Genealogy of Jesus Christ

Genealogy of Jesus Christ. The New Testament gives us the genealogy of but one person, that of our Saviour. This is given because it was important to prove that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies spoken of him. Only as the son and heir of David should he be the Messiah. The following propositions will explain the true construction of these genealogies: --

1. They are both the genealogies of Joseph, that is, of Jesus Christ as the reputed and legal son of Joseph and Mary.

2. The genealogy of St. Matthew is Joseph’s genealogy as legal successor to the throne of David. St. Luke’s is Joseph’s private Genealogy, exhibiting his real birth as David’s son, and thus, showing why he was heir to Solomon’s crown. The simple principle that one evangelist exhibits that genealogy which contained the successive heir to David’s and Solomon’s throne, while the other exhibits the paternal stem of him who was the heir, explains all the anomalies of the two pedigrees, their agreements as well as their discrepancies, and the circumstance of there being two at all.

3. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was in all probability the daughter of Jacob, and first cousin to Joseph, her husband. Thus: Matthan or Matthat, Father of Jacob, Heli Jacob, Father of Mary = Jacob’s heir was (Joseph), Heli, Father of Joseph, Jesus, called Christ.

(Godet, Lange and many others take the ground that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, rendering Luk 3:23 thus: Jesus "being (as was suppposed), the son of Joseph, (but, in reality), the son of Heli." In this case, Mary, as declared in the Targums, was the daughter of Heli, and Heli was the grandfather of Jesus.

Mary’s name was omitted because "ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link." So we often find in the Old Testament, the grandson called the son. This view has this greatly in its favor, that it shows that Jesus was not merely the legal but the actual descendant of David; and it would be very strange that in the gospel accounts, where so much is made of Jesus being the son and heir of David and of his kingdom his real descent from David should not be given. -- Editor).

Needed, to show that redemption was no afterthought, but designed from the first. Abraham and David in Matthew’s Gospel are singled out to prove the fulfillment in Christ of the promises made to Abraham 2,000 years previously, and to David 1,000. The Old Testament begins with "Genesis" ("generation"); so also the New Testament begins with the genesis ("generation," Mat 1:1) of Jesus Christ. Matthew’s Gospel contains, not Joseph’s direct ancestors, but the succession of heirs to David’s and Solomon’s throne. The tracing of Christ’s descent through Judah’s royal line harmonizes with the kingly aspect of Jesus Christ in Matthew’s Gospel. The steps of Joseph’s direct parentage did not coincide with those of the succession to the throne. Solomon’s line failed, and Nathan’s and Neri’s succeeded as legal heirs.

Hence the need of two genealogies, one (Matthew) of the succession, the other (Luke) of the parentage. Jeremiah (Jer 22:30) declares Jeconiah, Coniah, or Jehoiachin was to be childless. He cannot therefore have been lineal progenitor of Jesus Christ. It is at this point in the genealogy, i.e. after Jehoiachin, the same names occur in both lists, Salathiel and Zerubbabel taken (in Matthew) from the line of Nathan (Luke) to supply the failure of Jehoiachin’s issue. The promise was, Messiah was to be "of the fruit of the loins of David" (Act 2:30), but to Solomon only that "his throne should be established evermore" (1Ch 17:14). So a double genealogy of Jair is given, one of the inheritance, the other of birth (1Ch 2:4-5; 1Ch 2:21-22; Num 32:41). Matthew appropriately, as writing for Jews, gives Christ’s legal descent; Luke, for Gentiles, the natural descent.

Matthew downward, from Abraham the father of the Jews (naturally, but of the Gentiles also spiritually: Gen 17:5; Rom 4:16-17); Luke upward, to Adam, "who was the son of God" and the father of Gentiles and Jews alike. The words "as was supposed" (Luk 3:23) imply that Christ’s sonship to Joseph was only a reputed not a real one. Yet He was God’s extraordinary gift to Joseph through his proper wife Mary, and the fruit of his marriage to her, not as natural offspring of his body but as supernatural fruit. Hence attention is drawn to Joseph’s being "son of David" (Mat 1:20), "of the house and lineage of David" (Luk 2:4, compare Luk 1:32). Matthew omits three links of the pedigree. "Joram begat Ozias," i.e. Uzziah. But Joram really begat Ahaziah, Ahaziah Jehoash, Jehoash Uzziah. If the two genealogies contained anything false or mutually contradictory, Christ’s enemies would have convicted them from the public documents.

