The two conflicting genealogies of Jesus

[TimCallahan]

On DOC's thread about natural disasters being God's way of punishing the wicked, we got into a discussion of the two conflicting genealogies of Jesus. Since this threatened to derail that thread, the moderators suggested, if we really wanted to discuss the issue, someone start a new thread on the subject. So, here it is.

One of the challenges to the inerrancy of the gospels is that there are two completely incompatible genealogies of Jesus in the gospels, one in Matthew and one in Luke. The Matthean genealogy, listed in Mt. 1:1 - 17, begins with Abraham, lists 14 generations between Abraham and David, 14 mere between David and the Babylonian Captivity, and 14 more between the deportation to Babylon and Jesus. Thus, there are 28 generations between David and Jesus - assuming Jesus to be the son of Joseph, who is descended from David and Solomon. Of course, since Joseph is only the step-father of Jesus, who is engendered by the Holy Spirit, this genealogy is really rather pointless.

Luke's genealogy (Lk. 3:23 - 37) works backward from Joseph all the way to Adam and contains 75 generations. In this genealogy Joseph is descended from a son of David named Nathan, rather than being descended from Solomon. Yet, both genealogies have him descended from Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, who led one group of returning exiles back from Babylon to Judah during the reign of Darius I of Persia.

So, the major incompatibilities of the two genealogies of Joseph and (by proxy) Jesus are as follows:

1) Matthew has 27 generations between David and Joseph. Luke has 41 generations between David and Joseph.

2) Matthew makes Joseph the descendant of David by Solomon, while Luke has him descended from David through another son of David named Nathan.

3) Yet, both have Joseph descended from Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel. So, Matthew makes Zerubbabel and Shealtiel descendants of Solomon, while Luke makes them descendants of Nathan.

The usual ploy by inerrantists to explain these incompatibilities is to assert that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, no Joseph. Thus, there is no conflict, and Jesus is an actual lineal blood descendant of David, as well as being the son of God.

Frankly, this defense is pathetic, for the following reasons:

1) First and foremost, Luke 3:23 begins his genealogy with Joseph as the last descendant in a line going back to Adam. So, Luke explicitly says this is the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary. Thus, to assert that this genealogy is that of Mary we have to make the Bible say what it doesn't say to make it inerrant.

The usual defense made by fundamentalists is the unsupported assertion that women's genealogies were usually discounted. Thus, the statement in luke that this is the genealogy Joseph is just a cover. Of course, there is no way to demonstrate this assertion to be true. In any case, we would expect the inerrant word of God to be above these petty cultural biases.

2) Second, were this the genealogy of Mary we would still have to explain how it is that there are in Luke 41 generations between David and Mary (even if here she's called Joseph), while Matthew has 27. Since a biological human generation - the time is takes from birth to maturity - would be about 20 years, that means that, according to Matthew, about 540 years elapsed between David and Joseph; while Luke has 820 years between David and Joseph (or Mary). Clearly, the two genealogies are incompatible, even were we to fudge Luke to make his line of descent be for Mary.

3) Finally, even were the Lukan genealogy that of Mary, rather than Joseph, the two genealogies are still in conflict, since Matthew's makes Zerubbabel and his father, Shealtiel, descendants of Solomon; while Luke makes them descendants of Nathan.

Do I have any comment on these problems from DOC, Edge, Robert Prey or Jude Brando - or anyone else, for that matter?

 

[Leumas]

Have a look at this PDF file.

 

[David Swidler]

The rest of the points stand, but the discrepancy in number of generations (and time frame) ain't necessarily so. Often the Bible hits the high points of a genealogy instead of going through all the names. The last few verses of Ruth do that, as well as the ones giving Mordechai's ancestry in Esther 2. The number of generations in those verses is patently out of step with the time frame, but the exact genealogy wasn't what the author was after - more like giving some highlights meant to color the character of the descendant in question.

But it's a minor point, and the rest of the questions remain.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Both were Jesus. Hence the guy being released from prison just before the crucifixion being "Jesus Barbarosa", and there being a Jesus around after the crucifixion. Two conflicting descriptions, two different people.

Yeah I cribbed the idea from Holy Blood Holy Grail...

