بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْم

The Genealogy of Jesus: Examining the Gospel Accounts of the Bloodline of the Messiah

Originally Published: February 22, 2014

Updated: January 22, 2024

Read as PDF

“Truth is a uniform thing; and as to inspiration and revelation, were we to admit it, it is impossible to suppose it can be contradictory.”

– Thomas Paine^[1]

            The genealogy of Jesus (peace be upon him) has been an issue of great contention and debate, even up to modern times. The significance of the genealogy is important to Christians because it is vital to proving that Jesus was the Messiah and a descendant of King David (peace be upon him),^[2] according to the standards of the so-called “Old Testament” (i.e., Tanakh). However, when reading the gospels, both scholars and laymen will easily see that the different genealogies of Jesus provided by the “Gospel of Matthew” (1:1-17) and the “Gospel of Luke” (3:23-38) do not agree with each other. Furthermore, even in spite of Christian attempts to harmonize the two versions (which, as we will see, are not satisfactory), there are also contradictions between the Gospels and the Tanakh. In this article, we will examine these issues.

Summary of the Gospel Genealogies

            According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was descended from David through his son Solomon.^[3] The genealogy starts with Abraham and ends with Jesus, with fourteen generations each between Abraham and David, between David and the Babylonian exile, and between the exile and Jesus, as Matthew 1:17 plainly states.^[4] Here is Matthew’s genealogy from the English Standard Version (ESV), divided by the three periods, and with the total number of names in each group:

Abraham (counted) → Isaac → Jacob → Judah → Perez → Hezron → Ram → Amminadab → Nahshon → Salmon → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David (14)

David (not counted) → Solomon → Rehoboam → Abijah → Asaph → Jehoshaphat → Joram → Uzziah → Jotham → Ahaz → Hezekiah → Manasseh → Amos → Josiah → Jeconiah (14)

Jeconiah (not counted) → Shealtiel → Zerubbabel → Abiud → Eliakim → Azor → Zadok → Achim → Eliud → Eleazar → Matthan → Jacob → Joseph → Jesus (13)

Notice that Jesus is shown to be descended from David through Solomon.

Luke’s genealogy, however, states that Jesus was descended from David through his other son, Nathan.^[5] The genealogy is also longer than Matthew’s, going all the way back to Adam. Moreover, Luke’s genealogy is not as symmetrical as Matthew’s (not including the part from Adam to Terah). Here is the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus, divided into three groups for ease of comparison, and with the total number of names in each group:^[6]

Abraham → Isaac → Jacob → Judah → Perez → Hezron → Arni → Amminadab → Nahshon → Sala → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David (14)

David (not counted) → Nathan → Mattatha → Menna → Melea → Eliakim → Jonam → Joseph → Judah → Simeon → Levi → Matthat → Jorim → Eliezer → Joshua → Er → Elmadam → Cosam → Addi → Melchi → Neri (20)

Neri (not counted) → Shealtiel → Zerubbabel → Rhesa → Joanan → Joda → Josech → Semein → Mattathias → Maath → Naggai → Esli → Nahum → Amos → Mattathias → Joseph → Jannai → Melchi → Levi → Matthat → Heli → Joseph → Jesus (22)

Obviously, Luke has a completely different genealogy than Matthew.

A Critical Examination of the Genealogies

            As we can see, the versions of Jesus’ genealogy as presented by Matthew and Luke are at clearly odds with each other, despite both purporting to show Jesus’ ancestry through his adopted father, Joseph. No amount of speculation or mental gymnastics can refute this evident fact. As the late Catholic scholar Raymond Brown put it:

“…the lists of Jesus’ ancestors that they give are very different, and neither one is plausible.”^[7]

Echoing this general scholarly sentiment, the Jewish apologist Gerald Sigal writes:

“[t]he most serious doubts about the historicity of the respective birth accounts in these two Gospels become apparent as we compare the two texts. They are not, as is often assumed by Christians, complementary, filling in the gaps in each other’s narratives. They are, instead, irreconcilably different accounts.”^[8]

In this section, we will discuss the contradictions and other problems with the genealogies and the Christian attempts to explain them. We will also discuss the significance of the genealogies with regard to the Tanakh.