Clearly men in that day saw nothing irreconcilable in them. From Abraham to David both agree, thenceforward the names differ. Luke has 42 names from David, Matthew only 27 names. The less number in Matthew is intelligible, if he be only tracing the heir’s to the throne; for "the heir of my heir is my heir." So intermediate heirs are omitted without risk of misconception, for spiritual reasons; e.g., Simeon is omitted in Moses’ blessing (Deuteronomy 33) on account of his cruelty, Dan in Revelation 7 for his idolatry. The full number is given in Luke, as naming the natural line. Mary must have been of the same tribe and family as Joseph, according to the law (Num 36:8). Isa 11:1 implies that Messiah was the seed of David by natural as well as legal descent. Probably Matthan of Matthew is the Matthat of Luke, and Jacob and Heli were brothers; and Heli’s son Joseph, and Jacob’s daughter Mary, first cousins. Joseph, as male heir of his uncle Jacob, who had only one child, Mary, would marry her according to the law (Num 36:8).

Thus the genealogy of the inheritance (Matthew’s) and that of natural descent (Luke’s) would be primarily Joseph’s, then Mary’s also. The number 14 has some mystic signification (compare Num 29:13; 1Ki 8:65). It is the double of seven the number for completeness; the periods of 14 in Matthew are the sacred three. The period from Abraham to David is that of patriarchs; from David to the Babylonian captivity that of kings; from the captivity to Christ private individuals. The first and second tessaradecade have an illustrious beginning; the third not so, that its ending in Messiah might stand forth pre-eminent above all that went before.

The first is that of promise, beginning with. Abraham and ending with David, the receivers of the promise; the second adumbrates Christ’s eternal kingdom through the temporary kingdom of David’s line; the third period is that of expectation. On Cainan in Luke’s Gospel, (See CAINAN. The name Jehoiakim seemingly has dropped out, Josiah’s son and Jeconiah’s father; otherwise David would have to be counted twice to make up the second 14. Five females are in Matthew’s Gospel: incestuous Tamar, Rahab the Moabitess and a harlot, Ruth, Uriah’s wife Bathsheba the object of David’s adulterous love, and above all Mary; all extraordinary monuments of God’s grace, that chooses out of the vilest to make vessels unto honor, for the bringing forth of the promised Seed, who was to save sinners of every type and race.

the only one given in the New Testament.

1. Object of this Genealogical Record. — From the foregoing article it is evident that no nation was more careful to frame and preserve its genealogical tables than Israel. Their sacred writings contain genealogies which extend through a period of more than 3500 years, from the creation of Adam to the captivity of Judah. Indeed, we find from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah that the same carefulness in this matter was observed after the captivity; for in Ezr 2:62 it is expressly stated that some who had come up from Babylon had sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but were not found; therefore were they, as polluted, removed from the priesthood. The division of the whole Hebrew nation into tribes, and the allotment to each tribe of a specified portion of the land of Canaan as an inalienable possession, rendered it indispensable that they should keep genealogical tables. God had, however, a still higher object than that of giving stability to property in Israel in leading successive generations of his people thus to keep an accurate list of their ancestry. That they should do this was especially required from the moment that the voice of prophecy declared that the promised Messiah should be of the seed of Abraham, of the posterity of Isaac, of the sons of Jacob, of the tribe of Judah, and of the family of David.

The Rabbins affirm that after the Captivity the Jews were most careful in keeping their pedigrees (Babyl. Gemar. Gloss. fol. 14:2). Since, however, the period of their destruction as a nation by the Romans, all their tables of descent seem to be lost, and now they are utterly unable to trace the pedigree of any one Israelite who might lay claim to be their promised and still expected Messiah. Hence Christians assert, with a force that no reasonable and candid Jew can resist, that Shiloh must have come.

The priesthood of Aaron having ceased, the possession of the land of Canaan being transferred to the Gentiles, there being under the N.T. dispensation no difference between circumcision and uncircumcision, Barbarian and Scythian, bond and free, there is but one whose genealogy it concerns us as Christians to be acquainted with, that of our Lord Jesus Christ. Him the prophets announced as the seed of Abraham, and the son of David, and the angels declared that to him should be given the throne of his father David, that he might reign over the house of Jacob forever. His descent from David and Abraham being therefore an essential part of his Messiahship, it was right that his genealogy should be given as a portion of gospel truth. Considering, further, that to the Jews first he was manifested and preached, and that his descent from David and Abraham was a matter of special interest to them, it seems likely that the proof of his descent would be one especially adapted to convince them; in other words, that it would be drawn from documents which they deemed authentic. Such were the genealogical records preserved at Jerusalem. SEE GENEALOGY. Now when to the above consideration we add the fact that the lineage of Joseph was actually made out from authentic records for the purpose of the civil census ordered by Augustus, it becomes morally certain that the genealogy of Jesus Christ was extracted from the public registers. Another consideration adds yet further conviction. It has often excited surprise that the genealogies of Christ should both seem to be traced through Joseph, and not Mary. But if these genealogies were those contained in the public registers, it could not be otherwise. In them Jesus, the son of Mary, the espoused wife of Joseph, could only appear as Joseph’s son (comp. Joh 1:45). In transferring them to the pages of the gospels, the evangelists only added the qualifying expression "as was supposed" (Luk 3:23, and its equivalent, Mat 1:16).

