Saint Anne (Hannah) - Sources for her parents

Part of the problem is that the valid evidence for this profile appears to be thin too.

If she isn't the octogenarian mentioned by Luke (written circa 90AD), are we to take any of the other Sources from well over 100 years after the event as having access to more solid evidence?

I responded here:
https://www.geni.com/discussions/151980?msg=1099559

In the end, there is no defensible source except the gospels, and they don't tell us anything about Mary's childhood or ancestry. The Protoevangelium is interesting because it might, maybe, perhaps preserve a local tradition unknown to Luke, but that's not the same thing as saying it's proof.

For someone interested in this area of the tree, the different legends create a wonderful tapestry of stories and traditions That's what we should be emphasizing.

off topic
the fun about history and culture is when you notice other ppl dont know mutch.
in french culture the story about charlemagne is not just about war..

try to read charlemagne st anne story

The tapestry of stories are indeed fascinating. I'm hoping to preserve them all in the Speculative Ancestry of Jesus project.

Actually the Apostle Paul in Hebrews gives a clue about Mary's heritage. Mary was a Jew from her Mother's side. Mary was of priestly from her father. Why would I make a bold statement? John the Baptist and Jesus Christ were cousins. John the Baptist was a Levite from his mother Elizabeth. Elizabeth and Mary were cousins. Therefore by logical dictate, Mary's father was a Priest and Mary's mother was a Princess.

As far as source goes, sometimes in History, you have to be a sleuth and not seeking hard core evidence.

For instance up until the last 50 or 60 years, people scorned Mormons for believing Elephants roamed the Americas. Now we know that Mammoths and Mastodons roamed the Americas. Sometimes in the academic world, you have to trust the sources we have and continue digging.

WHAT ??? st anne was disconect from marie mere de jesus? what source you used Sharon? dont tell me you ask and use ofour knowledge after go in negation of this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupr%C3%A9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupr%C3%A9

for you it mean nothings Sharon but for other as myself i beleive what my ancestor told me its like that
for more than 2000 years st anne is know as the mother of mary and husban is joachim

repair this Sharon.

This is a genealogical site. It is not a 'wish list'. If contemporary sources that verify Mary's parentage are ever found, we will definitely use them.

Robert, there is an academic debate about how Mary and Elizabeth are supposed to be related. The Bible isn't clear. The word we translate as "cousin" means "kinswoman" not "1st cousin". (Luke 1:36) In fact, one of the two Persic manuscripts of Luke says Elizabeth was Mary’s aunt by her mother’s side.

Luke says Elizabeth was one of the "daughters of Aaron", meaning her father had to belong to the tribe of Levi. Luke also says her husband Zechariah was a priest, which means he also belonged to the tribe of Levi. (Luke 1:5)

It seems clear (to me at least) that Luke wants to give the impression that Jesus was descended from a royal line through Joseph, and descended from priestly line through Mary, but he isn’t interested in the details.

But I think you are wrong if you are saying that Paul says in Hebrews that Mary's father belonged to a priestly family and her mother belonged to a royal family. The whole point of Hebrews is that Jesus was made a priest by God even though he belonged to the tribe of Judah and was not of priestly descent.

Paul says: "For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. For it is declared: 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.' The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless" (Hebrews 7:14-18)

If Mary really did come from a priestly family, as Luke seems to imply, that really messes up the idea that genealogy given in Luke is really Mary’s line from King David. On the other hand, it’s clear the church fathers believed Mary was descended from King David. She had to be. Otherwise (if Jesus was the son of God not Joseph) then Jesus wasn’t really a descendant of David at all, except perhaps legally – and that could seem like a pretty weak claim if you’re not already a believer.

But, if Elizabeth really was Mary’s aunt (which is open to debate), then it would be Mary’s mother who had a priestly descent and her father could still be from the royal line. (The opposite of your theory.) That might be why Luke glossed over the details.

