The Genealogy of Jesus:
Examining the Gospel Accounts of the Bloodline of the Messiah
Originally Published: February 22, 2014
Updated: February 28, 2015
“Truth is a uniform thing; and as to
inspiration and revelation, were we to admit it, it is impossible to suppose it
can be contradictory.”
The genealogy of Jesus has been an issue of great contention and
debate, even up to modern times. The significance of the genealogy is
important to Christians in that it is vital to proving via the Tanakh (what
Christians call the “Old Testament”) that Jesus was the Messiah and a
descendant of King David.[2] However, it
has long been noted by scholars and laymen alike that the Gospels provide different
genealogies of Jesus and that they do not agree with each other.[3] Furthermore,
they note that even in spite of Christian attempts to harmonize the two
versions (which, as we will see, are not satisfactory), there are also
contradictions between the Gospels and the Tanakh. In this article, we
will examine these issues. Upon considering the evidence presented, it
should become clear to the reader that the genealogies presented in the Gospels
of Matthew and Luke, respectively, cannot be reconciled with each other and
also contradict the Tanakh.
A Brief
Summary of the Gospel Genealogies
According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was descended from David
through his son Solomon.[4] The genealogy
starts from Abraham and ends with Jesus, with fourteen generations each between
Abraham and David, between David and the Babylonian exile, and between the
exile and Jesus.[5] Here is
Matthew’s genealogy:
Abraham → Isaac → Jacob → Judah → Perez → Hezron → Ram → Amminadab → Nahshon → Salmon → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David
David → Solomon →
Rehoboam → Abijah
→ Asa → Jehoshaphat → Jehoram → Uzziah → Jotham → Ahaz → Hezekiah → Manasseh → Amon → Josiah → Jeconiah
Jeconiah → Shealtiel →
Zerubbabel → Abihud
→
Eliakim → Azor → Zadok → Akim → Elihud → Eleazar → Matthan → Jacob → Joseph → Jesus
Luke’s genealogy, however, states that Jesus was descended from
David through his other son, Nathan.[6] It is also
longer than Matthew’s, and goes all the way back to Adam. Moreover,
Luke’s genealogy is not as symmetrical as Matthew’s, but
does follow a numerical pattern.[7] Here is Luke’s genealogy:[8]
Abraham → Isaac → Jacob → Judah → Perez → Hezron → Ram → Amminadab → Nahshon → Salmon → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David
David → Nathan →
Mattatha → Menna → Melea → Eliakim → Jonam → Joseph → Judah → Simeon → Levi → Matthat → Jorim → Eliezer → Joshua → Er → Elmadam → Cosam → Addi → Melki → Neri
Neri → Shealtiel →
Zerubbabel → Rhesa → Joanan → Joda → Josek → Semein → Mattathias → Maath → Naggai → Esli → Nahum → Amos → Mattathias → Joseph → Jannai → Melki → Levi → Matthat → Heli → Joseph → Jesus
Critical Examination of the
Genealogies
As we can see, the versions of Jesus’ genealogy as presented by Matthew and
Luke are at odds with each other. This is an evident fact which no amount
of speculating and mental gymnastics can reconcile. As the late Catholic Raymond Brown put
it:
“…the lists of Jesus’ ancestors that they give
are very different, and neither one is plausible.”[9]
In this
section, we will discuss the contradictions and the Christian attempts to
explain them. We will also discuss the significance of the genealogies
with regard to the Tanakh.
The most obvious discrepancy between Matthew and Luke is the complete lack of
agreement. Matthew’s genealogy is much shorter than Luke’s, as we
previously noted. In fact, scholars
point out that Matthew’s genealogy was clearly manufactured with to be
symmetrical, but that this symmetry is impossible if it was a realistic
genealogy. As Brown explains:
“The Matthean genealogy with its three
groupings of fourteen generations is obviously artificial; it contains
well-known confusions in the first two groupings and is impossibly short for
the third or post-exilic period…”[10]
In
addition, Matthew drew the genealogy from Solomon, whereas Luke drew it from
Nathan.[11] The mythical
nature of both genealogies notwithstanding, there is perhaps a good reason for
the latter discrepancy, at least. Part of the problem of drawing the
genealogy through David’s son Solomon is that it inevitably must go through
Jeconiah.[12] If Jesus was
descended from Jeconiah, then he could not be the Messiah, according to the
criteria of the Tanakh. According to the Tanakh, God had cursed Jeconiah
and his bloodline for his sins:
“This is what the LORD says: “Record this man
as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his
offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in
Judah.””[13]
As can be
clearly seen, all of Jeconiah’s descendants were prohibited to be king of
Israel. If Jesus’ genealogy went through Jeconiah, then he could not have
been the Messiah or David’s heir to the throne. Hence, Luke had good
reason to draw the genealogy through Nathan instead of Solomon. However,
by going through Nathan, Luke ironically invalidated his own genealogy as
well. The reason is that the Messiah is actually supposed to be descended
through David and Solomon, not David and Nathan.[14] As C. Dennis
McKinsey correctly observes:
“…Nathan and all of his descendants were
excluded from any claim to the throne of David because Nathan’s brother,
Solomon, was chosen, instead, to carry on the legacy. This is proven in 1
Chronicles 29:1…”[15]
1
Chronicles 29:1 states:
“Then King David said to the whole assembly:
“My son Solomon, the one whom God has chosen, is young and inexperienced.”