We find other traces of the existence of the public tables of descent in the New Testament: the taxation spoken of by Luk 2:2-3, would clearly indicate this, for how could each one be able to go to his own city unless he knew the specific tribe to which he belonged? Hence it was, we think, that Paul was able with confidence to appeal to the Hebrews concerning the lineage of Christ, "for it is evident," says he, "that our Lord sprung out of Judah" (Heb 7:14; 2Ti 2:8). To evince this beyond reasonable doubt, it pleased God to give us, by his inspired servants Matthew and Luke, these genealogies.

2. Statement of the Subject. — The following is a tabular view of these records, with which it will be convenient to compare the parallel lists as found in the Hebrew copies of the Old Testament.

3. Solution of Difficulties. — We do not find that there was any objection made to these genealogies, either by Jew or Gentile, during the 1st century. Had any difficulty on this head existed, we may reasonably suppose that the Jews, of all others, would have been but too ready to detect and expose it. We may, therefore, fairly conclude that, whatever difficulty meets us now in harmonizing our Lord’s pedigree as given by the two evangelists, it could have had no place in the first age of the Christian Church. In subsequent ages, however, objections were and still are made to the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.

A preliminary difficulty, which applies, however, equally to the O.T. lists, lies in the small number of names between Judah and David, being only nine for an interval of 833 years, making the incredible average of nearly a century for each generation. Hence arises the presumption that some names have been omitted (see Browne, Ordo Saeclorum, page 283), and at least three — more probably nine — must be supplied, in order to reduce this average to the ordinary age of paternity; three, Judah, Boaz, and Jesse, are known to have been advanced in life at the birth of their youngest sons, and Salmon was considerably so. The synchronism of Nahshon with the Exode, and Boaz with the earlier judges, requires the insertion of these omitted generations in the latter part of the list. SEE RAHAB; SEE RUTH.

On the other hand, the names Menan and Melea, also Mattathias and Maath, seem to be superfluous repetitions of others in the same list.

1. Difficulties that apply to the Evangelists INDIVIDUALLY. —

(1.) It is objected that Jechoniah was not the son of Josiah, but his grandson. Answer: Matthew does not mean to say he was his son; for 2Ti 2:11-12 are obviously intended to designate two different persons, viz. Jehoiakim, and his son Jehoiachin. That the former is the person meant in 2Ti 2:11 is evident from the addition of "his brethren." Whose brethren? Not Jehoiachin’s (or Jechonias), for he had none, but Jehoiakim’s, viz. Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, the former of whom reigned before him (though a younger brother), and the latter after him (1Ch 3:15-17). Admitting this, we see the consistency of the evangelist as to the number of generations in the second and third series; whereas they who make Jechonias (1Ch 3:11-12) to be the same person leave only thirteen in the second series, if Jechonias be added to the third; or in the third, if he be placed to the second. If the objection had any truth, the evangelist would be palpably inconsistent with himself! St. Jerome (in Mattheum, cap. 1) confirms this view: "If Jechonias be included in the first tessarodecade there will not be fourteen generations: we may therefore assume that the first Jechonias meant Joakim and the latter Joachin — the one spelt with the letters k and m, the other with ch and i; which letters, in the course of time, by fault of transcribers, were confounded by Greeks and Latins." Porphyry brought forward this objection against Matthew’s genealogy, and we find the same father, in his Comment. on Daniel, thus replying: "In the Gospel of Matthew one generation seems to be wanting, for the second tessarodecade ends with Joakim, the son of Josiah, and the third begins with Joachin, the son of Joakim. Porphyry, ignorant of this, would exhibit his own skill in proving the falsity of the evangelist Matthew." We may add that some respectable MSS. still exhibit the name of Jehoiakim as well as that of Jechonias. (See Strong’s Greek Harmony of the Gospels, ad loc.) The triple series of fourteen generations will therefore stand thus SEE JEHOIAKIM.    