I am not saying Paul in Hebrew's talks about Mary being of a Priestly line. I am saying if you study Luke and Hebrews closely and have an understanding of Jewish law, you figure on your own Mary's heritage. The Lord descended from Judah and according to Jewish law the Mother determines one's tribe. "The original and current Jewish definition of a born Jew is someone whose mother is Jewish. Even though the Torah forbids a Jewish woman to marry a Gentile man, if she does, her children will still be Jewish," (http://www.beingjewish.com/identity/whoisajew.html)

With this understanding then, and adding to Luke's imply, one can clearly see Mary was from Judah because of her Mother. The Priestly side would have come from Mary's father. The word cousin also means kinsfolk. This is how one can determine Mary and Elizabeth were cousins or kin.

It’s hard, then, to make any sort of argument about Mary’s ancestry from just the Bible. There is room for all kinds of speculative connections, and various traditions give us a lot to choose from.

In the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary (part of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew), Joachim is said to have been a shepherd, of the tribe of Judah, married to Anna, daughter of Achar, of the tribe of Judah and family of David.

In the Gospel of James, Joachim is said to have been a rich and pious man, a descendant of King David, of the House of Amram. He and his wife Anna lived at Sepphoris.

There is a tradition that Joseph of Arimathea was a great uncle of Jesus. He is said to have been a rich merchant, not a priest. In different versions he was the brother of Joachim, or the brother of Anna, or the brother of the father of Joseph.

There is a tradition that Mary's father Joachim was the son of Heli.

There is a tradition that Mary’s father Joachim was a cousin of Heli (and a brother of St. Joseph of Arimathea).

There is a tradition that Mary’s mother Anna was a sister of Elizabeth who was mother of John the Baptist.

There is a tradition that Elizabeth was a niece of Mary’s mother Anna (so that Mary and Elizabeth were 1st cousins through their mothers).

And on and on.

My point is that the information in the Bible and the various traditions cannot prove Mary's parents had to be Joachim and Anna. The traditions don't even agree about the relationships, except to agree that everyone involved is somehow related to everyone else. If you look hard enough you can always find a tradition that says what you want to believe.

> according to Jewish law the Mother determines one's tribe.

No. Not at all. In modern Jewish law, which might or might not go back to Jesus' time, the mother determines one's Jewishness.

But, if you are Jewish (because your mother is Jewish) and if your father is also Jewish then you belong to the tribe of your father. (Numbers 27:8-11, Numbers 36). In the famous story of Zelophehad’s daughters, Jewish women who have no brothers (that is, women who will inherit their father's land) must marry within their father's tribe to keep the inheritance in the tribe.

Now, Justin you're not quite accurate. From what my Levite friends tell me this tradition has existed since the days of Moses.

Rabbi Aron Moss explains, Jewishness is in our souls from our mother and not from our fathers. http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/968282/jewish/...
The Jews use: Deuteronomy 7:1-5; Leviticus 24:10; and Ezra 10: 2-3 as the source of their claims. In fact, this tradition was held in Christ's day and Christ never argued on this tradition of the Jews and neither did the Apostles.
http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm
At first glance Justin your argument about where the Motherly tradition lies holds water, but again the Jews teach even before Moses they held this belief and it is why Isaac received the Covenant and not Ishmael.
http://chabadstanford.org/article.htm?The-Jewish-Mother-a-Theology-120
Jewish law is based on two ways: Oral and Torah. The Torah though take precedence over Oral, yet in both laws the Jews claim since before Ezra that Mothers determine the lineage.
http://jlaw.com/Articles/maternity3.html
Now with this understanding, I can agree St. Anne and St. Joachim were not viable sources. The writer may even have mistranslated or decided to inspire hope. Regardless of that fact, I withdraw my argument Mary's parents as Jewish law trumps Catholic Tradition. I am content in believing Mary's father was a Priest and Mother was a Princess. Though I am not content in publishing my belief until an archaeologist can support my beliefs.

Thanks for the retraction, Robert.

You are right that there is a dispute about the age of the tradition that makes a person if their mother is Jewish.

The Pharisees of Jesus' time believed there is an Oral Law that goes back to Moses. Modern Jews, who are their philosophical descendants, also accept that view.

The Sadducees of Jesus' time did not believe in the Oral Law. They thought it was man-made so they did not accept its authority.

It's not clear what Jesus believed. Many of his teachings make sense only if he disagreed with both the Pharisees and Sadducees. There are different ways to interpret his disagreement, but the most common is that he rejected the idea of an Oral Law but taught that the Law has to be interpreted by men.