As already observed, the most obvious discrepancy between Matthew and Luke is the complete lack of agreement. Matthew’s genealogy is much shorter than Luke’s, and scholars observe that Matthew’s genealogy was deliberately manufactured to be symmetrical. However, this “symmetry” is impossible if it was meant to be a realistic genealogy. As Brown explained:

“[t]he Matthean genealogy with its three groupings of fourteen generations is obviously artificial; it contains well-known confusions in the first two groupings and is impossibly short for the third or post-exilic period…”^[9]

Also, Sigal observes that Matthew’s genealogy only achieved “symmetry” (not really as we saw already; see note #4) by omitting four generations, since:

“[t]here were actually eighteen not fourteen kings of Judah in the period between David and the exile.”^[10]

In addition, as already noted, Matthew drew the genealogy from Solomon, whereas Luke drew it from Nathan, despite both ending with Joseph and Jesus.^[11] The mythical nature of both genealogies notwithstanding, there is perhaps a good reason for the latter discrepancy. Part of the problem of drawing the genealogy through David’s son Solomon, as Matthew did, is that it went through Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin or Coniah). If Jesus was descended from Jeconiah, then he could not be the Messiah according to the criteria of the Tanakh. According to the Tanakh, God had cursed Jeconiah and his bloodline for his sins:

“Thus says the Lord: ‘Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days, for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah.’”^[12]

Thus, all of Jeconiah’s descendants were prohibited from being king of Israel. If Jesus’ genealogy went through Jeconiah, then he could not have been the Messiah and David’s heir to the throne. Hence, Luke may have had a good reason to draw the genealogy through Nathan instead of Solomon, even though it was not really necessary, as there were other branches of Solomon’s line that did not go through Jeconiah. As Sigal explains:

“…the royal line did not go exclusively through Jeconiah, but through other Solomonic descendants as well. The fact that the royal line would have had several Solomonic branches other than the descendant of Jeconiah negates the need to imagine a succession to the throne through David’s son Nathan.”^[13]

Regardless of the motive, by going through Nathan, Luke ironically invalidated his own genealogy as well. The reason is that the Messiah is actually supposed to be descended through David and Solomon, not David and Nathan.^[14] As the late atheist apologist C. Dennis McKinsey explained:

“…Nathan and all of his descendants were excluded from any claim to the throne of David because Nathan’s brother, Solomon, was chosen, instead, to carry on the legacy. This is proven in 1 Chronicles 29:1…”^[15]

Indeed, 1 Chronicles 29:1 states:

“King David said to the entire assembly: “My son Solomon, the one whom God has chosen…”

Other verses in the books of Samuel and Chronicles also identify Solomon as the one whose line would produce the Messiah.^[16] So, it was Solomon and not Nathan who would be the ancestor of the Messiah. Therefore, Luke’s genealogy cannot be correct.^[17] In fact, neither Matthew nor Luke can be correct for the reasons mentioned.

It has been alleged by some Christian apologists that the curse on Jeconiah and his descendants was canceled, and thus, Jesus could be descended from Jeconiah and still be eligible to be the Messiah.^[18] One proposed piece of evidence for this is that one of Jeconiah’s descendants, his grandson (or great grandson; see further below) Zerubbabel, was promised by God to be made “like a signet ring”,^[19] which suggests that kingship could be given to Jeconiah’s descendants after all, especially since in Jeremiah 22:24, God said of Jeconiah that:

“though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off…”

However, this does not necessarily mean that the curse was revoked. As Sigal explains, more likely, it signified “restoration from exile”.^[20] The curse on Jeconiah was two-fold: a prohibition on him and his descendants from sitting on the throne of David and going into exile. Jeremiah 22:24­­­­­­-27 confirms that Jeconiah’s punishment included the latter:

“As I live, declares the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off and give you into the hand of those who seek your life, into the hand of those of whom you are afraid, even into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and into the hand of the Chaldeans. I will hurl you and the mother who bore you into another country, where you were not born, and there you shall die. But to the land to which they will long to return, there they shall not return.”

