Hut the proposed theory labours under further difficulties. As Plummer well says io}). cit. p. in;l) : 'It would have been quite out of harmony with either Jewish or Gentile ideas to derive the birthright of Jesus from his mother. In the eye of the law- Jesus was the heir of Joseph : and therefore it is Joseph's descent which is of importance.' This doubtless accounts for its general rejection by ancient writers. As early as Justin Wart} r and Protecartg. Jacubi. Mary, for obvious reasons, is represented as also descended from David ; but with two ex- ceptions no attempt is made to claim for her either of the Sedigrees. Protev. Jac, in fact, makes her the daughter of oac-uim and Anna. IreniEus (ni. xxi. 6, 9) regards the pedi- gree of Mt as a line expressly excluded from the Messianic •urce8sionCJer223«0 3630;)l); but this is Joseph's. Jesusisthe Son of David only through Mary, whose pedigree is given by Luke. Vict«rinu3 (c. 8U0) curiously inverts this tlieory by adopting as Mary's the genealogy of" Mt. I Cod. D boldly cuts the knot by substituting in Lk 3".m-31 the line of Mt, following, however, a text seemingly older than our Mt (see Resch, T u. U. X. 6, pp. 182-201 ; and Graefe in i'A', 1K9S, 1).
Confessed violence to the text which he assumes to vindicate is the suicide of the harmonist. Hence the only treatment wliich to-day can come into consideration is the critical.
iii. TiiKATMKNT BY MODERN CRITICISM. — Re- conciliation of discrepant sources by sujipositions within the limits of loyalty to the text and to historical probability is, per contra, tlie first duty of rational criticism. It being admitted, therefore, that both genealogies are given as Josepli's, and that exjjlauation liy resort to tlie levirate law is impracticable, the tlieory iire.senled by Lord A. C. Hervey [Gcncnhgies of our Lord, and art. ' Geneal. of Jesus Christ ' in Smith's Dli-) has much in its favour, and is, in fact, the prevailing view among Knglisli divines. It is also widely accepted in modified form amimg German coinmcniators. According to this view it was not the intention of both evangelists to give an actual pedigree, but
• Italics in the citation arc Dr. Holmes'.
t So l'lun.iner, Cutn. on Lk., Intern. Series, 1896, ad loe.
i See his Commentary on Rev 47-10.
only of Lk (Meyer, Holtzraann, et al., would sa3 'the source followed by Lk in his opening chs.'). Mt (better, 'the .source from whicl our e.-jgelist derived his genealogy') does not trace the order of actual descent, but only of throne-simession (so already Grotius). Thus Solomon, although not the true ancestor of Joseph, is mentioned Urst as heir of the throne of David ; then Shealtiel for the same reason, thoui'h he was not actually son of Jechoniah, but of ±seri (Lk 3-'') ; then Eliukim, and finally Jacob, though neither was a real ancestor of Joseph. By thus throwing all the burden of inaccuracy upon .Mt we may rescue at least the possibility of accuracy for Lk.
In favour of this view it must be allowed that Mt's genealogy is extremely defective, since it omits the names Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah betweea Joram and L'zziah, and gives but six generations as against thirteen in Lk between 'A/3ioi;c {='lot>5a [Lk] ="Tnin [1 Ch 9"]) and Matthan ( = Malthat [Lk]). Barely are the names thus made to cover a period of more than 500 jears. It is also manifest that its author simply follows in an uncritical manner the royal succession of the OT from Uavid down to the last poor shadow of a Davidic king, ' Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel ' (1 Ch 3'", Ezr 2» etc., Neh 7' etc.. Hag li-'^-" etc., Zee 4"- '• "• '"). But it cannot be allowed that our evangelist by iiis iy4i'f7)(xei/ means anything else than actual physical descent. Of what significance his edifying com- ment on Bathsheba as the mother of Solomon, if the reader is not to infer that she is thus an ancestress of the Messiah ; That he has embodied in his Gospel a current throne-succession not of his own manufacture is not only u prioi-i jirobable, but is evident from the apparent blimder in vv."- '*, by which the ' te.sseradccad ' from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ contains not, as stated, ' fourteen generations,' but tliirteen. It is, indeed, easy to cite examples from contemporary literature for the counting of a name twice to make out the hebdomad or decad into which gene- alogies were usually divided (see Mill, "/). cit., quoted by Hervey, op. cit. p. 8Sti) ; but in this case more than enough ot names were available in 1 Ch 3""'* to make the count corresuond to that of the first two sections of the table. It is probable, therefore, as was already jiointed out by .lerome, that we have here an instance, on the jiart of the evangelist, of the confusion common in bolli Gr. and Lat. writers (Clem. Al., Ambrose, Alricanus, Epiphanius, also lEsl^-") between Jcboiakim and Jehoiachin ; for Jehoiachin had no ' brethren' (Mt 1"), but Jehoiakim had three, two of whom did succeed to the throne (Jer 22"). The few texts, however, which insert the clause' I exo>''<'! ^t i'livvT^ui T&v lexoi'ia-i', are certainly corrupt, since the read- ing is later than Porphyry, who had derided this Haw in the genealogy. We must therefore ilis- tinguish between the evangelist, who finds edify- ing significance in the common genealogical device of double heptads (cf. the genealogies of tin -i-l 1 and Budde, Bibl. Urgeschichtc, p. "JO), or in the naniea of Kahab and Bathsheba (so Kabbinic authorities cited by Wetstein, i» luc; cf. He 11 ', Ja'J-'i, ami his unknown authority. The former certainly supposed himself to be giving an actual and com- plete pedigree of Joseph (see v." itaaai), not a mere throne-succession ; whether the latter so believed, or not, must be left in douht. The list of ten names which he inserts between Joseph and Ziiiib. , beginning with the last generation mentioned by Ch in much altered form, may represent a current throne-succession, carrying down the line from Zerub. towards the ^laccab. period,* taken up without more ado as ipso Jacto belonging tu