This will be my own take on the genealogies. I believe it to be a thorough and definitive explanation of Christ's genealogies in Matthew and Luke. I will order it point-by-point for easy readability.
1. Both genealogies branch from David. Let's first establish that one genealogy at least refers to Joseph. We can see this in Luke 1:27 and Matthew 1:16. Here we see that Joseph is of David's line and that his father is Jacob. We could reasonably assume the Matthew genealogy refers to Joseph's ancestry.
2. There is no mention of Mary's brothers and only one mention of her sister. I would assume her brothers - if she had any - would be mentioned at the execution of Jesus if her sister was. Therefore it is logical to assume that she had no brothers. Furthermore, Mary could not have married into the tribe of Judah from another tribe because her father's inheritance, given to her and her sister, would have passed on to their husbands as in Numbers 36:5-9. This was unlawful. Therefore we can logically assume that Mary was originally from the tribe of Judah when she married Joseph.
3. Since we've already established that the Matthew genealogy may very well refer to Joseph's ancestry, let's take a look at the Luke genealogy. The Koine Greek text of Luke 3:23-24 does not read, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age being as was supposed the son of Joseph the son of Heli [...]" It reads, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age being as was supposed the son of Joseph of Eli [...]" Since Koine Greek did not have commas or parenthesis (nor innitially any punctuation) some people choose to read it as, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed the son of Joseph, of Eli [...]" So the passage in Greek only says that Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph but may in fact imply that he was "of Eli." Eli would be his closest male ancestor since Jesus had no biological father. Therefore it would be logical to say that Jesus was "of Eli" as the text may already imply. This passage does not necessitate the interpretation that Jesus was the son of Joseph and that Joseph was the son of Heli. So Luke 3:23-24 makes a distinction between Jesus' supposed heritage through Joseph and his real heritage through Eli. It is logical then to assume that Luke's genealogy is referring to Mary's line since Jesus had but two parents, Joseph's father is already named in the Matthew genealogy and last but not least because this genealogy may very well exclude Joseph through its grammar's implication.
4. Any implication that Mary was of another tribe because she was related to the Levitical Cohen Elisabeth just doesn't stick. Luke 1:36 does not necessitate that Mary had to be of the tribe of Levi because her relative Elisabeth was. The word sometimes translated here as "cousin" can also mean "relative" or "member of the same race." The angel gives special significance to the word by using it to describe Elisabeth. We may logically assume it should be translated as "cousin" or "relative." Translating it as "member of the same race" just doesn't seem worthy of mention by an angel in this context. The Complete Jewish Bible (the one I often prefer because of its cultural insight) translates the word as "relative." This makes sense if Elisabeth's family line was from Judah but then married into Levi and hence Elisabeth became "of the daughters of Aaron (Luke 1:5)" by being born to a once-Judaic woman now-turned-Levitical and a Levitical man. Furthermore the Greek word translated as "cousin," "relative" or "member of the same race" can be translated as "kinswoman." In essence the word would implicate Mary and Elisabeth as having closer blood than merely being of the Twelve Tribes, but what that closer relation would be is not explained. What is confusing about declaring Elisabeth to be Mary's cousin is that Mary is referred to as a young woman while Elisabeth is said to be barren and advanced in years (Luke 1:27). How could they be cousins instead of merely relatives if the age gap is so great? My guess is Elisabeth was "of the daughters of Aaron" and Mary was her "relative." This establishes even further the idea that one of the Davidic genealogies is Mary's because she was not of the tribe of Levi but rather of Judah.
5. The Jeconiah (i.e. Jehoiachin) mentioned in the Matthew genealogy has Josiah as his father. However, the cursed King Jehoiachin (i.e. Jeconiah) has Jehoiakim as his father. It is doubtful if these two Jeconiahs are the same individual because no further fathers are listed and there is nothing to tie them together. Even if they were the same individual, Jesus was Joseph's legal son, showing his legal right to the throne of David. There is no intrinsic problem from the genealogies of coming under the curse of King Jehoiachin's (i.e. Jeconiah's) seed (Jeremiah 22:24-30) and hence not being eligible to the throne of David since Jesus would not be of Jeconiah's seed (i.e. not biologically related to Jeconiah through Joseph).