(2.) It is objected that Matthew omits three kings, viz. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (comp. 1 Chronicles 3, and 2 Kings 8), from his second series. In reference to this objection, it might suffice to say that Matthew, finding fourteen generations from Abraham to David inclusively, contracted, most likely in order to assist memory and give uniformity, the second, and possibly the last series. If we compare Ezr 7:1-5 with 1Ch 6:3-15, it will be seen that Ezra, in detailing, with apparent particularity, his own lineal descent from Aaron, calls Azariah, who was high-priest at the dedication of the first Temple, the son, not of Johbaan his father, but of Meraioth, his ancestor at the distance of six generations. Doubtless the desire of abridgment led him to omit those names with which there were connected no very remarkable associations. Some of the early fathers, however, give a different solution of this difficulty. Hilary (in Mattum, cap. 1) says: "Three generations are designedly passed over by Matthew, for Jaras is said to have begotten Ozias, when, in fact, he was the fourth from him, i.e., Jaras begat Ochazias from the Gentile famemily of Ahab, whose wife was Jezebel." That the omission of the three kings was a punishment inflicted upon the house of guilty Joram to the fourth generation is the view yet were pointedly put forth by St. Jerome also, and by many of our own best commentators. SEE SON.

(3.) Moreover, it is said that Matthew terms Zorobabel the son of Salathiel, whereas in 1Ch 3:19, he is called the son of Pedtiah. How is this? We answer that the Sept. version of 1 Chronicles 3 agrees with Matthew, and that this is the manner in which Zorobabel is designated in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Hiaggai. Josephus also calls him the son of Salathiel. Were he not the immediate son of Salathiel, but of Pedaiah, yet is it suitable to the language of the Jewish nation to count the grandson the son of the grandfather. Thus Laban is called the son of Nahor (Gen 29:5), as being the son of Bethuel, who was, in fact, the son of Nahor (24:47). If, according to another manner of rendering Gen 29:17-18, Salathiel and Pedaiah were brothers, Zorobabel might have been, by the Levirate law, the natural son of the one and the legal son of the other. SEE PEDAIAH.

(4.) It is again asked, if it be, as Matthew states, that Salmon, son of Naason, prince of Israel, had married so remarkable a person as Rahab, how then comes it that such a circumstance is not noticed in the book of Joshua? This objection will have no force if we remember that this book, full as it is in describing the partition of Canaan among the several tribes, is yet very silent concerning the exploits, and even names, of the subordinate leaders of Israel. There is nothing, therefore, surprising in the circumstance that it should pass over in total silence Salmon’s marriage with Rahab. Had the matter in question been the espousal of Rahab by Joshua himself, the presumption against its truth would be very different. Indeed Kimchi, in bhis Commentary on the Book of Joshua, adduces a tradition to this effect, taken from the Babylonian Talmud. Every consideration, moreover, of a chronological character is in favor of the circumstance of the son of Naason, born to him in the wilderness being married to Rahab. SEE RAHAB.

(5.) But a far graver objection than that which is alleged against Matthew for having omitted names is brought against Luke for having inserted that of Cainan as son of Arphaxad — a name neither to be found in the Hebrew nor Samaritan text, nor yet in any of the Targums or versions, save the Sept. We may infer from the fact that neither Philos nor Josephus, who ins other respects followed this version, receive this name as genuine, that it was not found in the earlier copies of the Sept.; it was, no doubt, borrowed from the corrupted Sept. which has come down to us, containing the name in question, but which cannot, with any propriety, be raised to a level of authority with the Heb. text. It is clear, moreover, that Irenaeus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome reject it as an interpolation. (See, on this subject, Whitby’s Preface to the Reader, and Lightfoot’s Harm.; also Usher’s Dissertation on Cainan, and Kidder’s Demonstr. of Messiah.) SEE CAINAN.

2. We are now to compare the evangelists as to the points on which they agree and differ. It does not appear that Celsus attacked the genealogies on the score of any inconsistency with each other. Not so the emparor Julian; he made their discrepancies the specific ground of attack. Jerome (in Matthew 1) — thus writes: "Julianus Augustus in this place attacks the evangelists on the ground of discrepancy: Matthew calls Joseph the son of Jacob, whereas Luke calls him the son of Heli! Had Julian been better acquainted with the modes of speech of the Jews, he would have seen that one evangelist gives the natural and the other the legal pedigree of Joseph."

(1.) The first solution of the apparent discrepancies of the evangelists (one to which this ancient father obviously here alludes) is that of Africanus, which, he informs us (Eusebius Hist. Ecc 1:7), he received from the relatives of our Lord, who, because of their consanguinity to him, were called Δεσπόσυνοι. It is to the effect that Matthan, the third in the list from Joseph in Matthew’s genealogy, sand Melchi, the third in Luke’s list, married successively the same womam, by whom the former begat Jacob, and the latter Heli. Heli dying without issue, bis maternal brother took his widow to wife, by whom he had Joseph, who, according to law (Deu 25:6), was registered by Luke as the son of Heli, though naturally the son of Jacob, as Matthew records him. This is the explanation which was generally admitted by Eusebius, Nazianzen, the writer of Ad orthodoxos, and others, for ages.

