Apologist Vocab Malone recently had a livestream with Jeff Kran. They were dealing with genealogical objections from Jewish apologists. I don’t want to comment on that but I do want to talk about one thing that they brought up at the beginning.
They brought up the issue of the genealogy and how Matthew and Luke’s appear to contradict each other. Vocab mentioned that there were several responses to this starting with Eusebius in the fourth century. He then pointed to some modern scholars and commentaries on the issue. He talks about this seven minutes in.
I have to admit that I haven’t read those commentaries that Vocab brought up. I have read Eusebius though and I recommend every reader of this blog to read his history of the Church. I even pointed out in a previous post that Eusebius is one of the top three Church Fathers to read for apologetics along with Clement and Ignatius.
Eusebius makes the case that Matthew has the physical genealogy of Joseph while Luke has the legal genealogy. Why should we take his solution over any others? There are several reasons why and I would like to share them. The first reason is that he’s early. As a Catholic I have a certain love for tradition and the Church fathers and Eusebius is the first major historian of the Church. We know so much about the early Church because of Eusebius so I think it’s at least worth looking into.
The second reason that we should take this explanation is that it goes even further back than Eusebius. Eusebius is fourth century and an early Church Father no doubt but this explanation was acquired from Julius Africanus. Eusebius points this out in Chapter 7 of Book one. Africanus is from the late second and early third century.
The third reason that we should use the explanation of Eusebius is that it makes sense. When one reads the explanation of Eusebius it holds tremendous explanatory scope. It explains why Matthew 1:16 reads:
And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
His explanation accounts for the similar but different words used in the Gospel of Luke. In Luke 3:23 we read:
And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat,
This explanation can be found in the History of the Church by Eusebius of Caesarea, Book one, chapter seven.
It can be found at this link:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm
If you’re not into reading and want to simply watch a youtube presentation on it, here’s a good video using the explanation of Eusebius:
The last reason that we should accept this is that it is based on Biblical legal law, specifically Deuteronomy 25:5-6 which reads:
When brethren dwell together, and one of them dieth without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry to another: but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother:
And the first son he shall have of her he shall call by his name, that his name be not abolished out of Israel.
It’s historic, early, Biblical, has tremendous explanatory scope, and isn’t special pleading in the slightest. That’s why we should use this explanation over others.
By the way, if you want to hear some sick freestyle by Vocab Malone, skip ahead to 1:27:30 of the above video. It’s over three minutes long. Pretty impressive if you ask me.
Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.