Layman

I think it comes down to authorial intent. Surely if Matthew and Luke did not mean to portray these geneologies as biological, literal ones, then it's folly to insist they be treated that way.

The question then is, what was the convention among writers of that era (or genre)? I haven't studied this topic much, but as I was reading Brown's Birth of the Messiah last night, he suggests that giving Messianic geneologies or such would not have been uncommon and would not necessarily have been taken literally by the audiences. But I haven't checked his full discussion of this or his sources.

Grumpy

Luke: "But I thought you said I'd get to do the Lord's genealogy!"

Matthew: "When did I ever say that? You know genealogy is my thang!"

diana

Grumpy,

Damn straight. Luke didn't seem to even have a very broad repertoire of Hebrew names to draw from. He kept repeating himself. If it was anybody's thang, it was Matthew's (except for that ennumeration prob).

d