't be dragged into an argument about it. I don't have the energy for it...I'd rather just add more profiles to the family tree. If people want to be negative, that's their choice...I choose to stay positive and move along.

For the record, this thread amuses me.

i do beleive in aliens :) but cant figure out the tree :P

Mi(2), the way I learned it the first humans came up through a hole in the floor of the Grand Canyon ;)

I'm a religious guy, but if someone wants to argue about it I'm not interested.

In the best of all worlds, this could be a thread to discuss the actual evidence. I don't think that's unreasonable for genealogists, but it doesn't ever work out that way.

I'm particularly interested in Michael Barnes' idea of Jesus of the Hasmonean heir. That comes from the work of a very popular pseudo-historian. We sell his book at the store but I can't think of the name right now. I keep wanting to say Ahmed Osman, but no, he's the guy who thinks Jesus is the same person as King Tut.

Mi(2), I'm also amused by it. It's all mythology to me. I do love being descended from mythological Vikings though, lol.

It's not a religious argument from my side. On the other hand, Barnes obviously has an agenda. My problem is with the historicity and the scholarly content of his 'facts' and playing fast and loose with the Greek language.
If he did not wish to be called out on inaccuracy, error and falsehood - he should not have been trolling.
If he wanted to be taken seriously, he should have been factual, at the very least, check his sources and cite peer reviewed authors or accepted sources or even just opinion of general consensus of scholars, historians and paleographers.
Not the single-sourced collection of extreme fringe, agenda driven polemic he refers to.
It's not helpful, is dishonest and misleading.