6. Luke's (i.e. Mary's) genealogy has Neri in place of Jeconiah. This, however, does not contradict the laws of the time. To summarize, Shealtiel has both Neri and Jeconiah as his father. Zerubbabel has Shealtiel as his father in both genealogies. Rhesa and Abiud both have Zerubbabel as their father, since this Zerubbabel does not appear to be the same Zerubbabel whose grandfather was cursed King Jeconiah. Without arbitrarily assuming that this is contradictory we could explore a number of possibilities within the legal and cultural climate of the time. One potential is levirate marriage; another is adoption from some other means.
7. Because not all of Zerubbabel's children seem to be listed in one place does not necessitate this to be a conflicting account of his family line. See 1 Chronicles 23:9-10 which lists the sons of Shimei (a different Shimei than in the genealogies) back-to-back in two separate groups. We can conclude either of two distinct possibilities here: these are two different Shimeis or his children were grouped according to separate purposes. But far be it from us to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible contradicts itself so blatantly here.
8. As for Zerubbabel being an extraordinary name for any Hebrew, it probably would have been any other time than the exile to and release from Babylon. I hear that around that time it was quite ordinary for Hebrews born in captivity to Babylon to bear this name.
In conclusion I've shown that Jesus does not have his right to the throne challenged because of a curse, Mary was not from the tribe of Levi originally but rather one genealogy refers to her and the other to her husband and that Jesus was "of Eli" and thus had his physical lineage from Eli through Mary. I believe this to be a theory because some things are left to our imagination, but I believe it to be a sound one. Anyone ready to dispute it must first realize that a lack of information is not automatically incriminating. This is where we get our saying, "Innocent until proven guilty," and not "Guilty until proven innocent." Therefore if anyone has a problem with my conclusions they must show me where I am wrong and not just assume that I am or that these genealogical accounts contradict each other.
1. Both genealogies branch from David. Let's first establish that one genealogy at least refers to Joseph. We can see this in Luke 1:27 and Matthew 1:16. Here we see that Joseph is of David's line and that his father is Jacob. We could reasonably assume the Matthew genealogy refers to Joseph's ancestry.
2. There is no mention of Mary's brothers and only one mention of her sister. I would assume her brothers - if she had any - would be mentioned at the execution of Jesus if her sister was. Therefore it is logical to assume that she had no brothers. Furthermore, Mary could not have married into the tribe of Judah from another tribe because her father's inheritance, given to her and her sister, would have passed on to their husbands as in Numbers 36:5-9. This was unlawful. Therefore we can logically assume that Mary was originally from the tribe of Judah when she married Joseph.
3. Since we've already established that the Matthew genealogy may very well refer to Joseph's ancestry, let's take a look at the Luke genealogy. The Koine Greek text of Luke 3:23-24 does not read, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age being as was supposed the son of Joseph the son of Heli [...]" It reads, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age being as was supposed the son of Joseph of Eli [...]" Since Koine Greek did not have commas or parenthesis (nor innitially any punctuation) some people choose to read it as, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed the son of Joseph, of Eli [...]" So the passage in Greek only says that Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph but may in fact imply that he was "of Eli." Eli would be his closest male ancestor since Jesus had no biological father. Therefore it would be logical to say that Jesus was "of Eli" as the text may already imply. This passage does not necessitate the interpretation that Jesus was the son of Joseph and that Joseph was the son of Heli. So Luke 3:23-24 makes a distinction between Jesus' supposed heritage through Joseph and his real heritage through Eli. It is logical then to assume that Luke's genealogy is referring to Mary's line since Jesus had but two parents, Joseph's father is already named in the Matthew genealogy and last but not least because this genealogy may very well exclude Joseph through its grammar's implication.