In addition, Zerubbabel never attained the position of king anyway. He was merely a governor. As such, Sigal observes that the prohibition on Jeconiah’s descendants sitting on the throne of David “still applied”.^[21] The only part that was revoked was the exile.

Another discrepancy between Matthew and Luke is that each draws Joseph’s (Jesus’ adoptive father) bloodline differently. Matthew claims that Joseph’s father was a man named Jacob while Luke claims it was Heli. Obviously, both cannot be correct. Some Christian apologists have tried to reconcile this contradiction by offering a preposterous and unproven assertion. According to one source:

“The traditional explanation for the differing genealogies of Joseph is that Jacob and Heli were close relatives, perhaps half brothers [sic], one of them being Joseph’s biological father and the other his legal father. In one variation of this model, the one who was Joseph’s biological father died, and the other one then adopted Joseph as his son. In another variation, one of the two died childless, but the other then married his widow and fathered Joseph in order to continue the dead relative’s line [i.e., Levirate marriage].”^[22]

The problem with this argument is that is based on an assumption and not on any evidence. Where is it stated that Jacob and Heli were “close relatives” or “half-brothers”? Where is it stated that one was “Joseph’s biological father” and one was “his legal father”? Even if it was true, the logical question would be which one was the biological father, and which one was the legal father? Neither the Gospel of Matthew nor the Gospel of Luke elaborates on this important distinction. Furthermore, since we are talking about an actual bloodline, the “legal father” is of no relevance at all, since the Messiah had to be a direct descendant of David by blood. Hence, there was no reason to include the “legal father” in the first place.

There is another problem with this theory. Assuming that this explanation is correct (which has not been established), we are still left with serious flaws in the genealogies. The obvious problem is that Joseph was not Jesus’ real father. So, it makes no difference who Joseph’s biological father really was, whether Jacob or Heli. Since Jesus did not have a biological father, it is pointless to trace his genealogy to David through Joseph, even if Joseph had “adopted” Jesus as his “legal son”.^[23] As Sigal explains:

“Davidic kingship is through the male bloodline, [and] it does not become transferred by adoption.”^[24]

McKinsey echoed this point and further noted that:

“[a]ccording to Rom. 1:3 and Acts 2:30 the Messiah must be a physical descendant of David. But how could Jesus meet this requirement when the genealogies in Matthew and Luke show that he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father?”^[25]

Hence, not only is there no evidence that Joseph had a biological father and a legal father, but the whole issue is irrelevant anyway since Joseph was not Jesus’ real father.

Another unproven apologetic theory is that the genealogy in Luke was actually of Jesus’ mother Mary.^[26] As for why Mary was not even mentioned in her own alleged genealogy, the excuse proposed by the apologists is that:

“including women’s names in genealogies was not standard practice.”^[27]

There are many problems with this assumption. First, it is rather ironic that one of the earliest apologists to attempt to reconcile the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, Tertullian, actually proposed that it was Matthew who gave Mary’s genealogy while Luke gave Joseph’s genealogy!^[28] But now, the apologists think it was the reverse!^[29] Who is right and who is wrong? As a matter of fact, they are both wrong because both made an assumption and presented no proof for it!

As part of this unproven theory, the Christian apologists maintain that “Heli” (Luke 3:23) was actually the father of Mary and not Joseph (Jesus’ adoptive father), but that Joseph was mentioned because he was the “son-in-law” of Heli via his marriage to Mary and that it was a “Jewish custom” to substitute the name of the husband for the wife in the latter’s genealogy. According to Sigal, this is completely bogus, as there is “…no such Jewish legal custom…” and the claim is just a “fabrication.”^[30]

Moreover, even if Luke truly had provided Mary’s genealogy, it would still not have established Jesus as the Messiah. According to Sigal, the criteria of the Tanakh determine that “…the rights of royal succession are determined through paternal biological descent…”^[31] So again, the proposed apologetic solution creates more problems than it solves.

