Quotations and Christian Quibbles 

Intro

Believe it or not, some Christians can look at the two genealogies above, and with a straight face claim they see no contradiction between the two. To me, and many others, that smacks of pure and blatant intellectual dishonesty, which Christians seem to do too often. These people are in love with their gods, and love is blind- to these contradictions, and anything negative about their Jesus. Or as the theologian David Strauss said back in the 1800's,

A consideration of the insurmountable difficulties, which unavoidably embarrass every attempt to bring these two genealogies into harmony with one another, will lead us to despair of reconciling them, and will incline us to acknowledge, with the more free-thinking class of critics, that they are mutually contradictory. Consequently they cannot both be true.  [(#6) Strauss: The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, pp. 117]

The dishonesty of Christians in admitting the obvious regarding these genealogies reminds me of a classic scene from the movie "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" where Charles Durning, playing the Governor of Texas, is caught on camera with two hookers in bed and still denies it! If I'm not mistaken, he says something like "Who ya going to believe, me or the lying camera???". Well, the Christians have been "caught on camera" with this one, but still deny what  obviously is going on. Amazing.

Below are various quotations regarding the genealogies which should help shine more light on this subject, and help you answer the inevitable Christian quibbles which will arise.

**************

If Joseph Isn't Jesus' Dad, The Genealogy is Pointless

Why, to show that Jesus is "son of David", trace the ancestry of a man who is not his father? The obvious answer is that the list of names was constructed not by the author of Matthew but by earlier Jewish Christians who believed in all sincerity that Jesus had a human father...   It is obvious that another Christian group, separate from he one supplying Matthew's list but feeling an equal need for a messiah descended from David, compiled its own genealogy, as imaginary as Matthew's in its last third. And like Matthew's genealogy, it traces the Davidic ancestry of the man who, Luke insists, is not Jesus' father anyway, and thus is rendered pointless. 
(#1) Helms: Gospel Fictions, p. 45

According to these same evangelists, Jesus is not born of Joseph at all, but of the Holy Ghost, and so the whole genealogical apparatus which aims at showing his descent from David fails to do this because the virgin birth story has been grafted onto it. Von Campenhausen says:  "Both the Lucan and the Matthean genealogical trees show that they originated in communities that as yet knew nothing of the virgin birth and regarded Jesus as Joseph's child.

(#7) Who Was Jesus?, G.A.Wells, p. 72

Let no one miss another implication of Matthew's and Luke's lists: namely that both take for granted that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary, contrary to the virgin birth stories which accompany them in both gospels. If Joseph is a scion of David, but Jesus is not the son of Joseph, the whole thing's to no purpose. To maintain, as Raymond E. Brown does, that the mere legal technicality of Jesus' being Joseph's adoptive son would be sufficient to secure Jesus' messianic credentials seems absurd. Thrones have been lost through such technicalities. It matters that the new king springs from the loins of the old king, as history shows. It would be a wretched bit of apologetics to prove Jesus was the adoptive or foster son of the heir of David. 
(#2) Price: The Birth & Lineage of Jesus, p. 6

Finally, if Jesus was born of a virgin, Joseph was not his father and he was not descended from David. By introducing the story of the virgin birth both writers have stultified themselves. Mary was not of the Davidic line; she was the cousin of Elizabeth, who belonged to the tribe of Levi- Luke 1:5, 34-36.
(#4) The Bible Handbook, p. 360

They (the two gospels) each purport to prove that Jesus is of royal blood, though neither of them explains why Joseph's genealogy is relevant if he was not Jesus' father: Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost.  ...Since Jesus was not the son of Joseph, and since Jesus himself appears to deny his Davidic ancestry (Matthew 22:41-46), the whole genealogy is pointless... The Gospel writers wanted to make of their hero nothing less than what was claimed of savior of other religions: a king born of a virgin.
(#5) Barker: Losing Faith in Faith, p. 370-371

If Jesus had God for a father, then, since God is not a descendant of David, and the Messiah must be a descendant of David, how could Jesus be the Messiah? If you read the first chapter of Matthew, it very carefully shows that Joseph came from King David. ...(The Gospel of Matthew says of Joseph) the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. Now, one may or may not wish to believe that God had sex with Mary, but one thing is certain-  Joseph was not the father of Jesus, according to Matthew. In fact, Joseph wanted to quietly divorce Mary, for he thought that she committed adultery. So the question remains- how could Jesus be the Messiah, which the Christians claim that he is, if his father was not from the descendants of David? God is not a descendant of David, and yet God was supposedly his father, so how could Jesus be the Messiah?

(#9) Levine: You Take Jesus, I'll Take God, p. 78

**************

Is Luke's Version Really Mary's Genealogy?

