The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (ASV)
This genealogy contradicts the genealogy in Luke; very few of the names match.
This suggests that these genealogies were invented to make it seem that Jesus Christ was descended from King David, as the Jewish Messiah ought to be. Though in a curious case of trying to have it both ways, both Matthew and Luke maintain that it was God and not Joseph who was Jesus Christ's biological father, thus making it impossible for Jesus Christ to be descended from King David.
Response to Con piece: While the "genealogy of Mary" is a common apologetic tactic, it is easily dismissed after actually reading the text. Both are genealogies of Joseph.
Matthew 1:16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Comment: The issue raised is that the Matthew and Luke genealogies are different. They are. The verse in Luke can be rendered--
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself, when he began [to teach], was about thirty years of age, being son [as was supposed of Joseph], of Heli...
Your rendering (which is popular among translators) has Luke saying that Christ was supposedly the son of Joseph, of Heli,..., of God. However, Luke is saying that Christ is the "son of God" as this is the argument that he is making. Luke is not arguing that Jesus was alleged to be the son of God but that Jesus is the son of God. Luke denotes this by leaving out the article before Joseph but including it with Heli and thereafter to establish the genealogical chain.
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.
The following has been moved from Con to Neutral:
This genealogy is different than the genealogy in Luke.
There is nothing to suggest anything about the motives of those who provided the genealogies.
All that can be concluded is that we have been given one genealogy in Matthew and a different genealogy in Luke. This allows for Matthew to provide the genealogy of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and for Luke to provide the genealogy of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
Matthew makes clear in his account that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus yet he still ascribes the genealogy of Joseph to Jesus. Matthew does not explain why he does this. However, Matthew's failure to explain his reasoning does not mean that he has committed error. One would have to demonstrate that Matthew had no basis do this to show error.
The reason for the move is that "Matthew" and "Luke" Explicitly communicate that the Genealogies' are Joseph's. A Con argument needs to consist of something more than "No, it's not." Rhutchin, please review the following video:
in order to understand the difference between an Argument and Contradiction.
--JoeWallack 09:46, 18 Jan 2008 (CST)
Why does it start with Abraham ( a fictional character?)? What happened to the concept of the new Adam?
Father Brown confesses to us that Catholicism retarded Critical Christian Bible scholarship until relatively recent times. Ironically, for purposes of the Genealogy analysis here, Jean Steinmann's La Vie de Jesus (1959) was the last book placed on the Roman Catholic Index of Forbidden Books. Most people don't realize that Christian consent to Critical Bible scholarship is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until 1955 the official Catholic position was that Greek "Matthew" was written by the Disciple Matthew and identical in substance to Hebrew or Aramaic "Matthew".
The official Catholic ban of Critical Bible scholarship helps explain why German Bible scholarship dominated Critical analysis in the late 19th and pre-Nazi 20th century as Germany was the large, majority Protestant, European country. When we get to the Birth Narratives we'll see that the outstanding scholarly book in the area is Helmut Brunner's pre-Nazi Die Geburt Des Gottkoenigs.
In the course of Pro and Con Arguments here the history of an Argument will sometimes be noted as related to its weight. If an Argument is new it may be argued that its weight is reduced because of a lack of history. Due to Christianity's offical prevention, or at least discouragment of Critical Bible scholarship for most of it's history we need to keep in mind that weight in this area is One Way. Modern Arguments against Errancy do need to be evaluated for Discount if they lack or have little History. On the other hand, Modern Arguments for Errancy generally do not need to be discounted due to lack of History as for most of its History Christianity successfully prevented/discouraged them.
--JoeWallack 10:43, 17 Dec 2005 (CST)
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ" at the Beginning of the Genealogy Implies that this is intended to be a Complete Genealogy. The best parallel to 1:1 in the LXX is Genesis 5:1. Let's take a look at the Greek:
Matthew Genesis English Greek English Greek The book ?????? This is the book ???? ? ?????? of the generation ???????? of the generations ????????
