Posted by Carlos on June 04, 1998 at 12:54:55:
In Reply to: Contradiction #1: two genealogies for Jesus posted by blue on June 04, 1998 at 00:40:14:
I offer this commentary from This web site. I strongly suspect further discussion will prove fruitless, so this is my last post on the matter.
JESUS' GENEALOGIES--One of the most discussed contradictions in freethought literature is the clash between the genealogies of
Jesus found in Matt. 1 and Luke 3. One need only read the text to see that Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus from Jesus back to
Adam and God while Matthew begins with Abraham and tracks it to Jesus. Luke lists 77 generations while Matthew has only 44. In
order to see the problem in proper perspective one should create a chart listing the names in correct sequence in parallel columns. If
horizontal lines are drawn to connect the same names, one can easily see that the lists are almost identical from Abraham to David.
However, from David onward there is no similarity despite the fact that they both conclude with Joseph as the father of Jesus. The
major reason for the contradictory names given after David is that the account in Luke traces the genealogy through David's son,
Nathan, while that in Matthew traces it through another son, Solomon. This would easily account for the wide divergence in names
following David but raises a couple of crucial questions: (a) How could Joseph and Jesus be descended from two different sons of
David. How could two sons of David father two completely different genealogies which merge together with the last two individuals
and (b) How could Jesus have contradictory genealogies? Few apologists deny differences exist so that's not in dispute. The real issue
revolves around the common explanation given by most biblicists for two widely different genealogies of the same man. Their strategy
hinges on a rather simple ploy. Jesus' genealogy is allegedly traced through Joseph in Matthew and Mary in Luke. Unfortunately for
them, the shortcomings in their rationalization are equally simple. First, Mary's name is nowhere to be found in Luke's genealogy.
Everybody's name is mentioned but hers. Imagine a genealogy in which every name is mentioned but that of the person whose lineage
is being traced! Second, there is no genealogical record of any woman in the entire Bible. Are we to believe Mary is an exception?
Third, Joseph's name is mentioned in Luke's genealogy so one can reasonably conclude that it's his lineage, not Mary's. Fourth, and
last, according to OT prophecy, the Messiah would be a physical descendant of David. Mary appears to have been from the house of
Levi, not David, since her cousin, Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) was a daughter of Aaron (Luke 1:5), i.e., from the house of Levi. If Mary was
from the house of Aaron, how could either genealogy be hers since they relate David's lineage? On the other hand, Luke 1:27 and 2:4
show Joseph was of Davidic descent. The attempt to attribute Luke's genealogy to Mary is one of the more transparent subterfuges
employed by dishonest apologists. Desperation set in because they just couldn't think of any other rationalization.
Another reason for their devious ploy is that it solves a problem created by the Virgin Birth. According to prophecy the Messiah must
be a physical descendant of David. If Jesus' only connection to David is through Joseph, then Jesus couldn't be physically connected
to David because the birth was virginal; Joseph was not his biological father. So apologists must attribute one of the genealogies to
Mary in order to extend a physical connection from Jesus to David. Hence, the rationalization. One can only wonder why they didn't
apply the genealogy in Matthew to Mary instead of the one in Luke since one is no more applicable to her than the other.
[ Follow Ups ] [ Exmormon.org- Honest Inquiry Message Board ] [ FAQ ]