(20 votes, average: 4.85 out of 5)
Loading...I have devoted several posts to Matthew’s genealogy, and I realized it’s only fair for me to say something about Luke’s as well. As you may know, these are the only two Gospels — in fact the only two books of the New Testament — that provide an account of Jesus’ birth and very young life, the “infancy narratives.” In Mark Jesus shows up as an adult, and so too in John. They say nothing about the circumstances of his birth, nothing, for example, of his mother being a virgin, of him being born in Bethlehem, of .. of any of the stories celebrated every Christmas. Either do any of the other books of the NT. That in itself is a striking fact. An “essential doctrine” of Christianity such as the Virgin Birth — said by many Christians to be a decisive doctrine: anyone who denies it (lots of Christians say), cannot be Christian. Yet 25 of the 27 books in the NT say nothing about it. Did they know about it? How could we say?
In any event, Matthew and Luke both give a genealogy of Jesus. Matthew’s occurs where you would expect it– at the time of Jesus’ birth; Luke, oddly, gives his genealogy not when Jesus was born but when he was *baptized* in chapter 3 (!). Go figure. Anyway, this is not the only difference between the two infancy narratives (they are WAY different. Just read them carefully next to each other to see) and definitely not the only difference between their genealogies. On the contrary, as it turns out, they are actually *different* genealogies! UH???? . You can easily notice a lot of these differences yourself, just by reading them (Matt. 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38), again, carefully, and comparing them side by side..
Want to keep reading! Join the blog. It’s easy. It’s inexpensive. And the entire fee goes to help those in need.
These competing geneologies present a challenge to those who assert Biblical innerancy. Do they simply ignore this inconvenient evidence, or try to harmonize it?
Usually harmonize, all the way. (E.g., one genealogy is Mary’s and the other Joseph’s)
“Both genealogies are the patrilinear line, explicitly, of Joseph”
If a mistranslation from the Aramaic original is used.
_Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them)_ by Bart D. Ehrman (2009), 292pp. On 36, 37
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions/dp/0061173940/
….neither author provides her genealogy. …. Luke explicitly indicates that the family line is that of Joseph, not Mary (Luke 1:23; also Matthew 1:16). ….
There are other problems. In… Matthew’s genealogy…. The problem is that the fourteen-fourteen-fourteen schema doesn’t actually work. If you read through the names carefully, you’ll see that in the third set of fourteen there are in fact only thirteen generations.
My response:
Matthew 1:17 says there are 14, 14, 14 generations. Greek manuscripts of Matthew’s genealogy mistakenly list 14, 14, 13 generations. In Aramaic mss. of Matthew’s genealogy, with Mt 1:16’s “gbra” correctly translated as father/guardian, Matthew’s genealogy lists 14, 14, 14 generations. Mary had a father/guardian named Joseph (plus a husband also called Joseph). Jesus is a descendant of King David on his biological mother Mary’s side (per Mt’s genealogy), and on his step-dad Joseph’s side (per Lk’s genealogy).
As pointed out, the genealogies diverge at the son of King David and reconverge at Jesus’s “father” Joseph. One popular explanation for the differences involves levirate marriage (see Matthew Firth’s response to Bart on the blog 4-16-2019). Interestingly, after diverging the genealogies converge briefly in one other place: Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel (Mt 1:12; Lk 3:27). This must mean that levirate marriage must be invoked twice? Personally I prefer Bart’s solution: the genealogies are just different.
It’s hard to imagine that the author of Matthew did not know that he had dropped two names from the Old Testament genealogy since he clearly knew a lot about the Old Testament. If knowing this, Matthew still dropped these names, then this is a rather worrisome and odd thing for an author to do if he/she is writing the ultimate TRUTH. Moreover, this raises the whole question of whether or not ancient Biblical authors knew that they were making a lot of stuff up or if they believed that they were writing accurate history? Did such ancient authors knowingly and routinely write “literary” stories like Noah and the Ark and Jesus casting demons into pigs to illustrate various truths or just to write stories? I guess the question boils down to whether or not Gospel authors and other ancient authors routinely mixed stories with history and, if so, what this means for Bible readers?
