|
Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of
Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with
one another. Since as a consequence every believer, in ignorance of
the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation which shall
harmonize the two passages, permit us to subjoin the account of the
matter which has come down to us, and which is given by Africanus,
who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to Aristides,
where he discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies. After
refuting the opinions of others as forced and deceptive, he give the
account which he had received from tradition in these words:
"For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in Israel
either according to nature or according to law;-according to nature by
the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever
another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless; for
because a clear hope of resurrection was not yet given they had a
representation of the future promise by a kind of mortal resurrection,
in order that the name of the one deceased might be perpetuated;
whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table
succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others,
though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention
was made of both of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who
were so only in name.
Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature,
the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from
Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of
children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same
persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another
time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at
another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are
strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy
indeed, yet quite accurately.
But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain
the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from
David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be
Matthan, who begat Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with
Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner
the third from the end is Melchi, whose son Eli was the father of
Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Eli,the son of Melchi.
Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how
it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived
his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan;
first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and
then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of
different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.
Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begat
children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a
widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from
marrying another.
By Estha then (for this was the woman's name according to
tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob.
And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to
Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, married her as
before said, and begat a son Eli.
Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to
different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the
one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the
latter's wife and begat by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature
and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: `Jacob
begat Joseph.' But according to law he was the son of Eli, for
Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.
Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void,
which the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: `Jacob
begat Joseph.' But Luke, on the other hand, says: `Who was the
son, as was supposed' (for this he also adds), `of Joseph, the
son of Eli, the son of Melchi'; for he could not more clearly
express the generation according to law. And the expression `he
begat' he has omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing
the genealogy back to Adam the son of God. This interpretation is
neither incapable of proof nor is it an idle conjecture.
For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with
the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either
case truly, have banded down the following account: Some Idumean
robbers, having attacked Ascalon, a city of Palestine, carried away
from a temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to
other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple slave named Herod.
And since the priest was not able to pay the ransom for his son,
Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and
afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews.
And having, been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and
having restored to him the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother
Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be named procurator of
Palestine. But Antipater having been slain by those who were envious
of his great good fortune was succeeded by his son Herod, who was
afterward, by a decree of the senate, made King of the Jews under
Antony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other tetrarchs.
These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks.
But as there had been kept in the archives up to that time the
genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage
back to proselytes, such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the
Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came
out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the
Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was
goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all
the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin
if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his
lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them,
who were called Georae.
A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of
their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some
other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory
of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned,
called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of
the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea,
into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from
memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully aspossible.
Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer
explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid
person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no
testimony in its support, we have nothing. better or truer to offer.
In any case the Gospel states the truth." And at the end of the
same epistle he adds these words: "Matthan, who was descended from
Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who
was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and
Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob
raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but
by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both."
Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced,
Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since,
according to the law of Moses, inter-marriages between different
tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same
family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to
tribe. This may suffice here.
|
|