October 6

Stanford botanist John Hunter Thomas was born in Germany. That much is clear. But the exact name of his birth town is giving me some trouble. One source lists it as Beaten, Germany, while still another says it is Benthen, Germany. Yet another, which I suspect is the correct one, lists it as Beuthen, Germany.[1] However, I'm beginning to suspect that the reason I can't find it is because it is no longer in Germany, but in Bytom, Poland. From that article: "In 1945 the city was transferred to Poland as a result of the Potsdam Conference. Its German population was largely expelled by the Soviet Army and the remaining indigenous Polish inhabitants were joined mostly by Poles repatriated from the eastern provinces annexed by the Soviets." Am I correct, was Thomas born in Beuthen, now known as Bytom? Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that use "Beaten" (which doesn't look like a German toponym) also state he was raised in Poland, which makes it plausible the town was near the Polish border.  --Lambiam 05:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His father being a mining engineer makes it even more plausible that he lived in a coal-mining region which straddled the Polish-German border before WW2 and is now entirely within Polish borders. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A random snippet view in Google Books has a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report: Glenwood and Golf Course (1991) that includes a CV for Thomas which says:

"Born March 26, 1928 in Beuthen, O/S [presumably Old Style], Germany of native-born U.S. citizens. Marital status: Married, December 3, 1966, no children. Military service: Ensign, USNR, active duty, 1951-1952. Education: Kent School, Kent Connecticut, graduate 1945..."

That's all I could wring out of it. Alansplodge (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"O/S" is Oberschlesien, used to distinguish this Beuthen from Beuthen an der Oder. --Wrongfilter (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: are you superhuman? How did you manage to find that? I looked and found nothing. Since Bytom was formerly known as Beuthen, is it correct to say they are the same place? Also, if anyone is able to find content about his service on the USS Ernest G. Small, that would be helpful. How do I determine if he was officially awarded a Purple Heart for his injuries when the ship hit a mine on October 7, 1951? Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can say he was born in Beuthen O.S., Prussia, now Bytom, Poland.  --Lambiam 06:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is at John Hunter Thomas. I would rather add your suggestion as a footnote. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Thomas was Catholic. Do I refer to him in the biography as Catholic or Roman Catholic? Does it matter? Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Catholic" is better. But do you include the religion of Protestant scientists with no evidence of particular, or any, enthusiasm for religion? Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed it to Catholic. It is included in the bio because Thomas openly criticized the anti-birth control position of Pope Paul VI, and was a vocal advocate of human population planning. Historically, in post-1968 California, this was very much a "thing", with liberal Catholic figures in academia, entertainment, journalism, etc. all coming out against the Humanae vitae encyclical.[2] Looking into this further, there's a book on the same subject about the reaction in Europe. It's called The Schism of '68. I'm looking at it now; it's pretty amazing. My reading of the issue is that most Catholics support modern birth control, as did the majority of multiple advisory committees to the Pope. For some reason that I do not understand, the conservative minority reports were given precedence and authority. My guess is that this is what angered the progressive Catholics in academia so much in 1968. Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources agree that he was called "Pug" because he looked like a pug. Specifically, both had "a face that featured an extremely short nose dominated by large, slightly protuberant, liquid brown eyes". --Antiquary (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was a

pugilist? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

According to this [3], Winston Churchill was also "Pug". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks all. DuncanHill (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of NY publishes a 2 vol. book "Insight On The Scriptures" that explains this geneology as being that of Mary, Jesus mother. As Joseph is shown to be his adoptive father this seems very plausible. The WTBaTS is a well respected publisher of Bible related books and magazines, I am sure many modern Bible Scholars and Inst. of higher learning have a copy of the 'Insight' book plus THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, a very well translated modern version of the Bible. Could this explanation of this Geneology in Luke be given along with the others, maybe quoting from the 'Insight' book, in WIKEPEDIA? If this is exceptable what would I need to do to add it? 174.110.90.101 (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The WTBaTS is a well respected publisher of Bible related books and magazines.." That demands a reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"explains this geneology as being that of Mary, Jesus mother" We already have an article on the Genealogy of Jesus and the various explanations given for his two contradictory genealogies.:

• "Traditional Christian scholars (starting with Africanus and Eusebius) take both lineages to be true, offering various explanations for their divergence. For instance, one (usually Matthew's) may be taken to be the lineage of Joseph and the other (usually Luke's) of Mary, or one may be Jesus' customary legal lineage and the other his biological blood lineage. These versions can also fit the gospels' simultaneous account of Jesus' virgin birth of Mary alone, with Joseph being merely his legal adoptive father; both Joseph and Mary are taken to be David's descendants. Levirate marriage, through which an individual (such as Joseph) may have two legal fathers, can also serve these explanations. However, some modern critical scholars like Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan state that both genealogies are inventions, constructed to bring the Messianic claim into conformity with Jewish criteria." Dimadick (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Matthew 1:24 Joseph married Mary before she gave birth to a son, so no adoption was needed.  --Lambiam 16:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption may have been implicit in his marrying the mother and raising the child as his own, though it was widely known that the child wasn't of his own begetting. (A biblical rejoinder made to the adult Jesus implies the latter, and there are accounts in Jewish literature of him being referred to using his alleged biological father's name, not always pejoratively, sometimes just as an identifier.)

It's fairly obvious that both genealogies cannot be 'correct', because although they run parallel and often coincide (Mary being related to Joseph from several generations previously) and are not both purely patrilineal, one has only about 2/3 the generations of the other, a very unlikely discrepancy.

We must remember that the gospels containing the genealogies were composed at least 85 years after Jesus' birth in 5 BCE, at least 14 years after the central Jewish records in the Jerusalem Temple complex (where they might have been documented) were destroyed (by anti-tax rioters) at the outset the Jewish revolt, and moreover were written by (anonymous) members of the pro-Roman Pauline branch of (what was becoming) Christianity which was at odds with the 'Jerusalem church' branch (likely relocated to the Decapolis) led by Jesus' brothers and including other relatives and disciples, and the similar Ebionites, so those gospel writers likely did not have contact with any reliable oral sources. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.212.210.36 (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]