The first post in this series can be found here.
Personally, I think this is one of the clearest contradictions in the Bible. Why does the Bible give us Jesus’ genealogy? I can think of no other reason than for it to serve as proof of his descent from David. But it fails this purpose since we’re given two differing genealogies that both claim to come through Joseph.
Some have tried to answer this by saying that Matthew 1:1-16 records Joseph’s true genealogy and Luke 3:23-38 records Mary’s. They surmise that Mary must have been the only daughter of Heli (Luke 3:23); therefore, Joseph counts as his only heir, or “son.” They make the case that since Mary was a woman, she would not have been included in this genealogy. But if that’s the case, why does Matthew’s genealogy mention Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba (listed as the “wife of Uriah”), and even Mary herself?
Others have said that the genealogy has nothing to do with Mary, but that Joseph has a real father and a “legal” father due to a levirate marriage. This view contends that Luke’s genealogy is the legal, but not biological genealogy of Joseph.
But if either of these scenarios is true, why doesn’t the Bible simply say so? I’ve had some people tell me that these differences weren’t important to ancient readers of the 1st and 2nd centuries, and if we could look at it from their perspective, we wouldn’t be bothered either. However, this is absolutely untrue. We have writings from several different early Christians (as early as the 2nd century) that try to hide or explain the divergence in various ways [src1, src2]. If ancient people were truly not concerned with this issue, then why waste time explaining it?
Regardless, even if this hadn’t been an issue for ancient readers, God would know that it would be an issue in more modern times. Why not offer a little more explanation in Matthew or Luke so that we could know how these genealogies fit together? As it stands, we have no evidence to help us make sense of them. The only way that this won’t bother someone is if they choose to ignore it. Or they could use the circular argument that God doesn’t make mistakes, and since he authored these passages, they don’t contain mistakes either. Of course, this is no better than clamping your hands over your ears and screaming “I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!” whenever someone says something you don’t want to hear. I think if the Koran offered such different genealogies for Muhammad, Christians would say it was proof that the Koran was not inspired. Why should we give the Bible a pass?
Even worse is the fact that neither of these genealogies matches the Old Testament (1 Chron 1-3). Matthew’s comes closest, but it’s still different in several areas. He actually omits several names from his list: Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim. This might not be such a problem, but it becomes more of one when we read verse 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.
The statement here is not true. First of all, according to Matthew’s list, there are only 13 generations between the deportation and Christ, unless you count Jechoniah again. But the bigger problem is that Matthew presents this statement as though this were a divinely guided pattern showing us that Christ truly came at the appointed time. But he only gets these numbers by omitting people from the genealogy. Therefore, his statement is not factually true. There was no pattern in the genealogy as it is recorded in the Old Testament.
Why would a divinely inspired writer lie about the number of generations? If God had really wanted the genealogy to come out to this neat 14, 14, 14 division, why didn’t he just make it happen that way? Instead, this does nothing but confuse those who think the Bible is supposed to be completely true and inerrant. Matthew is obviously manipulating the records to add validity to the claim that Jesus was the Messiah. In other words, he’s lying.
As we said at the beginning of this post, the primary purpose for including the genealogy is to show that Christ really came from the line of David. But when the two genealogies disagree with no explanation to reconcile them, and when Matthew slyly manipulates the list to make a theological point, how do these genealogies fulfill their goal? There would essentially be no point in including them. The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion. Therefore, I don’t see how he could be the author of these genealogies. It seems to me that the two genealogies are different because they were written by two different people from two different traditions, and they didn’t expect their writings to be put into the same book. They probably weren’t even aware of one another.
If you believe that the Bible is God’s word, then you should also believe that he wants people to understand and believe it. How is that possible in the face of such contradictions? Would a loving God really operate this way?
We’ll examine another contradiction in the next post.
Finding Truth 
Well, faith leads to obedience. Isn’t it splitting hairs to draw a distinction there…?
LikeLike
Absolutely not.
First off, Paul teaches that we are saved by grace apart from works lest any man should boats. That is not what Yeshua or any of the apostles taught.
Secondly, what Paul did here and so often in other places, is misquote the scriptures to teach what he wants and not what it says.
LikeLike
Oh, I agree Paul misquoted some things. Though I think the gospels did a bit of that as well — Matthew more than the others.
If large parts of the NT are false, how do you know the other parts are not?
LikeLike
Following the original Hebrew syntax of this conversation, you can see that by Paul removing one of the words, “he” it completely changed the meaning of the text.
In the Torah it says that Abraham believed God and counted it to him for righteousness, not the other way around.
LikeLike
I believe the new testament to be inspired just not the inspired word of God
LikeLike
The Aramaic clears up alot of the issues you have, but it doesn’t change the issue that matters most , that Paul is the ravenous wolf in Genesis 49
LikeLike
Hi Laurie,
I have to say that it is in reading things like this that makes me breathe a sigh of relief that I am no longer dependent on trying to decipher the words of ancient superstitious people.
Not only does everyone have their interpretation and style of hermeneutics, but everyone seems to have their own beliefs about what books should be included as the “canon”. Protestants decided that the Catholics were wrong in including the Apocrypha, Martin Luther tried to get rid of the “Antilegomena” (mainly Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation), and this spin to remove the writings of Paul, Titus, Timothy, and Hebrews.
And the strange thing is that everyone who has their interpretation or list of canon declares that when others come to God with sincerity of heart and are completely honest in their search for truth then God will reveal their specific truth to them.
I recognize these books written by the ancients as they are – words of imperfect humans. This seems to me to be the simplest and most probable solution to all the difficulties that everyone feels they need to solve with interpretations.
LikeLike
a Howie,
The reason Martin Luther wanted to get rid of those books, was because he felt they were contrary to Paul.
