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 
>First of all, according to Matthew’s list, there are only 13 generations between the deportation and Christ, unless you count Jechoniah again.
I think you’re meant to count Jesus as the 14th member of that list.
LikeLike
Oh man, really sorry, I examined the Matthew passage and counted the names, and I thought adding Jesus on the end would make it 14. But now I’ve double checked it and even with Jesus, it’s still only 13. You were right, sorry for my mistake.
LikeLike
Hey John, no worries! Thanks for the comments, and sorry they sat in moderation for a while. You shouldn’t have that problem again, now that you’ve been approved. 🙂
LikeLike
Johnroddy2013,
The generations are correct, and I think earlier into the comments here we actually hashed that out, not positive though.
The genealogy in Matthew is in fact Marys genealogy, and Joseph was her adopted father. Knowing that, you can count it, and the generations work out perfectly.
LikeLike
“Mt 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.”
I don’t read where it says Joseph was anything but Mary’s husband. Can you show me where I’m wrong ?
LikeLike
Hi Laurie, nice to hear from you again! For what it’s worth, I don’t think we ever agreed on your theory about how to work out the number of generations.
But johnroddy, if you’re interested in the discussion, you can find it in the comments above.
LikeLike
Hi kc!
The word in the text here is Orbg (gowra), with a 3rd person feminine pronominal possessive suffix of h.
It was not her husband, but her protector male guardian.
In verse 19 the word husband is baalah, and not gowra. The word baalah can only mean husband, where gowra can be husband, father, son, guardian and so on. The context shows the meaning in verse 16. If it were her husband, than baalah would have been used like it was a few verses later.
if the author was trying to show 3 segments of 14, it would make sense that he did that, and it was in fact a translational error.
The real issue here is that, Joseph the husband of Mary was not his biological father, and so his genealogy would serve no purpose here. Further more, in Luke it says “Jesus the supposed son of Joseph, son of…..” So clearly, this is not Marys lineage.
Because christianity as whole doesn’t study the Torah, this seems really nonsensical. But if you were to ask a Jew, to them it would make perfect sense.
Mary was a Levite, and not from Judah. The first genealogy is her adopted father, who was in the king line. Her husband Joseph, descended from Nathan, and was not in the king line. So why, if he wasn’t the father, and isn’t an heir to Mashiachs throne, would his genealogy be in there anyway???
If you study this out in Torah, you will find that Marys child is only able to receive a portion of the inheritance (Judah) and claim the throne, if she marries a man from that tribe. So there is no reason for his genealogy in the text at all, except to show that Mary is fulfilling the requirements of Torah…..because he is not an heir to the throne.
LikeLike
Hi Nate!
Long time!
Yes, we didn’t agree on much! And that’s okay! But in this case, the issue at hand is really, that christianity and all the Christian translators, are not trying to find the truth, they are trying to force the text to conform with the truth they already no to be…true and correct! The reason they still can’t maker this work, is because they believe the book of Hebrews is inspired, and the author said the Anointed one was not from Levi, but from Judah, and that is why we have a new law and Torah was done away with.
If that is what you believe, then the text will never work.
So someone here is wrong…
Its not an issue of the inaccuracy of the text. Its an issue of translators trying to fit the square peg into a round whole, instead of changing their position.
Good to see you though! 😉
LikeLike
Thanks Laurie
This explains why “virgin” should also be corrected in Isaiah 7:14 and since “almah” means “young unmarried woman” and not always “virgin” .
LikeLike
It could also be an issue of bad writing.
Even if Joseph in Matthew was someone other than Mary’s husband, it’s still confusing to say Joseph and then use a word that could mean “husband,” if they’re trying to imply someone other than Mary’s husband, who was named “Joseph.”
This is still an issue that could have been completely negated had the writer just been more clear – but it wasn’t written that way.
Even if it’s just as Laurie says, or of it’s Luke’s that was Mary’s line like other apologists suggest, it involves so much wrangling, and so much additional study, and so much assumptions to conclude it’s all legit – it certainly ain’t clear.
If we read the genealogies as they’re written, they’re a mess.
And speaking of Hebrew words, Isaiah never said a “virgin” would have a son, but a “young woman” would. and Behold, in Isaiah 8, the chapter immediately following Isaiah’s “young woman” prophecy to Ahaz, a young woman gave birth to a son… So maybe Matthew was reading from a bad Greek Translation when he decided Jesus had a virgin Mother.
It just takes so much effort to make it all make real sense. It can’t be taken at face value and the work it takes to get around these issues could work top fix any issue of any religion.
I just can’t seem to buy it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, my view is a little different (from Laurie’s). I don’t find it surprising that there are so many wildly different ideas about who Jesus was, what God wants, what Christianity is, what the Bible says, which parts can be trusted, etc, because I don’t think any of it was ever inspired by any deity. Different authors wrote their opinions, often basing them upon a number of different sources. That’s why the Bible as a whole does not fit together. Even from your point of view, you have to dismiss certain books in order to build your case. I have a hard time believing that God would inspire some texts, yet allow them to be combined with others that aren’t inspired.