(2.) Grotius, however, availing himself of the tradition that Haeli and Jacob were both sons of the same mother, but of different fathers (Matthan and Melchi), supposes that Luke traces the natural pedigree of Christ, and Matthew the legal. This he argues on two grounds: first, that Salathiel could not have been the natural son of Jechonkas, who was childless — according to the declaration of God by Jeremiah (22) — and was, therefore, as Luke states, the son, properly so called, of Neri, of Nathan’s line; and, secondly, that the Levirate law imposed no necessity on Jacob to marry Heli’s widow, they being only uterine brothers. The learned commentator might have been led to this view by St. Ambrose, who, in his Commentary on Luke, says, "Heli, fratre sine liberis decedente, copulatus est fratris uxori et generavit filium Joseph, qui juxta legem Jacobi fillius dicitur." But both the reasons assigned by Grotius for differing from the solution of Africanus would seem to be founded on petitio principio. It does not appear an ascertained fact that Salathiel was not the natural son of Jechonias, nor yet that the law which obliged a man to marry the widow of his deceased brother might be departed from when they were only maternal brethren; for even in cases of distant relationship the law seemed obligatory, as we see in the case of Boaz marrying Ruth, the widow of his distant kinsman. Whitby defends Africanus’s account; Hammond, Le Clerc, and Wetstein agree with Grotius.

(3.) Dr. Barrett, whoa in his preliminary dissertation to a curious facsimile of a most ancient MS. of Matthew’s Gospel (an abridgment of which treatise may be found in Clarke’s Commentary, at the end of Luke 3), brings to bear upon this difficult question a large share of sound learning and correct criticism, objects to the above theory as given by Africanus and altered by Grotius, on the ground principally that it refers entirely to the descent of Joseph from David, without attempting to prove that the son of Mary emas the son of David. Dr. Barrett then states his oaen hypothesis, viz., that Matthew relates the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Marny. He supposes a sufficient reason, that after Matthew had given his genealogical table another should be added by Luke, fully to prove that Christ, according to the flesh, derived his descent from David, not only by his supposed father Joseph, but also by his real mother Mary. The writers who agree is this opinion Dr. B. divides into two classes: first, those who assert that the families of Solomon and Nathan met in Salathiel and Zorobabel, after which they separated, and were again reunited in Joseph and Mary; secondly, those who suppose that Salathiel and Zorobabel were distinct individuals, and deny that any union took place between them previously to the marriage of Joseph and Mary. He rejects this latter opinion because it seems to contradict the divine promise (2Sa 7:12-16), which intimates that Christ should be lineally descended from David through Solomon. He therefore receives the former hypothesis, and supports it by numerous and profound arguments. (See his Preliminary Dissertation to Codex Rescriptus; see also, on both hypotheses, Lightfoot’s Harmony Ev.; South’s Sermon on Rev 12:16, volume 3; Wetstein, ad Matthaeum, 1:17; Bishop Kidder’s Demonst. of Messiah, part 2 to chapter 13; Hale’s Analysis of Chronology, volume 3).

In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Num 26:33; Num 27:4-7). On this principle Joseph, begotten by Jacob, marries Mary, the daughter of Hell, and in the genealogical register of his wife’s family is counted for Heli’s son. Salathiel, begotten by Jeconiah, marries the daughter of Neri, and, in like manner, is accounted his son in Zorobabel, the offspring of Salathiel and Neri’s daughter, the lines of Solomon and Nathan coalesce; Joseph and Mary are of the same tribe and family; they are both descendants of David in the line of Solomon; they have in them both the blood of Nathan, David’s son. Joseph deduces his descent from Abiud (Mat 1:13), Mary from Rhesa (Luk 3:27), sons of Zorobabel. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke are parts of one perfect whole, and each of them is essential to the explanation of the other. By Matthew’s table we prove the descent of Mary, as well as Joseph, from Solomon; by Luke’s we see the descent of Joseph, as well as Mary, from Nathan. But still it is asked how know we that Mary was the daughter of Neri?

[1.] Because the angel Gabriel, at the Annunciation, told the Virgin that God would give her divine son the throne of his father David (Luk 1:32), and thus it was necessary to prove this by her genealogy afterwards.

[2.] Mary is called by the Jews בת עלי, "the daughter of Hell," and by the early Christian writers "the daughter of Joakim and Anna" (Lightfoot, on Luk 3:23). But Joakim and Eliakim (as different names in Hebrew for God) are sometimes interchanged (2Ch 36:4): Eli or Hell, then, is the abridgment of Eliakim.

