Finally, just as there are different emphases in the genealogies, so too there are different explanations for the dissimilarities between them. Matthew traces his genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces his genealogy through David’s son Nathan. It may be that Matthew’s purpose is to provide the legal lineage from Solomon through Joseph, while Luke’s purpose is to provide the natural lineage from Nathan through Mary.
Mary? The patriarchal old Israelites insisted that Messiah's came from a paternal Davidic line.
Or it
could be that the two different authors didn't talk to each other and produced different
excuses genealogies. Occam's razor m8.
It could also be that Matthew and Luke are both tracing Joseph’s genealogy— Matthew, the legal line, and Luke, the natural line. As such, the legal line diverges from the natural in that Levirate Law stipulated if a man died without an heir his genealogy could legally continue through his brother (Deuteronomy 25:5–6). Obviously, the fact that there are a number of ways to resolve dissimilarities rules out the notion that the genealogies are contradictory.
Yeah, but guys the main problem ain't the brother-it's the mother. I have little doubt that Jacob buys all that virgin birth hooey, problem is-if he does it doesn't matter who Jacob's parents were, that legal line he's talking about is a patrilineal line, through the fathers. If the kid had a mum but not a dad then it doesn't matter who his stepdad was "natural lines" not withstanding.
Let it not be left unsaid that the "number of ways" to resolve the dissimilarities rely on hypotheticals that aren't explicitly there in the text. If you say X. Y and Z you haven't resolved the dissimilarities you've merely hypothesized that they aren't there because of new information you've no evidence for existing.