For example, when he was criticized for gathering corn on the Sabbath he said "The Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath." His argument is very similar to the idea in the Oral Law that acting to preserve life trumps the Sabbath regulations against work, but it is a much broader interpretation.

So, he is arguing against the Sadducee idea that gathering corn on the Sabbath is absolutely forbidden under the Written Law. He is also arguing against the Pharisee idea that gathering corn on the Sabbath is permitted (only) if it is done to save a life (under the Oral Law).

Modern experts say it is not clear when the idea of being Jewish entered the Jewish tradition. There is no firm evidence for it before the Destruction of the Temple, but many think it must certainly be at least a bit older. Say, perhaps from the time of the Hasmoneans. So says my Rabbi ;)

Agreed. As far as Judaism goes, I would visit a Synagogue, however, I am always worried how they would react to my tribal lineage I inherited from my mom. In Oral tradition my family says Joseph , through Ephraim's lineage. So I just have never gone, when I get dirty looks from other Jews.

Funny. I also come from a Mormon background and am also (supposedly) a member of the Tribe of Ephraim.

I'm religious but not as sectarian as many others here. I love all my family's heritage religions. I belong to a Reform synagogue and I own a New Age bookstore. My father was a Baptist minister and a Lakota medicine man.

I attend religious services regularly. At the synagogue if I go alone or with my neighbors. Episcopalian, Lutheran, or Mormon if I go with my family. Buddhist, Hindu, or Religious Science if I go with friends.

I was born with a gene to argue about history but not about religion ;)

We are moving another discussion over to this discussion. For some of the prior discussion see:
https://www.geni.com/discussions/158862?msg=1100290

Robert made a point on the other discusion that deserves emphasis here:

"The Catholic Church does say, no certain knowledge. Yet, on July 26th of each year, St. Anne and St. Yoachim (Joachim) is given a special feast."
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/ANNE.HTM
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/JOACHIM.HTM

This an important point. We should have highlighted this earlier: The Catholic church celebrates a feast for Mary's parents Joachim and Anna but does not insist on the belief they were her parents. Instead, they are celebrated because they are role models for their particular virtues.

If that seems odd, there is a good historical reason for it.

Very early on, the church rejected the Protoevangelium of James (also called the Gospel of James). They did not include it in the Christian Bible because (they said) it was unreliable and not nearly as old as the other gospels.

But they also recognized that it was the main source for the "tradition" that Mary's parents were Joachim and Anna.

So the church was in a difficult position. This is why the modern church hedges on the question of Mary's parents. Officially and unofficially it is a permitted belief but not a required belief.

For example, New Advent, a Catholic publication says: "If we were to obey the warning of St. Peter Damian, we should consider it a blameable and needless curiosity to inquire about those things that the Evangelists did not deem it advisable to relate, and, in particular, about the parents of the Blessed Virgin (Serm. iii de Nativ. B.M.V.)."

This is part of what Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about St. Anne:

"All our information concerning the names and lives of Sts. Joachim and Anne, the parents of Mary, is derived from apocryphal literature, the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and the Protoevangelium of James. Though the earliest form of the latter, on which directly or indirectly the other two seem to be based, goes back to about A.D. 150, we can hardly accept as beyond doubt its various statements on its sole authority. In the Orient the Protoevangelium had great authority and portions of it were read on the feasts of Mary by the Greeks, Syrians, Copts, and Arabians. In the Occident, however, it was rejected by the Fathers of the Church until its contents were incorporated by Jacobus de Voragine in his "Golden Legend" in the thirteenth century. From that time on the story of St. Anne spread over the West and was amply developed, until St. Anne became one of the most popular saints also of the Latin Church."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01538a.htm

René made some points about the ancestry of Joseph on the other discussion. Although a bit off-topic, even here, I think it's worth mentioning a few bits and pieces.

Many experts (certainly not all of them) think the genealogy given in Matthew was the one circulated by Jesus' family, and probably the genealogy that got the grandsons of Jesus' brother hauled up before Caesar.

The reasoning here is that Matthew (unlike Luke) was written in Hebrew for a Jewish audience. Also, it seems to be in the form of mnemonic (3 sets of 14 generations, with one name missing from the 3rd set). That might mean it was transmitted orally after Herod (according to tradition) destroyed the Temple records. The missing generations in the 2nd part (as compared to the Jewish version) might be evidence the line was imperfectly remembered. And, as Shmuel has pointed out, the whole genealogy is waaaay too short to be perfectly true.

But there is also another problem with the genealogy in Matthew. It goes through Jeconiah, whose line was cursed. ("Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." Jeremiah 22:30).

There was an idea that the Messiah cannot come from this line. So, if Jesus' legal claim to Davidic ancestry through Joseph came through this line there is a problem.

But Jeconiah did have royal descendants (sons Shealtiel, Pedaiah, grandson Zerubbabel, and all the subsequent Exilarchs) so it might not matter.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Revelation-Chapter-22/

It says:
16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

That is what John the Apostle records. This would give credibility to the Genealogly in Matthew as Revelation was written prior to the Gospel of John. As far as the missing ancestor for Christ goes, it could have been an oversight on the scribes, or it may have been the Davidic Line disowning that person. Who knows? I'm more inclined to think it's a simple oversight.

All references to : “KING DAVID”
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-15/
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-9/
27 And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-12/
23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-21/
9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.

15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-22/
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him,The Son of David.
43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any manfrom that day forth ask him any more questions.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-Chapter-2/

1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

Hannah / Anna

Matthat Son of Levi ben Melchi

Jesus

Hannah / Anna

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-Chapter-3/

23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which wasthe son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which wasthe son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which wasthe son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which wasthe son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which wasthe son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the sonof David,
32Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which wasthe son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which wasthe son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which wasthe son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the sonof Cainan,
38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-1/

1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
3And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
4And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
5And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
6And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
7And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
8And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
9And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
10And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
11And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
12And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
13And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
14And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
15And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
16And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon arefourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

The missing person will be "Assir"

Copy of text send to Shmuel Aharon Kam to adapt the profile as per bible-text in Chronicles:

My question is about the descendants of this >Jehoiakim!! They are not right !!!!!! When you look in http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Chronicles-3-16/1 Chronicles 3:16 Context

13 Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son
14 Amon his son, Josiah his son.
15 And the sons of Josiah were, the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.
16 And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son.
17 And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir, Salathiel his son,
18 Malchiram also, and Pedaiah, and Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah.
19 And the sons of Pedaiahwere, Zerubbabel, and Shimei: and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister:

The Bible has a little snarl in this area. There is conflicting information.

Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel or Pedaiah according to Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2, Nehemiah 12:1, Haggai 1:1,12,14, but the son of Pedaiah and nephew of Shealtiel according to 1 Chronicles 3:17–19. Both Shealtiel or Pedaiah are sons of Jeconiah.

One explanation is that Sealtiel died childless and Pedaiah, his brother, married his widow according to a Jewish law. If so, Zerubbabel would be the legal son of Shealtiel but the biological son of Pedaiah..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shealtiel#Genealogy_in_the_Hebrew_Bible

O.k. that's a logical explanation of being adopted because of the law! That's right. But question is: was the bio Pedaiah of Sealtiel(Salathiel)? When he has been adopted all rights for heritage etc. go with it ! In the end according to hebrew law it's the same. But it's still a questionmark how to fill in that profile! I hope it can be done later when needed. You've seen my correction question to Shmuel Kam? MAybe he is reading this? There are a few persons which have to be altered I think! There is a Neri who's been married to Tamar .. She was married to King Jechoniah, 18th King of Judah !! There's a son of hers https://www.geni.com/people/Assir-בו-יהויקים/6000000036178062804 I want to know more about! In the online JW.org bible (Jehova'S Witn.) he's NOT mentioned! The jw.org (Jehova Witnisses bible says at https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-chronicles/3/#...

"17 The sons of Jec·o·niʹah the prisoner were She·alʹti·el, 18 Mal·chiʹram, Pe·daiʹah, She·nazʹzar, Jek·a·miʹah, Hoshʹa·ma, and Ned·a·biʹah. (THE PRISONER!). Assir is not mentioned!!! Look at my fore-last post before your message Justin, there he's mentioned !