DLH

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. ( Lu 3:31 / Mt 1:6,7 ) Luke follows the ancestry of Mary which shows Jesus' natural descent from David. Matthew shows Jesus' legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father. Both signify that Joseph wasn't Jesus' actual father, only his adoptive father and giving him legal right.

Matthew departs from his style when he comes to Jesus, saying: "Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." ( Mt 1:16 ) He doesn't say that 'Joseph became father to Jesus' but that he was "the husband or Mary, of whom Jesus was born." Luke says that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary ( Lu 1:32-35 ) that "Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli." Lu 3:23.

Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: 'Genus matris non vocatur genus ( "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant")' ('Baba bathra,' 110, a)." Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

Both genealogies show descent from David - through Solomon and through Nathan. ( Mt 1:6 / Lu 3:31 ) They come together again in two persons; Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah, perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri - he was then the "son of Neri." or Neri's son-in-law. It is also possible that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his "son." ( Compare Mt 1:12 / Lu 3:27 / 1 Ch 3:17-19 )

So, Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David's line, and Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. ( Lu 1:32, 35 / Ro 1:1-4 )

The first chapter of Matthew the genealogy of Jesus runs from Abraham forward. In Luke Chapter 3 the genealogy goes back to "Adam son of God." Part of Jesus genealogy also appears at 1 Chronicles chapters 1 to 3, running from Adam through Solomon and Zerubbabel. The books of Genesis and Ruth combined give the line from Adam to David.

The latter three lists - Genesis/Ruth, 1 Chronicles and Luke - agree fully from Adam to Arpachshad, with minor differences on certain names such as Kenan, which is "Cainan" at Lu 3:37. The Chronicles and Genesis/Ruth lists agree down to David while another "Cainan" is found in Luke's account between Arpachshad and Shelah. ( Lu 3:35 - 36 )

From Solomon to Zerubbabel the Chronicles record and Matthew agree though Matthew omits some names. The answer to your question needs to address these as well as the differences in Luke's account from David to Jesus.

Genealogy involved private family records in addition to the public records of genealogies which chroniclers, such as Ezra, for example, had access to when they compiled their lists. To the registers that existed in the first century up until 70 C.E. the matter of the descent of the Messiah from Abraham through David was very important.

Matthew and Luke no doubt consulted these genealogical tables.

The question is why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listing of other chroniclers? For one thing it is not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. Ezra, for example, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5 , left out several names that were listed at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Matthew seems to have copied from the public register - leaving out some names not needed to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. Access of the Hebrew Scriptures would have likely been used as well. ( Ru 4:12, 18-22 and Mt 1:3-6 )

Both the lists made by Matthew and Luke would have been publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The Pharisees as well as the Sadducees - bitter enemies of Christianity didn't challenge these genealogies. They could have done so up until 70 C.E. when the records were destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Problems in Matthew's Genealogy?

Matthew divides the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus into three sections of 14 generations each. There is a name count of 41 rather than 42. By taking Abraham to David, 14 names, then using David as the starting name for the second 14, with Josiah as the last and finally by heading the third series of 14 names with Jeconiah ( Jehoiachin ) and ending with Jesus. Matthew repeats the name David as the last of the first 14 names and as the first of the next 14. Then he repeats the expression "the deportation to Babylon," which he links with Josiah and his sons. ( Mt 1:17 )

There is an omission of three kings of David's line between Jehoram and Uzziah ( Azariah ) is that Jehoram married wicked Athaliah of the house of Ahab, the daughter of Jezebel bringing this God condemned strain into the line of the kings of Judah. ( 1 Ki 21:20-26 / 2 Ki 8:25-27 ) Matthew named Jehoram as first in this wicked alliance, but left out the next three kings to the fourth generation - Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah.

Where Matthew indicates that Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel ( Mt 1:12 ) it coincides with other references ( Ezr 3:2 / Ne 12:1 / Hag 1:14 / Lu 3:27 ) but at 1 Chronicles 3:19 Zerubbabel is listed as the son of Pedaiah. This is because Zarubbabel was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage or possibly after Zerubbabel's father Pedaiah died Zerubbabel was brought up by Shealtiel as his son and so legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.


Problems in Lukes Genealogy?

Available manuscript copies of Luke list a second "Cainan" between Arpachshad ( Arphaxad ) and Shelah. ( Lu 3:35 Compare Ge 10:24 / 11:12 / 1 Ch 1:18, 24 ) Most scholars take it to be a copyist's error. "Cainan" is not found in this position in the Hebrew genealogical listings in the Hebrew or Samaritan texts, nor in any of the Targums or versions except the Septuagint. It doesn't seem to be in earlier copies of the Septuagint because Josephus - who almost always uses the Septuagint - lists Seles ( Shelah ) next as the son of Arphaxades ( Arpachshad ) - ( Jewish Antiquities, I, 146 [vi, 4] ) Afticanus, Irenaeus, Jerome and Eusebius all rejected "Cainan" in in Luke's account as an interpolation.

Bible Lists Of Jesus' Genealogy

Genesis And Ruth - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jered, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram (Abraham), Isaac, Jacob (Israel), Judan (and Tamar), Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz (and Ruth), Obed, Jesse, David.

1 Chronicles Chapters 1, 2, 3. - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon (Salma, 1 Ch 2:11), Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah (Uzziah), Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Amon, Josiah, Jehoiakim, Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), Shealtiel (Pedaiah) (See Footnote # 1), Zerubbabel (see Footnote # 2).

Matthew Chapter 1 - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah (and Tamur), Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon (and Salmon Rahab), Boaz (and Ruth), Obed, Jesse, David (and Bath-sheba), Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah (Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekia, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Jusus (foster son).

