Why conflicting geneologies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke?

Question

Not many Christians want to discuss the apparent contradiction between the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Many Christians raise the defense that the genealogy of Luke is actually referring to Mary. When in all actuality this cannot be the case it would seem since Mary's name is never mentioned. What are your thoughts?

To those who have answered don't you find it odd that it would list Jacob as the father of Joseph in Matthew and Heli, the father of Joseph in Luke?

There is no proof in any shape or form the other genealogy is Mary's

Aside from all that the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew is detrimental to the prophecies as the writers tried to connect the lineage of Jesus to David by mentioning Joseph as the father. When in fact he was step father.

amorromantico02:

this is all fine and dandy and whether or not luke does list the genealogy of mary doens't really matter. Jeconiah, a cursed by God king, is listed in the genealogy which presents an even greater problem. Jeremiah 22:30

Ahmad:

That's the best answer I've heard so far!

Answer 1

why would the father of joesph be listed-i thought he had nothing to do with it---just wondering---smile and enjoy the day

Answer 2

Luke's Is the genealogy of Mary and Matthew is placed first because it it Hebrew tradition to put the husband's first. Both are descendants of King David. It was accurately kept by Jewish Scribes but also the Roman Government. Joseph Is the legitimate earthly cartaker of Baby Jesus and women are mentioned in the genealogy associated with King David. Rahab and Ruth, Bathseba was the wife of Uriah. It Proves good can come out of a messed up bunch of People.

Answer 3

There is no conflict in the Gospels. 4 different people recorded their stories. 3 were eye witnesses and 1 researched it. Just like you and 3 of your friends watch the same soccer game and report on it. None of you will use the same words to describe it. Yes, you may all tell the same story, even with different details, but in the end of it will tell the same story. One will have more details than the other. It does not mean that one or all are wrong or in conflict. Matthew was written primarily to the Jew. John was written to the intellectual, Mark most probably to the people in Rome, and Luke to who ever would read it. If this statement is true (or even close), then-all four Gospels should tell the "same" story, but in a "different" way.

Answer 4

Mary's name isn't mentioned because of the way Jewish genealogies listed names--even in the woman's genealogy it's who her husband and father were that were important. A woman usually had to be quite well known to have her name in her genealogy. Heck, it's still that way--when I try to trace my maternal ancestors, I have to look for the names of their male relatives.

Edit--it was necessary to list Joseph because he was the legal father of Jesus.

Answer 5

You have to understand this two individuals are part of a long and conflicting mythology, one which has been continuously questioned. Is the same thing that happens to other mythical figures as Herakles or Rama. The real problem with such inconsistencies is there is no clear path or approach, for it is quite common none of them are based in actual historical facts, but in tradition and opinion. The conflict you present on this regard may just very well be a sign of a rich, controverted, multi-authored work.

Answer 6

Even though Mary is not mentioned the lineage in Luke is Mary's because Joseph is not the actual dad of Christ remember she was a virgin.

Answer 7

Q&A Queen got it right. One genealogy is for Joseph and the other is for Mary.

Answer 8

I can trace my lineage back on anyone of four persons, most people can. It's not contradicting. My mother and father both had parents. Just because most women aren't mentioned in the lineage is nothing new. In the old testament they weren't even counted in the land of the living. It was a mans world and still is.

Answer 9

At least two authorities give as the preferable solution of this the explanation that Luke traces the natural lineage of Jesus through his fleshly mother Mary and her ancestors, while Matthew gives Jesus’ legal lineage, through Joseph and his ancestors. Starting with the oldest entry in each of the genealogical accounts, the understanding above helps us to see why they part company after David, Matthew’s account going through the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke’s traces instead through David’s son Nathan, and why, though they meet again briefly at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, they then branch off once more and pursue different lines. Matthew ends with Jacob as the father of Joseph and, according to this understanding, Luke ends with Heli, who was actually the father of Jesus’ fleshly mother, Mary.—The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible (Revised Edition of 1944, page 198, column 1); McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia (1882, Volume III, page 773, column 2).

Why, then, does Luke omit Mary and list Joseph as “the son of Heli”? Says the Cyclopædia above, page 773, column 2: “In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numbers 26:33; 27:4-7).” In keeping with this rule, Joseph’s name would replace Mary’s in Luke’s account, even though the genealogy there was traced through Mary’s lineage. The Cyclopaedia sees in the very wording of Luke’s account a confirmation of this thought, saying, page 774, column 1: “The evangelist Luke has critically distinguished the REAL from the LEGAL genealogy by a parenthetical remark: ‘Jesus being (as was reputed) the son of Joseph (but in reality) the son of Heli,’ or his grandson by his mother’s side.”—Luke 3:23.

But why have two genealogies, when one would suffice and differences between the two may cause confusion? For one thing, Matthew’s and Luke’s earliest readers would most surely be acquainted with the details above and so would not be confused, no more so than modern readers need be when familiarized with the details. For another, genealogies, while dry and boring to some, often serve a very important and vital purpose. Surely the genealogy of the Messiah or Christ would have special importance, for prophecies about him are very definite on his descent through the favored patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the beloved King David. Testing Jewish Pharisees on this point, Jesus asked them: “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They answered: “David’s.” (Matt. 22:42, NW) Jesus’ messiahship had to have genealogical proof!

So it is reasonable to hold that under the direction of Jehovah’s spirit the two writers, Matthew and Luke, would make doubly sure to establish the descent of the Messiah. Matthew showed a zeal for pointing out prophecies fulfilled in Jesus, as will be seen by reading just the few verses from Matthew 2:1 to 18. And when Luke came along and addressed his account to “most excellent Theophilus,” it was not for the purpose of pointless repetition that he did so. Luke took great pains and “traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order” so that Theophilus might know fully the certainty of the things that he had been taught orally. (Luke 1:1-4, NW) How could he more fully serve this purpose than by complementing Matthew’s account, which showed Jesus’ legal descent through foster-father Joseph, with another account showing his descent in a natural or fleshly way through the virgin Mary, especially when in both genealogical accounts Jesus’ descent passed through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the all-important David? The two accounts stand as “two witnesses,” making Jesus’ messiahship doubly certain.—Deut. 19:15.

Answer 10

They couldn't get it right at the Council of Nicea, so they put in both genealogies in the Bible.

Answer 11

As a woman Mary's name would not be listed in the geneology. Take a look at that Geneology listed in Luke. You don't see any OTHER woman's name listed either do you?