Christ's Apparent Geneological Flaws In Matthew and Luke

[morrow]

Hey everyone. I'm hoping that maybe someone wouldn't care to shed some light on the apparent contradicting genealogies in Matthew and in Luke showing the lineage of Christ coming through the seed of David? Without the assertion that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary.

 

[dimwhitt]

the "assertion" that Luke follows Mary's geneology back thru David to Adam and that Matthew records Joseph's geneology to David is the only explaination.

the 2 geneologies serve a wider purpose
- to fulfill the curse of God on the wicked kings of Judah from whom Joseph descended (the curse is uttered by Jeremiah) that no son of Solomon would be the promised king. Joseph is then Jesus adopted son and heir to the throne by adoption
- the gen. of Mary still fulfills the promise to David "your son will sit on the throne forever" but thru Nathan - 1 of David's other sons, not connected to the wicked kings of Judah

There is always a big picture

 

[morrow]

First off, genealogies of the bible were always based off of the father. AND the fact that Mary is not even remotely mentioned in this lineage negates the probability of the lineage belonging to Mary. If it had belonged to Mary might he want to mention her instead of starting off with Joseph???? This is circular reasoning.

The two genealogies do not serve a wider purpose. This is 100% assumption. The prophecies stated that he would be the seed of David. Not the adopted seed. He would have no rights whatsoever to the throne based off adoption (which it is never mentioned that Joseph adopted Jesus and please show anywhere in biblical history where an adopted son was given the throne of Judah). AND the fact that in 1Chron. 28:4-10 it states that he would be descended through Solomon. Of course it does not matter whether he descended through Solomon or Nathan as Jeconiah is listed as descending from both Solomon and Nathan (Jeconiah was obviously excluded because Luke tried to show Shealtiel as descending from Neri which is totally wrong according to Mt 1:12,1Ch 3:17) ...which is a big error. Jeconiah was cursed as (Jer 22:30) states and therefore none of his seed could take the throne. Which, Jeconiah he was born long after Solomon or Nathan (which negates trying to reroute it through Nathan). What we have here is an apparent flaw from two different perspectives. The fact that Jesus was born a virgin birth 100% negates that fact that the Messiah of that time could have stemmed from the seed of David.

One more thing. It could possibly be stated that Mary was a Levite, though there is no certainty. The only information we have on her parentage is through Luke which states she was the cousin of Elizabeth "the daughter of Aaron, a Levite". (Luke 1:5,36)

 

[dimwhitt]

First off, genealogies of the bible were always based off of the father. AND the fact that Mary is not even remotely mentioned in this lineage negates the probability of the lineage belonging to Mary. If it had belonged to Mary might he want to mention her instead of starting off with Joseph???? This is circular reasoning.

The two genealogies do not serve a wider purpose. This is 100% assumption. The prophecies stated that he would be the seed of David. Not the adopted seed. He would have no rights whatsoever to the throne based off adoption (which it is never mentioned that Joseph adopted Jesus and please show anywhere in biblical history where an adopted son was given the throne of Judah). AND the fact that in 1Chron. 28:4-10 it states that he would be descended through Solomon. Of course it does not matter whether he descended through Solomon or Nathan as Jeconiah is listed as descending from both Solomon and Nathan (Jeconiah was obviously excluded because Luke tried to show Shealtiel as descending from Neri which is totally wrong according to Mt 1:12,1Ch 3:17) ...which is a big error. Jeconiah was cursed as (Jer 22:30) states and therefore none of his seed could take the throne. Which, Jeconiah he was born long after Solomon or Nathan (which negates trying to reroute it through Nathan). What we have here is an apparent flaw from two different perspectives. The fact that Jesus was born a virgin birth 100% negates that fact that the Messiah of that time could have stemmed from the seed of David.