This is not the only verse which identifies Solomon
as the one whose line would produce the Messiah. There are others, such
as:
“‘The Lord
declares to you that the Lord
himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest
with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own
flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the
one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his
kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he
does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings
inflicted by human hands. But my love will never be taken away from him,
as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house
and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established
forever.’”[16]
“But you will have a son who will be a man of
peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side.
His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his
reign. He is the one who will build a house for my Name. He will be my
son, and I will be his father. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom
over Israel forever.’”[17]
So, we
can see clearly that it was Solomon and not Nathan who would be the ancestor of
the Messiah. Therefore, Luke’s genealogy cannot be correct.[18] In fact,
neither one can be correct for the reasons mentioned.
Another discrepancy between Matthew and Luke is that each draws Joseph’s
(Jesus’ adoptive father) bloodline differently. Matthew claims that
Joseph’s father was a man named Jacob while Luke claims it was Heli.
Obviously, both cannot be correct. Some Christian apologists have tried
to reconcile the obvious contradiction by offering a preposterous and unproven
assertion. According to one source:
“The traditional explanation for the differing
genealogies of Joseph is that Jacob and Heli were close relatives, perhaps half
brothers [sic], one of them being Joseph's biological father and the other his
legal father. In one variation of this model, the one who was Joseph's
biological father died, and the other one then adopted Joseph as his son. In
another variation, one of the two died childless, but the other then married
his widow and fathered Joseph in order to continue the dead relative's line.”[19]
The
problem with this argument is that is based on an assumption and not on any
hard evidence. Where is it stated that Jacob and Heli were “close
relatives” or “half-brothers”? Where is it stated that one was “Joseph’s
biological father” and one was “his legal father”? Even if it was true,
the logical question would be which one was the biological father and which one
was the legal father? Neither the Gospel of Matthew nor the Gospel of
Luke elaborates. Furthermore, since we are talking about an actual
bloodline, the “legal father” is of no relevance at all, since the Messiah had
to be a direct descendant of David. Hence, there was no reason to include
the “legal father”.
There is another problem with this theory. Assuming that
this explanation is correct (which has not been established), we are still left
with serious flaws in the genealogies. The obvious problem is that Joseph
was not Jesus’ real father. So, it makes no difference who Joseph’s
biological father really was, whether Jacob or Heli. Since Jesus did not
have a biological father, it is pointless to trace his genealogy to David
through Joseph.[20] As McKinsey
points out:
“According to Rom. 1:3 and Acts 2:30 the
Messiah must be a physical descendant of David. But how could Jesus meet
this requirement when the genealogies in Matthew and Luke show that he
descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father?”[21]
Hence,
not only is there no evidence that Joseph had a biological father and a legal
father, but the whole issue is irrelevant since Joseph was not Jesus’ real
father anyway.
While we have already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the genealogies
cannot possibly be reconciled and, that when examined separately, they each have
their own flaws, it should also be pointed out that Luke’s genealogy even
suffers from textual corruption. According to the New International
Version, in some manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke, some of the ancestors of
David are different than that of the Gospel of Matthew.[22] In most translations, the ancestors of David
starting from Hezron were Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed and
Jesse. However, the NIV notes that some manuscripts have Arni, Admin,
Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed and Jesse.[23]
Finally, let us examine Luke’s genealogy from Adam to Abraham. Including
Adam and Abraham, there are 21 names in Luke’s genealogy:
Adam → Seth → Enosh → Kenan → Mahalalel → Jared → Enoch → Methusaleh → Lamech → Noah → Shem → Arphaxad → Cainan → Shelah
→ Eber → Peleg → Reu → Serug → Nahor → Terah → Abraham
This
genealogy is for the most part in line with the Tanakh, except for one
addition. Luke added a man named “Cainan” in between Arphaxad and Shelah,
but this is impossible and creates an irreconcilable contradiction with the
Tanakh. According to Genesis 10, Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, not
Cainan.[24] Shelah was
in turn the father of Eber. The reason for Luke’s addition is probably
due to the fact that he was relying on the Septuagint (the Greek translation of
the Tanakh), which stated that Cainan was the father of Shelah.[25] However, the
Masoretic text (the Hebrew Tanakh) did not have Cainan in the genealogy.