Mark Smith's Comment:

Some Christians think they can make this error disappear by claiming that one of the genealogies is really going thru Mary, not Joseph. But  if one of the genealogies is really that of Jesus via Mary's ancestors, then the Biblical Innerrantists still have an error, albeit a different one, because now it means the gospel writer made an error about who's genealogy it really was! Both gospel authors clearly state their version of the genealogy goes thru Joseph:

Luke}  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  (Luke 3:23 ASV)

 

Matthew}  And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:16 ASV)

As you noticed, both Luke and Matthew claim quite clearly that their genealogy goes via Joseph. So for those Christians who think they've "solved the problem" of the contradictory genealogies, think again- all you've done is trade one problem for another- either way, the Bible still shows itself to be imperfect.

----------------------

On inquiring which of these two genealogies is to be held that of Mary, we are stopped by an apparently insurmountable obstacle, since each is distinctly announced as the genealogy of Joseph.   The Jews in their genealogies were accustomed to take no account of the female line. ...Moreover, in no other part of the New Testament is there any trace to be found of the Davidical descent of Mary; on the contrary, some passages are directly opposed to it.  ...These expressions fill to overflowing the measure of proof already adduced, that it is impossible to apply the genealogy of the third evangelist to Mary.

(#6) Strauss: The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, pp. 115

Some Christians have answered this question in a most unusual fashion- they claim that Mary was from David! Of course, this answer is terrible, because there is no source for that. In addition, Matthew 1 spends 15 verses listing male names only, and the genealogy that is found in Luke 3 constantly states, "the son of"  "the son of"  etc. Furthermore, as everyone who knows the Bible will testify, genealogies always follow the fathers only, which is why Matthew 1 follows the genealogy of the fathers only.

(#9) Levine: You Take Jesus, I'll Take God, p. 79

It is just impossible to reconcile the two tables, though the desperate have tried. For instance, some say that Luke's is really the family tree of Mary, but it is hard to see how, in view of the explicit pinning of the whole thing on Joseph [Luke 3:23]. No doubt neither genealogy is genuine. If it were only that they contradict each other, one of them might still be authentic, but the point is that both alike are rendered spurious by the witness of Mark 12:35-37. If Jesus were known to have been descended from David, would anyone have wasted time trying to show it was all right for him not to be?
(#2) Price: The Birth & Lineage of Jesus, p. 5

Some defenders of Christianity assert that this is not contradictory at all because Matthew's line is through Joseph and Luke's line is through Mary, even though a simple glance at the text shows that they both name Joseph. No problem, say the apologists: Luke named Joseph, but he really meant Mary. Since Joseph was the legal parent of Jesus, and since Jewish genealogies are partrilineal, it makes perfect sense to say that Heli (their choice for Mary's father) had a son named Joseph who had a son named Jesus. Believe it or not, many Christians can make these statements with a straight face. In any event, they will not find a shred of evidence to support such a notion.

(#5) Barker: Losing Faith in Faith, p. 370

Some Old Testament passages which had come to be regarded as prophecies concerning the distant future were interpreted to mean that the Messiah will come from the line of David, and so anyone who had come to be regarded as the Messiah might well be held to belong toit. Jesus can be descended from David only thru Joseph, for while Matthew is silent about Mary's ancestry, Luke states that she is kindred to Elisabeth, who is "of the daughters of Aaron" (1:5), i.e. of the tribe of Levi, not of Judah, as was David. It is in fact Joseph's ancestry that is traced in both genealogies, not Mary's. Luke's table does not even mention her, and Matthew names her only as the partner of Joseph, the descendant of David.

(#7) G.A.Wells: Who Was Jesus?, p. 72-+

It also exploded the seventeenth century clerical pretense, heard often today, in attempted explanation of these glaring contradictions, that one or the other of these sacred genealogies, preferably that of Luke, was the genealogy, not of Joseph, but of Mary. (But it must be pointed out that) Mary is not mentioned as in the line of descent from David in either list. To bring her into the genealogy, in one list or the other, it must have been written: "And Jacob begat Mary the wife of Joseph" instead of "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary" or "And Jesus... being... the son of Mary, which was the daughter of Heli" instead of the recorded "the son of Joseph which was the son of Heli." 

(#10) Wheless: Forgery in Christianity, p. 206

**************

How Can The Logos Have Human Ancestors Anyway?