Also, since your view of this passage relies on the Peshitta, I did some more reading about it this morning and ran across an interesting discussion about Aramaic primacy:
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4146/what-arguments-exist-that-would-refute-the-theory-concerning-aramaic-primacy-of
This article is pretty interesting, too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament
LikeLike
@Laurie , “It was not her husband, but her protector male guardian.”
So….did Mary have a husband ? If so , what was his name ? Couldn’t a “protector male guardian” also be a “husband” and visa versa ?
LikeLike
“Its not an issue of the inaccuracy of the text. Its an issue of translators trying to fit the square peg into a round whole”
Sounds a lot like what the NT writers did when borrowing from the OT. 🙂
LikeLike
“It could also be an issue of bad writing.” Excellent point William !
If God wanted to get his message out for the whole world to understand, he would eliminate this trillion dollar industry we call “organized religion” and just write indelibly on the sky, “be nice to everyone” END OF STORY.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Right, he could have been clear. And i know all the devotees of each religion will argue and say, “He was clear!” it’s just that so many people from so many different religions and sects all the claim that as well, yet there are still so many variations.
And for myself, I am truly looking and trying to identify what is right, whether I like it or not, and it doesn’t seem clear to me despite years of looking… It would seem that a perfect, all knowing and all powerful deity would be able to deliver a clear and concise message for all, if that’s what he wanted to do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes she was married to Joseph, and her adopted fathers name was also Joseph. Sounds wierd, but it happens sometimes.
To me, it all makes sense.
It also makes sense to me that Ya would let bad writings into the book as a whole. But most people will say exactly what you just said Nate. I get that, I really really do!
Here is why this makes sense to me….
Let me get on my computer, just a minute
LikeLike
@Laurie, “Yes she was married to Joseph, and her adopted fathers name was also Joseph. Sounds wierd, but it happens sometimes.
To me, it all makes sense.”
I just went to biblegateway.com and looked at all 54 English Translations listed for this scripture and all 54 translations refer to Joseph as Mary’s husband. This includes Mounce Reverse-Interlinear NT and the Orthodox Jewish Bible.
And yet you are convinced it means otherwise. And you state it all makes sense to you. I’m sure you are a nice well meaning person Laurie, but why should I believe you when so many scholars believe otherwise ? Are you willing to concede there might be a chance however slight that you are mistaken ?
LikeLike
YHWH warned in Deut 13 that he would send false prophets to test his people, to see if they would love Him and keep His commandments. There are several places that talk about the false prophet and what he would do, like add or take away from Torah, teach the children of Israel not to be able to discern between clean and unclean, remove the holy days like Shabbat and the feasts, just for a few examples. In the text of Deuteronomy 13 He says that he (false prophet) will lead them after another god that they have not known. So, with this verse in mind, lets look at some passages from Saul.
2 Cor 11:4 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.
Gal 1:8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Romans 2:16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
This is just a few of the many verses, but what I would like to point out is that, here we see that Paul had a new gospel. That there were 2 different gospels and two different Jesus’. One teaching Torah, and one teaching something new, the law nailed to the cross.
So here is my point… If Ya said “hey, I’m going to test you by sending someone that will do away with parts of my law” In the beginning, and then in Rev 2 messiah says the False Apostle has come already, and is teaching to eat meat sacrificed to idols and such, it would make sense that you could find this person or people in between the pages of that book. A test, for every person seeking Ya. I realize this takes time and study, and isn’t as fun or easy as “live a life of sin! If you believe on jesus you’ll be saved anyway”.
LikeLike
the Orthodox Jewish Bible was written by a christian, and is not Orthodox nor Jewish.
This the problem with going to a Christian website, and reading a christian translation. Or 54 of them! Alot of these aren’t even translations but re-translations of KJV
LikeLike
Laurie, you didn’t answer my question, “Are you willing to concede there might be a chance however slight that you are mistaken ?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Especially since we don’t have any of the original manuscripts to begin with . I would think this is where Faith comes into play. Faith that what was originally written down was 1.) the truth, and that it was 2.) not altered in what you possess today.
LikeLike
“This the problem with going to a Christian website, and reading a christian translation. Or 54 of them! Alot of these aren’t even translations but re-translations of KJV”
Laurie, what book would you recommend which has the scripture read, ” and Jacob the father of Joseph, the protector male guardian of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah” ?
LikeLike
I can always be wrong, and do change my mind quite frequently. I am a woman! 😉
I do not believe the “new testament” to be inerrant.
I also do not believe it is necessary, but commentary rather.
I do think it was inspired, and written just the way it was intended, but that it is not without error in the translations we have today.I don’t think it needs to be perfect, to teach us what we need to know.
I think the most likely original was the old Syriac, with a Hebrew Matthew. I do read the Peshitta on occasions, as well as 10 or so others. I think most scholars are biased. I think the majority opinion is usually wrong.
I’m not trying to tell you what to read or believe.
I’m simply saying, if there are translations that solve the problems without causing more problems, they are probably right. Paul and his followers introduced all kinds of contradictions into the text. If you take them out, you will find consistency.
LikeLike
“Paul and his followers introduced all kinds of contradictions into the text. If you take them out, you will find consistency.”
Laurie, I think this statement tells me everything I need to know . I think we are done here.
LikeLike
Interesting! You like to hangout here and post with all the athiest, but you don’t want to talk to someone who doesn’t accept paul? Have a good day Kc
LikeLike