Why do all the gospels have wrong genealogy of Jesus?especially Matthews?

Answer 1

How is it wrong?

Answer 2

Hello, actually the Gospel accounts are quite correct in the genealogy of Jesus. But, the question arises: Why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listings of the other chroniclers? First of all, to prove one’s genealogy it was not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. For example, Ezra, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, omitted several names contained in the listing of the priestly line at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Obviously it was not essential to name all these ancestors to satisfy the Jews as to his priestly lineage. Similarly with Matthew: He doubtless used the public register and copied from it, if not every name, the ones necessary to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. He also had access to the Hebrew Scriptures, which he could consult alongside the official public records.—Compare Ru 4:12, 18-22 and Mt 1:3-6.

The lists made by both Matthew and Luke were comprised of names publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees were bitter enemies of Christianity, and they would have used any possible argument to discredit Jesus, but it is noteworthy that they never challenged these genealogies. If either Matthew’s or Luke’s genealogy of Jesus had been in error, what an opportunity it would have been for these opponents to prove it then and there! For until 70 C.E. they evidently had ready access to the public genealogical registers and the Scriptures. Hope that helps.

Answer 3

It has been asserted that Luke 3's version is in actuality the genealogy of Mary and that Matthew 1's version is the genealogy of Mary. ( http://www.carm.org/questions/2geneologies.htm )

I can't help but notice though -- Mary's genealogy is 15 entire generations longer than Joseph's... yet Joseph was older than Mary, significantly so (enough, in fact, that the age generation is worth an entire other generation -- but I'll stick to 15).

A deviation of 15 generations, even taking into account the varying times of birth in an ancestor's life, would add up to far more than the difference in age between Joseph and Mary. According to these two geneologies and the short life expectancies of the time ... there's no way Mary and Joseph would have been alive at the same time.

I find it funny that carm.org lists this geneology side by side considering the conclusion it inadvertantly draws.

Answer 4

The Jewish people keep a very strict account of genealogy and place great importance on it. Matthew, being a Jew himself, put Jesus's geneology on the beginning for it's importance in connecting to the Jewish prophecies.

I'm not sure how you see it as wrong. What are you comparing it to? and why do you single out Matthew's account of the Good News?

Answer 5

If Matthew 1:6 says Jesus was the son of David through SOLOMON, but Luke 3:31 says that Jesus was the son of David through NATHAN.

So, could either of them be wrong?

But:

Genealogy is passed through the male gene; you need a male to pass on in a Genealogy!

So how could Jesus have a male genealogy if he does not have a Human Father?

Jesus was conceived miraculously, without any male intervention!

In the Holy Quran (Imran 3:59):

Angel Gabriel delivering this verse from Allah (God) said to Mohammed:

"Verily, the likness of Jesus before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then he said to him "Be!" and he was"

Answer 6

Why do all the gospels have wrong genealogy of Jesus?especially Matthews?

THE Genealogies are CORRECT.

I suppose the Unholy quaran says something different.
If so, I will stick with GODS WORD - not the itty bitty moon god demon.

Answer 7

Its not so much wrong as just a different style of listing the genealogy.

And the main differences between the two, the one listed in Matthew is Mary's and the one in Luke is Joseph's.

Answer 8

If you have read the bible, which I somehow doubt, there is not one mistake in it. It has been tried to prove it wrong for centuries and no one has done it yet.

Answer 9

Great question. You might actually try opening the bible before you ask another question about it.

Answer 10

And I suppose you were there?