Of all the Genealogies in the Jewish Bible Genesis 5:1 gives the strongest appearence of intending to be a complete Genealogy with all the information included with the Names. The Implication is that "Matthew" likewise Intended a complete Genealogy.
Also note that from the initial phrase "?????? ????????", "????????" (of the generation) is probably a reference to the Title of the First Book of the Greek Jewish Bible "???????" (Genesis).
--JoeWallack 11:46, 23 Apr 2006 (CDT)
--JoeWallack 19:42, 24 Jan 2006 (CST)
--JoeWallack 16:20, 17 Dec 2005 (CST)
General Problem With Support For Genealogies
1) Lack of supposed X-Hand/Foot Witness Testimony for Genealogies compared to main narrative describing people who knew Jesus Christ once he was Jesus Christ. "From Moses unto Moses there Arose None unto Moses. From Jesus unto Christ, there arose none."
--JoeWallack 10:31, 7 Jan 2006 (CST)
Presumably the Marriage Contract would have Identified the Father of Joseph. Yet "Matthew" says it was "Jacob", "Luke" says it was Heli and I say it was (The) Art (of) LinkLetter. Subsequent Christianity had no idea which was right. More solid Evidence that "Matthew" and "Luke" had no access to anyone who knew Jesus' family.
--JoeWallack 08:53, 13 Feb 2006 (CST)
2) Lack of coordination between the Remarkable claimed circumstances of The Genealogy/Infancy and the Un-remarkable description of Jesus' origin/origins in the rest of The Gospel.
--JoeWallack 10:45, 7 Jan 2006 (CST)
3) "Jesus Christ" as a name is only used by "Matthew" in the Genealogy/Infancy. Using "Jesus Christ" as a name is generally thought of as a Later development in Christianity. So its use in the Genealogy suggests that the Genealogy is from a later Christianity than the rest of the Gospel.
--JoeWallack 14:30, 14 Jan 2006 (CST)
4) Origen, a very brave and influential Church Father, Confesses to us unconfessed "diffiCulties" in the Genealogies:
We have already shown that Jesus can be regarded neither as an arrogant man, nor a sorcerer; and therefore it is unnecessary to repeat our former arguments, lest, in replying to the tautologies of Celsus, we ourselves should be guilty of needless repetition. And now, in finding fault with our Lord's genealogy, there are certain points which occasion some difficulty even to Christians, and which, owing to the discrepancy between the genealogies, are advanced by some as arguments against their correctness, but which Celsus has not even mentioned. For Celsus, who is truly a braggart, and who professes to be acquainted with all matters relating to Christianity, does not know how to raise doubts in a skilful manner against the credibility of Scripture. But he asserts that the "framers of the genealogies, from a feeling of pride, made Jesus to be descended from the first man, and from the kings of the Jews." And he thinks that he makes a notable charge when he adds, that "the carpenters wife could not have been ignorant of the fact, had she been of such illustrious descent." But what has this to do with the question? Granted that she was not ignorant of her descent, how does that affect the result? Suppose that she were ignorant, how could her ignorance prove that she was not descended from the first man, or could not derive her origin from the Jewish kings? Does Celsus imagine that the poor must always be descended from ancestors who are poor, or that kings are always born of kings? But it appears folly to waste time upon such an argument as this, seeing it is well known that, even in our own days, some who are poorer than Mary are descended from ancestors of wealth and distinction, and that rulers of nations and kings have sprung from persons of no reputation."
--JoeWallack 09:21, 19 Feb 2006 (CST)
5) The Earliest Christian writings don't even mention Jesus' Father. Paul's writings are generally considered the earliest known Christian writings and Paul never mentions Jesus' father. Likewise, "Mark" is generally considered the earliest known Christian Gospel and "Mark" never mentions Jesus' Father. If Jesus' Father was unknown based on the earliest Christian writings that would make it [Understatement]difficult[/Understatement] to find a historical genealogy.
--JoeWallack 09:48, 21 Feb 2006 (CST)