Two contradicting genealogies of Jesus?
Question by A B: Two contradicting genealogies of Jesus?
I’ve read many speculations from christian sites, some suggesting that the other lineage isn’t really Joseph’s but Mary’s. Is there any scriptural information in the bible which suggests that Luke’s line isn’t Joseph’s? Can we establish it with certainty? What makes some think Luke isn’t really meaning Joseph?
P.S: I know its possible that a woman’s genealogy is traced as though it were her husbands. I also know levirate laws, by which its possible that Jacob and Heli were brothers, Heli died childless, Jacob married Heli’s wife and had Joseph as firstborn. In that case Joseph would be the actual son of Jacob….” but the legal son of Heli. I’m aware of all these possibilities, but we can’t start exploring them without establishing that Luke isn’t really talking about Joseph’s lineage. Is there scriptural reason to think he isn’t? Is there scriptural reason to think Luke was talking about Mary?
Best answer:
Answer by Lightning From the east
Jesus’ genealogy is given in two places in Scripture: Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38. Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus to Abraham. Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies. For example, Matthew gives Joseph’s father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke gives Joseph’s father as Heli (Luke 3:23). Matthew traces the line through David’s son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), while Luke traces the line through David’s son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27).
Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regard to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel’s father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel’s father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah).
Another explanation is that Matthew is tracing the primary lineage while Luke is taking into account the occurrences of “levirate marriage.” If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man’s brother to marry his wife and have a son who would carry on the man’s name. While possible, this view is unlikely as every generation from David to Jesus would have had a “levirate marriage” in order to account for the differences in every generation. This is highly unlikely.
With these concepts in view, most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli’s daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).
Add your own answer in the comments!
Jesus never existed, everything you believe is a lie.
If you’re an “infallible word of God” cover your eyes and don’t read my answer, i don’t mean to pick at any part of your faith and certainly don’t mean to offend anybody.
Personally I love the bible, I accept it as truth, I accept it as inspired, but feel no need to justify every contradiction as correct in both cases.
If you must figure this out while having both of the discussions be “infallible”, I wish you luck; that would take a lot of twisting and speculating on dozens of special circumstances to be plausible. If you can consider that one of them may have gotten it wrong then consider the following:
Mathew had a different audience than Luke in the bible. Mathew was a Jew writing to other Jews in order to convince them that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and thus his genealogy was intended to show the following things:
– A lineage from David, King of Israel – implying that He would have been rightful heir to the thrown.
– A lineage including 21 generation, he actually included 19 but stretched it to look like 21 because 3 and 7 are holy numbers so 21 generations from David would be significant
– A lineage touching on some of the important people in the Judeo history
– A mention of Christ coming “out of Egypt” and a “slaughter of the innocent” to equate Christ with Moses. There is a lack of historical evidence for the slaughter of the innocent near the birth of Christ and the notion that Jesus grew up in Egypt makes it odd to call Him “Jesus of Nazareth” in the remainder of the scriptures and fulfilling a prophecy that was already fulfilled in Moses again with Jesus.
I think Mathew was aiming for a certain audience and perhaps aimed a bit too hard. I doubt anybody manipulated the texts, but in the reasoning of Jew to Jew during the era it probably was a story that evolved.
Luke on the other hand was a physician, and wrote from a gentile’s perspective to other gentiles without the need to make the Jewish points that Mathew focuses on.
I believe Luke probably got it right because his lineage wasn’t trying to force the points that Mathew needed to force to make his point. Of course the only key piece of information is what they both agree on, that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh and that someway or somehow Mary was His mother but in a marvelous way, the virgin conceived and God was His father.
The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are fabrications, so you can’t tell anything factual from them. Each of those writers wanted to show that Jesus was descended from David, so they separately made up the respective genealogies. That is why they contradict each other.
They each provided their fabricated genealogies as showing the descent from David through Joseph, which would have been according to the legal descent, since Joseph was the husband of Mary.
Since the genealogies are contradictory, some Bible apologists try to say that the genealogy in Luke is actually that of Mary. However, Mary is not even mentioned in that genealogy. If that genealogy was that of Mary, why doesn’t her name appear in it?
In any case, according to Luke, Mary was Elizabeth’s cousin (suggenes in the original Greek, which indicates a blood relative). Since Elizabeth was of the priestly tribe of Levi, Mary would also have been of that descent and could therefore not have been a descendant of David. That is, if you believe what Luke says.
That is especially relevant because Luke mentions Mary in the birth stories much more than Matthew does. For example, instead of Joseph, it is Mary who the angel appears to concerning the coming birth of Jesus. There are also several other narratives about Mary, indicating the importance that Luke gave her. In that case, why wouldn’t he have mentioned Mary in the genealogy if he intended it to be hers?
It should be noted that Mary’s name does appear in Joseph’s genealogy in Matthew, where it states that Joseph was the husband of Mary.