This boaster and sorcerer whom you designate the Logos is unique in having a human genealogy. The men who fabricated this genealogy were insistent on the point that Jesus was descended from the first man and from the king of the Jews. The poor carpenter's wife seems not to have known she had such a distinguished bunch of ancestors; they were all kept in the closet until such time as they could be of some use.
(#3) Celsus: On The True Doctrine, p. 64

**************

Simple Arithmetic Baffles Holy Spirit and Matthew

(In Matthew's gospel) There are thirteen, not fourteen generations in the third series; and the number fourteen is obtained in the second series only by the deliberate omission of four names-  Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah and Jehoiakim.
(#4) The Bible Handbook, p. 359

In the genealogy given by the author of the first Gospel, there is a comparison of the account with itself which is important, as it gives a result, a sum at its conclusion, whose correctness may be proved by comparing it with the previous statements. In the summing up it is said, that from Abraham to Christ there are three divisions of fourteen generations each, the first from Abraham to David, the second from David to the Babylonish exile, the third from the exile to Christ. Now if we compute the number of names for ourselves, we find the first fourteen from Abraham to David, both included, complete (2-5); also that from Solomon to Jechonias, after whom the Babylonish exile is mentioned (6-11); but from Jechonias to Jesus, even reckoning the latter as one, we can discover only thirteen (12-16).  ...the deficiency is mentioned so early as by Porphyry. ...When an author presents us with a pedigree expressly declaring that all the generations during a space of time were fourteen, whereas, through accident or intention, many members are wanting, he betrays an arbitrariness and want of critical accuracy, which must shake our confidence in the certainty of his whole genealogy.

(#6) Strauss: The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, pp. 108-112

**************

Did Matthew Skip Generations?

Some have argued that it was common to skip generations and that this does not make it incorrect. A great great grandfather is just as much an ancestor as a grandfather. This might be true, except that Matthew explicitly reports that it was exactly fourteen generations.

(#5) Barker: Losing Faith in Faith, p. 370

**************

The Genealogies Differ In Length

The two genealogies are widely different in length. One would have to suppose that something in Nathan's genes caused the men to sire sons fifty percent faster than the men in Solomon's line.

(#5) Barker: Losing Faith in Faith, p. 371

More important is the considerable difference in the number of generations for equal periods, Luke having 41 between David and Jesus, whilst Matthew has only 26.

(#6) Strauss: The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, p.112

This human genealogy by Luke vastly differs, however, from that of Matthew; instead of twenty-eight generations from David, through Solomon, our Luke genealogist makes out in detail forty-two generations, to wit: David, Nathan... Heli, Joseph, Jesus; and only three of the intermediate names are the same in the two lists. So one or the other of the two inspired genealogies is fictitious, false and forged, necessarily: both are, of course, if Jesus was not the son of David, but the immediate "Son of God." The truth is thus stated: The genealogy could not have been drawn up after Joseph ceased to be regarded as the real father of Jesus.

(#10) Wheless: Forgery in Christianity, p. 206

**************

Jesus' Ancestry Contrived-  Has Been Tampered With By Christians

Joseph is called Jesus' father twice in Luke's birth narrative. In both instances scribes have modified the text to eliminate what must have appeared incongruous with the firmly entrenched notion that although Joseph was Mary's betrothed, he was not the father of Jesus. Thus, Luke 2:33 states that Jesus' "father and mother began to marvel" at the things being said about him. The majority of Greek manuscripts, however, along with a number of Old Latin, Syriac, and Coptic witnesses, have changed the text to read "Joseph and his mother" began to marvel. The change makes perfect sense, given the orthodox view that Joseph was in fact not Jesus' father.

(#8) Bart Ehrman: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, p. 55

In each of the three instances that Luke refers to Jesus' "parents," various scribes have effected changes that circumvent a possible misconstrual. The most widely attested instance occurs in Luke 2:43, where "his parents" is changed to "Joseph and his mother" in a wide range of Greek and versional witnesses.

(#8) Bart Ehrman: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, p. 56

In virtually every instance in which Joseph is called Jesus' father or parent, various scribes have changed the text in such a way as to obviate the possibilities of misconstrual.

(#8) Bart Ehrman: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, p. 58

Both the genealogies are false and forged lists of mostly fictitious names, in the original Gospel-forgeries, fabricated to prove Jesus a direct son or descendant of David, and thus to fulfill the terms of the pretended prophecies that the human Messiah should be of the race and lineage of David the king.

(#10) Wheless: Forgery in Christianity, p. 207

**************

Joseph Adopted Jesus, Therefore Genealogy Is Legit ?

Other Christians may answer that since Joseph was, in fact, from David, that is enough to qualify Jesus for Messiahship. But that is absurd. In Jewish law, one follows the real father, not the husband, and if the father is not the husband (and the mother is a married woman, as Mary was) then the child is illegitimate. So how could Jesus be the Messiah?

(#9) Levine: You Take Jesus, I'll Take God, p. 79

**************

Physically Impossible That Both Genealogies Are Valid

Matthew's line goes from David's son Solomon, while Luke's goes from David's son Nathan. The two genealogies could not have been for the same person.
(#5) Barker: Losing Faith in Faith, p. 370

The main difficulty, however, lies in this: that in some parts of the genealogy, in Luke totally different individuals are made the ancestors of Jesus from those in Matthew.  ...Since this difference appears to offer a complete contradiction, the most industrious efforts have been made at all times to reconcile the two.

