Christ's geneology

[SyroMalankara]

Could someone quickly explain the geneology “descrepancy” in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew?
I have heard that one is of Mary, the other of Joseph, but this would not fit as both refer specifically to Joseph.
I remember Dr. Scott Hahn saying something on this, but I can’t recall at this moment.

Thanks and God Bless,
Mike

 

[Todd_Easton]

Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers has written on this topic, www.cin.org/users/james/files/Genealogies_of_Christ.htm

 

[trogiah]

I have read one explaination that made some sense. Matthew wrote most often with the Jewish people in mind as his audience. It was most important to him to show that Jesus was a descendant of Abraham and thus genealogically fit to be called the Messiah.

Luke was trying to present the gospel to all nations of the world and so he took his geneology back to Adam, the father of all humanity - thus showing that anyone on the face of the earth could claim Jesus (at least potentially) as part of their family.

I know some have trouble accepting this much literary license on the part of the authors of inspired Scripture but it makes sense to me.

peace

-Jim

 

[metal1633]

• Why are there only list 13 generations listed from the Captivity of Babylon to Jesus, in Matthew’s account? Doesn’t Matthew say there should be 14 generations?

• Why does Luke list 20 generations in the second series, and 22 in the third? If this is the same Joseph, shouldn’t there be 14 generations in the second and third series of Luke as well?

• Why do the lineages of Joseph, the husband of Mary, almost completely differ in the two accounts?

• How can Jesus be the Son of David, if Mary is not a daughter of David?

• If both St. Matthew and St. Luke give the genealogy of St. Joseph, the one through the lineage of Solomon, the other through that of Nathan - how can the lines converge in Joseph? How can Joseph claim descent from King David, through **both **Nathan **and **Solomon?

As with most problems that appear complex on the surface, this one has a very simple answer. The answer lies in the Aramaic original of the Gospel of Matthew. The verse reads: “Yacob fathered Yoseph, the “Gaw-ra” (Father) of Maryam.” Not Husband (Ba’la). Matthew, then, is recording the genealogy of Mary, whereas Luke is recording that of Joseph. Which would be exactly opposite of the currently accepted academic line - that Luke recorded Mary’s lineage while Matthew recorded that of Joseph. That would give us 14 generation in the third series of Matthew. It would also explain why Luke has 20 generations in the 2nd series and 22 generations in the 3rd series - i.e., Joseph’s lineage did not break out cleanly in 14-generation groupings, except for the first series. Since Matthew is giving the line of Mary, only her lineage would be required to break out evenly in 14-generation groupings. That would also explain why the names are completely different in both the 2nd and 3rd series between the accounts in Matthew and in Luke. It also demonstrates that both Mary and Joseph were descendents of King David - each through a separate line!

 

[Dan-Man916]

Eusebius took up this question in the early 4th century when he wrote his Ecclesiastical history.

He writes of this in Book 1, Chapter VII entitled:
The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in Regard to the Genealogy of Christ.
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-06.htm#P522_306670

The gist of it is that Jacob and Eli were brothers. Jacob begat Joseph (Matt), being a son by generation, but also son of Eli(Luke); Eli dying before having children and Jacob marrying his wife according to jewish law.
Thus, he raised up his seed to him.

Notice the difference between the 2 accounts is that one says W “begat” X, the other says that Y was the son of Z.

In Israel, it is possible to have 2 Fathers becuase the younger brother was expected to marry the widow if the older brither died.
Thus, a child could have a father by generation(Jacob) and by the law Eli).

Matt and Luke simply draw from 2 separate lines. In his writing, Eusebius goes into more detail.

 

[metal1633]

Dan-Man916:

Eusebius took up this question in the early 4th century when he wrote his Ecclesiastical history.

He writes of this in Book 1, Chapter VII entitled:
The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in Regard to the Genealogy of Christ.
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-06.htm#P522_306670

The gist of it is that Jacob and Eli were brothers. Jacob begat Joseph (Matt), being a son by generation, but also son of Eli(Luke); Eli dying before having children and Jacob marrying his wife according to jewish law.
Thus, he raised up his seed to him.

Notice the difference between the 2 accounts is that one says W “begat” X, the other says that Y was the son of Z.

In Israel, it is possible to have 2 Fathers becuase the younger brother was expected to marry the widow if the older brither died.
Thus, a child could have a father by generation(Jacob) and by the law Eli).

Matt and Luke simply draw from 2 separate lines. In his writing, Eusebius goes into more detail.

Thats all well and good but there are no discrepancies that need explaining in the Aramaic. The simplest answer is that one single word (Gaw-ra) was rendered badly in Greek, thus causing all subsequent discrepancies.

 

[prodromos]

metal1633:

Thats all well and good but there are no discrepancies that need explaining in the Aramaic. The simplest answer is that one single word (Gaw-ra) was rendered badly in Greek, thus causing all subsequent discrepancies.

It is still the wrong answer because Mary’s father is named Joachim, not Joseph .

John

 

[metal1633]

prodromos:

It is still the wrong answer because Mary’s father is named Joachim, not Joseph .

John

And who’s to say they are not the same man? Alpheas was also named Clopas. Many biblical personalities are called by more than one name.