Those who say that the genealogy in Luke is Mary’s therefore have no basis for saying that other than wishful thinking.
But that is not all. Since @Lightning from the East brings it up, I should comment about the virgin birth.
The belief in the virgin birth was one of the myths that developed about Jesus after his death on the cross. And it was a relatively late one at that, because it is not known in the earlier Christian documents.
When Matthew wrote his gospel he tried to find something in the scriptures to support the idea of a virgin birth. As a Greek speaker, he used the Septuagint translation of the scriptures, but that translation often did not convey the sense of the original Hebrew. Furthermore, the idea of a virgin birth would have been foreign to the Hebrews of the Old Testament time (it was essentially a pagan concept), and the only passage Matthew could come up with was Isaiah 7:14.
The prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-16 was about an event that would take place in the near future from the time it was given, not hundreds of years in the future. Furthermore, the woman spoken of was not referred to as a virgin (which is bethuwlah in the original Hebrew), but rather a young woman (almah in the original Hebrew) and there was nothing unusual about the birth. As the prophecy said, by the time the child who was to be born would be able to refuse evil and choose the good, the land would be forsaken of both of its kings–again, an event that would take place in the near future.
But the point that needs to be emphasized is that Isaiah used the Hebrew word for virgin (bethuwlah) in several other places in his book (23:12, 37:22, 47:1, and 62:5), so why didn’t he use it in 7:14 if the woman was supposed to be a virgin? The answer is that the young woman was not supposed to be a virgin as is clear from the context.
Also, Jesus was not called Immanuel, which is what Isaiah said the child would be called.
What it all boils down to is that Matthew was trying to fabricate a prophecy about the virgin birth (which, again, was itself just a myth that arose in the years after the death of Jesus) from the Hebrew Scriptures. But He got tripped up by the Septuagint translation, for in that translation the Hebrew word for young woman got translated into Greek with a word that was more ambiguous and could have been taken as meaning virgin.
Also, in several other places in the New Testament, the idea of a virgin birth is negated. In Romans 1:3 and Acts 2:30, for example, Jesus is described as being of the seed of David “according to the flesh,” which would rule out the idea of a virgin birth.
The fact is that the stories of the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are nothing but fabrications. They completely contradict each other.
Added
For further information about the incompatibility of the birth stories of Jesus, see my answer here.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Al_3XLNIMOXMvk0BBlzvuPXty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120602070506AAgzrqj
Added
And in case someone questions the historical references I provide in that answer, see my answer here which also provides answers in response to such questions.
TIME BEFORE & TIME AT & TIME AFTER CHRIST JESUS ASCENDED
Matt.1:1-17, N. T. sends us back to O. T. people & time then,
foward to Jesus was here and Jesus ascended, then time after
Jesus that adds this time onto the age of the universe.
Age 0000 – 0930, years (0130 – 0930)* Adam #1. Gen.5:3,5.
Age 0105 – 0912, years (0130 – 1042)* Seth #2. Gen.5:6,8.
Age 0090 – 0905, years (0235 – 1140)* Enos #3. Gen.5:9,11.
Age 0070 – 0910, years (0325 – 1235)* Cainan #4. Gen.5:12,14.
Age 0065 – 0895, years (0395 – 1290)* Mahalaleel #5. Gen.5:15,17.
Age 0162 – 0962, years (0460 – 1422)* Jared # 6. Gen.5:18,20.
Age 0065 – 0365, years (0622 – 0987)* Enoch #7. Gen.5:21,23.
Age 0187 – 0969, years (0687 – 1656)* Methusaleh #8. Gen.5:25,27.
Age 0182 – 0777, years (0874 – 1651)* Lamech #9. Gen.5:28,31.
Age 0000 – 0502, years [1056 – 1558] Noah to Shem born.
Age 0502 – 0600, years (1558 – 1656] FLOOD YEAR. Gen.7:6.
Age 0600 – 0950, years (1656 – 2006)* Noah #10. Gen.9:28,29.
Age 0100 – 0600, years (1658 – 2158)* Shem #11. Gen.11:10,11.
Age 0035 – 0438, years (1658 – 2096)* Arphaxad #12. Gen.11:12,13
Age 0030 – 0433, years (1693 – 2126)* Salah #13. Gen.11:14,15.
Age 0034 – 0464, years (1723 – 2187)* Eber #14. Gen.11:16,17.
Age 0030 – 0239, years (1757 – 1996)* Peleg #15. Gen.11:18.19.
Age 0032 – 0239, years (1787 – 2026)* Rue #16. Gen.11:20,21.
Age 0030 – 0230, years (1819 – 2049)* Serug #17. Gen.11:22,23,
Age 0029 – 0148, years (1849 – 1997)* Nahor #18. Gen.11:24,25.
Yrs 0222 + 1656= flood= 1878, Terah #19, + 130, Abraham born 2008.
Age 0130 – 0205, years (1878 – 2083)* Terah #19. Gen.11:32.
Age 0000 – 0075, years [2008 – 2083] COVENANT-1983 BCE, Matt.1:1-17;
Age 0075 – 0100, years [2083 – 2108] Abraham to Isaac. Gen.21:5.
Age 0100 – 0175, years (2008 – 2183)* Abraham #20 Gen.25:7,9.
Age 0000 – 0005, years [2108 – 2113] Isaac heir. Gen.15:13,16,18.
Age 0005 – 0060, years (2113 – 2168) Isaac & Jacob. Gen.25:26.
Age 0060 – 0180, years (2168 – 2288)* Isaac #21. Gen.35:28,29.
Age 0000 – 0130, years [2168 – 2298] 70 in Egypt. Gen.47:9. 46:27.
Age 0130 – 0147, years (2298 – 2315)* Jacob #22. Gen.47:28.
Age 0040 – 0110, years (2298 – 2368)* Joseph 23rd person[Gen.50:24-26].
END: Book of Genesis 2368th year after Adam was created last[1698 BCE].
Abraham son #20, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Pharez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab,
Nashon, Salmon[Naomi and Ruth 4:18-22]; Boaz, Obed, Jesse & David #33.
Age 0040 – 0080, years [2433 – 2513] Moses Exodus 12:37,41[+ yr 2083].
Age 0080 – 0120, years (2513 – 2553)* Exo.7:7; Deut.34:7, Moses dies.
Age 0120 – 0301, years [2553 – 2854] Jdgs 11:26[Exodus + 341st yr].
Age 0080 – 0100, years (2883 – 2983)* Acts 13:20,21 + 20-1Sam.25:1.
Age 0024 – 0070, years (2983 – 3029)* 33.David 2Sam.5:4,5; 1Ki.2:10,11.
Age 0029 – 0033, years (3029 – 3033)* 01.Solomon 1Ki.6:1[480-Deut.34:7].
Age 0033 – 0069, years (3033 – 3069)* 01.Solomon* Psm.83:18; 1Ki.11:42.
Age 0041 + 0017, years (3029 – 3046)* 02.Rehoboam* 1Ki.14:21.
Age 0040 + 0003, years (3046 – 3089)* 03.Abijam* 1Ki.15:2.
Age 0019 + 0041, years (3089 – 3130)* 04.Asa* 1Ki.15:10.
Age 0035 + 0023, years (3130 – 3153)* 05.Jehosaphat*1Ki.22:42.
Age 0032 + 0008, years (3153 – 3161)* 06.Jehoram* 2Ki.8:17,31.
Age 0022 + 0001, years (3161 – 3162)* 07.Ahaziah* 2Ki.8:26.
Age 0000 + 0006, years (3162 – 3168)* xxAthalia 2Ki.11:3.
Age 0007 + 0040, years (3168 – 3208)* xxJehoash 2Ki.12:21.
Age 0025 + 0029, years (3208 – 3237)* xxAmaziah 2Ki.14:2.
Age 0016 + 0052, years (3237 – 3289)* 08.Uzziah* 2Ki.15:2.
Age 0025 + 0016, years (3289 – 3305)* 09.Jotham* 2Ki.15:33.
Age 0020 + 0016, years (3305 – 3321)* 10.Ahaz* 2Ki.16:2.
Age 0025 + 0029, years (3321 – 3350)* 11.Hezekiah* 2Ki.18:2.
Age 0012 + 0055, years (3350 – 3405)* 12.Manasseh* 2Ki.21:1.
Age 0022 + 0002, years (3405 – 3407)* 13.Amon* 2ki.21:19.
Age 0008 + 0031, years (3407 – 3438)* 14.Josiah* 2Ki.22:1.
Age 0025 + 0011, Years (3438 – 3449)* xxJehoiakim 2Ki:23,36.
Age 0010 + 0018, years (3431 – 3449)-Jehoiachin 2Ki.25:8,27-30.
Age 0018 + 0037, years (3449 – 3068)-Jehoiachin Jer.52:31-34.Eze.1:2.
Age 0021 + 0011, years (3449 – 3460 – 606 BCE). xxZedekiah 2Ki.24:27.
Age 0027 + 0073, Years (3433 – 3460 – 606 BCE), Daniel, yr. 3533.
[Daniel yr 3460 [606 BCE, O. T., at John, to 2012 CE], 2618 yrs ago].
1)Jehoiachin, 2)Salathiel, 3)Zorobabel, 4)Abiud, 5)Eliakim, 6)Azor,
7)Sadoc, 8)Achim, 9)Eliud, 10)Eleazor, 11)Matthan, 12)Jacob, 13)Joseph
[of David’s son Solomon], the husband of Mary[of David’s son Nathan’s
lineage], of whom was born 14)Jesus, called Christ, Messiah[Dan.9:24-27],
Emmanuel, God’s anointed, Matt.3:16,17.