[3.] The evangelist Luke has critically distinguished the real from the legal genealogy by a parenthetical remark: Ι᾿ησοῦς ὤν (ώς ἐνομίζετο) υἱὸς Ι᾿ωσήφ, τοῦ ῾Ηλί, "Jesus being (as was reputed) the son of Joseph (but in reality), the son of Hell," or his grandson by the mother’s side, for so the ellipsis should be supplied. Moreover, on comparing the two tables, we find that from Abraham to David they agree with each other because they are in accordance with the genealogies of Genesis, Ruth, and 1 Chronicles 3; but from David to Joseph they are evidently distinct lines of pedigree, agreeing only in two persons, viz. Salathiel and Zorobabel.

Again, it is objected that there are now in Luke’s genealogy seventy-seven names; whereas Irenaeus, Africanus, and other early fathers, acknowledge but seventy-two. But if we omit the names Maath, Mattathias, Melea, Mfainan, and Cainan, as being interpolations, then the number will be reduced to seventy-two.

It is said that Abiud and Rhesa are called by the evangelists the sons of Zorobabel, though in 1Ch 3:19 we have no mention of them among his sons. We remark that it was a custom with the Jews to call the same person by different names, and that this custom was peculiarly prevalent about the time of the captivity (Dan 1:6-7; also comp. 2Sa 3:3 with 1Ch 3:1).

Lastly, it is inquired whence the evangelists had their genealogies from Zorobabel to Christ, there being nothing of them to be found in Scripture. We answer, from those authentic public tables kept by the Jews, of which, as before noticed, Josephus speaks; and regarding which also Eusebius (Hist. Ecc 1:1) says, "Omnes Hebraeorum generationes descriptae in archivis Templi secretioribus habebantur." It was doubtless from this source that they had the above-named parts of our Lord’s legal and natural pedigree; for, otherwise, they would have exposed themselves to the cavils of the Jews; nor could the apostles have appealed, as they did, with confidence, to Christ’s pedigree, as answering all the requirements of prophecy. — Kitto, s.v.; Smith, s.v.

(4.) Rejecting all the above identifications and Levirate marriages, Lord Hervey (Genealogies of our Lord, Cambr. 1853) contends that both evangelists give the genealogy of Joseph, Matthew’s being the legal or royal line, and Luke’s the private. He supposes that Mary was the daughter of Jacob, and thus the first cousin of Joseph. The discrepancies in the latter names of the two lists he attempts to reconcile by supposing "Rhgsa" to be merely a title (Chald. for prince) of Zorobabel, so that "Joanna" of Luke will be the " Hananiah" of 1 Chronicles, but omitted by Matthew; then identifying Matthew’s "Abiud" with Luke’s "Juda," and both with thee "Hodaiah" of 1 Chronicles; also Matthew’s "Matthan" with Luke’s "Matthat.;" and finally cutting off all the remaining names in 1 Chronicles, and supposing a number of genarations to have been omitted in the following names of Matthew; so that the lists will, in this part, stand thus:

The violent character of these suppositions is sufficiently obvious. (See each name in its place.)

(5.) Others, like Alford (Commeanlt. ad loc.), content themselves with saying that solution is impossible without further knowledge than we possess. But this is a view in which, with the actual documents before us, few will be disposed to acquiesce.

See, in addition to the works already referred to, Mill, Vindication of the Genealogies (Cambridge, 1842); Beeston, Geneal. of Matt. and Luke (3d 6d. Lond. 1842); Jour. Sac. Lit. July, 1856; Meth. Quart. Rev. October 1852, page 593 sq.; Schleyer, in the Theolog. Quartelschr. 1836. Older treatises may be seen in Darlimg’s Cyclop. Bibliograph. 2, col. 771 sq., 1854; Volbeding, Index, page 7; Hase, Leben Jesu, page 51. SEE LINEAGE.

GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST

1. The two genealogies.—Both the First and Third Evangelists (here for brevity referred to as Mt. and Lk.) give our Lord’s ancestry, but they differ from one another very largely. Lk. traces back the genealogy to Adam, Mt. to Abraham only. Both lists agree from Abraham to David, except that Aram or Ram in Mat 1:3 = Arm in Luk 3:33 (best text); but between David and Joseph the lists have only Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, and possibly two other names (see below), in common.

