Back Next

Outline
Interpretation
Matthew's
Account
Recorded
Women
Luke's
Account
About
Joseph
Jehoiakim's
Curse
Objections
Closing
Remarks
Print
Article

Alleged Discrepancies
A discussion of the
genealogies would be incomplete without considering some of the apparent
discrepancies between the records. Some of the most common objections are
raised here.
Those which are addressed in greater
detail in the preceding information, are briefly recapped.

1.
If Matthew indicated there were 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus, why
do only 40 names appear in his genealogy?
This is a common
objection, which a cursory look at Matthew 1:17 would seem to justify.

However, careful examination shows that Matthew
broke the genealogy down into three historic divisions, each of which
contained fourteen generations. Two of the names are repeated. David's was
repeated because he was alive when the first division ended, and the
second division began.
It is widely held that
Jeconiah's name was repeated because of a mistranslation. Jeconiah's
father's name was Jehoiakim. The names had similar spellings. Apparently
the oversight of transcribers caused the name to be repeated. This
scenario has added credibility because some ancient manuscripts actually
do contain both names.

2. Matthew's genealogy is inconsistent
with Old Testament records, that show Matthew skipped generations.

Matthew's genealogy was deliberately abridged. This may have been
to aid in memorization of the tables. Old Testament writers also abridged
their genealogical records, so Matthew had scriptural precedent to do so
(compare Ezra 7:3 with 1 Chronicles 6:7-10).

3. Comparison
shows that Matthew and Luke did not record the same names in their
genealogies. Since they are not in harmony with each other, one or both of
them must be erroneous.
Matthew and Luke traced two family
histories. Matthew recorded the ancestors of Joseph, the legal father of
Jesus. Luke recorded the ancestors of Mary, the biological mother of
Jesus. The divergence of names is natural, given the fact that both
authors presented two different family trees.

4. Luke stated
that Joseph was the son of Heli, while Matthew stated he was the son of
Jacob.
The Jerusalem Talmud shows that Joseph was the son-in-law
of Heli. Joseph's father was Jacob. It was customary to refer to a
son-in-law as a son in the first century. So Luke's statement was
culturally correct.

Back Next

Sitemap · Legal · FreeFind

Updated 1/24/2004

http://www.lifeofchrist.com/

© 1998-2004 Ken
Palmer