Matthew and Luke have different genealogies for Jesus, which has led to mass speculation and debate over why the two differ. Matthew’s lineage traces a line from David’s son Solomon while Luke traces a line from David’s son Nathan. Matthew includes records of multiple women in his lineage, while Luke only records the name of Mary.
The Various Views
There are many views of the two lineage accounts. The primary consensus is that Matthew is recording from one parent and Luke is recording from the other – however there is no consensus on which one is which. If the valid claim to Messiahship is only through birthright, then Luke and Matthew (who have seemingly different lineages) should both be tracing the same parent. Regardless of Matthew’s account, Luke’s purpose is explained in the opening of Luke where he says, “I have carefully investigated everything since the start, and I have also decided to document a chronological account for you [1].” He is already taking from existing material through his investigation. His purpose is not to craft a new perspective that differs from Matthew (nor is it Matthew’s goal to differ and be unique from Luke). Rather Luke compiled the existing evidence for Theophilus so that he can know that what Theophilus has already been taught is true [2]. It seems extremely unlikely that Luke or Matthew would look towards the other to determine which parent was already covered so that they could then write a new undocumented genealogy of the other one – since the goal is to prove messiahship.
One in Error
One assumption is that both lineages are of Mary, or both belong to Joseph, but one was in error either due to a copyist error or one of the writers was given bad information. Luke himself states he is not a witness but rather just collecting from eyewitnesses [3] and relying on oral tradition, which makes him a probable target for being the one in error. Matthew chapter 1, on the other hand, is written differently than the rest of Matthew leading many to believe it was a later addition by Matthew or is not authentic. This is even further muddied by early manuscripts of Matthew, which omit genealogies altogether [4].
The Same Lineage Differently
It is possible that Luke and Matthew are both recording Joseph’s lineage and neither one has an error. One is following the natural line while the other is following the legal line.
Luke’s primary audience is Theophilus, who is called the “most excellent [5]”. This title of excellence is a common way to address a ranking Roman official [6] who have a history of infiltration and manipulation tactics [7]. Luke does not appear to be under duress when writing this, nor would there be a valid reason to manipulate genealogical records (except to spare one lineage while bringing harm upon another) which is antithetical to Torah and Jesus’ teachings. Luke genuinely seems to present what he claims to within his opening statement:
“Since many have undertaken to set in order a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus; that you might know the certainty concerning the things in which you were instructed.” (Luke 1:1-4)
In connection with kabbalistic writings [8], Rabbi Reuven Margolies states that the Messiah will be a descendant of Nathan's wife (Hephzibah) rather than Nathan himself. But if the Messiah is supposed to come from Solomon’s loins, then how is it that the messiah will be a descendant of Nathan’s wife? This is because Nathan passed away childless, and Solomon married the widow under the laws of Yibbum [9] to carry on the deceased father’s name (Nathan) through the son born to the living brother.
Yibbum law (Also referred to as a Levirate Marriage) requires a childless widow to marry the next of kin (someone from the same tribe, typically the next of kin) to produce an offspring (singular) for the deceased so that his name will be carried on (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). If Luke’s lineage is indeed only tracing the legal line (with Yibbum) then listing Nathan would agree with the rabbinic, which states that David’s son Nathan died childless, and his wife married Solomon under the laws of Yibbum. Solomon first son through Nathan’s wife was Mattatha as Luke states [10] (and considered to be Nathan’s child legally), whereas Rehoboam was Solomon’s firstborn child through his first wife, Naamah the Ammonite [11].
This would imply that all of Luke’s lineage record follows the legal line with the deceased husbands as the legal fathers [12] (in accordance with scripture [13])while Matthew’s lineage follows the natural line with all of the deceased husbands omitted. It is likely that Luke lists Heli as the father of Joseph (Jacob begot Joseph through a yibbum [14] marriage of his deceased brother wife, Heli’s widow) and traces back to Nathan, son of David, listing the legal heirship (rather than natural) while also fulfilling kabbalistic prophecy.
From Julius Africanus [15], Matthan (from Solomon) married Estha and they begot Jacob. Matthan died shortly after, and Estha remarried. Her second marriage was from the line of Nathan named Melchi. Melchi and Estha and begot Heli. When Heli (Jacob’s brother) died childless, his wife married the brother Jacob under the laws of Yibbum. Heli’s wife and Jacob then begot Joseph who is from the legal line of Nathan, but the natural line of Solomon. Julius seemingly made an error in the fatherhood of Heli. Luke’s account in the Greek copies we have today claims Matthat as the father of Heli [16]. It is possible Julius made a scribal error or had a variant copy that omitted some of the names.
Additionally, for up a century after Jesus’ death, relatives of Jesus (descendants of David) referred to themselves as “desponsyni” (meaning those belonging to master) [17] in reference to having an heirship from David. Among the desponsyni, intermarriage and mingling between the descendants of Solomon and Nathan was very common – so much so that yibbum marriages often placed people as identifying as both from the line of Nathan and Solomon (their legal father vs actual father) [18]. This also allows for the fulfillment of prophecy speaking directly of the house of Nathan mourning with the house of David [19] (David is the birthright to the throne which was passed down through Solomon).
Mamzer & Questionable Lineage
The lineage of King David is surrounded by controversy due to his ancestry, as his great-grandmother Ruth was a Moabite, and Moabites were initially forbidden to marry into the Israelite community. This controversy is reflected in the Psalm of David, “In sin did my mother conceive me [20].” hinting at an unconventional origin. The Midrash Rabbah also states that what is said of David applies to the Messiah [21], suggesting that the Messiah might face similar suspicions. Despite these suspicions, a mamzer still inherits his father's tribal lineage and can claim the throne [22]. Interestingly, the accusations and doubts about legitimacy faced by David are paralleled in the Gospels, where Jesus is seemingly perceived as a mamzer [23].
Adoption through Joseph
There are some who say that Joseph is the father, but only through adoption and insist that this makes Jesus eligible for the Davidic throne. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 19b) says, "Anyone who teaches Torah to the son of another, the verse ascribes him credit as if he had begotten him." While emphasis is placed on the moral and spiritual value of raising an orphan, equating it to having begotten the child, it does not alter the child’s legal tribal lineage or inheritance rights, which remain tied to biological parentage (Numbers 1:2, 1:18; Bava Batra 109b). Matthew’s point of tracing the biological line illustrates that Jesus is a descendent (biologically) of Joseph and Solomon. Luke, on the other hand, traces the legal line. While Luke could be indicating that it is strictly legal (in terms of adoption), it would result in Jesus being ineligible to the throne promised to the biological line of David (Psalm 89:3-4). Additionally, the child must have a paternal parent to be given the inheritance through the father's lineage, as the mother's lineage does not play part in the inheritance promised. Even in the case of the women with no sons, the daughters had to marry within their tribe if they wished to keep their inheritance for their children (Numbers 36:6-10).
Footnotes
[1] Luke 1:3
[2] Luke 1:4
[3] Luke 1:1-3
[4] Tatian’s Diatessaron (160-175 CE), Marcion Gospel of Luke (140 CE), and further expounded by Bart Ehrman in “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” and Helmut Koester’s “Ancient Christian Gospels”.
[5] Luke 1:3
[6] Acts 23:26, Acts 24:3, Acts 26:25, Antiquities of the Jews 20.11.3, Cicero Epistulae ad Familiares 1.9
[7] Cassius Dio, Roman History Book 56.18-24, Livy, History of Rome Book 22.47-51, Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War Book 5, Julius Caesar, Commentarii de Bello Gallico Book 7 & 2.5, Vegetius, De Re Militari Book 3
[8] Zohar 3:173b
[9] Deuteronomy 25:5-10
[10] Luke 3:31
[11] 1 Kings 14:21
[12] Exposition on the Orthodox Faith Chapter 8
[13] Deuteronomy 25:5-6
[14] Levirate marriage, Deuteronomy 25:5-10
[15] Julius Africanus Epistle to Aristides Section 3, St. John of Damascus. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book Four
[16] Luke 3:23-24
[17] Epistle to Aristedes 5
[18] Julius Africanus Epistle to Aristides Section 2
[19] Zechariah 12:10-12
[20] Psalm 51:4-6
[21] Eikhah Rabbah 1:51
[22] R Shalom Rosner 7:20 Kiddushin 67, Tosafos Yevamos 55
[23] John 8:40-42, Luke 3:23
תגובות