The Genealogies in Matthew and Luke

• They contradict one another
• Attempts by Christian apologists to salvage the situation had all met with failure
• Other Problems in Matthew's Genealogy
• Other Problems in Luke's Genealogy

The Genealogies in Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other

Matthew 1:16 and Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli

So according to Matthew, Joseph's father was Jacob but according to Luke he was Heli! The discrepancies doesn't stop here. The table below summarizes in tabular form the generations from Jesus to David as given by both gospels. A quick glance at the table will reveal the glaring inconsistencies in both list. With the exception of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel [a], none of the other names coincide! And worse, Luke has forty three generations from David to Jesus, Matthew lists only twenty eight, giving a discrepancy of fifteen generations. Assuming an average of 25 to 30 years per generation, this brings the disparity of about four centuries between the genealogies. [1] In short, to put it bluntly, the two genealogies contradict one another at almost every turn.

Back to the top

Attempted Explanations by Christian Apologists

Attempt No.1: The Levirate

Attempt No.2: Africanus' "Half Brothers" Plus Levirate

This may or may not be the truth of the matter; but in my opinion and that of every fair minded person no one else could give a clearer exposition, and we must content ourselves with it even if it is unconfirmed, as we are not in a position to suggest a better or truer one. In any case the gospel record is true [3]

Thus was how the inconsistency was reconciled in ancient times. With convoluted explanations based on hypothetical levirate and second marriages.

This explanation was eventually abandoned by the Christian apologists.

Attempt No.3: Mary's Genealogy

Luke 1:27-28 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David...

Furthermore Luke, by making Mary the relative of Elizabeth (Luke 1:36), whom he gave as a descendent of priestly family of Aaron [b] (Luke 1:5) immediately makes Mary a member of that family.

In the second place the Jews do not admit to transmission of birthright by the mother, as St. Jerome rightly said, "It is not the custom of the scriptures to count women in their genealogies." Thus a genealogy traced from Mary's side is of no value in determining the descendents from David. [4] The fact that this discredited medieval explanation is still the same one used by some believers todays only serves to underline the bankrupt state of Christian theology.

The contradictions remain. At best, only one of these genealogies can be true, at worse, both could be false. Can we find out one way or the other? Yes we can!

Back to the top

Other Problems in Matthew's Genealogy

Matthew 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.

From David to the "exile" ends with Jeconiah. The numerical significance perhaps lies in Matthew trying to show that every fourteen generations something spectacular happens: for fourteen generations after Abraham was David and fourteen generations after that was the exile and so fourteen generations after the exile the messiah was born. All this sounds impressive. However Matthew has been less than honest in making the genealogy fit his numerological scheme. In the second list of fourteen generations (from David to Jeconiah) we have the seemingly innocent verse:

Matthew 1:8 ...Joram the father of Uzzi'ah...

Matthew had skipped three generations from Joram to Uziah to keep his nicely balanced numerology. For we know from the Old Testament that Joram was actually the great great grandfather of Uzziah:

II Kings 8:24 (II Chronicles 22:1) So Joram slept with his fathers...and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead. II Kings 11:2 (II Chronicles 22:11) ...Joash the son of Ahaziah... II Kings 14:1 (II Chronicles 25:1) ...Amaziah the son of Joash... II Chronicles 26:1 (II Kings 15:1) Then all the people of Judah took Uzziah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the room of his father Amaziah.

Matthew has left out three generations (Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah) to make the genealogy conform to his numerology. The cavalier method in which Matthew uses some of his sources which are known to us does not inspire confidence in the veracity of his entire list. [5] If Matthew can simply delete names that do not conform to his preconceived opinion, what guarantee do we have that he did not add names where he could not find any?

There is another mistake in Matthew's list:

Matthew 1:11 and Josi'ah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

Jeconiah is just another from of the name Jehoiachin and we know from the Old Testament that Josiah was Jeconiah's grandfather:

II Kings 23:34 (II Chronicles 36:4) And Pharaoh-nechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim... II Kings 24:6 (II Chronicles 36:8) So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin [Jeconiah] his son reigned in his stead.

Again we see Matthew skipping a generation to make his numerological scheme work. [6] Actually even as it stands in Matthew there is actually only thirteen generations from the exile to Jesus (for Jehoiachin was already counted in the second fourteen generation [See the table above].). The best that can be stated regarding the number of generations are that there are fourteen from Abraham to David, eighteen from David to the exile and thirteen from the exile to Jesus. [7] Neither a pretty nor satisfying numerological relationship!

The conclusion regarding Matthew's handling of the genealogy is most aptly stated by Guignebert:

It is not a case of accidental forgetfulness or casual inaccuracy; the redactor has simply cut out anything that interfered with the regular pattern of the symbolic structure by which he professed to prove that Jesus had fulfilled the divine promises made to his ancestor Abraham, and had accomplished the sacred destiny of the race of David. The prosaic facts of history mattered little to him. [8]

While the early genealogies had their source in the Old Testament, the generations after the exile from Abiud to Joseph is taken from a source no longer known to us. Bearing in mind the way Matthew used available material it is not impossible that some of these names could well be fictitious.

Back to the top

Other Problems in Luke's Genealogy

Luke 3:35-36 ...the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad,...

Thus according to Luke, Shelah was the grandson of Arphaxad. However, the Hebrew Old Testament explicitly stated that Arphaxad was the father of Shelah.

Genesis 10:24 Arphaxad became the father of Shelah...

Only in the Greek Septuagint do we find the name Cainan inserted between Arphaxad and Shelah. There is however another name that did not appear in any extant text known to us, i.e. neither in the Hebrew Bible nor in the Greek Septuagint. That name appears in Luke 3:27, Rhesa

Luke 3:27 ...the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel...

Rhesa, in the above passage is the father of Joanan and the son of Zerubbabel. This makes Joanan the grandson of Zerubbabel. Now Joanan is just another form of the name Hananiah and we know from the Old Testament that he was the son of Zerubbabel.

I Chronicles 3:19 ...the sons of Zerubbabel: Meshullam and Hananiah [Joanan]...

There is no such person as Rhesa and Luke had simply inserted another generation to the list. [9] It remains an open question whether Luke's mistakes in inserting the names of Rhesa and Cainan were accidental or purposeful. It should be noted that the number of generations from God to Jesus in Luke's list is 77 and we know that the messianic number is seven. So perhaps Luke, like Matthew, dabbled in numerology. [10]

In Luke the generations given after Nathan, with the exception of Zerubbabel, Shealtiel and Joanan consist of unknown names. We do not know where Luke get these names from. It should also be mentioned that even with known names we have discrepancies between the two list. In Matthew the father of Shealtiel was given as Jeconiah [Jehoaichin], in Luke the father is given as Neri. (One gets a feeling the levirate explanation may well be revived by fundamentalists to explain this.)

Back to the top

Notes

References

Back to the top