If you believe in a God and you believe in Salvation or a savior like I do, then there has to be answers that make sense.
I lost my faith for a while when things didn’t make sense any more, but the more I studied the more I saw, and the clearer things became.
I knew this would upset people, but if you read all the words of Yeshua and then read the 13 books of the 13th apostle, you will see why Paul calls it “my new gospel”
It is not the same
LikeLike
I completely agree with Howie. I don’t believe in a God, and I don’t believe mankind needs to be saved from anything.
However, I do find your beliefs very interesting — I honestly haven’t run across some of them before. I have a few more questions for you, but can’t get to them tonight. I’m looking forward to hearing more from you. You have some fascinating ideas…
Thanks again for your comments the last couple of days.
LikeLike
Laurie,
You rock!!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on The BitterSweet End.
LikeLike
@ Nate
“I think if the Koran offered such different genealogies for Muhammad, Christians would say it was proof that the Koran was not inspired. Why should we give the Bible a pass?”
I agree with you here
Thanks
LikeLike
I have read some explanations for the omissions in Mathew’s genealogy that say it was common in Jewish cultures to exclude certain names when referencing forefathers or someone’s relation to those fathers.
For example, one could say that Joseph was the son of Abraham or that Abraham was Joseph’s father. This would be true, even though Joseph’s actual father was Jacob with Isaac being Joseph’s grandfather and Abraham actually being Joseph’s Great-grandfather. I can see where this has been used and I find it plausible, however I do believe this is a different circumstance than when listing a genealogy.
The example listed above would be more of a casual tone where someone is jumping to the end of the story, so to speak, to give a brief acknowledgement of that person’s heritage. When giving a genealogy, like in Mathew and Luke, the point seems to be to provide proof and validation. By skipping names or by giving a completely different line (Luke’s) there is no proof, but discrepancies. Someone wanting to verify Christ’s linage after reading Mathew’s claims would only find inconsistency and with Luke’s would find outright contradiction.
Besides, had the bible listed all of the names and there had been no variances, then there would be no question regarding the genealogy. None. Such a simple fix.
In fact, I have heard others claim that this could not be a contradiction because it is such an obvious problem that it would have been caught by the authors. So, is this too obvious a problem to be problem?
and like paarsurrey said, if the koran (or any other religion) had two differing genealogies for someone, i suspect christians would use it to toss that religion aside as bogus.
LikeLike
I stumbled across a spreadsheet I had made sometime back to help me wrap my head around this issue and one thing stood out to me.
What stood out isn’t where the two genealogies differ, but where they agree.
The two genealogies agree from Abraham to David, but then depart afterward until they agree again with Salathiel and his son Zorobabel before departing again until they once again line back up with Joseph and Jesus.
I realize that the die hard believers will say that Luke’s Joseph really means Mary, but avoiding that one all together, is it even possible for two genealogies to depart, then reconnect and then depart again?
In other words, even if Luke’s genealogy was truly Mary’s line (even though it clearly says Joseph), are the two genealogies even possible?
Table below – look at Matthew’s #’s 29 & 30; and then Luke’s #’s 55 & 56 for matching set:
sorry about the quality of the table. I dont know how to get a good cut and paste from excel on wordpress…
[*** EDIT: The easiest way to view this spreadsheet is to just download it from this link. ***]
LikeLike
Thanks for compiling this William
LikeLike
Portal, do you have any thoughts or insights?
LikeLike
autofill
LikeLike
Cool, William. It’s interesting to look at it laid out like that. Must’ve taken some work!
LikeLike
thanks Josh, but no, it didnt really take that long. I just wanted to see them side by side.
What are you initial thoughts?
LikeLike
Oh, I don’t know that I have any thoughts on it. The genealogies were something that I questioned when I first started noticing that there were issues with the scriptures agreeing with one another. I went through different phases of varying adherence to apologetic answers to the genealogies and other issues. As I began, within the last couple years really, leaning more and more away from inerrancy I became less troubled by the contradictions.
LikeLike
being a believer who doesnt maintain inerrancy is something i struggle to understand.
Recently I created a wordpress page only to make an “about” section so that people could get a general idea of what brings me here.
maybe you could do the same?
maybe explain why a book with errors can still seem like a trusted message from god, at least from your perspective?
LikeLike
Yeah, it wasn’t something that was easy for me to arrive at. I guess I wouldn’t necessarily say I’ve “arrived”, either. For me, it’s like when I get documentation on the history of a person coming into our mental health agency. A lot of it speaks to the same events and circumstances, but has varying details and even several things that couldn’t have been true at the same time in the same circumstances. None of that means the events didn’t happen, just that there were different reports and the people reporting remembered things differently. And, sometimes clinicians will present things out of order and grouped when they weren’t necessarily grouped at the time of their happening in order to make a certain point about patterns in the person’s behavior/symptoms. None of that makes the testimony untrue, just shuffled around to make a point or to make things easier to follow. And, I do that with my own summary of the information I receive. It’s all different, it sometimes contradicts, it sometimes disagrees on what should have been pretty clear facts, etc. But, it’s still “true” in the sense that it gives a pretty accurate picture of the person’s history. Another thing to consider is that “[w]hile the Bible is supposedly inerrant, none of those who interpret it are inerrant interpreters. That’s a problem.” (Michael Spencer)
LikeLike
Josh, i guess i can see that and i guess what kept me from doing the same is that religions appear to have their books, each with their very own claims of “being the one,” and so it seemed like everyone could simply point to the errors in their books and dismiss those errors while maintaining that the rest was still “correct.”
but i guess we’re all on our journey’s for truth. may we both reach that destination.
LikeLike