Some people think Matthew did it not because he wanted to make it inaccurate but he wanted a mnemonic device for memorizing it: you would repeat the genealogy and if you didn’t have 14x14x14 you realized you blew it. Of course he blew it too, but hey, it happens. My sense is that in the actual narratives, almost all the time — or probably all the time — the writers were repeating what they heard and they genuinely thought they were true.
Fascinating Bart; thanks for the post.
So; do you think that Matthew and Luke both created their respective genealogies from scratch, using the Septuagint for the earlier parts?
One possible argument against that, is that although both evangelists trace Joseph’s descent from David through Zerubbabel; nevertheless in neither gospel do the descendants of of Zerubbabel correspond with those stated at I Chronicles 3:19. And of course, the two gospels differ.
Which could indicate that both Luke and Matthew may have had separate access to non-biblical lists of the post-exilic descendants from Zerubbabel to recent times (likely in Greek) – and then plugged the names of Jesus and Joseph into these. Presumably adjusting these to fit with their particular theological perspectives.
But it does seem unlikely that either genealogy was known to the earliest followers of Jesus. Nevertheless, both Paul (Romans 1:3) and the writer of Hebrews (Hebrews 7:14) understand Jesus to have been descended from David, and to be of the Tribe of Judah.
We know of other contemporary figures were said to be descendants of David (such as Hillel the elder). How might such claims have been established and maintained?
I don’t really know, but my guess is that they heard them rather than invented them. But they could have been come up with just about anyone and there’d be no reason why any particular author of the NT would also have heard them (e.g., Paul or the author of Hebrews)
Its an intriguing puzzle Bart; as to why the two genealogies are so different; and yet clearly so important to both gospel writers. If they had both ‘heard’ them, then there must have been some context in which genealogies were recited; they are not texts that you would drop into common conversation. What might that context be? And how might two wholly incompatible recitations have come into being?
But if neither Paul nor the author of Hebrews knew an established Jesus genealogy – and yet both knew that Jesus was of the line of David – then that suggests that having a full genealogy of Jesus was not a required component of the earliest tradition of Jesus as Messiah. We might point to the Qumran tradition to illustrate the same point. Both the ‘Branch of David’ and the ‘Sons of Aaron’ feature strongly in Messianic texts within the Dead Sea Scrolls; but no Qumran text that survives suggests that the community composed, preserved or repeated full genealogies of either the line of David or the line of Aaron.
I’d say it was absolutely not a requirement of teh belief that Jesus was the son of David.
Luke’s gospel, as well as Acts, extols the the humble, the poor and marginal in society while Matthew’s gospel usually does not. Luke’s angel (Gabriel) visits Mary to announce Jesus’ upcoming birth’ while Matthew’s visits Joseph (women in a patriarchal society had lesser social standing than men). Luke has humble shepherds visit Jesus; Matthew has kings. Luke has Jesus born in a stable and laid in a manger; Matthew’s Jesus is apparently born in Joseph and Mary’s house in Bethlehem. Luke has multiple pericopes extolling poverty and criticizing wealth (e.g., the rich man and Lazarus) as well as verses in the beatitudes (Luke’s blessed are the poor vs Matthews blessed are the poor in spirit). The pooling of wealth and the extolling of poverty in the early Jerusalem church is typically Lukan (as Ananias and Sapphira found out). Do you think that Luke’s genealogy, tracing Joseph through a rather obscure son of David (Nathan), unlike Matthew’s that traces Joseph through Solomon and the whole line of Davidic kings, is another example of Luke trying to distance Jesus from the rich and powerful in society?
Interesting idea. But Nathan too was royalty, not an outcast or impoverished but righteous person. So it’s hard to say.
On the premise of the virgin birth, the genealogies of Matthew and Luke definitely seems even stranger than without it. To me, genealogy does not make sense at all, before I really understand the virgin birth.
Like Carl Gustav Jung said
“But unless you swallow the whole thing, the virgin birth, the Trinity, and everything else, it does not express your unconscious. If, however, you go beyond Christianity, well then you come into that sphere which was originally swallowed by it, namely, into Dionysian, Mithraic, and Attic symbolism.”
,, points to the common symbology around the world used in religions and various other mythologies, and where he points to the collective unconscious side of us as the origin.
who knows?
