CONTRADICTIONS IN THE GENEALOGY 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.

“Jacob begat Joseph” [Matt. 1:16];

“… the son of Joseph, who was son of Hel” [Luke 3:23]

Contradiction No. 47

According to Matthew, Jesus was a descendant of Solomon, the son of David [Matt. 1:6], while Luke puts him into the line of Nathan, the son of David [Luke 3:31].

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. [Matthew, therefore, has mentioned the names of all the famous king while in Luke there are totally different names of unknown personalities.]

Contradiction No. 49

From Matthew we learn that Salathiel was the son of Jeconias [Matt 1:12], while Luke informs us that he was the son of Neri [Luke 3:27].

Contradiction No. 50

We read in Matthew that “Zorobabel begat Abiud,” while Luke says, “which was the son of Rhesa [Matt. 1:13; Luke 3:27] 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 [Joseph, the carpenter, was the husband of Mary according to the Ghospels], without proper regard to their accuracy. Harmer’s hope that time would change this objection in favour of the authors 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.

St. Augustine said that he found a statement in a certain book that Mary was a Levite. This goes against her being a descendant of Nathan. Besides, we find the following statement in the Book of Numbers:

“And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers.”

“Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance.” [Numbers 36:8,9]

And in the Gospel of Luke we read:

“There was a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of ttie daughters of Aaron.”

It is known from the Gospels that Mary was closely related to the wife of Zacharias (Elisabeth) which implies that Mary was also a descendant of Aaron. We have just read the commandment of Torah (Pentateuch) that any daughter of the children of Israel should be married to her own tribe, therefore Joseph also should be a descendant of Aaron. Jesus, in this case, would be a descendant of David.

To avoid this confusion two different genealogies were written. Since these Gospels were not known until the end of the second century, the writer of one genealogy remained unknown to the other genealogist. This is the apparent reason for the present contradiction in the two Gospels.

Thirdly, had Mary been the daughter of Heli, it must have been in the knowledge of ancient writers, who would not knowingly have presented such unbelievable explanations which, later on, were rejected and laughed at by modern writers.

Fourthly, the Gospel of Matthew says:

“Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ.”

While Luke says:

“The son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.”

Both the statements clearly show that the authors are writing the genealogy of Joseph.

Fifthly, if we presume that Mary was the daughter of Heli, Luke’s statement will not be true unless it is proved that it was customary among the Jews that they, in the absence of a real son, used to include the name of their son-in-law in their genealogy. This has not so far been proved by any authentic argument. As far as the unauthentic claims of the scholars of the protestant faith are concerned, they remain unacceptable to us on account of their lack of proof and valid arguments.

We do not deny the possibility of a certain person being associated with another person who is related to him through his father or wife or even being his teacher or his priest and he may be associated with the name of another person. That is to say we may, for example, refer to him as the king’s nephew or the king’s son-in-law in order to recognise him through a known personality. This kind of association is a totally different thing from someone being included in the genealogical line of another person. It is possible that it might have been a custom among the Jews to say that someone was the son of his father-in-law, but it remains to be historically proved that such a custom existed.

Another point to be noted here is that the Gospel of Matthew cannot have been known or acknowledged in the time of Luke. Otherwise it would have not been possible for Luke to contradict Matthew so blatantly that it has resulted in a serious embarrassment to the ancient and modern advocates of Christianity.

Contradictions No. 52 - 53

A comparative reading of Matthew 2 and Luke presents a great contradiction to the reader and tends to indicate that neither of the two Gospels are divinely inspired.

It is understood from the description in Matthew that the parents of the Messiah lived in Bethlehem even after his birth. It is also made clear by another description in Matthew that the period of their stay in Bethlehem was two years. Due to the domination of the Magians they afterwards migrated to Egypt and lived there during the lifetime of Herod [the Governor of Judah], and after his death, they returned to live in Nazareth. Luke, on the other hand, gives us a different description. He says that Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem after Mary’s confinement [Luke 2:22], and that after offering the sacrifice they went to Nazareth and lived there. However they used to go to Jerusalem every year at the feast of Passover [Luke 2:41].

According to him there is no question of the Magians’ coming to Bethlehem. Similarly, the parents of Jesus could have not gone to Egypt and stayed there as it is clear from what is said that Joseph never left Judah in his life neither for Egypt nor for any other place.

We learn from the Gospel of Matthew that Herod and the people of Judah were not aware of the birth of Jesus until the Magians reported it to him [Matt. 2:13].

On the other hand Luke says that after Mary’s confinement when Jesus’ parents had gone to Jerusalem to offer the sacrifice they met Simeon, who was a righteous man and to whom it had been revealed by the Holy Ghost that he would not die until he had seen the Messiah. He lifted Jesus high in his arms and told the people of his great qualities. Similarly Anna, a prophetess, also told the people about the coming of the Messiah and thanked God. Now if we accept that Herod and his people were enemies of Jesus, Simeon would have not informed the people about Jesus in the temple where his enemies were all around, nor would the prophetess, Anna, have disclosed the identity of the Christ to the people of Jerusalem.

The scholar Norton, who is a great advocate of the Gospels, has admitted the presence of real contradiction in the two texts, and decided that the text of Matthew was erroneous and that of Luke was correct.

Contradiction No. 54

It is learnt from the Gospel of Mark that Christ asked the congregation to go away after his sermon of parables, and the sea at that time was stormy. But from the Gospel of Matthew we learn that these events took place after the Sermon on the Mount. This is why Matthew described the parables in chapter 13 of his Gospel. This sermon, therefore, is proved to have been a long time after these events, as the two sermons are separated by a long period. One of the two statements, therefore, has to be essentially wrong. The two authors, who claim to be men of inspiration or are considered by the people to be so, should not make erroneous statements.

Contradiction No. 55

The Gospel of Mark describes the debate of Jesus with the Jews as taking place three days after his arrival in Jerusalem. Matthew writes that it took place on the second day.

One of the two statement obviously has to be wrong. Horne says in his commentary (vol. 4 p. 275, 1822 edition) regarding this contradiction and the one discussed before it that: “There is no way of explaining these discrepancies.”

Contradiction No. 56

The sequence of events after the Sermon on the Mount as given by Matthew is different from the one given by Luke. For instance, the events according to Matthew happened in this order; curing a leper, Jesus’ arrival at Capernaum, healing the servant of a Roman officer, and healing of Peter’s mother-in-law [Matt 8:3,13,16]. The Gospel of Luke first describes the event of Peter’s mother-in-law, then in chapter 5 describes the healing of the leper and in chapter 7 the healing of the servant of a Roman officer [Luke 4:38; 5:13; 7:10]. One of the two statements certainly has to be erroneous.

Contradiction No. 57

According to the Gospel of John [John 1:19-21] some of the priests and Levites were sent by the Jews to John to inquire if he was Elias. He replied, ”I am not Elias.” This statement is expressly contradicted by Jesus according to Matthew 11:14 where Jesus is quoted as saying “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come.” And also we find this statement in Matthew 17:10-13:

“And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?”

“And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all thing.”

“But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.”

“Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John, the Baptist.”

Both these texts denote that John the Baptist is the promised Elias, with the result that the statements of John and Jesus contradict each other.

A careful reading of the books of Christianity makes it almost impossible to believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah. To premise our argument, the following four points should first be noted:

Firstly, according to the book of Jeremiah when Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, burnt the scripture which was written by Baruch from Jeremiah’s recitation, Jeremiah received the following revelation from God:

“Thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim King of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David.” [Jer. 36:30]

According to the word of Gabriel as quoted by Luke it is necessary for the Messiah to sit on the throne of David:

“And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father, David.” [Luke 1:32]

Secondly, the coming of the Christ was conditional on the coming of Elias prior to him. One of the major arguments of the Jews to support their disbelief in Christ was that Elias had not come, whereas his coming prior to the Messiah was positively necessary according to their books. Jesus himself confirmed that Elias must come first, but at the same time he said that Elias had already come but the people did not recognize him. On the other hand Elias himself denied being Elias.

Thirdly, the Christians do not consider the miracles of the prophets as an argument for faith in God or in the prophets. Matthew quotes the words of Jesus in 24:24 that:

“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; in so much that, if it were possible they shall deceive the very elect.”

Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians 2:9 says regarding the Antichrist:

“Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.”

Fourthly, according to the law of the Pentateuch, anyone inviting people to the worship of something other than God should be killed in spite of any kind of wonders and miracles they might perform. And someone who claims divinity for himself is even more evil since not only does he claim godhood but also invites people to worship other than God.

According to the genealogy described by Matthew, Jesus was a descendant of Jehoiakim and is, therefore, according to the first proposition quoted above, not able to sit on the throne of David. Besides, Elias did not come before Jesus as is proved by the words of John himself that he was not Elias. Given this admission, anything contrary to it cannot be acceptable. And it is logically impossible to believe that John, being a prophet and a man of revelation, would not have been aware of his being Elias. Therefore, the second proposition, too, disallows Jesus from being the Messiah. And whereas, according to the belief of the Christians, Jesus claimed divinity for himself, this admission would make him liable to be killed according to the law of Moses, as we discussed in our fourth proposition. As far as the miracles and wonders performed by Jesus are concerned they cannot, according to the belief of the Christians, be an argument for his being a believer let alone a prophet.

All praise be to Allah who has saved us from these doubts and difficulties by means of His chosen prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who informed us of the truth and taught us to believe that Jesus, the son of Mary, peace be on them both, was a true prophet and the promised Messiah and was absolutely free from the blame of making any claim to divinity. The Christians are responsible for attributing this claim to him.

Contradictions No. 58-63

Matthew chapter 11, Mark chapter 1, and Luke chapter 7, contain this statement:

“Behold! I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” [This text has been quoted from Mark 1:2]

According to the Christian commentators, the three Evangelists have quoted this line from the book of Malachi:

“Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me.”

The text quoted by the Evangelists is different in two ways from the text of Malachi. Firstly the words, “before thy face” do not exist in the text of Malachi, and have been added by all the three authors. Secondly, the text of Malachi uses the first person in the second sentence while the text of the three Gospels uses the second person. Horne quotes Dr. Rudolf in vol. 2 of his book saying: “It is not possible to explain this difference easily, except that the earlier versions have been changed.”

Contradictions No. 64-67

The following texts contradict each other:

1. Matthew 2:6 and Micah 5:2. The Matthew text says:

“And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the Princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a governor, that shall rule my people Israel.”

In the text of Micah, Bethlehem is mentioned as little.

2. Acts 2:25-28 and four verses of Psalm 15, according to the Arabic version and Psalm 16:8-11 according to other translations.

3. The Epistle to the Hebrews 10:5-7 contradicts Psalm No. 39 (Arabic) and Psalm No. 40:6-8 according to other translations. The text of Hebrews has:

“Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo: I come to do thy will, O God! “

Whereas in the Psalms it says:

“Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears thou has opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.”

“Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,“

“I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.”

4. Acts 15:16,17 are inconsistent with Amos 9:11,12. In Acts 15 it says:

“After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof; and I will set it up, that the residue of men might seek after the Lord.”

Amos has:

“In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins and I will build it as in the days of old. That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name.”

The Christian commentators have admitted the presence of contradictions in these texts and have acknowledged that the Hebrew version has been manipulated.

Contradiction No. 68

Paul’s first letter to Corinthians 2:9 says:

“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”

The researches of the Christian theologians have concluded that this statement derives from Isaiah 64:4 which is this:

“For, since of the beginning of the world, men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither has the eye seen, O God, besides thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.”

The difference between the two texts is quite obvious. The commentators of the Bible admit the presence of incompatibility in the above texts and say that the text of Isaiah has been distorted.

Contradiction No. 69

The Gospel of Matthew describes in chapter 9 that Jesus, after departing from Jericho, saw two blind men on the way and healed them of their blindness [Matt. 9:27-31]. Contradicting this, Mark writes in chapter 10 of his gospel:

“..blind Bartimxus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.”

So in Mark the healing of only one man by Jesus is mentioned.

Contradiction No. 70

Matthew describes this event in chapter 8:28:

“...into the country of Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs.”

Then Jesus is described as healing them. This statement is inconsistent with the texts of Mark chapter 5 and Luke chapter 8, which is this:

“There met him out of the city a certain man which had devils...” [Luke 8:27]

Then he was healed by Jesus. Two men in the first quotation become one in the second.

Contradiction No. 71

It appears from chapter 21 of Matthew that Jesus sent two of his disciples to bring an ass and a colt from a village and the disciples:

“...brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.” [Matt. 21:7]

While the rest of the Evangelists said that Jesus asked his disciples to bring only the colt or an ass and that when it came he rode on it.

Contradiction No. 72

Mark says in his first chapter: “And John ...did eat locusts and wild honey.” [Mark 1:6]

While Matthew states that: “John came neither eating nor drinking.” [Matt. 11:18-19]

Contradiction Nos. 73-75

A comparison between the texts of Mark chapter one, Matthew chapter four and John chapter one, reveals inconsistencies regarding the circumstances in which the disciples embraced the new faith. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark write:

“And Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew, his brother, casting a net into the sea... and he saith unto them, Follow me ... And they followed him ... He saw other two brethren James, the son of Zebedee and John his Brother, mending their nets ... he called them ... and they followed him.” [Matt. 4:18-22]

But the text of John is different from the above text in three ways. Firstly John does not mention the name of James. Secondly it describes that Jesus saw them with the exception of John on the banks of the Jordan (not Galilee). Thirdly John does not speak of their nets. The contents of John’s text inform us that Jesus met John and Andrew on the banks of the Jordan then Peter was sent by Andrew. And on the next day came Philip and Nathanael. James is not mentioned. [John 1:42-51]