Luke Chapter 3 - Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Cainan, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Arni (Ram?), Amminadab, Nahshon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Nathan (See Footnote # 3), Mattatha, Menna, Melea, Eliakim, Jonam, Joseph, Judas, Symeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Jesus, Er, Elmadam, Cosam, Addi, Melchi, Neri, Shealtiel (See Footnote # 4), Zerubbabel, Rhesa, Joanan, Joda, Josech, Semein, Mattathias, Maath, Naggai, Esli, Nahum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Jannai, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli (father of Mary), Joseph (Heli's son-in-law), Jesus (Mary's son).


Footnote # 1. Zerubbabel evidently was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by brother-in-law marriage; or he was brought up by Shealtiel after his father Pedaiahs death and became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel (1Ch 3:17-19 / Ezr 3:2 / Lu 3:27).

Footnote # 2. The lines meet in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, afterward diverging. This divergence could have been through two different descendants of Zerubbabel, or Rhesa or Abiud could have been a son-in-law.

Footnote # 3. At Nathan, Luke begins reckoning the genealogy through Jesus maternal line, while Matthew continues with the paternal line.

Footnote #4. Shealtiel the son of Jeconiah possibly was the son-in-law of Neri. ( 1Ch 3:17 / Lu 3:27).

thentian

Maybe you're right. Maybe I've been in too many discussion where I point out that this writer says "blue" while this other writer says "yellow", only to be met by claims that the first author musta been focusing on the main color while the second was looking at the polka-dots, even though the second writer gives every appearance that he is talking about the main color and there is no indication of the object being multicolored in either account. "It is not impossible that the second writer was looking at polka-dots, therefore there is no contradiction!", shouts the apologetic, and then you get a couple of links to dictionaries thrown in your face along with a few contemptuous allegations that you don't even know the most basic rules of logic. Riiight, of course it is not logically impossible, but I ask myself if it is possible when this writer is supposedly divinely inspired.

Because: aren´t these discussions about whether the bible is "the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God" in the first place? If so, what is that supposed to mean? Shouldn´t it mean that when one writer says something, then that is the truth, and not just some halftruth? Isn´t someone who claims that the bible is inerrant really claiming that God - while not necessarily writing it himself- oversaw the whole process to make sure everything was correct? If the inerrantist no longer makes these claims, then I don´t see what the discussion is about, nor any point in trying to push him further. He´ll soon enough realize that something, written, translated, and printed by fallible humans is bound to cointain errors.

To find out what the author "really" meant to say is difficult. I have been delving a little into such questions myself lately; trying to figure out what Matthew really wrote and really meant to write in the last chapter of his gospel. To do so, you have to do textual analysis, which means you have to study the greek. It is not so hard to delve deeply enough into it to satify one´s own intellectual curiosity, but in order to convince these inerrantists looks like it is going to take a full dissertation on the way Matthew started, continued, and ended his stories, which I´m not sure I´m willing to do. I think other scientific and philosophical questions are much more interesting.

Cheers!

JES

The scales have fallen from my eyes…..I have decided to become a Christian apologist just like dr. lazer blast (lazer to his Christian friends), it seems like a lot of fun.

Take a supposed contradiction presented by some unrepentant heathen:




Now, in my past life I would have looked at these 3 tales of the same event and seen several contradictions. But no more, Hallelujah!

Now as a Christian I can smugly smile and say ‘Get thee behind me you ignorant heathen! There is no contradiction!’

And then I would weave a tale of such beauty and complexity to explain how these 3 stories actually compliment each other and validate the Bible’s authenticity:
You see the women were in shock from the heinous death of Jesus and did not remember that Joseph and Nicodemus had already added 75 pounds of spices to the linens as they wrapped our Lord. The women went home thinking that they must still anoint Jesus with spices after the Sabbath so they did some of their preparation before the Sabbath. The morning of the day after Sabbath they realized that they didn’t have enough spices to anoint Jesus and therefore bought more.

Clean, bold and beautiful. This being a Christian is fun and telling how it could be stories is a hell of a lot easier than trying to find a goat or small, furry animals to sacrifice as everyone knows atheists do in their basements. Do you have any idea how hard it is to find a goat in the city? :devil1:

thentian

Nice, but not really answering the question. I know well that the different genealogies have been discussed through the centuries, and that some explanations are somewhat plausible. However, tracing Jesus´ line through Mary doesn´t really answer the simple question of who was Joseph´s father? Unless your claim is that the writer didn´t "really" mean Joseph, but Mary.

DLH

The Hebrew word nacham in each of the verses you gave don't really mean change in the way that you are seeming to imply. Nacham is more accurately translated as feel regret or repent. So at Genesis 6:6 it isn't that God had changed his mind it is that his creation changed. If there were two friends and one of them became something bad other than what he had been the other friend would not be changing him or herself for disliking that person. It would be a change of position within the relationship but not a personal change in the second person.

It is interesting that at Ezekiel 33:11 God says that he doesn't take delight in the death of the wicked so his mind didn't change his position did.

Meatros

Ah, I see, so as it is written, it's contradictory, but if you make a whole lot of baseless assumptions, then it's not.

Using this line of reasoning invalidates the word contradictory, since nothing can be contradictory.
Example:
A square can be a circle.

Baseless assumptions: the square is actually a cube (which the author clearly meant by square) made out of playdoh and can be formed into a sphere (which the author clearly meant by circle).

I'm sorry but the way you use contradictory is incoherent - nothing can be contradictory according to you.

mg01

I'm just saying...

thentian

Unless, like dlb, you assert that the spices being talked about are two different batches of spices:

Can you give us a timeline of these events, please? Starting at the time Jesus is taken from the cross, perhaps?

thentian

Excellent post! Cudos!

Roland

Was John the Baptist arrested before Jesus began his ministry (Mk 1:14) or after (Jn 3:24)?