 

[!Kaggen]

Steiner had an explanation

We know that in Palestine, at the time which concerns us, not one but two Jesus-children were born, one of them from the Solomon line of the House of David. This is the Jesus child of whom the Matthew Gospel speaks. The peculiar contradiction between the beginnings of the Matthew and the Luke Gospels derives from the fact that the writer of the Matthew Gospel was concerned with one of the Jesus-children, the one born from the Solomon line. Then, at almost but not quite the same time, another Jesus-child was born, from the Nathan line of the House of David.

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/FromJ2C1973/19111012p01.html

 

[Leumas]

The Messiah has to be descended from David through the father.

So making Jesus related to David through Mary is utterly useless in the first place.

Even if all the gaping problems and contradictions and other BLUNDERS are ignored and we do accept that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary...it does not qualify Jesus as a Messiah at all.

Besides.... half the people in the list are Killers, Adulterers, Bastards, Prostitutes, Products of Incest, or are not Israelite altogether. (See this PDF)

 

[Leumas]

Another point....

There is no way to know the descendents of Nathan since they are not specified in the Tanakh at all.

 

[Leumas]

The rest of the points stand, but the discrepancy in number of generations (and time frame) ain't necessarily so. Often the Bible hits the high points of a genealogy instead of going through all the names. The last few verses of Ruth do that, as well as the ones giving Mordechai's ancestry in Esther 2. The number of generations in those verses is patently out of step with the time frame, but the exact genealogy wasn't what the author was after - more like giving some highlights meant to color the character of the descendant in question.

But it's a minor point, and the rest of the questions remain.

Actually Matthew makes a MAJOR point about the 14, 14, 14 aspect.

So if he was skipping generations then the 14 stuff is utterly meaningless. So why make such a big point about it if it is not even true?


ETA: He even got the 14 count wrong in one of the stages...so there goes the whole thing anyway.

 

[ddt]

Steiner had an explanation



http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/FromJ2C1973/19111012p01.html

Wat has Steiner been smoking when he wrote that stuff? Didn't he hear of the "Synoptic Gospels"? Sheer coincidence, I guess, that his "Matthew-Jesus" and his "Luke-Jesus", which was born 10 years earlier, did the same things, said the same things.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The usual ploy by inerrantists to explain these incompatibilities is to assert that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, no Joseph. Thus, there is no conflict, and Jesus is an actual lineal blood descendant of David, as well as being the son of God.

Frankly, this defense is pathetic, for the following reasons:

Additionally, Mary's parents are Anna and Joachim. No wait, make that Saint Anne and Saint Joachim.

(That may not be in the Bible, but there is no real need IMO to give even the slightest credence to anything inerrantist, even if just implicit or for the sake of argument.)

 

[David Swidler]

Actually Matthew makes a MAJOR point about the 14, 14, 14 aspect.

So if he was skipping generations then the 14 stuff is utterly meaningless. So why make such a big point about it if it is not even true?

Reread what I wrote and you'll see I was referring to Mordechai and David/Ruth, not Jesus. And I specifically called it a minor point. But you're welcome to get your knickers in a twist over it. I brought popcorn.

 

[Leumas]

Reread what I wrote and you'll see I was referring to Mordechai and David/Ruth, not Jesus. And I specifically called it a minor point. But you're welcome to get your knickers in a twist over it. I brought popcorn.

 

[fromdownunder]

Since Joseph was not Jesus biological father anyway, there appears to be no point in the genealogies at all. Of course the Jewish Messiah HAD to come from the House of David, and this is what Matthew and Luke were trying to prove. But if Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit, Joseph and his bloodline becomes utterly irrelevant to the whole thing.

Norm

 

[David Swidler]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_512824ef5162a06a0d.jpg[/qimg]

But you're going to let this bit of melodrama stay even after your edit to your previous post, about the 14s being inexact - which fits in exactly with what I was saying, but not directly about Jesus - that for the author, the high points of that genealogy are the genealogy. None of the "nobodies" in between count.

 

[Mudcat]

Reread what I wrote and you'll see I was referring to Mordechai and David/Ruth, not Jesus. And I specifically called it a minor point. But you're welcome to get your knickers in a twist over it. I brought popcorn.

