BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS: GENEALOGIES

Many skeptics latch on to what look like contradictions between various parallel listings of genealogy in the Bible. However, any attempt to definitively state that there are errors is practically doomed from the start due to several factors.

In the first place, the standard naming pattern in biblical times was to name a child after his grandfather, a practice called papponymy. Thus, several generations of A begat B begat A begat B might occur and this whole series could be condensed simply as A begat B in a list of ancestors, thus skipping over many generations. This is one explanation for the fact that several times in the Bible it appears that there are not nearly enough generations identified to fill the known time period that had elapsed.

Another reason that several generations might be skipped over in a list is to highlight a prominent ancestor and ignore the intervening ones. The most obvious example is when Jesus is called the son of David. Another reason for purposely shortening a list by omitting some people is so that the number of names comes out to a multiple of a symbolic number such as 7. Matthew's 3 x 14 genealogy for Jesus is a prime example.

Also, there are a number of examples in the Bible of a person going by two different names. Witness Abram and Abraham, Jacob and Israel, etc. The New Testament example of Peter is an extreme example in that he was also called Cephas or Simon (also known as Simeon).

And lastly, because marriages outside of the nation were rare, intermarriage occurred within a fairly limited population. That can even happen today when people stay in a confined locale for several generations. I can attest to this fact even in my own family line. Thus, people might be able to trace their lineages through more than one parallel line of descent. This can also occur if one list actually is traced through the female side in order to highlight more well known personages that might appear there.

With that background, here are two specific examples of suspected errors in biblical genealogy taken from the internet. Of course, a believer may choose to simply ignore these rather nitpicking items that have absolutely no effect on one's faith. In any case, it is foolish to agonize over these specific details and feel that our whole belief in the Bible and God depends on resolving these issues.

The father of Joseph was Jacob. (Matthew 1:16)

The father of Joseph was Heli/Eli. (Luke 3:23)

This example actually brings up two different explanations for conflicting genealogies in addition to those given above. France (The Gospel of Matthew) summarizes both of them:

Luke gives the actual biological family tree while Matthew traces the royal, or legal, succession from David. In such throne successions, the line often passed to a brother or nephew if there were no biological heir who was suitable. Most commentators prefer this explanation over those given below. Interestingly, Hillyer notes that some recent scholars actually reverse the purported purposes behind the two genealogies so that Matthew's is the biological family tree and Luke's is the biological one.

Raymond Brown, in his exhaustive study The Birth of the Messiah, summarizes this way of harmonizing the two account: “It is possible to have conflicting genealogies of the same person if those genealogies have different functions. Only one or neither of them may be historical in terms of traceable biological lineage, but both of them may be accurate in terms of the function they serve.”

Another approach mentioned by many commentators involves a letter that Julius Africanus (ca. 225 AD) wrote describing information he had obtained from one of Joseph's descendants as part of their family tradition. According to that story, Eli died childless, and so his half-brother Jacob fathered Joseph as Eli's legal son. This is an example of the levirite marriage custom mentioned several times in the OT. Although this is a possibility often mentioned in commentaries, Brown outlines several problems with this explanation in an appendix to his book.

The next oldest explanation for the discrepancy dates back to the time of Luther and is still espoused by some people today. Basically, it says that Matthew is giving Joseph's family tree while Luke is recording that of Mary. The major problem with this theory is that Luke 3:23 specifically states that Eli is Joseph's father, not Mary's. Attempts to get around this barrier by totally re-translating this verse are not generally accepted as valid.

 

The father of Salah was Arphaxad. (Genesis 11:12)

The father of Salah was Cainan/Kainan. (Luke 3:35-36)

It is the consensus view of scholars such as Fitzmyer, Marshall, Pao and Schnabel (just to list a few) that the answer boils down to one of textual criticism. The Hebrew text of Genesis 11:12 goes directly from Arphaxad to Shelah (Salah) and skips Kainan. As explained above, it is not uncommon for such genealogical lists to do this. But if one goes to the Greek Septuagint version of the same verse, Kainan is sandwiched in between Arphaxad and Shelah. It is well recognized that the Septuagint stems from a somewhat different Hebrew text and may in some cases actually capture a more ancient version. Luke is obviously relying on the Greek version of the OT (as the Synoptic Gospels did in general). Modern OT textual scholars wrestle with discrepancies such as these before making a judgment call on whether to go with the Hebrew or Greek version, depending on the relative strengths of the evidence either way.