Why Two Genealogies for Jesus? History’s Explanation

Critics of the New Testament quickly point out what appears to be a glaring mistake in the gospels—there are two quite different lists of ancestors for Jesus going back to King David.   These were included to support the claim that Jesus was of the House of David, and thus qualified to be the Messiah.  Many Christians try to defend there being two different lineages.  A common explanation I have heard is that one line is for his father, Joseph, and the other for his mother Mary.  This is despite the fact neither gospel writer suggests it was her lineage.  Over the last fifty years I have never heard a satisfying explanation—until recently I read the early history of the church by the Christian historian Eusebius, who lived in Caesarea in Palestine between 260 and 340 AD.  He lays out what seems to be the most credible explanation.

The Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius is written in ten “books”, with the 7th chapter of book one being dedicated to “The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard to the Genealogy of Christ”.  This treatment tells us that even in the early centuries readers were puzzled by there being two different genealogies.  As you can see in the chart below, Matthew lists a lineage from King David down through his son Solomon, and Luke lists one down through his son Nathan, only converging at Joseph the father of Jesus.  Surely Mary, the mother of Jesus, would have known the name of her father-in-law.  How could there be a discrepancy so close to Jesus’ birth and not be remembered by the people alive at the time?   So, was Joseph’s father Jacob or Heli? 

Eusebius’s answer lies in the ancient Jewish legal tradition that when a man dies childless his brother is compelled to marry his widow and raise up a legal heir for his dead brother, that his lands and name may remain in the family.   Eusebius writes that Heli married first but died childless.   Then Jacob, his half-brother, married his widow and became the natural father of Joseph, with Heli still being the father for legal purposes.  Lest we think this strange, today and in centuries past we have always had adoptions where children can claim both a legal father and a birth father.  Eusebius also explains that the fathers of Jacob and Heli were Matthat and Melchi, respectively.  This Melchi married a woman, Estha, and had a son Heli after her previous husband, Matthat, had died after fathering a son Jacob.  Thus, Jacob and Eli were half-brothers (both of the house of David) through the same mother.  The number of details in this account adds to its credibility.

Now one might claim that Eusebius, writing around 300 or so AD, some 200 years after the gospels were written, was relaying a long-held tradition that had been passed down orally that was vulnerable to transmission error or embellishing.  But Eusebius was quoting from the earlier letter of Julius Africanus (160-240 AD) to Aristides.   We have the full copy of this letter today and can read Julius’ full account that explains the seeming discrepancy of the two genealogies.  Africanus was a historian who lived in Judea only about 100 years or so after the gospels were written.  In conclusion, this explanation is compelling because it not only gives many details that fit the culture of the first century BC, but it was written down by a scholar after possibly only two intermediaries back to the gospel writers.