One more thing. It could possibly be stated that Mary was a Levite, though there is no certainty. The only information we have on her parentage is through Luke which states she was the cousin of Elizabeth "the daughter of Aaron, a Levite". (Luke 1:5,36)

if you have all the answers why ask the question
was it to prove how much you think you know

the only problem with your theory is:
its only your theory - what evidence do you have

the Church Fathers record that Luke's Gospel was taken from the account of Mary and it was they who presented the explaination of the geneologies in the 1st and 2nd centuries
they were certainly alot closer to the incident and could speak with alot more authority on the issue than you and i

the bottom line is that if you want to be skeptical about anything, you could always find 101 little "problems" with whatever it is your scutinizing (take all the conspiracy theories surronding the landing on the moon and the fact that it was really shot in a hollywood studio)

lets be reasonable about how we approach historical documents - and the most historically reliable documents in the entire ancient world

 

[dimwhitt]

Furthermore, everything in good writing of any kind serves a wider purpose - especially the Scriptures

 

[Catherineanne]

Hey everyone. I'm hoping that maybe someone wouldn't care to shed some light on the apparent contradicting genealogies in Matthew and in Luke showing the lineage of Christ coming through the seed of David? Without the assertion that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary.

I think it is clear that the writers did not have access to birth certificates, parish records, nor Genes Reunited.

Therefore, it is more than probable that a lineage passed down orally to two different groups, would differ when written down separately.

The important part of both is that Our Lord is descended from David, because that is what the OT prophesies, and that is what the NT says has taken place. How this happens is really of much less importance to the writers of the gospels, or even to ourselves. If you choose to disregard their evidence because it does not stand up to modern levels of historicity, then fine. It makes not a jot of difference to me.

 

[Catherineanne]

First off, genealogies of the bible were always based off of the father.

This proves nothing.

AND the fact that Mary is not even remotely mentioned in this lineage negates the probability of the lineage belonging to Mary.

This also proves nothing. If lineages traditionally mention the father, why would Luke mention Mary instead? As for negating probability, that is a weird kind of creature. You can reduce probability but by definition probability cannot be negated. Therefore, a possibility certainly remains that the church fathers were correct.

If it had belonged to Mary might he want to mention her instead of starting off with Joseph???? This is circular reasoning.

Why so? If tradition calls for the father to be named, then Luke will name the father. Why not? Why is it circular reasoning to say that it cannot be Mary's lineage, when Luke makes perfectly clear in his gospel that Joseph is not the natural father of Our Lord. However, Joseph is the legal father, and so Luke is perfectly right to quote him in the lineage.

There is a perfectly good reason for not quoting the mother in the lineage, in fact. The only time a mother without a father would be named would be if the father was unknown, and the baby born out of marriage. Neither is true in the case of Our Lord. Mary was respectably married, to Joseph, and her son is his legal son. But his actual father is God himself, as Luke makes perfectly clear.

Nothing circular about any of that.

 

[dimwhitt]

I think it is clear that the writers did not have access to birth certificates, parish records, nor Genes Reunited.

Therefore, it is more than probable that a lineage passed down orally to two different groups, would differ when written down separately.

The important part of both is that Our Lord is descended from David, because that is what the OT prophesies, and that is what the NT says has taken place. How this happens is really of much less importance to the writers of the gospels, or even to ourselves. If you choose to disregard their evidence because it does not stand up to modern levels of historicity, then fine. It makes not a jot of difference to me.

I would go so far as to say families (especially ones that descended from royalty) kept written records of their linage
remember, only those that could prove their anscentry could return with Nehemiah to Jerusalem after the Exile.
Oral traditions sound nice but ignore the fact that many Jews were literate, they were a people of a BOOK afterall
The writers of the Gospels were very concerned about recording things accuretly, as the prologue to Luke's Gospel attests by the authors own words
(paraphrase- i have carefully studied to write down things as they occured so that you can be certain about what you have been told)

 

[Hammster]

Actually, the genealogies were kept in the Temple. They were destroyed when the Temple was destroyed. That is why no Jew can trace back to one of the twelve tribes.

 

[t1mp]

Jesus is born of the House of David (Jesse is the
father of David)...
Isaiah 11:1 & 11:10 written: 713 BC (Before Christ)
"And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem
of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his
roots:"

"And in that day there shall stand for an ensign of
the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his
rest shall be glorious."

Isaiah 28:16 written: 712 BC (Before Christ)
Therefore thus saith the LORD GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Isaiah 53:2 written: 712 BC (Before Christ)
"For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant,
and as a root out of dry ground: he hath no form nor
comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no
beauty that we should desire him."

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>- to fulfill the curse of God on the wicked kings of Judah from whom Joseph descended (the curse is uttered by Jeremiah) that no son of Solomon would be the promised king. Joseph is then Jesus adopted son and heir to the throne by adoption<snip>

Citation please.