(a) The Matthæan list from Perez to David is taken almost verbatim from Rth 4:18-22 LXX [Note: Septuagint.] (inserting Rahab and Ruth, and calling David ‘the king’), and agrees with 1Ch 2:1-16; it then gives the names of the kings to Jechoniah, from 1Ch 3:10-15, but inserts ‘the [wife] of Uriah’ and omits kings Abaziah, Joash, and Amaziah between Joram and Uzziah (= Azariah), and also Jehoiakim son of Josiah and father of Jechoniah (Coniah, Jer 22:24) or Jehoiachin (2Ch 36:8). This last omission may be merely a mistake, for the list is made up of three artificial divisions of fourteen generations each, and Jechoniah appears both at the end of the second and at the beginning of the third division, being counted twice. Perhaps, then, originally Jehoiakim ended the second division, and Jehoiachin began the third, and they became confused owing to the similarity of spelling and were written alike (as in 1Ch 3:15, Jer 52:31 LXX [Note: Septuagint.] ); then the synonym Jechoniah was substituted for both. In the third division the names Shealtiel, Zerubbabel (both in Lk. also) are from Ezr 3:2, 1Ch 3:17; 1Ch 3:19 but we notice that in Mt. and Ezra Zerubbabel is called son of Shealtiel, whereas in 1 Ch (except in some MSS of the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] ) he is his nephew. Both in Mt. and 1 Ch. Shealtiel is called son of Jechoniah. Between Zerubbabel and Joseph the names are perhaps from some traditional list of the heirs of the kings, but some names here also have been omitted, for in Mt. ten generations are spread over nearly 500 years, while Lk. gives nineteen generations for the same period. The Mt. genealogy ends with Matthan, Jacob, Joseph.

(b) The Lukan list, which inverts the order, beginning at Jesus and ending at Adam, takes the line from Adam to Abraham, from Gen 5:1-32; Gen 10:21-25 (to Peleg), 1Ch 1:1-27, but inserts Cainan between Arphaxad and Shelah, as does the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] in Gn. and 1 Ch.; it practically agrees with Mt. (see above) from Abraham to David, but then gives the line to Shealtiel through David’s son Nathan, making Shealtiel the son of Neri, not of king Jechoniah (see 2 below). The names between Nathan and Shealtiel are not derived from the OT, and those between Zerubbabel and Joseph are otherwise unknown to us, unless, as Plummer supposes (ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] , ‘St. Luke,’ p. 104,) Joanan (Luk 3:27 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ) = Hananiah son of Zerubbabel (1Ch 3:19)—the name Rhesa being really a title (‘Zerubbabel Rhesa’ = ‘Z. the prince’), misunderstood by some copyist before Lk.—and Joda (Luk 3:26 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ) = Abind (Mat 1:18) = Hodaviab (1Ch 3:24 RV [Note: Revised Version.] , a descendant of Zerubbabel, not son of Hananiah). Some think that Matthat (Luk 3:24) = Matthan (Mat 1:15).

2. Reason of the differences.—It is not enough merely to say that theories which endeavour to harmonize the four Gospels are failures, and that, as is shown in art. Gospels, 2 (b), Mt. and Lk. wrote each without knowing the work of the other. We have to consider why two independent writers, both professing to give our Lord’s genealogy, produced such different lists. Jewish genealogies were frequently artificial; that of Mt. is obviously so; for example, its omissions were apparently made only so as to produce an equality between the three divisions. Burkitt (Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, ii. 260f.) and Allen (ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] , ‘St. Matthew,’ p. 2 ff.) think that Mt. compiled his genealogy for the purpose of his Gospel. The details about Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, not to be expected in a genealogy, but suitable for that purpose (see below), and the artificial divisions, seem to point to this view. The object of the Mt. genealogy would be to refute an early Jewish slander that Jesus was born out of wedlock—a slander certainly known to Celsus in the 2nd cent. (Origen, c. Cels. i. 28 etc.). In this connexion Burkitt (l.c.) shows that Mat 1:2 are by the same hand as the rest of the Gospel (see also Hawkins, Horæ Synopticæ, p. 4ff.). This view may, however, perhaps be modified a little by the hypothesis that the Mt. list is due to a Christian predecessor of the First Evangelist, perhaps to one of his sources; this modification would allow for the corruption of Jeboiakim and Jeboiachin (above, 1).

In any case, in spite of the argument to the contrary by Bacon in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] ii. 139, we must probably agree with Westcott (NT in Greek², ii. 141), Barnard (Hastings’ DCG [Note: CG Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.] i. 638), Allen, and Burkitt, that the word ‘begat’ in this list expresses legal heirship and not physical descent. The same is true in some cases in 1 Chronicles. Mt. clearly believed in the Virgin Birth, and puts the genealogy immediately before the assertion of it; if physical descent is intended, the genealogy through Joseph is unmeaning. He wishes to prove that Jesus is legally descended from David, and therefore gives the ‘throne succession,’ the list of regal heirs. On the other hand, it may be supposed that Lk. states Jesus’ heirship by giving Joseph’s actual physical descent according to some genealogy preserved in the family. According to this view, Joseph was really the son of Heli (Luk 3:23) but the legal heir of Jacob (Mat 1:16). It is not difficult to understand why Shealtiel and Zerubbabel appear in both lists. Jechoniah was childless, or at least his heirs died out (Jer 22:24; Jer 22:30), and Shealtiel, though called his ‘son’ in 1Ch 3:17, was probably only his legal heir, being son of Neri (Luk 3:27). This theory is elaborated by Lord A. Hervey, Bishop of Bath and Wells (The Genealogies of our Lord, 1853, and in Smith’s DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] ²).

