The genealogies of Jesus

The inspired authors were giving the theology and redemptive history of Jesus Christ. They had neither interest in nor reason for answering skeptics. There is obvious intentional difference, with no concern about contradictions. Perhaps that should guide us in our approach. The most obvious distinction is that the trees trace two different lines from David forward. Also Shealtiel and Zerubabbel are in both lines.

Different Timing – Matthew gives the genealogy first, before he relates the virgin birth; Luke gives the genealogy later, after he relates the baptism of John.

Different Types - ascending and descending; Matthew begins in the past and descends to the present; Luke begins in the present and ascends to the past.

Different Trees - Solomon versus Nathan; Matthew traces the line via David’s son Solomon; Luke traces the line via David’s son Nathan (1 Chronicles 3:5; Zechariah 12:12)

Different Terminal -Abraham versus Adam; Matthew begins with Abraham and ends with Joseph; Luke begins with Joseph and ends with Adam.

Different Theological Purpose - Royal Messiah lineage (from Abraham and David) versus Universal Saviour/Creation lineage (from God and Adam).

Different Target - Matthew gives a truncated genealogy of three groups of 14 generations. Luke gives an expanded genealogy of 77 generations, 7 X 11.

• A descending genealogy begins with a person and traces forward to their descendants. (Who came from that person)
• An ascending genealogy begins with a person and traces backward to their ancestors. (Where did that person come from)

Different Explanations:

• 1. Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph and Luke the genealogy of Mary.
• Objection:
• Mary is not mentioned in Luke.
•         Answer:
• Biblical genealogies follow the line of the men, not women.
• 2. Matthew is the genealogy of Mary and Luke the genealogy of Joseph.
• 3. Both genealogies are about Joseph
• “Sextus Julius Africanus, a Christian historian from the early 3rd century, gave an explanation for the differing genealogies of Jesus which he claimed he had received from the descendants of James, the brother of Jesus. According to this claim, Heli died childless, and Jacob married Heli’s widow in accordance with levirate law. The firstborn son of Jacob and Heli’s widow was Joseph, and he was considered the legal son of Heli, though the biological son of Jacob. (For this to be so these brothers, Jacob and Heli, were uterine brothers, having the same mother but different fathers.) Africanus’s letter to Aristides is not extant, but the church historian Eusebius cited it.”
• Objection:
• Nathan’s genealogy is 13 generations longer than David’s son Solomon.
• In itself somewhat immaterial, for anyone who spends much time doing genealogical research. The timing of different lines can get way off. Some grandchildren can be older than some children, for example.
• 4. Joseph was adopted as a child, and thus had both a “natural” genealogy and an “adopted” genealogy. 
• 5. Both genealogies are for Joseph, and the contradictions between them are a matter of poor record keeping in those days. (Often held by those who reject the inspiration of Scripture.)
• 6. The people in the genealogies had multiple names; the two genealogies refer to the same people by different names. 
• 7. Luke is the genealogy of Joseph, and Matthew is the record of the succession of kings from the throne of David, through Solomon, to Christ. That is, Matthew presents a royal genealogy to affirm Jesus’ claim to David’s throne; Luke provides an actual biological lineage through Joseph.
• 8. Augustine emphasizes the different placement – Matthew before the birth of Christ, and Luke after his baptism. He took this as Matthew relating ordinary biological generation, but that Luke highlights the priestly lineage.

Liberal/critical

• 1. Neither genealogy is an actual historical family lineage. They are rather literary constructs shaped by each Gospel’s theological purpose.
• 2. Both genealogies are for Joseph, and the contradictions between them are a matter of poor record keeping in those days.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John circulated as a collection of the Gospels shortly after they were written; then as part of the canon of the New Testament. Why would the two genealogies continue to be circulated together if they were contradictory and unreliable? Maybe there’s something we’re missing that earlier readers got!

Matthew Henry: The difference between the two evangelists in the genealogy of Christ has been a stumbling-block to infidels that cavil at the word, but such a one as has been removed by the labours of learned men, both in the early ages of the church and in latter times, to which we refer ourselves. Matthew draws the pedigree from Solomon, whose natural line ending in Jechonias, the legal right was transferred to Salathiel, who was of the house of Nathan, another son of David, which line Luke here pursues, and so leaves out all the kings of Judah. It is well for us that our salvation doth not depend upon our being able to solve all these difficulties, nor is the divine authority of the gospels at all weakened by them; for the evangelists are not supposed to write these genealogies either of their own knowledge or by divine inspiration, but to have copied them out of the authentic records of the genealogies among the Jews, the heralds' books, which therefore they were obliged to follow; and in them they found the pedigree of Jacob, the father of Joseph, to be as it is set down in Matthew; and the pedigree of Heli, the father of Mary, to be as it is set down here in Luke. And this is the meaning of hos enomizeto (Luke 3:23), not, as it was supposed, referring only to Joseph, but uti sancitum est lege--as it is entered into the books, as we find it upon record; by which is appeared that Jesus was both by father and mother's side the Son of David, witness this extract out of their own records, which any one might at that time have liberty to compare with the original, and further the evangelists needed not to go; nay, had they varied from that, they had not gained their point. Its not being contradicted at that time is satisfaction enough to us now that it is a true copy, as it is further worthy of observation, that, when those records of the Jewish genealogies had continued thirty or forty years after these extracts out of them, long enough to justify the evangelists therein, they were all lost and destroyed with the Jewish state and nation; for now there was no more occasion for them.

The rest below is just a mish-mash of stuff I copied. I am leaving it as is, just to have access to it.

https://www.oneforisrael.org/jesus-genealogies-contradictory-or-complimentary/

the son of Joseph, 

which was the son of Heli, 

which was the son of Matthat, 

which was the son of Levi, 

which was the son of Melchi, 

which was the son of Janna, 

which was the son of Joseph, 

which was the son of Mattathias, 

which was the son of Amos, 

which was the son of Naum, 

which was the son of Esli, 

which was the son of Nagge, 

which was the son of Maath, 

which was the son of Mattathias, 

which was the son of Semei, 

which was the son of Joseph, 

which was the son of Juda, 

which was the son of Joanna, 

which was the son of Rhesa, 

which was the son of Zorobabel, 

which was the son of Salathiel, 

which was the son of Neri, 

which was the son of Melchi, 

which was the son of Addi, 

which was the son of Cosam, 

which was the son of Elmodam, 

which was the son of Er, 

which was the son of Jose, 

which was the son of Eliezer, 

which was the son of Jorim, 

which was the son of Matthat, 

which was the son of Levi, 

which was the son of Simeon, 

which was the son of Juda, 

which was the son of Joseph, 

which was the son of Jonan, 

which was the son of Eliakim, 

which was the son of Melea, 

which was the son of Menan, 

which was the son of Mattatha, 

which was the son of Nathan, 

which was the son of David, 

which was the son of Jesse, 

which was the son of Obed, 

which was the son of Booz, 

which was the son of Salmon, 

which was the son of Naasson, 

which was the son of Aminadab, 

which was the son of Aram, 

which was the son of Esrom, 

which was the son of Phares, 

which was the son of Juda, 

which was the son of Jacob, 

which was the son of Isaac, 

which was the son of Abraham, 

which was the son of Thara, 

which was the son of Nachor, 

which was the son of Saruch, 

which was the son of Ragau, 

which was the son of Phalec, 

which was the son of Heber, 

which was the son of Sala, 

which was the son of Cainan, 

which was the son of Arphaxad, 

which was the son of Sem, 

which was the son of Noe, 

which was the son of Lamech, 

which was the son of Mathusala, 

which was the son of Enoch, 

which was the son of Jared, 

which was the son of Maleleel, 

which was the son of Cainan, 

which was the son of Enos, 

which was the son of Seth, 

which was the son of Adam, 

which was the son of God.

