Thus the Talmud makes the statement that “900 camel-loads of commentary existed on 1 Chron. viii. 37 to ix. 44” (a genealogical portion of the Bible). The Jewish Encyclopedia (1903, Vol. 5, p. 597) also deplores the pride manifested by many Jews as to their pedigree.

To engage in studying and discussing such matters was pointless, and even more so at the time Paul wrote to Timothy. For it was no longer vital to have the genealogical records maintained, since God did not now recognize any distinction between Jew and Gentile in the Christian congregation. (Gal. 3:28) And the genealogical records had already established the descent of Christ through the line of David. Also, it would not be long after Paul wrote this admonition that Jerusalem would be destroyed, and along with it the Jewish records. God did not preserve them. Accordingly, Paul was anxious that Timothy and the congregations should not be sidetracked into spending time in research and in controversy over matters of personal pedigree, which contributed nothing to Christian faith. The genealogy furnished by the Bible is sufficient to prove Christ’s messiahship, the genealogical matter of prime importance to Christians. The other Biblical genealogies stand as a testimony to the authenticity of the Scriptural record, manifesting clearly that it is a genuinely historical account.

GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST

At Matthew chapter 1 we find the genealogy of Jesus running from Abraham forward. At Luke chapter 3 is a genealogy back to “Adam, the son of God.” Jesus’ genealogy is the only one given in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Part of his genealogy appears at 1 Chronicles chapters 1 to 3, running from Adam to the sons of Elioenai through Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and Zerubbabel, royal descendants of Solomon. The books of Genesis and Ruth combined give the line from Adam to David.

The latter three lists agree fully from Adam to Arpachshad (Arphaxad), with minor differences as to certain names, such as Kenan, which is “Cainan” at Luke 3:37. The Chronicles and Genesis-Ruth lists agree down to David, while Luke inserts another “Cainan” between Arpachshad and Shelah.—Luke 3:35, 36.

From Solomon to Zerubbabel the Chronicles record and Matthew agree in the main, Matthew omitting some names. These differences and differences in Luke’s account from David to Jesus will be discussed later.

Under GENEALOGY, we have shown that the Jews kept public records of genealogies, as well as many private family records, and that the chroniclers, such as Ezra, had access to these when compiling their lists; also, that the public registers existed in the first century up until 70 C.E. The matter of the descent of the Messiah from Abraham, and through David, was of prime importance to them. So we can be confident that both Matthew and Luke consulted these genealogical tables.

RELIABILITY OF THE GENEALOGIES BY MATTHEW AND LUKE

The question arises: Why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listings of the other chroniclers? First of all, to prove one’s genealogy it was not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. For example, Ezra, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, omitted several names contained in the listing of the priestly line at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Obviously it was not essential to name all these ancestors to satisfy the Jews as to his priestly lineage. Similarly with Matthew: He doubtless used the public register and copied from it, if not every name, the ones necessary to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. He also had access to the Hebrew Scriptures, which he could consult alongside the official public records.—Compare Ruth 4:12, 18-22 and Matthew 1:3-6.

The lists made by both Matthew and Luke were comprised of names publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees were bitter enemies of Christianity, and would have used any possible argument to discredit Jesus, but it is noteworthy that they never challenged these genealogies. If either Matthew’s or Luke’s genealogy of Jesus had been in error, what an opportunity it would have been for these opponents to prove it then and there! For until 70 C.E. they had ready access to the public genealogical registers and the Scriptures.

The same is true regarding the first-century pagan enemies of Christianity, many of whom were, like those Jews, learned men who would readily have pointed to any evidence that these lists of Matthew and Luke were unauthentic and contradictory. But there is no record that the early pagan enemies attacked Christians on this point.

Also, both Matthew and Luke achieved their objective, and that was all they needed to do. To prove that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David it was not necessary to make a new genealogy. All they had to do was copy from the public tables that the nation fully accepted regarding the lineage of David and of the priesthood and all other matters requiring proof of one’s descent. (See Luke 1:5; 2:3-5; Romans 11:1.) Even if there was an omission in these tables, it did not detract from what these Gospel writers intended and indeed accomplished, namely, presenting legally and publicly recognized proof of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah.

PROBLEMS IN MATTHEW’S GENEALOGY OF JESUS

Matthew divides the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus into three sections of fourteen generations each. (Matt. 1:17) This division may have been made as a memory aid. However, in counting the names we find that they total 41, rather than 42. One suggestion as to how they may be counted is as follows:

By taking Abraham to David, fourteen names, then using David as the starting name for the second fourteen, with Josiah as the last; finally, by heading the third series of fourteen names with Josiah and ending with Jesus. Notice that Matthew repeats the name David as the last of the first fourteen names and as the first of the next fourteen. Then he repeats the expression “the deportation to Babylon,” which he links with Josiah and his sons.—Matt. 1:17.

As stated earlier, Matthew may have copied his list exactly from the public register that he used, or he may have purposely left out some links with a view to aiding memory. However, a suggestion as to the omission here of three kings of David’s line between Jehoram and Uzziah (Azariah) is that Jehoram married wicked Athaliah of the house of Ahab, the daughter of Jezebel, thereby bringing this God-condemned strain into the line of the kings of Judah. (1 Ki. 21:20-26; 2 Ki. 8:25-27) Naming Jehoram as first in the wicked alliance, Matthew omits the names of the next three kings to the fourth generation, Ahaziah, Jehoash and Amaziah, the fruits of the alliance.—Compare Matthew 1:8 with 1 Chronicles 3:10-12.

Matthew indicates that Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel (Matt. 1:12), and this coincides with other references. (Ezra 3:2; Neh. 12:1; Hag. 1:14; Luke 3:27) However, at 1 Chronicles 3:19 Zerubbabel is referred to as the son of Pedaiah. Evidently Zerubbabel was the natural son of Pedaiah and the legal son of Shealtiel by reason of brother-in-law marriage; or possibly, after Zerubbabel’s father Pedaiah died, Zerubbabel was brought up by Shealtiel as his son and therefore became legally recognized as the son of Shealtiel.

A PROBLEM IN LUKE’S GENEALOGY OF JESUS

Luke inserts a second “Cainan,” between Arphaxad (Arpachshad) and Shelah. (Luke 3:35, 36; compare Genesis 10:24; 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24.) Most scholars take this to be a copyist’s error. “Cainan” is not found in this relative position in the genealogical listings in the Hebrew or the Samaritan texts, nor in