While we have already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the genealogies cannot possibly be reconciled and, that when examined separately, they each have their own flaws, it should also be pointed out that Luke’s genealogy even suffers from textual corruption. According to the New International Version, in some manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke, some of the ancestors of David are different than that of the Gospel of Matthew.^[32] In most translations, the ancestors of David starting from Hezron were Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse. However, the NIV notes that some manuscripts have Arni, Admin, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse.^[33]

Finally, another textual variant appears in Luke’s version of the genealogy in the generations from Adam to Abraham. Including Adam and Abraham, here are the twenty-one names that appear (emphasis mine):

Adam → Seth → Enos → Kenan/Cainan → Mahalaleel → Jared → Enoch → Methusaleh → Lamech → Noah → Shem → Arphaxad → Cainan → Shelah → Eber → Peleg → Reu → Serug → Nahor → Terah → Abraham

This genealogy is for the most part in line with the Tanakh, except for one addition. Luke added a man named “Cainan” in between Arphaxad and Shelah, but this is impossible and creates an irreconcilable contradiction with most versions of the Tanakh. According to Genesis 10, Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, not Cainan.^[34] Shelah was in turn the father of Eber. The reason for Luke’s addition was probably due to the fact that he was relying on the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Tanakh), which stated that Cainan was the father of Shelah.^[35] However, the Masoretic text (the Hebrew Tanakh) did not have Cainan in the genealogy and neither did the Samaritan Pentateuch or the targumim.^[36] The historian Josephus agreed with the Masoretic text since he also did not include Cainan in the genealogy from Adam to Abraham.^[37] So, which version was correct? Obviously, both cannot be the correct version. Hence, we not only have a disagreement between the Masoretic and Septuagint versions of the Tanakh, but we also have an example of Luke using one as his primary source while ignoring the other. Depending on which version was correct, Luke in turn would have been right or wrong. Either way, he was clearly not “inspired”.

Miscellaneous Issues –

             There is no doubt that the genealogies in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are artificial and do not reflect any historical truth. They also create numerous problems for Christians who insist that Jesus was the Messiah and was “prophesied” in the “Old Testament”. How could that be if his so-called “genealogies” disqualify him from the office of “Messiah” in the first place, since they do not meet the standards of the Old Testament? If Jesus was descended through Jeconiah, as Matthew claimed, then he could not be the Messiah due to the curse on Jeconiah (though Jesus could have been descended from another branch of Solomon’s line and qualified as the Messiah). If Jesus was descended through David’s son Nathan, then he could not be the Messiah since it was Solomon, not Nathan, whose line would produce the Messiah.

To add insult to injury, there are other errors in the genealogies that further prove that they are fake genealogies and certainly not the product of “inspiration”. One error is that even though Luke’s genealogy is drawn from David’s son Nathan, Zerubbabel and Shealtiel are still present in it, as they are in Matthew’s genealogy, despite both being descendants of Solomon’s line!^[38] Here are the relevant parts from Matthew and Luke:

Matthew 1:12­­-13: “And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud…”

Luke 3:27: “…the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri…”

This error is two-fold. First, not only are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel erroneously placed in Luke’s genealogy, but Shealtiel was not the “father” of Zerubbabel, but rather his grandfather, that is if we follow the detailed genealogy provided in 1 Chronicles 3:16­-19 (emphasis mine):

“The descendants of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son; and the sons of Jeconiah, the captive: Shealtiel his son, Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah; and the sons of Pedaiah: Zerubbabel and Shimei; and the sons of Zerubbabel: Meshullam and Hananiah, and Shelomith was their sister…”

So, according to 1 Chronicles 3, Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah, who was the son of Shealtiel! On the other hand, this genealogy is in turn contradicted by numerous passages in the Tanakh where Zerubbabel is indeed the son of Shealtiel (e.g., Ezra 3:2, Haggai 1:1). So, which is it?

Apologists may propose the predictable solution that Luke was referring to a different Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. However, this is a weak argument as there is no proof for this other pair anywhere in the Bible.

Another strange error can be found in Matthew’s genealogy. Matthew 1:5 states:

“…and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse…”

According to Matthew, Salmon and his wife “Rahab” were the parents of Boaz, but the only woman named “Rahab” in the Bible was Rahab the prostitute in the book of Joshua. Since Matthew mentioned Rahab without any other information, it must be assumed that his audience would know who he was talking about. Since there is no other figure named “Rahab”, then it must be Rahab the prostitute. But this creates a chronological error since Rahab lived long before Salmon and Boaz. According to Sigal:

“…the claim that Boaz as the son of Rahab is not supported by any text in the Jewish Scriptures or extra-Biblical literature. This is not surprising since Rahab lived approximately two centuries before Boaz’s time. This reference to Rahab, as the mother of Boaz, is an inaccuracy in the genealogy of Jesus as found in Matthew.”^[39]

As usual, Christian apologists may claim that “Rahab” of Matthew is different from “Rahab” in the book of Joshua. But as noted before, Matthew seemed to assume that his audience would know who he was referring to. In fact, he mentioned three other women (Tamar, Ruth, and “the wife of Uriah”, i.e. Bathsheba), all of whom were well-known from the Jewish texts, so why would “Rahab” be some obscure woman whom no one seemed to have heard of and why would Matthew mention her without any further information? The only logical conclusion is that Matthew meant to refer to Rahab from the book of Joshua, and in doing so, he made a chronological error.

Conclusion

            In closing, the above examination has demonstrated obvious contradictions between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke with regard to the genealogy of Jesus. Despite the insistence of Christian apologists, the two accounts cannot be reconciled with each other. We have also seen examples of contradictions with the Tanakh. It is self-evident that the authors of the respective genealogies invented them for their own reasons, using different sources for their “inspiration”. Whatever those sources were, the “Holy Spirit” was certainly not among them. Christians must be honest with themselves and admit the facts.

And Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best!

---

[1] Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, ed. Moncure Daniel Conway (San Bernardino: Wildside Press LLC., 2014), p. 128.

[2] According to the Tanakh, the Messiah would be a direct descendant of King David. Since Christians regard both the Tanakh and the New Testament to be scripture, the two have to be in absolute agreement. For more on the Messiah’s relationship to David, see the following:

http://www.chabad.org/library/moshiach/article_cdo/aid/1714864/jewish/Is-the-Messiah-a-Descendant-of-King-Solomon.htm

[3] Matthew 1:7.

[4] However, when we actually count the names, we see that there are only forty-one total persons in the genealogy, not forty-two, which would be expected if there were fourteen names in each part of the genealogy, representing fourteen generations. Starting from the first group, there are fourteen, fourteen, and thirteen names, respectively. In fact, for consistency, Abraham (peace be upon him) should not be counted as the first generation of the first group, since the first “begotten” generation would be that of Isaac. As Gerald Sigal observes:

“[t]he first section can only contain the stated amount if one counts Abraham as the fourteenth generation despite the fact that this is not consistent with the way Matthew constructs his genealogical list. The first generation actually given is that of Isaac, that is, ‘Abraham begot Isaac’ (Mattthew 1:2)” (Gerald Sigal, The Virgin Birth Myth: The Misconception of Jesus [USA: Xlibris Corporation LLC, 2013], p. 80).

In that case, there are actually only forty generations total, with thirteen in the first and third groups each and fourteen in the second group.

[5] Luke 3:31.

