So who really was Joseph's Dad?

Question

I'm sorry if I seem to be coming back to the same topic again, but it really does interest me. I recently asked people who Joseph (as in Mary and Joseph)'s father was. The majority of answers said Jacob.

Here's my problem:

Matthew 1:16 does indeed say that Joseph's father was Jacob. But why not go by Luke 3:23, which says Joseph was the son of Heli.

Heli's father was apparently Matthat, who was the son of Levi (Luke 3:24). Jacob's father was apparently Matthan, whose father was Eleazar (Matthew 1:15).

So what's up with this? Did Joseph have two Dads? How do people decide which gospel is right?

OK, wefmeister, that make some sense. But I'm still troubled by it: what grounds do we have for assuming that one gospel gives descent through the mother's line? It doesn't even mention Mary!

Answer 1

Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regards to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel's father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel's father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah).

Another explanation is that Matthew is tracing the primary lineage while Luke is taking into account the occurrences of "levirite marriage." If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man's brother to marry his wife and have a son who would carry on the man's name. While possible, this view is unlikely as every generation from David to Jesus would have had a "levirite marriage" in order to account for the differences in every generation. This is highly unlikely.

With these concepts in view, most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for "son-in-law," and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).

Answer 2

It's all retrofitted to suit the two authors different points of view. Matthew is trying to establish that Jesus is a direct decedent of David. Luke is trying to establish that Jesus is the Son of Man.

Also, different versions of the Bible, have different genealogies. The truth is, Jesus needed to be the 70th direct decedent of Adam, to be significant in Jewish prophecy. It's contrived, and can only be accepted if you believe that God knew that there would be 70 generations when he made Adam. It's called providence. Every 7th generation from Adam, and every 10th generation is a significant figure in providence. No other generations are significant, and are only mentioned as place holders in the chain.

I have a picture, of a coin dated 53 BC. Is it worth anything? I doubt it. If you believe it could be real, you'd have to accept the fact that the maker knew 53 years ahead of time, when AD would start.

This doesn't really answer your question, but I thought you'd like to know why the authors disagree. I am a Christian, I just don't buy the genealogy thing. I don't believe Jesus did either.

Answer 3

Don't be troubled , it is just us WOMEN being discriminated against again! In Matthew you will find the birth line of Joseph, He is Jesus foster father, but he still has the line of David, which is essential for the SAVIOR in his back ground.

Then when you go to LUKE , because Mary is the wife of Joseph, her name is not deemed worthy of mention. But her husbands name is. Heli was Mary's Father, but she was ONLY the woman of Joseph by the determination of the JEWS so she was of Little account.
Matthew is Josephs line of David. Luke is Marys line of David


Both had the right to the KINGSHIP except for human imperfection, that is why God helped out with the birth of Jesus, to re inject PERFECTION that way the perfect ransom life Jesus gave was equal to the perfect life Adam gave UP

Answer 4

Old question.
Two genealogies.
The one in Matthew is the line of Joseph.
The one in Luke is the line of Mary.
Joseph was the legal father of Jesus.
Mary was the natural mother.
Both trace back to King David.
Mary traces her line back to Adam.
Hence Jesus is the "Son of Man" (Son of Adam)

I would resort to a good commentary.
Part of the confusion comes in because in the Greek in Luke's Gospel it doesn't actually say "son of", but simply uses the possessive case in the Greek indicating the one was "of", that is descended from or belonging to the other.
Remember the genealogies were included for the express purpose of substantiating Jesus' legitimate claims as an heir of David, and as son of Abraham, and thus the promised "seed". Therefore the information is voluntary because this would be necessary to validate anyone claiming to be the Messiah.(Matthew being addressed primarily to Jews traces back only to Abraham; Luke being more universal, traces back to Adam).
Incidentally, most of the genealogical records were destroyed in 70 A.D. when the temple was destroyed, so any subsequent person claiming to be Messiah would be unable to prove he was in the lineage of David.

FYI: http://bible.christiansunite.com/commentary.shtml

Answer 5

There are two genealogies presented. However one represents the biological line through Mary and the other the legal line through Joseph. For a complete explanation of this go to: http://carm.org/diff/2geneologies.htm

Answer 6

Yep...another Biblical contradiction. You'd think the literal, infallible word of God wouldn't have any.

Edit: the usual response is "one is Joseph's geneology, the other is Mary's." This is bunk. Both CLEARLY STATE they are Joseph's, not Mary's.

Answer 7

ALEXANDER THE GREAT. JOSEPH IS ONE OF HIS GIRL FRIENDS SON.