Josephus agreed with the Masoretic text since he also did not include Cainan in
the genealogy from Adam to Abraham.[26] So, which
version was correct? Obviously, both cannot be the correct version.
Hence, we not only have a disagreement between the Masoretic and Septuagint
versions of the Tanakh, we also have an example of Luke using one as his
primary source, while ignoring the other. Depending on which version was
correct, Luke in turn would have been right or wrong. Either way, he was
clearly not "inspired".
Conclusion
In closing, the above examination has demonstrated obvious contradictions
between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke with regard to the genealogy of
Jesus. Despite the insistence of Christian apologists, the two accounts
cannot be reconciled with each other. We have also seen examples of
contradictions with the Tanakh. It is self-evident that the authors of
the respective genealogies invented them for their own reasons, using different
sources for their inspiration.[27] Christians
must be honest with themselves and admit the facts.
And Allah
knows best!
[1] Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, Edited by Moncure
Daniel Conway. San Bernardino: Wildside
Press LLC., 2014, p. 128.
[2] According to the
Tanakh, the Messiah would be a direct descendant of King David. Since Christians regard both the Tanakh and
the New Testament to be scripture, the two have to be in absolute
agreement. For more on the Messiah’s
relationship to David, see the following:
[3] The first genealogy
appears in the Gospel of Matthew (1:1-17).
The second genealogy is found in the Gospel of Luke (3:23-38).
[5] Matthew 1:17. Of course, when we actually count the names,
we see that there are only 41 total persons in the genealogy, not 42 which
would be expected if there were 14 names in each part of the genealogy. In fact, in the second group, there are
actually 15 total names (including David and Jeconiah), not 14 as the author of
the gospel contended.
[7] Raymond E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily
Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973), fn. 83, p. 54.
[8] For the purposes of
this section, the part of the genealogy from Adam to Abraham has been
omitted. However, we will come back to
it later in the article.
[9] Brown, op. cit., p. 54.
[11] According to Brown,
Matthew was using a genealogy of the Messiah that was popular among the Jews of
that time. He stated:
“Personally,
I find Matthew’s genealogy of less significance than Luke’s, since I think that
Matthew added the names of Joseph and Jesus to an already existing popular
genealogy of the Messiah king…” (Ibid., p. 60).
[12] Jeconiah is also known
as Jehoiachin or Coniah.
[14] It is in fact a
fundamental belief of Judaism that the Messiah would be descended from David
and Solomon:
“…the
fact that Moshiach will be a descendant of both David and Solomon is part of
the twelfth (of the thirteen) Jewish fundamental beliefs as outlined by
Maimonides.”
(http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/neri.html)
[15] C. Dennis McKinsey, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy
(New York: Prometheus Books, 1995), p. 111.
[17] 1 Chronicles 22:9-10.
[18] Luke’s genealogy also
contains other mistakes. As Brown
observed:
“The
Lucan genealogy also follows a numerical pattern (probably 77 names) and may
have duplications (compare 3:23-24 to 3:29-30); it attributes names of a
definite post-exilic type to the pre-exilic period” (The Virginal
Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, op. cit., fn. 83, p. 54).
[20] On a side note, many
scholars have observed the obvious contradiction between the Christian belief
in the virginal conception of Jesus and the belief regarding his “preexistence”
(John 1:1-2). As the Biblical scholar
Wolfhart Pannenberg stated:
“In its
content, the legend of Jesus’ virgin birth stands in an irreconcilable
contradiction to the Christology of the incarnation of the preexistent Son of
God found in Paul and John” (As quoted in Brown, op.
cit., p. 43).
It
is certainly not a coincidence that the Gospel of John is silent on the
virginal conception. Based on this,
Brown came to the following conclusion:
“…the
scales tip in favor of Johannine ignorance of the virginal conception; and that
means the ignorance of it in a late first-century Christian community that had
access to an early tradition about Jesus” (Ibid., p. 59).
[21] McKinsey, op. cit., pp. 46-47.
[22] This is most
unfortunate since this is the only section of the genealogy where Matthew and
Luke were in total agreement!
[26] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 1:6.
[27] Whatever those sources
were, the Holy Spirit was certainly not among them.