(#6) Strauss: The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, p.112, 113

**************

Levirate Marriage: A Typical Christian One-Chance-In-A-Million Explanation Examined

Matthew must have given the lineage of the legal father, according to Jewish custom; whilst Luke, who perhaps was not born a Jew, and was less familiar with Jewish habits, might have fallen upon the genealogy of the younger brothers of Joseph, who were not, like the firstborn, inscribed amongst the family of the deceased legal father, but with that of their natural father, and might have taken this for the genealogical table of the first-born Joseph, whilst it really belonged to him only by natural descent, to which the Jewish genealogists paid no regard.  (Mark Smith here:  Holy Shit!!! This "explanation" is harder to follow than Abbot & Costello's "Who's On First" routine!!!)  ...According to this representation, then, the mother of Jeseph was first married to that person whom Luke calls the father of Joseph, namely Heli. But since Heli died without children, by virtue of the Levirate law, his brother, called by Matthew Jacob the father of Joseph, married the widow, and by her begot Joseph, who was legally regarded as the son of the deceased Heli, and so described by Luke, whilst naturally he was the son of his brother Jacob, and thus described by Matthew. But, merely thus far, the hypothesis is by no means adequate. For if the two fathers of Joseph were real brothers, sons of the same father, they had one and the same lineage, and the two genealogies would have differed only in the father of Joseph, all the preceding portion being in agreement. In order to explain how the discordancy extends so far back as to David, we must have recourse to the second proposition of Africanus, that the fathers of Joseph were only half-brothers, having the same mother, but not the same father. We must also suppose that this mother of the two fathers of Joseph, had twice married; once with the Matthan of Matthew, who was descended from David through Solomon and the line of kings, and to whom she bore Jacob; and also, either before of after, with the Matthat of Luke, the offspring of which marriage was Heli; which Heli, having married and died childless, his half-brother Jacob married his widow, and begot for the deceased his legal child Joseph. This hypothesis of so complicated a marriage in two successive generations, to which we are forced by the discrepancy of the two genealogies, must be acknowledged to be in no way impossible, but still highly improbable; and the difficulty is doubled by the untoward agreement already noticed, which occurs midway in the discordant series, in the two members Salathiel and Zorobabel. For to explain how Neri in Luke, and Jechonias in Matthew, are both called the father of Salathiel, who was the father of Zorobabel; not only must the supposition of the Levirate marriage be repeated, but also that the two brothers who successively married the same wife, were brothers only on the mother's side. The difficulty is not diminished by the remark, that any nearest blood-relation, not only a brother, might succeed in a Levirate marriage-- that is to say, though not obligatory, it was at least open to his choice (Ruth iii. 12. f iv. 4 f.7). For since even in the case of two cousins, the concurrence of the two branches must take place much earlier than here for Jacob and Eli, and for Jechonias and Neri, we are still obliged to have recourse to the hypothesis of half-brothers; the only amelioration in this hypothesis over the other being, that these two very peculiar marriages do not take place in immediately consecutive generations. Now that this extraordinary double incident should not only have been twice repeated, but that the genealogists should twice have made the same selection in their statements respecting the natural and the legal father, and without any explanation-- is so improbable, that even the hypothesis of an adoption, which is burdened with only one-half of the difficulties, has still more than it can bear. For between the natural and adopting fathers, the recurrence to a twice-repeated half-brotherhood is dispensed with; leaving only the necessity for twice supposing a relationship by adoption, and twice the peculiar circumstance, that the one genealogist from want of acquaintance with Jewish customs was ignorant of the fact, and the other, although he took account of it, was silent respecting it.

(#6) Strauss: The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, pp. 113-114

**************

Bibliography

1) Gospel Fictions, Randel Helms, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY,1988

2) The Birth & Lineage of Jesus, Dr. Robert M. Price, self-published paper. (Note: if anyone knows if this paper of Dr. Price ever made it into a published book, please notify me at JCnot4me@aol.com )

3)  On The True Doctrine: A Discourse Against The Christians, Celsus, ~178 AD, Oxford University Press, NY, 1987

4) The Bible Handbook, American Atheist Press, Austin, TX, 1986

5) Losing Faith in Faith, Dan Barker, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Madison, WI, 1992

6) The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, Dr. David Freidrich Strauss, translated from the fourth German edition of 1892, Sigler Press, Ramsey NJ, 1994

7) Who Was Jesus? G.A.Wells, Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, Ill, 1989

8) The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart D. Ehrman, Oxford Univ. Press, NY, 1993

9) You Take Jesus, I'll Take God: How To Refute Christian Missionaries, Samuel Levine, 

Hamoroh Press, L.A., CA 1980

10) Forgery in Christianity, Joseph Wheless, Kessinger Pub., Kila, MT,  orig. pub. 1930