On the contrary, I feel that I am leaving room for the honest interpretation of the, unreliable, details. I am not claiming to present the complete, detailed, story, just the basic premise, as the broadest possible context within which to interpret the scriptural details.
30,000+ bible based, but doctrinally disagreeing religious organizations make the problem clear. All attempt to establish the purpose of scripture by interpreting single verses, or passages, as if they were written to stand alone as divine statements. Scripture was written as narrative, and narrative leads to a conclusion by telling a story. Verses are simply sound bites which, because of the very nature of narrative, are always quoted outside of context.
If you agree with my very basic statement:
"Jesus came to heal their backsliding by telling them that the kingdom will be resurrected, and he begins recruiting a body of followers to accomplish it.
Leaders of backslidden Judaism, feared that Jesus might make a failed attempt at overthowing Rome(which ruled the covenant land), and in the ensuing war, all the Jews would be killed. These Jewish leaders got Rome to execute Jesus."
then you should agree that the whole story of Jesus must be understood within that context.
So you see why I am not concerned about the details of genealogies or traditions in my attempt to establish the broadest possible context for interpreting the details.