 

[yochanan5730]

Shalom and Hiya! ​

the discrepencies of the genealogies is not too difficult. there are no real contradictions involved, merely misunderstandings of things. first, though it doesn not directly involve the thread, one thing must be considered. that the Aramaic Peshitta could very well be the primary language in which the New Testament writings were written in. i say this only because of research into these things. both the Aramaic and Greek manuscripts all end up as the oldest around the same date, approximately 1-2 hundred years after the original autograph. either way, despite which was primary, one would certainly shed light on the other as far as meaning and even detail. there are some "mess-ups" in the Greek that the Aramaic seems to answer, and there are also in the Aramaic that the Greek seems to answer.​

now concerning the genealogy of Messiah. in short, Luke's is Joseph's and Matthew's is Mary's. now, i realise that women are not mentioned as the main progenitor in a genealogy, but Mary is unique. she was a virgin, no earthly father to the kid. the Aramaic Matthew seems to indicate this:​

"Jacob fathered Joseph, the father of Mary, of whom was born Yeshua who is called Mshikha." ~1:16​

in Aramaic, Matthew 1:16 and 1:19, when speaking of Joseph as "husband", use two different words, even the Greek does as well but the differences are too subtle to tell. Aramaic, however, in verse 16 says, "Joseph, the Gav'rah (father) of Mary...", and verse 19 says, "Joseph her B'alah (husband)...". Gav'rah means Guardian, Kinsman even father. b'alah means Lord, Master even husband. in seeing Joseph, the father of Mary, we see her as added to the genealogy, as Tamar Rachav and Ruth are as well, even the wife of Uriyah. this explanation also explaines the discrepency of Matthew's genealogy as having 14 from Abraham to David, 14 from David to Babylon, and 14... errr... ooops... 13 from Babylon to Yeshua/Jesus.​

the explanation of Luke's being Joseph's line, is the simple statement:​

"And Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli...etc" ~3:23​

there are more interesting things about the genealogy that i have discovered concerning the interpretations of the names, but time and space wont allow it at this time. in part two i will have listed the genealogy...​

many blessings,
John​

 

[yochanan5730]

Shalom again,
following is the genealogy through both lines as researched from the hebrew Tenakh (so the names are in Hebrew... sorry), and comparing it with the New Testament in Greek and in Aramaic. the names of Keynan son of Ar'pakh'shad and Reysha son of Z'rubbavel have been removed because of their lack of existence in the Hebrew, as well as older manuscripts of the LXX Septuagint.
~John
The Genealogy of Yeshua Mashi’ach