Abraham begat Isaac; 

and Isaac begat Jacob; 

and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

and Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; 

and Phares begat Esrom;

and Esrom begat Aram; 

and Aram begat Aminadab; 

and Aminadab begat Naasson; 

and Naasson begat Salmon; 

and Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; 

and Booz begat Obed of Ruth;

and Obed begat Jesse; 

and Jesse begat David the king; 

and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 

and Solomon begat Roboam; 

and Roboam begat Abia; 

and Abia begat Asa; 

and Asa begat Josaphat; 

and Josaphat begat Joram; 

and Joram begat Ozias; 

and Ozias begat Joatham; 

and Joatham begat Achaz; 

and Achaz begat Ezekias; 

and Ezekias begat Manasses; 

and Manasses begat Amon; 

and Amon begat Josias; 

and Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

and after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; 

and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 

and Zorobabel begat Abiud; 

and Abiud begat Eliakim; 

and Eliakim begat Azor; 

and Azor begat Sadoc; 

and Sadoc begat Achim; 

and Achim begat Eliud; 

and Eliud begat Eleazar; 

and Eleazar begat Matthan; 

and Matthan begat Jacob; 

and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, 

of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

---

Africanus taught that one genealogy reckons by nature (Matthew) and the other by law (Luke). Heli and Jacob are uterine brothers (i.e., having the same mother but different fathers). Heli died childless, and his brother Jacob by levirate marriage raised up seed to him – Jacob was the father of Joseph by nature, but Joseph was the son of Heli by law. Therefore, Joseph was properly the son of both, one physically and one legally.

The Epistle to Aristides

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-06/anf06-48.htm#TopOfPage

page 139-140

The opinion that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary was unknown to Christian antiquity. In the fifteenth century it was first propounded by Latin divines to do honour (as they supposed) to the Blessed Virgin. It was first broached by Annius of Viterbo, A.D. 1502. Christian antiquity is agreed that: —

1. Both genealogies are those of Joseph.

2. That Joseph was the of Jacob or of Heli, either by adoption, or because Jacob and Heli were own brothers or half-brothers; so that, m—

3. On the death of one of the brothers, without issue, the surviving brother married his widow, who became the mother of Joseph by this marriage; so that Joseph was reckoned the son of Jacob and the son of Heli.

4. Joseph and Mary were of the same lineage, but the Hebrews did not reckon descent from the side of the woman. For them St. Luke’s genealogy is the sufficient register of Christ’s royal descent and official claim. St. Luke give his personal pedigree, ascending to Adam, and identifying Him with the whole human race.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, Volume VI, Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, A. Cleveland Coxe, editors. Buffalo, NY: The Christian Literature Company, 1886

Commentaria Breviarium de Temporibus in Commentaria super opera diversorum auctorum de antiquitatibus loquentium, by Annius, Joannes [Nanni, Giovanni ; Annio da Viterbo], 1498

https://archive.org/details/bib_fict_4102734/page/n17/mode/2up

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt11.html#FN_25

What is a “normal” genealogy, when dealing with a miraculous virgin birth?

Acts 2:30 fruit of David’s loins

https://thecripplegate.com/is-lukes-genealogy-through-mary/

Levirate marriage, Mary’s genealogy, Legal Adoption, Consanguinity, Historical reservation (i.e. they are quoting others’ genealogy)

Bart Ehrman: “it differs from Matthew’s in numerous ways, many of them irreconcilable”

John Gill: “It is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli, and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord.”

https://thecripplegate.com/is-lukes-genealogy-through-mary/

Jesse Johnson, objecting to Luke’s genealogy being the line of Mary: “come together in Zerubbabel, then divide again at Shealtiel, then unite again at David. Identifying Luke as Mary’s doesn’t help this problem.” I’d say that identifying it as Joseph’s does not solve that problem either!