Well, I do not know, but it is certain that I could add a bunch of other traditions that embrased the symbol of “virgin birth, for ex. in Hinduism, Buddhism, other Chinese traditions, Korean traditions ,,, Zoroastrian (near ot Mithraic), and even indigenous peoples in America ,,,,, and more ! In other and later Judeo-Christian esoteric systems, this ALSO points to a more spiritual event. This kind of virgin story, the symbol? is everywhere !!
If this “virgin birth” of Christ is to be understood beyond the physical appearance of Jesus, it is easier to understand why they emphasized the Hebrew Bible prophecies about the “anointed one” coming from the line of David, even though at least one of them got it wrong.
Do you think it more likely that Matthew and Luke wrote their own genealogies or they got them from another source? I ask because if they got them from sources, perhaps whoever wrote the genealogies didn’t believe in the virgin birth.
Most everything else they wrote came from a source, so I guess the probability is good the genealogies did as well. And yes, that’s an option….
I believe there were two concepts, not mutually exclusive, about the Messiah: that he would be a kingly Messiah, and/or a priestly Messiah. In Luke 1 he (or his source) has Mary related to Elizabeth, a “daughter of Aaron,” i.e., a priestly family. Then the genealogy traces Joseph through the line of David the king. So, is this a deliberate attempt to show that Jesus is both priestly and kingly Messiah? Do we have any early Christian writings discussing whether Jesus was a kingly Messiah or priestly Messiah or both? (The book of Hebrews seems to portray Jesus as priest rather than king, I would say.)
Priests had to come from the line of Levi through Aaron; David came from the line of Judah. So his descendants could not have been priests. Hebrews is using the language metaphorically — or at least he’s not saying he was a *Jewish* priest….
I’ve noticed people do this with political leaders whom they support as well. Rather than, after enough time engaging in Cirque du Soleil-grade contortions to explain what the politician actually *meant* as opposed to the wildly questionable thing they actually said, you still can’t get the adherent to cut bait and just admit that some statements are problematic and may mean that the politician has … issues. This is a people lesson, it’s what we do apparently.
I suppose, as you have said elsewhere Dr Ehrman, the idea of Jesus having been adopted, even informally by Joseph, carried more weight in the Graeco-Roman world than it does today. The first three Roman emperors, Augustus, Tiberius and Caligula, all owed their positions to adoption, more so than family connections and aristocratic birth. So too did Nero and he was closer in time to the gospel writers.
From my experience, the offense of Matthew isn’t its obscure genealogies or its historical validity (never heard these mentioned in fact.) The offense of Matthew in particular lies in Matthew 5, 6 and 7 – the ethical requirements of the kingdom of heaven. It’s not admitted, but these have no place in the modern world.
I’d say a lot of them are relevant. Just not lest you be judged is a good one for our times, as one of many examples.
It’s impossible to get around the brute fact that a miraculous virgin birth makes a hash of any possible genealogy. Probably would make more sense to look at Mary’s ancestry. You have to wonder whether Jesus had a full complement of chromosomes, and if he did, where did they come from? Oh, they were created from “nothing”. That explains a lot. Whatever the makeup of Jesus’s genetic material, it needn’t have had any relationship at all to that of his parents. And that might explain why he attracted attention– perhaps a perfect Nordic superman, a blue-eyed blonde with rippling muscles, crafted by God ex-nihilo. I think the people who invented the virgin birth did no service to the credibility of the Jesus persona.
Hei Bart. Any thoughts on why Matthew but not Luke would include Rahab the Canaanite prostitute and Ruth the Moabite in a genealogy that otherwise reads as a who’s who in the Bible? I would have expected that Luke with his universal emphasis would be the one to include them. Of course Luke likely doesn’t know of Matthew or at least, this particular part of Matthew’s source, if he was indeed following a source. They clearly didn’t have the same sources. But you seem to suggest that both Matthew and Luke “created” their respective genealogies. Do we know this for sure? Do the genealogies betray any clues to political or theological agendas that might help illumine the character of the source behind them? You mention the inclusion of the “scandalous” women and the preoccupation with David in Matthew. Does Luke’s list also have a similar agenda? And do we know if the respective agendas come from Matthew and Luke respectively, or from their sources (M+L)?
I think I talked about that in the earlier post on genealogies and women, no? Matthew has a specail concern to show that it’s not unusual for a woman to be important in the genealogy of the messiah (to explain why Mary is a bigger deal than Joseph), especially women with sullied reputations (whehter deserved or not).
We are limited to more/less cogent reconstructions. Human factor is out of range in most part.
Son Of Mary in Mark 6:3 was too difficult from the social point of view for early Christians. Son of Mary means Unknown Father. It was not a big deal in Mark’s cultural circle, but outside it was a problem. So, Mattew was first to implement genealogy. That was smart move, great success in Luke’s eyes. He improved his version by adding this element to his proto-gospel in an extended form. From Adam. And different names. Competitive market requirement.
BTW. Let’s imagine literature with no-copy rights limits. Harry Potter volume MMM. Everywhere
Do you think 1 Tim 1:4 and Titus 3:9 are specifically referencing these two contradictory genealogies?
“… instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine, and not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies”
“But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law”
No, I don’t. It appears to be referencing genealogies of divine beings, such as much later started appearing in Gnostic writings.
But doesn’t the linking with “quarrels about the law” suggest is more likely related to mainstream christian arguments? The writer wants to be inclusive of those who reject or embrace the law.
Gnostics, of course, introduced some amazing interpretations of the Torah. I think these *are* itnernal Xn arguments, though; among those with different veiws of things, some of the groups being ones that later Xns would say are not really Xns.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
You said above:
“I think we have to presume that Joseph “adopted” Jesus and in that sense Jesus belonged to it? I’ve never heard of such a thing, certainly from antiquity.”
Doesn’t Julius Caesar’s adoption of Octavian fit this, to some extent? Caesar named Octavian as his heir in his will, and was deified shortly after his death. Octavian began to use the title “divi filius” (son of a god, referring to his adoptive father) as political propaganda, but evidently it resonated with the Roman people, since he continued to use the title for the remainder of his career.
Thanks for all of the content you provide us on the blog!
Yes, Romnan adoption practices are very important for understanding parts of the NT — particularly the “son of God” title, as you say. But I don’t believe there is anything in Judaism that suggests that an adopted son is in the *blood* line. (Octavian and Caesar, of course, actually were blood-relatives before the adoption).
Did people who lived at the time of Jesus believed in the catholic church and followed it?
It did not exist then; something like a catholic church started developing maybe 200 years later.
My apology, I meant the Roman church.
The Roman church started some tie in the 50s, but it didn’t start to become the hierarchical instuitution we might think of probably until toward the end of the 2nd century; even then it was comparatively small potatoes. After Constantine converted in the early 4th century it began to be a very big deal.
What do you make of the argument that
Luke is following the Hebraic, traditional form of genealogies by listing only the male names in which Mary is designated by her husband’s name?
I’ve never heard of a Jewish tradition that gives a woman’s genealogy by tracing her line through her husband. Do you remember where you heard that and if the person ever cited any evidence? (I’m pretty sure the answer is going to be no!)
Assume these gospels were written very late first century to some time in the second, or even third? Both sound like marketing stories/words to me. If so, is it possible that conversions were not meeting the marketing expectations and input was telling them they needed a ‘virgin’ birth to complete with stories of ‘virgin births’ of special people in other lands/cultures (especially since they were trying to convert gentiles in other lands) and that they needed a connection to David, or beyond, to keep their Jewish brothers leaning their way. The virgin birth might help Paul’s mission and the David connection might help James, and/or whoever remained in Jewish communities trying to convince/gain followers. So with this imaged unscholarly assumption on my part, has there ever been any scholarly discussion that maybe both the virgin birth and the genealogies were added specifically to win over converts in the areas the authors of Matthew/Luke were active…and since both gospels probably were not written collaboratively, some common source added these stories to their ‘sales/marketing program’ in the years prior to Matthew and Luke being written?
It’s often been thought that the entire Gospels were written to win over converts. I mysself don’t think so. They were almost certainly written for *insiders* — that is other Christians. BUT, in part no doubt they were written to provide these Christians with convincing things to talk about to their non-Christain families and friends.
Hello Professor,
I hope you are doing well and staying healthy. I was doing some research on the synoptic problem and I came across Mark Goodacre who argues against the Existence of Q and the 2 source model. I was curious if you think Goodacre and his Farrer hypothesis is correct ? Thank you so much for your time. Thanks again Bill
No, I don’t. I think there was a Q and that the idea that Luke used both Matthew and Mark, changing Matthews sequence of stories every time it was a story that was not in Mark, is implausible.
Come on, blog fight between you and Dr. Goodacre! ? As an interested layman, I will favor the consensus and accept there was likely a Q source, but I appreciate the arguments from the other side.
A vast topic, here are some ideas:
First off, Matthew does say that it is Christ´s genealogy in Mt 1,17.
Secondly, the Old Testament in Numbers 1 makes paternity the requirement for counting to a tribe. Legal offspring also trumps blood offspring (levirate marriages, adoption / kindsman redeemer). Were Joseph of the tribe of Benjamin, Jesus would have not counted as a Son of David.
Thirdly, Luke goes back to God, so it is not far fetched to assume that we are dealing with a legal genealogy in Luke. Adam inherited from God what was passed down through Nathan to Jesus. Raymond E Brown noticed that there are levite names in this genealogy. This is not unusual because as davidic kings married aaronic daughters, we should find such levirate marriages as well.
Fourth: The first writing to associate Luke 3 with Mary is the Doctrina Jacobi from 634 A.D., a polemic writing from tiberian jews. Itˋs safe to count Mary as a Levite though after a careful analysis of the ancestry requirements in Numbers 1 with Luke 1:5 and 1:36
In my analysis, Matthew gives Josephˋs bloodline, who adopts Jesus. In Luke there is a legal inheritence of Joseph.
Is Jesus denying he’s descended from David in Mark 12:35-37?
I came across this article after reading that passage: http://biblemythhistory.com/did-mark-think-jesus-was-a-davidic-messiah/
Many people have thought so, but I never have. I think its more likely that he’s simply stumping his opponents, in this case by having an answer in mind that would never occur to them, that the Son of David could *indeed* be his Lord. THat’s the view of the later Christians, and so I do not think this is something Jesus actually said but is the kind of thing later Christian story tellers may have put on his lips.
Dear Mr. Ehrman,
I read a bit of Raymond Brown’s book The Birth of Messiah on your recommendation. As far as I can tell, Raymond Brown says that Matthew’s genealogy was known at the time, and that Matthew added the names of Jesus and Joseph to it. Mr. Brown notes that actions taken to anesthetize these two genealogies face serious problems.
Mr. Ehrman, I want to ask you a question about this. Among knowledgeable New Testament scholars in academia (Really knowledgeable! I don’t care about idiot Apologists) how do these genealogies look? Are there really knowledgeable scholars who reconcile these genealogies on reasonable grounds? For example, can the claim that Luke gave Mary’s genealogy really justified on academic grounds? Can you inform me as an insider?
The only ones who reconcile the accounts are conservative Christians who do not think there can be mistakes in the Bible. Even other Roman Catholic scholars such as John Meier and Joseph Fitzmyer are completely forthright in saying they can’t be reconciled. Protestant evangelicals, among scholars, appear to be the main objectors.
Hey Dr Ehrman, another argument that I’ve heard from an attempt to reconcile the contradictory genealogies was that Joseph had two fathers who were step brothers who had the same wife by means of levirate marriage where if the one brother should die having no sons his brother will marry his widow in order to produce male heirs. According to this argument, one of the genealogies would be his biological genealogy and the other a legal genealogy.
Are there any flaws with this argument that you could point out? If so, what are they?
Thanks,
David
Yup, huge flaws. But it is difficult to explain in a short note. If you want to get into the weeds, I’d suggest taking a look at Raymond Brown’s book Birth of the Messiah. (For one thing, the differences are not just the fathers of Jacob but the lineage before that, starting with which son of David the line is traced from)
There are those, also in this thread, who believe that the genealogy in Luke is Mary’s, not Joseph’s. I don’t believe so at all, but are there any old manuscripts of Luke indicating that, i.e they mention Mary in the genealogy, instead of Joseph?
Definitely not. It’s a little hard to say it’s Mary’s genealogy when it traces the line to Joseph through his father, not to Mary through hers.