3

I ran into a YouTube video that claims the Gospels of Luke and Mathew contradict on the name of Joseph's father. Luke claims that Joseph's father was a man named Heli but Mathew claims that the father of Joseph was a man named Jacob. Evidence from the Bible

Luke 3:23

Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli.

Mathew 1:16

and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

How did this contradiction come about? What does this imply regarding Matthew's knowledge of Luke's work or Luke's knowledge of Matthew's?

Hold To The Rod
  • 17,456
  • 2
  • 30
  • 92
Dong Li
  • 577
  • 2
  • 13
  • As originally written, this question was likely to be closed as a duplicate. However, you also asked how did this contradiction come about? This is a question of source criticism relevant to the Synoptic Problem. I have expanded the question to focus on this so that your question is less likely to be closed. – Hold To The Rod Mar 06 '24 at 18:27

3 Answers3

4

The genealogies

There have been many explanations proposed to answer the contradiction. The 2 most popular are:

  1. Matthew gives Joseph's genealogy and Luke gives Mary's (the inverse is sometimes proposed as well)
  2. Jacob & Heli were half-brothers (same mother). Joseph's physical father was Jacob, who married Heli's wife after Heli died (Levirate marriage), making Joseph the son of Heli according to the Law of Moses. This theory comes from the work of early historian Julius Africanus, see further discussion here.

The Synoptic Problem

Some see the difference in genealogies as evidence that Luke did not know Matthew's Gospel, and solve the Synoptic Problem in such a way that these 2 documents are literarily independent.

I disagree. Many hold that Matthew was not the first Gospel written. I respectfully hold a different view. My study of the Synoptic Problem has led me to the conclusion that both Mark and Luke were dependent upon Matthew. For a much more extended argument (if that's of interest), see my work on Matthean Priority here (Matthean Priority = Matthew was first).

I recognize that most scholars believe in Markan Priority; I also recognize why they do so. For a brief discussion, see this post under the heading It’s the majority view among New Testament scholars: this is unremarkable given the history of the Synoptic Problem.

But this also creates a conundrum. If Luke used Matthew as a source--and I firmly conclude he did--why are the genealogies different?

As demonstrated on this site and many others, a definite answer on the differing genealogies is not universally acknowledged. But if Luke knew Matthew's Gospel and used a different genealogy anyway, that means one of two things:

  • Luke thought Matthew was wrong (unlikely since he quoted hundreds of verses from Matthew)
  • Luke had access to a different family line

I find the most parsimonious solution to be that Luke - who has just provided an extensive account from Mary's perspective - is providing Mary's genealogy (therefore using a different family line).

Hold To The Rod
  • 17,456
  • 2
  • 30
  • 92
  • Was this person Luke, a member of Jesus twelve? Because it's been proven that he accompanied Peter and learned from him – Dong Li Mar 06 '24 at 18:40
  • 1
    Isn't the obvious question: why didn't the author of Luke specifically say it's Mary's genealogy he's relaying? – Avi Avraham Mar 06 '24 at 19:14
  • I'd add the possibility that they are simply two names used by the same person. There are other examples in the NT of a person having both a Hebrew name and a Greek name. (Saul and Paul, Simon and Cephas/Peter, etc. Perhaps Heli is short for Heliodorus – Dan Fefferman Mar 07 '24 at 12:48
  • @DongLi per Luke 1:2-3 it appears Luke was not himself an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus, but that he received his information from those who were. Luke did travel with Paul on multiple occasions. – Hold To The Rod Mar 07 '24 at 13:35
  • @AviAvraham a number of answers have been proposed to this question, but we do not know. A common view is that Luke wanted to list only male names in the genealogy. Some see in Luke 3:23 a hint that he's not actually providing Joseph's genealogy. Also, in Greek Luke doesn't explicitly say Joseph was the "son" of Heli, just "of Heli", which is the Greek he uses for tracing generations through most of the genealogy. – Hold To The Rod Mar 07 '24 at 13:40
  • Then where did Luke learn that Heli was the father of Jesus because the Bible is known to focus on the male roots and not on the female roots – Dong Li Mar 08 '24 at 15:25
  • 1
    @DongLi I think it likely that Luke interviewed Mary - see my thoughts in this answer – Hold To The Rod Mar 08 '24 at 17:54
  • It could be that he interviewed Mary . Luke should have provided a background because he was not a first person witness to Jesus life and ministry – Dong Li Mar 08 '24 at 18:21
1

Answer

There is no contradiction because these are partly two different genealogies.

Explanation

Luke gives the list right from Adam and Matthew gives the list from Abraham.

The list is the same from Abraham to David in both Matthew and Luke.

However, the genealogies move away in two different directions from David onwards.

“These are the names of those born to him (King David) in Jerusalem: Shammua, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon” (2 Sam 5:14).

Matthew continues the list from King David through King Solomon (Matthew 1:6) while Luke does so through Nathan (Luke 3:31)

So, Jacob and Heli cannot be half-brothers.

Multiple names of Heli/Jacob for the same person also cannot solve the issue because, as is clear, these are two different genealogies; one from King Solomon and the other from Nathan.

Comparison of the Two

One thing is sure:

Jacob is the biological father of Joseph, the husband of Mary:

“Jacob then begat (Greek – egenneisan = procreated) the Joseph the husband of Mary” (biblehub).

This is according to Matthew.

Luke simply says:

“Joseph of the Heli of the Maththat” etc (Luke 3:23-24).

Now, Joseph can be of Heli in different ways:

  1. Could be a biological son;

  2. Could be an adopted son;

  3. Could be a son-in-law; etc.

Conclusion

So, it is clear that Matthew gives the biological genealogy of Joseph through King Solomon.

Luke gives the genealogy of Joseph through his marital alliance with Mary’s family.

Since these are two different genealogies from David through Solomon and Nathan, there is no room for any contradiction.

Nephesh Roi
  • 916
  • 1
  • 1
  • 12
  • I do not understand you, both move in the same direction towards Jesus. I just truncated to the grand father bit. – Dong Li Mar 09 '24 at 12:59
  • I'm not saying Julius Africanus' theory is correct, but the half-brother theory is based on the premise that they had the same mother and different fathers...so it's possible (though not certain) that Jacob's father was a descendant of Solomon and Heli's father was a descendant of Nathan. But I do think the person_name of person_name of person_name of in Greek leaves open the possibility you've mentioned, +1. – Hold To The Rod Mar 09 '24 at 13:39
  • @DongLi – Both moved in different directions until Joseph steps in. He is biological son of Jacob and became “of Heli” through either adoption or marriage alliance. – Nephesh Roi Mar 09 '24 at 16:43
  • @HoldToTheRod – Appreciate your up-vote. I am sure you are aware of the curse on Jehoiachin (Jeconiah/Coniah) in Jer 22:30. None of his seed will sit on David’s throne. So Joseph is disqualified as king through him. But Joseph, through (adoption/son-in-law) Heli, is eligible to be a king. – Nephesh Roi Mar 09 '24 at 16:43
0

The other plausible reason that explains the difference is that Biblical entities are known to have multiple names like Jacob who was also called Israel, Peter is also known as Simon and so it follows that Joseph's father had two names Jacob and Heli

Dong Li
  • 577
  • 2
  • 13