4. Any implication that Mary was of another tribe because she was related to the Levitical Cohen Elisabeth just doesn't stick. Luke 1:36 does not necessitate that Mary had to be of the tribe of Levi because her relative Elisabeth was. The word sometimes translated here as "cousin" can also mean "relative" or "member of the same race." The angel gives special significance to the word by using it to describe Elisabeth. We may logically assume it should be translated as "cousin" or "relative." Translating it as "member of the same race" just doesn't seem worthy of mention by an angel in this context. The Complete Jewish Bible (the one I often prefer because of its cultural insight) translates the word as "relative." This makes sense if Elisabeth's family line was from Judah but then married into Levi and hence Elisabeth became "of the daughters of Aaron (Luke 1:5)" by being born to a once-Judaic woman now-turned-Levitical and a Levitical man. Furthermore the Greek word translated as "cousin," "relative" or "member of the same race" can be translated as "kinswoman." In essence the word would implicate Mary and Elisabeth as having closer blood than merely being of the Twelve Tribes, but what that closer relation would be is not explained. What is confusing about declaring Elisabeth to be Mary's cousin is that Mary is referred to as a young woman while Elisabeth is said to be barren and advanced in years (Luke 1:27). How could they be cousins instead of merely relatives if the age gap is so great? My guess is Elisabeth was "of the daughters of Aaron" and Mary was her "relative." This establishes even further the idea that one of the Davidic genealogies is Mary's because she was not of the tribe of Levi but rather of Judah.
5. The Jeconiah (i.e. Jehoiachin) mentioned in the Matthew genealogy has Josiah as his father. However, the cursed King Jehoiachin (i.e. Jeconiah) has Jehoiakim as his father. It is doubtful if these two Jeconiahs are the same individual because no further fathers are listed and there is nothing to tie them together. Even if they were the same individual, Jesus was Joseph's legal son, showing his legal right to the throne of David. There is no intrinsic problem from the genealogies of coming under the curse of King Jehoiachin's (i.e. Jeconiah's) seed (Jeremiah 22:24-30) and hence not being eligible to the throne of David since Jesus would not be of Jeconiah's seed (i.e. not biologically related to Jeconiah through Joseph).
6. Luke's (i.e. Mary's) genealogy has Neri in place of Jeconiah. This, however, does not contradict the laws of the time. To summarize, Shealtiel has both Neri and Jeconiah as his father. Zerubbabel has Shealtiel as his father in both genealogies. Rhesa and Abiud both have Zerubbabel as their father, since this Zerubbabel does not appear to be the same Zerubbabel whose grandfather was cursed King Jeconiah. Without arbitrarily assuming that this is contradictory we could explore a number of possibilities within the legal and cultural climate of the time. One potential is levirate marriage; another is adoption from some other means.
7. Because not all of Zerubbabel's children seem to be listed in one place does not necessitate this to be a conflicting account of his family line. See 1 Chronicles 23:9-10 which lists the sons of Shimei (a different Shimei than in the genealogies) back-to-back in two separate groups. We can conclude either of two distinct possibilities here: these are two different Shimeis or his children were grouped according to separate purposes. But far be it from us to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible contradicts itself so blatantly here.
8. As for Zerubbabel being an extraordinary name for any Hebrew, it probably would have been any other time than the exile to and release from Babylon. I hear that around that time it was quite ordinary for Hebrews born in captivity to Babylon to bear this name.
In conclusion I've shown that Jesus does not have his right to the throne challenged because of a curse, Mary was not from the tribe of Levi originally but rather one genealogy refers to her and the other to her husband and that Jesus was "of Eli" and thus had his physical lineage from Eli through Mary. I believe this to be a theory because some things are left to our imagination, but I believe it to be a sound one. Anyone ready to dispute it must first realize that a lack of information is not automatically incriminating. This is where we get our saying, "Innocent until proven guilty," and not "Guilty until proven innocent." Therefore if anyone has a problem with my conclusions they must show me where I am wrong and not just assume that I am or that these genealogical accounts contradict each other.
Last edited: