Before examining resolutions, there are a few more subtle differences that can impact the end conclusion. First is the consideration of Matthew and Luke’s individual use of the Old Testament history. Both Matthew and Luke refer to and take a large part of their information from the Old Testament writings. Matthew relies heavily on the Genesis and Chronicles account as it is preserved today to trace Abraham to David. Past David, both Kings and Chronicles agree on the kings of Judah and their succession. One might be surprised, then, to see that Matthew cuts out several figures along the way. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, the three kings following Joram, are all cut from Matthew’s list. In addition to names cut out are unexpected names added. Matthew lists four women in his genealogy, three of whom were certainly not Jewish. Two of the women, Bathsheba and Tamar are listed in OT genealogies. Other women are mentioned in 1 Chronicles in order to differentiate kinsman. Matthew’s mention of Bath-sheba and Tamar was likely to preserve the same reading as in the OT. His use of Rahab and Ruth are quite unexpected. Rahab is well known but her role after Jericho is never identified in the OT. Ruth is famous, and is clearly the ancestor of David as described at the end of her book. The use of these women has been debated, but none question their value to Matthew’s purpose. Matthew, by using Rahab in this way, shows that he had another source outside of the known OT text, though exactly what it is, we can only guess.

Luke also claims many sources at the beginning of his document. He, rather than overtly skipping names, adds two, of whom we know nothing else. It would appear that the most likely option for these variations regards the LXX. The names Luke adds can be found in the Greek manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible but not in the Masoretic texts we are used to reading from today. Does this affect our view of the veracity of the Old Testament Scriptures? In short, as stated in another article, the inclusion or exclusion of names in a genealogy by itself does not determine its credibility. Luke decided to include two names, and Matthew decided to drop many more. Neither made claims to complete lists, and neither did the Old Testament (Masoretic) writings. If the Greek chooses to include names based from contemporary lists, then it has the literary prerogative to do so. Its historicity is not in question, rather its legitimacy as a one to one translation, which is a separate issue.

In addition to Luke’s and Matthew’s different sources, their intentions become important. It must be stated that when comparing Mathew and Luke to each other, they cannot be judged solely by each other, but primarily to themselves. Each document was written to a different audience for a different primary goal. These goals are reflected in their genealogy’s content. Matthew focuses on the kingship of Jesus and his role as the son of David. As such, he uses the figure of 14 generations to show David as the centerpiece by repeating his name as both the last of the first set and the first of the second set. David is labeled as “the King,” which is Matthew’s transition to the second set of names. Because of the focus on kingship, Matthew uses the line of Judah’s kings through Jechoniah and Zerubabbaal on to Joseph. Luke’s purpose, as stated in 1:4, is to present the exact truth of the matter as it was passed down from the beginning. As such, it is not surprising that he uses more names in his genealogy or that he chooses to use an unknown line back to David. Between Matthew and Luke we would expect Matthew to use obscure means to support his point and for Luke to try to be more straightforward and literal in his records. Keep in mind that Matthew’s ‘less literal’ list is not in any way untrue, just utilized more thematically.

The concept of inclusion is key to understanding the resolutions for the two genealogies. For the two genealogies to be contradictory, their factual material must be proven as either false or mutually exclusive. Considering their purpose and literary style allows for different content. As long as this content is not factually false, they present no conflict with each other. The difficulty lies in judging if the content is factually plausible. The answer to resolving these passages is not in comparing them to each other, but examining each within its own context. The possibilities for understanding each account are far and wide and will be considered in following articles. The probability of these options will also be weighed.