“Contradictions” in the Genealogies of Jesus

[Agathon]

See title (10 Characters)

 

[Fauken]

I take it you’re referencing the genealogies found in Matthew and Luke? Hadock’s commentary goes into it in the part about Luke 3. It’s too long to post the whole thing, but I’ll post the last part of it.

“Whatever the difficulties attending the genealogies may be, it is evident that they arise from our imperfect knowledge of the laws, usages, and idiom of the Jews, from our ignorance of the true method of reconciling the seeming inconsistencies, or from some corruptions that in process of time may possibly have crept into the text. The silence of the enemies of the gospel, both heathen and Jewish, during even the first century, is itself a sufficient proof, that neither inconsistency nor corruption could be then alleged against this part of the evangelical history. If the lineal descent of Jesus from David were not indisputable, he could not possess the character essential to the Messias, nor any right to the Jewish throne. We may confidently then assert, that his regular lineal descent from David could not be disproved, since it was not even disputed at a time when alone it could have been done so successfully; and by those persons who were so deeply interested in falsifying the first Christian authorities.”

 

[Cachonga]

The supposed “contradiction” is caused by a lack of understanding of how the people of the 1st century thought. How many “parents” did Jesus have? A father (Joseph, His step-father), and a mother (Mary). Look closely at the genealogies. In Luke’s Gospel, we see that Joseph was (as it was supposed) the father of Jesus, while in Matthew we see that Joseph was the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus. An early church writer, Victorinus (about the end of the 3rd, beginning of the 4th century, if I remember correctly), in a commentary on Revelation, noted that Mathew contained the genealogy of Mary (which the reading supports).

One may say, “But why would it include Joseph in the genealogy of Mary?” Remember that Jesus, when asked about divorce, said that, “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh”. I’m old enough that I remember seeing mail addressed to my mother as Mrs Leo S. This would have been understood by those who first read it. It’s only because we’ve lost that “one flesh” concept in marriage that this appears to be a contradiction.

Hope this helps!

 

[Hereiam]

The genealogies need to be read in the unity of the message, not the mechanics of the presentation…in the end, both Luke’s and Matthew’s genealogies are complementary, rather than contradictory, which is Jesus is Lord and was sent by God as part of His glorious salvation plan.

I’m not sure why, when genealogies are discussed, people overlook the Gospel of John (John 1:1-14), which shows the divine genealogy, rather than the human genealogy of the Son (the Second Person of the Holy Trinity).

Pax et bonum!

 

[Agathon]

An early church writer, Victorinus (about the end of the 3rd, beginning of the 4th century, if I remember correctly), in a commentary on Revelation, noted that Mathew contained the genealogy of Mary (which the reading supports).

I disagree with Victorinus. If you’ve read St John Damascene, he says that Luke records Mary’s genealogy and Matthew records Joseph’s. Matthew’s mentioning of Mary in the genealogy doesn’t mean it’s Mary’s genealogy. It’s him saying that Maryis Jesus’s only blood parent.

 

[Cachonga]

The genealogies need to be read in the unity of the message, not the mechanics of the presentation…in the end, both Luke’s and Matthew’s genealogies are complementary, rather than contradictory, which is Jesus is Lord and was sent by God as part of His glorious salvation plan.

I’m not sure why, when genealogies are discussed, people overlook the Gospel of John (John 1:1-14), which shows the divine genealogy, rather than the human genealogy of the Son (the Second Person of the Holy Trinity).

Pax et bonum!

It’s because there are people who claim the Bible contains contradictions and errors, and they use this as an example.

I disagree with Victorinus. If you’ve read St John Damascene, he says that Luke records Mary’s genealogy and Matthew records Joseph’s. Matthew’s mentioning of Mary in the genealogy doesn’t mean it’s Mary’s genealogy. It’s him saying that Maryis Jesus’s only blood parent.

John Damascene lived about 200 years AFTER Victorinus. I won’t argue which genealogy belongs to who. The point is the 2 different genealogies do not constitute a contradiction in Scripture.

 

[Wingz]

It was apparently common in Jewish tradition to use the father’s name in a geneology in place of the mother.

So instead of saying father of Mary for example they would say father of Joseph because Joseph would be the son-in-law.

Also, according to the Catholic Church Mary’s father is Joachim. This name is not present in either of the genealogies. But is seen to relate to the name Eli in Luke’s geneology. Which is why it is commonly seen that Luke’s geneolgy is speaking about Mary’s ancestry rather than Joseph’s.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Jesus being a descendant from David is found in Paul, so clearly it was an early tradition, and it’s likely that Joseph’s family claimed descent from David. As far as I understand, only the priests had accurate family genealogies which neither Matthew or Luke could get access to so they were most likely going off their own independent traditions they received. It’s not a contradiction, just independent traditions. The Gospels are basically oral traditions in written form, sometimes doublets happen when tradition gets handed down, it’s really not that big of a deal.