Know Islam

Know Islam, Know Paradise


April 19, 2018 Book Reading Events Comparative Religion 0

Click here for previous session 

OF JESUS NO. 46-51

A comparative reading of the genealogy of Jesus according to the Gospel of
Matthew and the genealogy according to Luke reveals a number of contradictions:

Contradiction No. 46
Matthew describes Joseph as son of Jacob, while Luke says Joseph son of
Heli 15.

Contradiction No. 47
According to Matthew, Jesus was a descendant of Solomon, the son of
David, 16 while Luke puts him into the line of Nathan, the son of David

Contradiction No. 48
Matthew claims that the ancestors of Jesus right from David to the exile of
the Israelites were all kings of great repute, while Luke says that except David
and Nathan none of them was king. They were not even known as prominent
personalities of their time

Contradiction No. 49
From Matthew we learn that Salathiel was the son of Jeconias, while
Luke informs us that he was the son of Neri

Contradiction No. 50
We read in Matthew that “Zorobabel begat Abiud,” while Luke says, “which
was the son of Rhesa which was the son of Zorobabel.” It will be more
surprising or rather very interesting for the reader to know that I Chronicles
mentions all the names of the sons of Zorobabel, and neither Rhesa nor Abiud
appear. It appears that both names are false.

Contradiction No. 51
According to Matthew there are twenty-six generations from David to Jesus,
while according to Luke there are forty. As the period of time between David
and Jesus is one thousand years, the gap from one generation to another
according to Matthew is forty years and according to Luke twenty-five years.
This contradiction is so clear that it requires no comment. It has been a cause of
great embarrassment to the Christian theologians and scholars from the very
inception of these two Gospels.
A group of great scholars like Eichhorn, Kaiser, Heins, De Wett, Winner
Fritsche and others have plainly admitted that these two Gospels do really
contain contradictions of an unjustifiable nature. Just as the two Gospels contain
discrepancies in other places, so here too they are different from each other. Had
they been free from discrepancies throughout, some justification for the
difference in genealogical description might have been found.
Adam Clarke, however, making comments on chapter 3 of Luke, has
reluctantly quoted some justifications together with his remarks of astonishment
about them. He has, for instance, quoted Harmer on page 408 of vol. 5 making
this unpalatable excuse:
“The genealogical tables were well kept by the Jews. It is known to everyone that Matthew and Luke have erred in such a way as to embarrass all the ancient and modern scholars. But as several objections were raised in the past against the author, for several doubtful points of the books, and, these objections, later on, turned out to be in his favour, similarly this
objection too, will come to his aid. And time will certainly do it.”

However, this contradiction is so serious that it has caused great
embarrassment to both ancient and modern scholars. Their claim that the
genealogical tables were kept safe by the Jews is false as it has been historically
proved that they were destroyed in the course of the calamities and unfortunate
accidents that have dogged the history of the Jews. For this obvious reason
errors are found in the text of Ezra as well as these Gospels. Now if this was the
condition of the scriptures in Ezra`s time, one can imagine the condition of
these texts in the time of the disciples. If the genealogies of the notable
personalities and the priests could not be preserved, how much reliance can be
put on the genealogy of poor Joseph who was only a carpenter. It is a possible
assumption that the evangelists might have adopted two different genealogical
tables concerning Joseph, the carpenter, without proper regard to their
accuracy. Harmer’s hope that time would change this objection in favour of theauthors seems very far from being realized since nineteen centuries have passed without the Evangelists being exonerated in this matter.
Had it been possible to do so, it would have been done a long time ago,
seeing that in the last three centuries Europe has made such extraordinary
advances in all branches of science and technology and has accumulated a
treasure-house of resources to help in the search for the truth. As a result of
scientific research in the field of religion, they first made some reforms in their
faith and then rejected outright many of the established tenets and creeds of
their religion.

Similarly the Pope, who was considered infallible and the highest authority
of the Christians all over the world, was declared an impostor and unworthy of
trust. Further, in the name of reforms, the Christians became subdivided into
several sects and continued to make so called reforms until they finally had to
declare that Christianity as a whole was not more than a collection of whimsical
ideas and fabulous stories. Given this situation the future does not allow us to
hope for any positive results.
The only explanation for this contradiction presented by some scholars is to
say that perhaps Matthew has described the genealogy of Joseph whereas Luke
might have written the genealogy of Mary. In this case Joseph would become
the son-in-law of Heli who was himself without a son. Joseph, therefore, might
have been described as the son of Heli. This explanation is unacceptable and is
rejected for several reasons. Firstly because in this case Jesus would not be a
descendant of Solomon but a descendant of Nathan, as he would be included in
the genealogy on his mother’s side, not that of Joseph, the carpenter. If this were
so, Jesus could not possibly have been the Messiah, since the Messiah who had
been predicted by the prophets had to be a descendant of Solomon. This is why
a great leader of the Protestant faith rejected this explanation saying to the effect that, “Whoever excludes the Christ from the genealogical line of Solomon,
precludes the Christ from being the Christ.”
Secondly this explanation is not acceptable until it is proved through
authentic historical reports that Mary was indeed the daughter of Heli and
Nathan’s line was through her. Mere assumptions are of no avail in this regard
especially in the presence of the adversary remarks of Calvin and Adam Clarke.
On the contrary, it is expressly mentioned in the Gospel of John that the parents
of Mary were Jehoachim and Joanna. And though this Gospel is not recognized
by the modern Christians as a revealed book written by John, the disciple of
Jesus, it is, undoubtedly a document of great historical value. Its author certainly
belongs to the early times of Christianity. The book certainly has more historical
value than the most reliable books of history. It cannot, therefore, be denied by
unauthenticated reports.


368 total views, 0 views today



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *