THE ATHEIST'S COMPLAINT:
The genealogy in Matthew 1:1-16 only relates to Joseph who had nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 again only mentions Joseph and therefore physical Davidic descent must be shown through Mary – Jesus’ only contact with humanity if virgin born. However, Luke 1:36 says Mary was related to Elizabeth who was of the Aaronic line (Luke 1:5) and therefore not the Davidic line, so with virgin birth, Davidic descent, a strict prerequisite for messiahship is prevented. In sum, Jesus couldn’t be the Christ.

RESPONSE:
The questioner’s reasoning is flawed on two grounds. Since it is convenient to do so now, the questioner willingly attributes both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies to Joseph without concern of a definite contradiction. At another time, in another discussion, the atheist would be sure to point out that the genealogies are not the same. The answer? Joseph’s is recorded by Matthew, Mary’s by Luke. [See the following for an article on this topic http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20010401.htm.]

The second trouble is that the questioner assumes because Mary and Elizabeth are related, and Elizabeth is identified as a daughter of Aaron, that Mary cannot be of the tribe of Judah. The Greek word suggenes indicates a relation, generally a blood relation. However, this does not destroy the Davidic descent of Jesus. It is entirely possible that Mary’s father was of the tribe of Judah (as the genealogy of Luke 3 shows) and that her mother was of the tribe of Levi. Or perhaps this scenario was the case at some point earlier, perhaps with her grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.. Regardless, she is both a descendant of David (tribe of Judah) and a relative of Elizabeth (tribe of Levi).

There is no contradiction.

This article is a response to Skeptic's Annotated Bible, but original article is no longer listed

---