Is there Contradiction in the Genealogy of Matthew and Luke

[SoulRebel111]

An orthodox Jew, told me there is contradiction in these two seperate accounts, thus bringing doubt as Jesus being in the same line as david.

How would you as a Catholic answer this objection?

Thanks

 

[Rabid]

To my knowledge, the reason for the discrepancy was an obvious one. I don’t have my bible with me or any links to articles, but the main reason was that Christ did not have a biological father. However, because Joseph spiritually adopted him, he had the Jewish inheritance rights to Joseph’s family.

Again, I don’t which one is which, but one is supposed to be a biological family tree (back through Mary), and the other is a paternal family tree (tracing back through Joseph, scripturally fulfilling all the prophecies about the coming Christ).

I may be wholly wrong, only read or heard the argument one time, and have no supporting evidence, so if someone has better evidence, feel free to correct me.

 

[juliamajor]

The Geneaologies of Matt.& Luke are geared toward theological meaning and not historical.Most Ancient Genealogies were telescoped down anyway. That means You leave in the folks who were famous,well known or have some impact on your status .On the other hand non-entities would be removed along with the anyone who might have been a little crazy or villianous.your genealogy was meant to make you look good-not so much reflect reality in ancient times.

 

[Cachonga]

Actually, there is a 3rd or 4th century commentary on the Apocalypse of John by Victorinus. In the 4th chapter, verses 7-10 (a discussion of the 4 living creatures), he says, “And in the figure of a man, Matthew strives to declare to us the genealogy of Mary, from whom Christ took flesh.” (see here).

Hope this helps!

 

[thistle]

Actually, there is a 3rd or 4th century commentary on the Apocalypse of John by Victorinus. In the 4th chapter, verses 7-10 (a discussion of the 4 living creatures), he says, “And in the figure of a man, Matthew strives to declare to us the genealogy of Mary, from whom Christ took flesh.” (see here).

Hope this helps!

Both are the geneology of Jesus. Neither is of Mary.

 

[Cachonga]

thistle:

Both are the geneology of Jesus. Neither is of Mary.

Are you arguing with me (the messenger) or with Victorinus (the commentator who wrote this sometime in the late 3rd or early 4th century)? Of course they are the geneologies of Jesus, but it seems that the one in Luke belongs to Joseph and the one in Matthew belongs to Mary (even though it ends with Joseph, her husband, which was a perfectly acceptable practice at the time).

 

[bogeydogg]

Matthew is the genealogy of St. Joseph, but Christ could not inherit the throne from Joseph by birth. Two reasons why, one the sin of Adam (by federal headship not actual guilt) is received from father to progeny as Genesis 3 makes clear that the cursing of the earth is because of Adam’s sin and not Eve’s. Two, the line of Kings of David through Solomon is cursed (Jeremiah 22: 24-30). So Joseph is the rightful heir to David’s Throne but he cannot inhabit it because of the sins of his fathers, and neither could a biological son.

The second line is the line of Mary. It is not unusual to name a son (even a son-in-law) instead of a daughter, especially when the son is married to the only daughter and thus becomes heir to the inheritance of her father. Mary is also of David but through Nathan instead of Solomon and thus also has a claim to the throne being of the next son and not of the cursed line. So the Lord has right to the throne through both parents.

This raises the issue of then how is Jesus the rightful High Priest since it is handed down by family.

The answer is found in Psalm 110 where the Messianic King is said to be a “priest forever after the order of Melchizedek…” That is Melchizedek was a Priest to the Lord to whom Abraham paid homage and he was accepted as priest when there was no line of Levi and Aaron. He was priest because God declared him to be a priest. In the same way we read in Hebrews 5-7 but especially 7: 14-19 where it says “14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” 18 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.” For that reason we need not try and explain how Mary was of the line of Levi when the text clearly tells us that she was of the line of David and thus the House of Judah, and neither do we need to explain how Jesus, being from the house of Judah, was a Priest before God.

God Bless

 

[Cachonga]

I would imagine that both geneologies would be important. There would be those who would not accept a claim to the throne of David as legitimate if the person was not from the line of Solomon, and there would be others who would require the claimant to be from the line of Nathan. Jesus meets both requirements, and the 2 geneologies confirm this. I don’t think it really matters which belongs to Mary (though a 3rd or 4th century commentary gives me reason to believe that Matthew records Mary’s geneology), the important thing is that both lines are represented.

 

[crazzeto]

An orthodox Jew, told me there is contradiction in these two seperate accounts, thus bringing doubt as Jesus being in the same line as david.

How would you as a Catholic answer this objection?

Thanks

This is answered in Eucibius’s History of the Church which I would exhort you to read. It requires a knowlege of ancient Jewish Custom to know why there is no contradiction.

amazon.com/History-Church-Eusebius/dp/1420925067/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264777271&sr=8-3

Basically, in Joseph’s lines, there were instances where a brothers wife died, and per Levitical Law, the surviving (single) brother was compelled to take his brothers wife as his own wife. The first child of that marriage would be the “property” or I guess more appropriatly legally in the line of the deceased brother.

There for, biologically the child has one father, but legally another one. You see these differences illistrated in the Gospel’s you point out. Again, for better (more specific) information I would exhort you to read the history of the Church.