[6] For the purposes of this section, the part of the genealogy from Adam to Abraham has been omitted. However, we will come back to it later in the article.

[7] Raymond E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973), p. 54.

[8] Sigal, op. cit., p. 80.

[9] Brown, op. cit., fn, 83.

[10] Sigal, op. cit., p. 81. The four missing generations are those of Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim.

[11] According to Brown, Matthew was using a genealogy of the Messiah that was popular among the Jews of that time.  He stated:

“Personally, I find Matthew’s genealogy of less significance than Luke’s, since I think that Matthew added the names of Joseph and Jesus to an already existing popular genealogy of the Messiah king…” (Brown, op. cit., p. 60).

[12] Jeremiah 22:30.

[13] Sigal, op. cit., pp. 85-86.

[14] It is in fact a fundamental belief of Judaism that the Messiah would be descended from David and Solomon:

“…the fact that Moshiach will be a descendant of both David and Solomon is part of the twelfth (of the thirteen) Jewish fundamental beliefs as outlined by Maimonides.” (http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/neri.html)

[15] C. Dennis McKinsey, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (New York: Prometheus Books, 1995), p. 111.

[16] See 2 Samuel 7:11–16 and 1 Chronicles 22:9-10.

[17] Luke’s genealogy also contains other mistakes.  As Brown observed:

“The Lucan genealogy also follows a numerical pattern (probably 77 names) and may have duplications (compare 3:23-24 to 3:29-30); it attributes names of a definite post-exilic type to the pre-exilic period” (Brown, op. cit., fn. 83, p. 54).

[18] For example, one apologetic source suggests that “God reversed the curse” and that this was “hinted at by the prophet Haggai” (https://www.gotquestions.org/curse-of-Jeconiah.html).

[19] Haggai 2:23.

[20] Sigal, op. cit., p. 120.

[21] Ibid.

[22] http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/neri.html

[23] On a side note, many scholars have noted the contradiction between the Christian belief in the virginal conception of Jesus and the belief regarding his “preexistence” (John 1:1-2).  As the Biblical scholar Wolfhart Pannenberg stated:

“In its content, the legend of Jesus’ virgin birth stands in an irreconcilable contradiction to the Christology of the incarnation of the preexistent Son of God found in Paul and John” (As quoted in Brown, op. cit., p. 43).

It is certainly not a coincidence that the Gospel of John is silent on the virginal conception.  Based on this, Brown came to the following conclusion:

“…the scales tip in favor of Johannine ignorance of the virginal conception; and that means the ignorance of it in a late first-century Christian community that had access to an early tradition about Jesus” (Ibid., p. 59).

[24] Sigal, op. cit., p. 121.

[25] McKinsey, op. cit., pp. 46-47.

[26] https://www.gotquestions.org/Mary-lineage.html

This website states:

“Most conservative Bible commentators explain the difference by holding that Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1:1–16 is traced through Joseph’s line to show Jesus’ royal right to the Davidic throne; correspondingly, the genealogy in Luke 3:23–38 traces Jesus’ ancestry through Mary’s line. This means that Mary’s lineage is recorded in the Gospel of Luke.”

[27] Ibid.

[28] Sigal, op. cit., p. 89.

[29] One of the earliest proponents of the Luke/Mary solution was Annius of Viterbo (c. 1490 CE) (Ibid.).

[30] Ibid., pp. 87-88.

[31] Ibid., p. 90.

[32] This is most unfortunate since this is the only section of the genealogy where Matthew and Luke were in total agreement!

[33] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%203&version=NIV#fen-NIV-25059e

[34] Genesis 10:24.

[35] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2010&version=NIV#fen-NIV-259j

[36] Sigal, op. cit., p. 83.

Interestingly, even the Septuagint version of 1 Chronicles 1 does not include “Cainan”, though the Septuagint version of Genesis 10 does (Ibid., p. 111).

[37] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 1:6.

[38] Sigal, op. cit., p. 86.

[39] Ibid., p. 83.