Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 1

In this section, Troki writes 100 chapters aimed at attacking the New Testament. Most of them are short enough to be quoted in their entirety.

Matthew 1 contains an account of the genealogy of Jesus, and traces back the descent of Joseph, the husband of Mary, to Solomon son of David. The enumeration of his ancestors terminates thus (ver. 15, 16, 17), "And Eliud begat Eleazar, and Eleazar begat Matthan, and Matthan begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."

In Luke 3:23, 24, however, the genealogy of Jesus differs from that given by Matthew; for he assigns the descent of Joseph, the husband of Mary, to Nathan the son of David. The parentage of Jesus is there described as follows: "And Jesus was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, etc., etc. Thus while, according to Matthew, there are forty-two generations, reckoning back to Abraham, there are twenty-six according to the names mentioned in Luke. Besides this, the list of names given in Matthew is not calculated to afford a correct knowledge of the descendants of David, for three generations, Ahaziah, Jaos, and Amaziah, are omitted, and Uzziah is represented to be the son of Joram. See the correct genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3, and in the historical part of the Second Book of Chronicles beginning at chapter 22 etc.

It appears that the omission of three generations of kings was done advisedly, in order to make out Matthew's three series of fourteen generations. However, after all it must be owned, that contradictory accounts of the generations have no reference to Jesus, but only to Joseph. For, as Mary is stated to have remained a virgin, even after her marriage with Joseph, we do not see the use of putting forth a long string of names which had no relation to the founder of the Christian religion. 

So here are the genealogies laid out in an easier fashion:

 

 Luke's gospel was about Mary, and therefore the most likely solution is to say that Matthew was about Joseph (legal line) while Luke was about Mary (biological line). Troki's quote at the end seems bizarre. Mary is the biological ancestor of Jesus, so why would she have no relation to the founder of the Christian religion?

Michael Brown takes a slightly different stance, stating that Shealtiel and Zerubbabel were two fairly common names of their time. This is confirmed by Babylonian inscriptions during the Persian period. They have different parents. They have different children. They are descended from different sons of David. Their chronological placements are off by as much as a century. There simply is no reason to think that the Zerubbabel and Shealtiel of Luke's genealogy is the same as those in Matthew's.

Note also that Matthew's list contains three sets of 14. What is so important about 14? Hebrew letters also have numerical values, one can add the numerical values in a name to get a sum. This is called gematria. What is the gematria value of David's name? 14. Matthew is skipping generations, which is fine since the terms for "father" and "son" can also mean ancestor and descendant. The purpose of Matthew's genealogy is to show the royal lineage while encoding the gematria value of Israel's greatest king.

This objection seems strange coming from someone who believes in the Tanakh. The same genealogical issue for which Troki faults the New Testament occurs when one compares the genealogies in 1 Chronicles. For example, 1 Chronicles 2 states that Judah had five sons named Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez, and Zerah. In 1 Chronicles 4, the sons of Judah are Perez, Hezron, Carmi, Hur, and Shobal. Of five sons, only one has the same name. In 1 Chronicles 2, Perez has Hezron and Hamul. In 1 Chronicles 9, Perez has Bani as his son. In Nehemiah, the son of Perez is Mahalalel.

There are many more difficulties in 1 Chronicles alone. Those of you who have studied 1 Chronicles know that there are ways of harmonizing these accounts. All I am asking for is a little consistency.

Michael Brown concludes with this insight. "Common sense would also tell you that the followers of Jesus, who were totally dedicated to demonstrating to both Jews and Gentiles that he was truly Messiah and Savior, would not preserve and pass on two impossibly contradictory genealogies. In fact, this very suggestion directly contradicts the common objection that the New Testament authors rewrote the accounts of the Gospels in order to make Jesus look like he was the Messiah. The reality is that they accurately reported the story of his life and were careful to include two important genealogies in presenting the account of his ancestry and birth."