Welcome to “Ehrman Errs,” a blog series devoted to using our conversational AI to refute each alleged biblical contradiction that is posed in the article on Bart Ehrman’s website: 50 Contradictions in the Bible: The Biggest, Most Shocking Differences.
Today’s alleged contradiction:
#15 – The Genealogy of Jesus
One of the most well-known examples of the contradictions in the Bible lies in the differing genealogies of Jesus presented in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Both Gospels trace Jesus’ lineage, but they do so in significantly different ways, with notable discrepancies in names. The differences in the lists of names are striking. For example, Jesus’ grandfather in Matthew is Jacob, whereas it’s Heli in Luke (Matthew 1:16; Luke 3:23). Similarly, the genealogies diverge dramatically in the generations following David. Matthew traces Jesus’ descent through Solomon, emphasizing the royal line, while Luke follows Nathan, another son of David, presenting a priestly or prophetic lineage. Some have suggested that Matthew provides Joseph’s legal lineage, while Luke traces a biological or maternal line. However, Bart Ehrman, in Jesus Interrupted, notes: “It is an attractive solution, but it has a fatal flaw. Luke explicitly indicates that the family line is that of Joseph, not Mary (Luke 1:23; also Matthew 1:16).
How Does Ehrman Err?
The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–38 have long been discussed by both Christian and skeptical scholars. Bart Ehrman’s objection is thoughtful, but a careful, contextually faithful reading of Scripture and an understanding of ancient genealogical practices provide a reasonable and historically grounded response.
1. Both Genealogies Trace Through Joseph—But for Different Purposes
It’s true that both genealogies mention Joseph. Matthew 1:16 says,
“and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.”
And Luke 3:23 says,
“Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli…”
However, the phrase in Luke, “as was supposed,” signals that Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son (affirming the virgin birth, see Luke 1:34–35). This opens the door for Luke’s genealogy to serve a different function than Matthew’s.
2. Legal vs. Biological Lineage
Matthew’s genealogy is structured to show Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David, tracing the royal line through Solomon down to Joseph. This fulfills messianic prophecies that the Messiah would be a descendant of David and heir to his throne (see 2 Samuel 7:12–16; Isaiah 11:1).
Luke’s genealogy is widely understood by many conservative scholars to trace Jesus’ biological lineage, likely through Mary. While Luke names Joseph, it was customary in Jewish genealogies to list the male head of the household, even when tracing a maternal line. Thus, “Joseph, the son of Heli” can mean “Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli,” with Heli being Mary’s father. This is supported by the fact that the Greek text does not use the definite article before Joseph’s name, which is unusual and may indicate a different relationship.
Supporting Evidence:
- Early Christian writers such as Julius Africanus (3rd century) explained that Matthew gives Joseph’s genealogy, while Luke gives Mary’s, with Joseph named as “son” in the sense of son-in-law.
- Luke’s focus on Mary: In Luke 1–2, the narrative centers on Mary’s perspective, suggesting that his genealogy may reflect her lineage.
3. Compression and Custom in Ancient Genealogies
Genealogies in the ancient world often compressed generations and used legal or adoptive relationships. For example, Matthew compresses the genealogy (see Matthew 1:8, omitting some generations between Joram and Uzziah), which was a common literary device.
4. Scriptural and Theological Consistency
- Matthew 5:17: Jesus Himself said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” The genealogies show that Jesus fulfills both the legal and prophetic requirements for the Messiah.
- Romans 1:3–4: Paul affirms Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh,” consistent with both genealogies pointing to Davidic descent.
- Luke 1:32–33: The angel tells Mary, “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David…”—affirming the importance of both legal and biological descent.
5. Addressing Ehrman’s “Fatal Flaw”
Ehrman claims that Luke “explicitly indicates that the family line is that of Joseph, not Mary.” However, as shown above, the language allows for Joseph to be named as the legal representative of Mary’s line, especially since genealogies were traced through males. The phrase “as was supposed” and the unique Greek construction in Luke’s genealogy support the maternal interpretation.
Conclusion:
The differences in the genealogies are not contradictions but reflect different purposes:
- Matthew: Legal, royal descent through Joseph (Solomon’s line).
- Luke: Biological descent, likely through Mary (Nathan’s line), with Joseph named as son-in-law.
Both genealogies affirm Jesus’ messianic qualifications, fulfilling Old Testament prophecy and demonstrating God’s faithfulness.
References:
Matthew 5:17, Matthew 1:1–17
Luke 3:23–38
2 Samuel 7:12–16
Romans 1:3–4