Who was correct, Matthew or Luke?
In the New Testament, there are contradictions between the genealogies of Jesus given in the first chapter of Matthew and the third chapter of Luke.
Both genealogies begin with Jesus’ father, who is identified as Joseph (which is curious, given that Mary was supposedly impregnated by the Holy Ghost). But Matthew says Joseph’s father was Jacob, while Luke claims he was Heli. Matthew lists 26 generations between Jesus and King David, whereas Luke records 41. Matthew runs Jesus’ line of descent through David’s son Solomon, while Luke has it going through David’s son Nathan.
- 3 months agoFavourite answer
Neither genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and Luke is correct. They are both fabrications made by the writers in an attempt to convince the reader that Jesus fulfilled prophecy.
For that matter the birth stories of Jesus in those two gospels are also fabrications made up for the same reason. That is clear from the fact that the two stories grossly contradict and are inconsistent with each other.
Since the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are fabrications, you can't tell anything factual from them. Each of those writers wanted to show that Jesus was descended from David, so they separately made up the respective genealogies. That is why they contradict each other.
They each provided their fabricated genealogies as showing the descent from David through Joseph, which would have been according to the legal descent, since Joseph was the husband of Mary.
Since the genealogies are contradictory, some Bible apologists try to say that the genealogy in Luke is actually that of Mary. However, Mary is not even mentioned in that genealogy. If that genealogy was that of Mary, why doesn't her name appear in it?
That is especially relevant because Luke mentions Mary in his birth story of Jesus much more than Matthew does. For example, instead of Joseph, it is Mary whom the angel appears to concerning the coming birth of Jesus. There are also several other narratives about Mary, indicating the importance that Luke gave her. In that case, why didn't he have Mary mentioned in the genealogy if he intended it to be hers?
Furthermore, according to Luke (in one of his many references to Mary) Mary was Elizabeth's cousin (suggenes in the original Greek, which indicates a blood relative). Since Elizabeth was of the priestly tribe of Levi, Mary would also have been of that descent and could therefore not have been a descendant of David. That is, if you believe what Luke says.
Those who say that the genealogy in Luke is Mary's therefore have no basis for saying that other than wishful thinking.
It should be noted that Mary's name does appear in Joseph's genealogy in Matthew, where it states that Joseph was the husband of Mary.
See also my answer to this question in which I show that the authors of Matthew and Luke fabricated the stories of the birth of Jesus in their attempts to show that Jesus was born in Bethlehem according to prophecy. You will need to scroll on down to the continuation to get to my answer.
And see my answer to this question showing that Matthew fabricated the prophecy about the virgin birth.
- UserLv 73 months ago
My opinion: both are correct
explained by the theory that Joseph was a child by levirate marriage
and thus (from our modern perspective) Joseph had two fathers
- one, his biological father, which he would be counted as "son" only if the man had no living sons by another wife
- the other, his "levirate" father, the previous husband of the woman who gave birth to Joseph
Levirate marriage is described in some detail in the Bible
and it explains how the two genealogies can both be true much better (much more reasonably) than any other theory I've seen proposed.
- Especially unreasonable is the claim that Luke gives Mary's genealogy. The author himself teaches us that the genealogy is Joseph's.
- PaulLv 73 months ago
Jesus's actual Father was God, since God made His mother pregnant with Him. However, the people of His time were not aware of that fact. Joseph was His apparent father, the man who raised Him, so it was only natural for the biblical writers to speak of him hat way.
- keyjonaLv 73 months ago
Jesus died Friday, 7 April 30 A.D..
Simon Peter Barjona Provided Andrew Barjona a daily log of Jesus' Ministry: GOSPEL "Q".
1. Mark is the 1st Gospel, published 68 A.D., and does not contain a virgin birth story or genealogy.
2. 1st Matt. published 71 A.D..Contained no virgin birth story. Contained genealogy thru Adam and Angel Michael. According to Jewish customs, infamous, unnoble, or men under age 20 were not included in genealogy.
3. 2nd Matt. can be found online; contains no virgin birth story or genealogy.
4. 3rd Matt. most commonly used, added back the genealogy but only thru Abraham. Jesus' virgin birth story is invented.
5. Theophilus was Head of Religious Affairs for the ROMAN GOVERNMENT. Luke who worked for Theophilus became paul's disciple 47 A.D.. Neither Luke nor Paul were ever disciples or Apostles of Jesus. Luke borrowed "Mark", "Matthew", and "Q" to write Luke and Acts, 73-75A.D. "Q" may have contained a different genealogy. That is not the genealogy of Mary in 'Luke'; a catholic priest fabricated that centuries later in an attempt to explain the discrepancy; Mary's parents were Joachim and Hannah(Anna). Theophilus had Luke rewrite 'Mark' and 'Matthew' to please the Roman Government and never returned the original manuscripts to their rightful owners; so Luke was in control of all writings after 71 A.D., except John 101 A.D..
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Doug CatholicLv 73 months ago
You err. One genealogy is for Mary, the other for Joseph. And Joseph's is labeled as "as supposed" which means "according to the law" that of an "in-law" or one who is not related by blood.
- BelievethLv 53 months ago
Both are correct. Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives the genealogy of Mary. As stated in verse 23 of Luke 3 "(as was supposed) the son of Joseph" is stating that Jesus was not the son of Joseph.
Matthew 1:16 “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”
Luke 3:23 “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,”
- Miss SmartypantsLv 63 months ago
The human part of Christ had a human father, or rather a stepfather since Mary was pregnant by the Holy Spirit. But here is a link by a reliable source that can explain this better than I can. It was enlightening to me too.
- 3 months ago
Both are correct.
Mat 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
Luk 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
Jesus was the son of Joseph, but the son-in-law of Heli. For genealogical purposes, when a genealogy was given on the mother's side, "son" was interchangeable with "son-in-law". Note the two passages below:
1 Samuel 22:14 Ahimelek answered the king, “Who of all your servants is as loyal as David, the king’s son-in-law, captain of your bodyguard and highly respected in your household?
1 Samuel 24:16 When David finished saying this, Saul asked, “Is that your voice, David my son?” And he wept aloud.
Although David was a son-in-law of King Saul, the king sometimes referred to him as his "son"--something that some fathers-in-law do even today.
- MistyLv 53 months ago
Neither, its all ancient superstition.
- gillieLv 73 months ago
The usual excuse given is that one genealogy is that of Mary, though there is no textual or historical evidence to support that claim.
- 3 months ago
matt was correct