THE ATHEIST'S COMPLAINT:
As the genealogical record of 1 Chronicles 3 indicates, Jeconiah was the son of Josiah, his father being Jehoiakim. Why then does Matthew state that "Josiah begot Jeconiah"?

Clarke's Commentary points the Bible student to the authorities in Griesbach, citing that many manuscripts read:

Translated,
"And JOSIAH begat JOAKIM and JOAKIM begat JECHONIAS."

Such might be so, however, this rendering does not appear in any English translation that I am aware of.

Leaving the consideration of Greek texts alone, some have suggested that Jehoiakim was excluded from mention in the listing of Jesus' ancestors because he was raised to the throne as nothing more than a puppet of Egypt, and thereafter, served as a puppet of Babylon. His "reign" as king of Judah was pitiable.

But aside from determining why Jehoiakim was excluded, the real question is whether or not it can correctly be stated that Josiah begot Jeconiah. The word begot comes from the Greek, genos, which refers to being born, a generation, offspring. Deuteronomy 4:25 says that the people would "...beget children, and children's children..." A man's grandchildren can surely be considered the offspring of his body, they are his children's children.

If genos were exclusive (ie. only referred to the father/son relationship), then the questioner would have a bone to chew here. But, the nature of the word allows the statement, "Josiah begot Jeconiah." there is no contradiction.

This article is a response to Skeptic's Annotated Bible

---