> If no one minds me putting in my two cents on this, the one interpretation
> of the Jesus genealogies that I always liked was that Matthew was tracing
> the lineage of Jesus back first to king David and then finally to Abraham
> to show that Jesus was the Messiah as predicted in the OT. This is in
> keeping with the theme of Matthew as a message written primarily for the
> Jewish people. Luke, on the other hand, traced the lineage of Jesus back
> to Adam to link him with all mankind. This is in keeping with the theme of
> Luke as a message written for the Gentiles.
>
Yes - that's the point R.T France was making in his commentary. The
question was not so much the intent of the writers, but how they
managed to trace that lineage through two almost completely different
paths (after David, that is). France made the very good point that
since these writers were contemporaries and had access to the same
sources of material, it is inconceivable that one of them 'got it
wrong' - the difference must be intentional. Matthew is stressing
Jesus' stake in the title 'King of the Jews' and follows the royal
lineage rather than the biological descent. And if Eusebius'
explanation which Glenn posted is correct (France doesn't mention
this, though he has introduced Eusebius in other context, so I
would presume he would be acquainted with it) then it is very much
a legal genealogy as well.
Regards,
/Gary