1 Adam
2 Sheth
3 Enosh
4 Keynan
5 Mahalal’el
6 Yered
7 Chanokh’
8 M’thushelach
9 Lamekh’
10 Noach
11 Shem
12 Ar’pakh’shad
13 Shalach
14 Ever
15 Peleg
16 R’u
17 S’rug
18 Nachor
19 Terach
20 Av’ram called Av’raham
21 Yitz’chak
22 Ya’akov called Yis’rael
23 Y’hudah
24 Peretz
25 Chetz’ron
26 Aram called Ram
27 Amminadav
28 Nach’shon
29 Sal’mon called Sal’ma
30 Boaz
31 Oved
32 Yishai called Ishai
33 David
________________________|________________________
34a Nathan.................................................34b Sh’lomoh called Y’did’yah
35a Mattattah.......................................................................35b R’chav’am
36a Mina called M’na................................................................36b Aviyah
37a Mal’ya called M’leah.......................................37b Asa called Asaph
38a El’yakim.......................................................................38b Y’hoshaphat
39a Yonam.........................................................39b Yoram called Y’horam
40a Yoseph..........................................................................40b Achaz’yahu
41a Y’hudah..........................................................41b Yoash called Y’hoash
42a Shim’on.........................................................................42b Amatz’yahu
43a Levi.....................................................43b Azar’yah called Uzziyahu
44a Mattath...............................................................................44b Yotham
45a Yorim called Y’horam..........................................................45b Achaz
46a Eliyezer..................................46b Chiz’kiyahu called Y’chiz’kiyahu
47a Yosei called Yeshua....................................................47b M’nashsheh
48a Er.............................................................................................48b Amon
49a El’m’dam called El’m’dan...............................................49b Yoshiyahu
50a Kosam.....................................................................................................*|
51a Addi.....................................................50b Y’hoyakim called El’yakim
52a Mal’ki.....................................................................................................*|
53a Neri--------------------------51b Y’khan’yah called Y’khan’yahu,
called Y’hoyakin, called Kan’yahu
|
54a Sh’al’tiyel 52b
55a Z’rubbavel ben P’dayah u ven Sh’al’tiyel 53b
56a Chanan’yahu called Y’hochanan called Yochanan 54b
________________________|_________________________
57a Yodah called Y’hudah 55b.............................*Y’sha’yah or P’lat’yah
|........(*Whether it continues with Y’sha’yah or P’lat’yah is uncertain.)
|
Questionable:
Some commentaries say the genealogy continues through the next seven names: R’phayah, Ar’nan, Ovad’yah, Sh’khan’yah, N’ar’yah, El’yoeynai, Yochanan. The reason these are considered as part of the genealogy is the wording: “the sons of…etc”. The names from R’phayah to Sh’khan’yah are only missing the names of their siblings from one verse to the next. It is therefore implied that R’phayah fathered Ar’nan, Ar’nan fathered Ovad’yah, etc…. The reason for this anomaly is uncertain; but N’ar’yah ben Sh’khan’yah picks it up.
|*--------------------------------/\--------------------56b R’phayah
|.........................................................................................................................|
|......................................................................................................57b Ar’nan
58a Yoseph..............................................................................58b Ovad’yah
59a Shim’i............................................................................59b Sh’khan’yah
60a Mattith’yah.......................................................................60b N’ar’yah
61a Machath...........................................................................61b El’yoeynai
62a Naggai.............................................62b Yochanan called Y’hochanan
63a Ches’li...................................................................................63b Avihud
64a Nachum..............................................................................64b El’yakim
65a Amotz....................................................................................65b Azzur
66a Mattith’yah........................................................................66b Tzadok
67a Yoseph..................................................................................67b Yakhin
68a Yannai....................................................................................68b Elihud
69a Mal’ki...................................................................................69b El’azar
70a Levi......................................................................................70b Mattan
71a Mattath................................................................................71b Ya’akov
72a Eli father of.................................................72b Y’hoseph, father of
73a Yoseph,---------------------------------------------73b Mir’yam
|

74a Yeshua 74b​

 

[Catherineanne]

First off, genealogies of the bible were always based off of the father. AND the fact that Mary is not even remotely mentioned in this lineage negates the probability of the lineage belonging to Mary. If it had belonged to Mary might he want to mention her instead of starting off with Joseph???? This is circular reasoning.

The two genealogies do not serve a wider purpose. This is 100% assumption. The prophecies stated that he would be the seed of David. Not the adopted seed. He would have no rights whatsoever to the throne based off adoption (which it is never mentioned that Joseph adopted Jesus and please show anywhere in biblical history where an adopted son was given the throne of Judah). AND the fact that in 1Chron. 28:4-10 it states that he would be descended through Solomon. Of course it does not matter whether he descended through Solomon or Nathan as Jeconiah is listed as descending from both Solomon and Nathan (Jeconiah was obviously excluded because Luke tried to show Shealtiel as descending from Neri which is totally wrong according to Mt 1:12,1Ch 3:17) ...which is a big error. Jeconiah was cursed as (Jer 22:30) states and therefore none of his seed could take the throne. Which, Jeconiah he was born long after Solomon or Nathan (which negates trying to reroute it through Nathan). What we have here is an apparent flaw from two different perspectives. The fact that Jesus was born a virgin birth 100% negates that fact that the Messiah of that time could have stemmed from the seed of David.

One more thing. It could possibly be stated that Mary was a Levite, though there is no certainty. The only information we have on her parentage is through Luke which states she was the cousin of Elizabeth "the daughter of Aaron, a Levite". (Luke 1:5,36)

So not actually asking then?

Nice soapbox.

 

[yochanan5730]

Of course it does not matter whether he descended through Solomon or Nathan as Jeconiah is listed as descending from both Solomon and Nathan (Jeconiah was obviously excluded because Luke tried to show Shealtiel as descending from Neri which is totally wrong according to Mt 1:12,1Ch 3:17) ...which is a big error.

no Jeconiah wasn't descended from Nathan, he is not listed in Luke's genealogy as such. and the explanation for Shealtiel being listed as being from Neri is simple to explain. Neri took guardianship of Shealtiel, and this was necessary as God's plan to re-establish the Kingly line. the blood is Solomon's, the right is through Nathan. after this, Shealtiel's brother Pediah had Zerubbabel of whom Shealtiel took guardianship over. these guardianships would have happened because of the death of the parent(s). as you said:

Jeconiah was cursed as (Jer 22:30) states and therefore none of his seed could take the throne. Which, Jeconiah he was born long after Solomon or Nathan (which negates trying to reroute it through Nathan). What we have here is an apparent flaw from two different perspectives.

but because of these "musical peoples" (as opposed to chairs), both of the lines fused together being from both Solomon and Nathan. thus bringing about...

'In that day,' says the Lord of hosts, 'I will take you, Zerubbabel My servant, the son of Shealtiel,' says the Lord, 'and will make you a signet ring; for I have chosen you,' says the Lord of hosts."
~Haggai 2:23

it is well established that this pertains to the Messianic lineage being restored through Zerubabbel, son of Pediah and son of Shealtiel.

The fact that Jesus was born a virgin birth 100% negates that fact that the Messiah of that time could have stemmed from the seed of David.

One more thing. It could possibly be stated that Mary was a Levite, though there is no certainty. The only information we have on her parentage is through Luke which states she was the cousin of Elizabeth "the daughter of Aaron, a Levite". (Luke 1:5,36)

Yeshua is from David via Shealtiel and Zerubbavel where both lines meet. even from Solomon through the same. God said He would bless whom He wants to and curse whom He wants. Zerubbabel was chosen by God, after all, he said through Jeremaiah that no more will the father's eat sour grapes and the childrens teeth will be set on edge.

and your assumption that Mary was a levite isn't quite valid. you have shown that her cousin was, but Mary's uncle or aunt who was directly related to her wasn't necessarily a Levite, they merely married one. this is specualtation.

 

[barryrob]

Hey everyone. I'm hoping that maybe someone wouldn't care to shed some light on the apparent contradicting genealogies in Matthew and in Luke showing the lineage of Christ coming through the seed of David? Without the assertion that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary.

One follows Mary's line and the other follows Joseph's line

 

[champuru]

Shalom and Hiya! ​

the discrepencies of the genealogies is not too difficult. there are no real contradictions involved, merely misunderstandings of things. first, though it doesn not directly involve the thread, one thing must be considered. that the Aramaic Peshitta could very well be the primary language in which the New Testament writings were written in. i say this only because of research into these things. both the Aramaic and Greek manuscripts all end up as the oldest around the same date, approximately 1-2 hundred years after the original autograph. either way, despite which was primary, one would certainly shed light on the other as far as meaning and even detail. there are some "mess-ups" in the Greek that the Aramaic seems to answer, and there are also in the Aramaic that the Greek seems to answer.​

now concerning the genealogy of Messiah. in short, Luke's is Joseph's and Matthew's is Mary's. now, i realise that women are not mentioned as the main progenitor in a genealogy, but Mary is unique. she was a virgin, no earthly father to the kid. the Aramaic Matthew seems to indicate this:​

"Jacob fathered Joseph, the father of Mary, of whom was born Yeshua who is called Mshikha." ~1:16​

in Aramaic, Matthew 1:16 and 1:19, when speaking of Joseph as "husband", use two different words, even the Greek does as well but the differences are too subtle to tell. Aramaic, however, in verse 16 says, "Joseph, the Gav'rah (father) of Mary...", and verse 19 says, "Joseph her B'alah (husband)...". Gav'rah means Guardian, Kinsman even father. b'alah means Lord, Master even husband. in seeing Joseph, the father of Mary, we see her as added to the genealogy, as Tamar Rachav and Ruth are as well, even the wife of Uriyah. this explanation also explaines the discrepency of Matthew's genealogy as having 14 from Abraham to David, 14 from David to Babylon, and 14... errr... ooops... 13 from Babylon to Yeshua/Jesus.​

the explanation of Luke's being Joseph's line, is the simple statement:​

"And Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli...etc" ~3:23​

there are more interesting things about the genealogy that i have discovered concerning the interpretations of the names, but time and space wont allow it at this time. in part two i will have listed the genealogy...​

many blessings,
John​

Thanks for posting this. It is always clearer when you read the hebrew/aramaic/greek that the scriptures are written in. If we all could read these languages, i'm sure 90% of debates would be quickly put to rest.