The whole genealogies BS is no more different than the standard plot fillers that establish a connection between one fictional character (Jesus) and another (King David). Well... the genealogies comes off as being overly contrived and fake sounding than the typical plot fillers like Luke Skywalker simply being the son of Vadar, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[David Swidler]

What, didn't you realize Star Wars is actually the fifth Gospel? Pope Yoda XXIII had it concealed, but Lucas II unearthed it through sheer, uh, Force of personality.

 

[Leumas]

But you're going to let this bit of melodrama stay even after your edit to your previous post, about the 14s being inexact - which fits in exactly with what I was saying, but not directly about Jesus - that for the author, the high points of that genealogy are the genealogy. None of the "nobodies" in between count.

It is a melodrama because … AGAIN … my posting’s point went way over your head.

Let me see if I can explain it simply so that you can fathom it.

You stated that the number of generations, although a minor point, is not quite a valid objection.

Your reason is that just as in the Ruth story it is common for the authors (no matter who they are) to tend to skip and waffle the generations anyway and thus are not in the habit of exacting CONCRETE numbers and never meant to do so.

What you did not understand is that I responded that this is not the case with Matthew as he CLEARLY INTENDED the generational numbers to be a CONCRETE value since he kept harping on about the 14 aspect.

The fact that he got the number wrong in one of the stages DOES NOT go to prove your assertion......all it goes to prove is that Matthew was even a bigger MORON than we think.

He makes a big point about the 14 generations in three stages and then MAKES A MISTAKE of not counting them.

All that proves is that he was a bad editor and bad PLOT MAKER.

But it STILL STANDS that he clearly INTENDED the value of 14 generations in three stages to be some kind of AMAZING EVENT.

Therefore, it goes without saying that he did not intend to say that there were other generations that he just couldn't be bothered to list.....if that is the case then that makes a mockery of his 14 count.

He got it wrong not INTENTIONALLY. He was just not a clever writer that is all.

 

[David Swidler]

(*condescension snipped*)

Is this how you talk to people offline, as well? Charming, I'm sure. I bet everyone appreciates the EMPHASIS you put on IMPORTANT WORDS in every SENTENCE.

You're assuming the author would care that the numbers don't match exactly. But what I'm saying is that the author clearly isn't interested in the factual accuracy of his assertion, especially not for such an obvious discrepancy. The guy (guys?) was literate, which is more than you can say for the vast majority of people at the time. So let's assume a modicum of intelligence. Even if doing so goes against your general posture.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Steiner had an explanation



http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/FromJ2C1973/19111012p01.html

Well, technically he may be on to something.
Maybe in 2000 years people will be trying to find the geneology of the great prophet John, born of the house of Smith or something equally common and running into similar problems

 

[Leumas]

Is this how you talk to people offline, as well? Charming, I'm sure.

Only to people who do it to me FIRST such as in this post of yours:

Reread what I wrote and you'll see I was referring to Mordechai and David/Ruth, not Jesus. And I specifically called it a minor point. But you're welcome to get your knickers in a twist over it. I brought popcorn.

So you can dish it out but not take it? You are the one who started with the "charming" stuff.

You're assuming the author would care that the numbers don't match exactly. But what I'm saying is that the author clearly isn't interested in the factual accuracy of his assertion, especially not for such an obvious discrepancy. The guy (guys?) was literate, which is more than you can say for the vast majority of people at the time. So let's assume a modicum of intelligence. Even if doing so against your general posture.

But the point still stands..... he made a big thing out of the 14 count in three stages.

If he was not bothered about it why draw attention to it?

And if it is not true then how does that reflect on his intelligence?

What exactly would be the meaning of saying there are 14 generations between each stage if the count is not 14 and could be anything? So there are any number of generations between the stages but let’s assume they are 14 just to make such a big hyperbole about it..... how meaningful or intelligent is that?

And the fact that he gets the count wrong when he is making a big point about it shows that he was not quite as intelligent as would be expected regardless of how unintelligent his generation in general was.

But the FINAL point is:

Matthew is supposed to have been INSPIRED by God in the writing of the gospel. So if it is all just meaningless and a load of waffle and is full of errors and all the facts are pointless then how does that reflect on the INTELLIGENCE of this God that inspired all this twaddle?​