The reason of the insertion of the names of the four women in the Mt. list is not quite obvious. It has been suggested that the object was to show that God accepts penitents and strangers. Burkitt, with more probability, supposes that the mention of the heirs being born out of the direct line or irregularly is intended to prepare us for the still greater irregularity at the last stage, for the Virgin Birth of Jesus (l.c. p. 260). We note that in the OT Rahab is not said to have been the wife of Salmon as in Mat 1:5.

3. Other solutions.—(a) Africanus, perhaps the earliest writer to discuss Biblical questions in a critical manner (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 220), treats of these genealogies in his Letter to Aristides (Euseb. HE i. 7, vi. 31). He harmonizes them (expressly, however, not as a matter of tradition) on the theory of levirate marriages, supposing that two half-brothers, sons of different fathers, married the same woman, and that the issue of the second marriage was therefore legally accounted to the elder, but physically to the younger brother. It is a difficulty that two, or even three, such marriages must be supposed in the list; and this theory is almost universally rejected by moderns. Africanus bad no doubt that both genealogies were Joseph’s.

Africanus says that Herod the Great destroyed all the Jewish genealogies kept in the archives, so as to hide his own ignoble descent, but that not a few had private records of their own (Euseb. HE i. 7). Here clearly Africanus exaggerates. Josephus says that his own genealogy was given in the public records, and that the priests’ pedigrees, even among Jews of the Dispersion, were carefully preserved (Life, 1, c. Ap. i. 7). There is no reason why LK. should not have found a genealogy in Joseph’s family. Africanus says that our Lord’s relatives, called desposyni, prided themselves on preserving the memory of their noble descent.

(b) A more modern theory, expounded by Weiss, but first by Annius of Viterbo (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 1490), is that Mt. gives Joseph’s pedigree, Lk. Mary’s. It is necessary on this theory to render Luk 3:23 thus: ‘being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph [but really the grandson] of Heli.’ This translations rightly pronounced by Plummer to be incredible (l.c. p. 103); and a birthright derived through the mother would be ‘quite out of harmony with either Jewish ideas or Gentile ideas.’ The important thing was to state Jesus’ birthright, and the only possible way to do this would be through Joseph.

It must, however, be added that Joseph and Mary were probably near relations. We cannot, indeed, say with Eusebius (HE i. 7) that they must have been of the same tribe, because ‘intermarriages between different tribes were not permitted.’ He is evidently referring to Num 36:6 f., but this relates only to heiresses, who, if they married out of their tribe, would forfeit their inheritance. Mary and Elisabeth were kinswomen, though the latter was descended from Aaron (Luk 1:5; Luk 1:36). But it was undoubtedly the belief of the early Christians that Jesus was descended, according to the flesh, from David, and was of the tribe of Judah (Act 2:30; Act 13:23, Rom 1:3, 2Ti 2:8, Heb 7:14, Rev 5:5; Rev 22:16; cf. Mar 10:47; Mar 11:10). At the same time it is noteworthy that our Lord did not base His claims on His Davidic descent. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, an apocryphal work written in its present form c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 120, we find (Sym. 7, Gad, 8) the idea that the Lord should ‘raise (one) from Levi as priest and from Judah as king. God and man,—an Inference, as Sanday-Headlam remark (ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] , ‘Romans,’ p. 7), from Luk 1:36.

4. The Matthæan text.—In Mat 1:16 the reading of almost all Greek MSS, attested by Tertullian, is that of EV [Note: English Version.] , ‘Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus,’ etc. The lately discovered Sinaitic-Syriac palimpsest has ‘Jacob begat Joseph: Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus.’ This reading is carefully discussed by Prof. Burkitt (l.c. p. 262 ff.), who thinks that it is not original, but derived from a variant of the ordinary text: ‘Jacob begat Joseph, to whom being betrothed the Virgin Mary bare [lit. begat, as often] Jesus’ [this is questioned by Allen, l.c. p. 8]. On the other hand, it has been suggested that the Sinaitic palimpsest has the original reading of a source of our Mt. which did not believe in the Virgin Birth. If so, it is strange that the First Evangelist should place it in such close juxtaposition to his assertion of that belief. In view, however, of what has been said above, that the word ‘begat’ in Mt. implies only legal heirship, the question has no real doctrinal significance. On purely literary grounds, Prof. Burkitt seems to the present writer to have established his point.

A. J. Maclean.