Which geneology of Jesus is correct: Matthew 1:6-16 or Luke 3:21-31?

Question

Matthew:
1. David
2. Solomon
3. Roboam
4. Abia
5. Asa
6. Josaphat
7. Joram
8. Ozias
9. Joatham
10. Achaz
11. Ezekias
12. Manasses
13. Amon
14. Josias
15. Jechonias
16. Salathiel
17. Zorobabel
18. Abiud
19. Eliakim
20. Azor
21. Sadoc
22. Achim
23. Eliud
24. Eleazar
25. Matthan
26. Jacob
27. Joseph
28. Jesus

Luke:
1. David
2. Nathan
3. Mattatha
4. Menan
5. Melea
6. Eliakim
7. Jonan
8. Joseph
9. Juda
10. Simeon
11. Levi
12. Matthat
13. Jorim
14. Eliezer
15. Jose
16. Er
17. Elmodam
18. Cosam
19. Addi
20. Melchi
21. Neri
22. Salathiel
23. Zorobabel
24. Rhesa
25. Joanna
26. Juda
27. Joseph
28. Semei
29. Mattathias
30. Maath
31. Nagge
32. Esli
33. Naum
34. Amos
35. Mattathias
36. Joseph
37. Janna
38. Melchi
39. Levi
40. Matthat
41. Heli
42. Joseph
43. Jesus

And since it's traced through Joseph, does that mean he was Jesus' bio-dad?

Answer 1

It is impossible to reconcile the two. We will never know which one is right. At best, one can say that Matthew and Luke had different sources.

Answer 2

Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David).

Answer 3

Actually, both are correct. What you need to remember is that the Hebrews had very detailed records of their ancestry because property rights were connected to it. (Check out Deuteronomy). Each writer was establishing the genealogy of Jesus from different directions. Both Joseph and Mary were decedents of David.
It doesn't mean Joseph was Jesus' biological father but it gives credibility to his brith rights and connects the prophecies of the Old Testament to the New.

Answer 4

First, does absolutely everyone care no remember in case you do no longer settle for the fact of Luke's line is tracing Mary's line? Secondly, delivers have been made to David which the two lines did. finally, a virgin delivery is the only way for Jesus' sacrifice to become efficient. basically a ideal human existence could desire to be exchanged for the fee of Adam's existence. a minimum of one confirm could desire to be ideal as God replaced into. Oddly as we talk, we've not any problem if we comprehend drugs a pair of virgin delivery. synthetic insemination is ordinary place. (with no male being present day.) Projections are for taking genetic cloth from bones to remake an embryo into the donors' photograph. this does not require men in any respect. We do exactly no longer think of of virgin delivery in that way.

Answer 5

It doesn't really matter. Both of them are probably incorrect. These scriptures were written years after the death of Jesus and the authors took great care to connect them to prophesies from the OT in order to make Jesus appear to be the messiah. One of the requirements was that he be a relative of David. In all probability he was not.

There is also the large discrepancy here. In order to be a descendant of David Joseph would have to be the biological father. According to certain scripture he is the product of an immaculate conception. If this were true (and most would say it has to be in order for Jesus to be the Christ) I cannot be claimed that he is born of god, and therefore not the Christ.

Answer 6

Joseph is the son by marriage (I.E.: son in law) of Heli, not a blood decedent.

So the lineage given in Luke is assumed to be the lineage of Mary (Mary is not actually listed, since in a male dominated society, it would have been more PC to mention the head of household instead of the wife).

Mathew is the lineage of Joseph, and it is important because it traces the chain of title to the throne of Judah (throne of David). Jesus is the oldest son by marriage (step-son) of Joseph, so he legally inherits the title.

====edit====

Since you majored in religion in college, you already knew the standard response to this question, and you already knew what answers that you would get (since you took the same classes that I did, & read similar textbooks, I assume).

So what gives? You say that you don't believe in the Bible anymore, but you purposefully give a trick question about the Bible that you knew would only confuse the uneducated.

You sound like a sophisticated troll, nothing more.

Answer 7

Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).
There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.

Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.

Answer 8

The general opinion is that the Matthew genealogy is Joseph's, and the Luke genealogy is Mary's. If Mary had no brothers, Jewish tradition might have handed her genealogy to her husband Joseph. Although Joseph isn't Jesus' biological father, he is his stepfather, or foster father. Jesus would have legally inherited the line--or lines--of Joseph.

Answer 9

The claim that one is the genealogy of Mary has no merit. I don't remember inheritences ever being traced through women.

Both of the genealogies are actually correct and I gave an explanation here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar1CxUcAbwuoq4fiC0HJHibsy6IX?qid=20070219094459AAd0KcB

(Please disregard my arrogance. I love to make fun of atheists who don't know what they're talking about but try to find fault with the Bible anyway.)

Answer 10

No. Mary was a virgin wasn't she. He would only have her geneology. Except for his son and daughter and their children. Oh wait...that never happened!