Literature.— Robinson, BRP i. 353, 402 ff. ; Stanley, SP 239, 571 ; Barclay, Citii uf the Great Kinn, 89, 90 : Wilson, Re- cooery of JeriiaaU-nu ti, 19, 3(17, LamU of ttu: DibU', i. 403ff. ;
and Aiti: ■ :irtt.
'GehenlKi' .ui.l ll .:, .. i \ ... , :, _ till;
'Hinnoni (\il^: i'l-' vi /.' ■ /;■'',; ^ .■• • ' ' S7.
Mark, ad Vil' : Riehni, IIWE. Itoseiinuiller, lUhUxh. i:.',„i. ii. loC, 1G4 ; Smith's UB, art. 'Hinnom (Valley of).'
George L. Robinson. GENEALOGIES OF JESUS CHRIST.— 1. There is no evidence that any special stress was laid upon the Davidic descent of Jesus, either by Him- self or in the preaching of the Apostles. It was assumed that He was ' Son of David,' and the title was given to Him as the Messiah ; nor does it appear that His claim was ever seriously con- tested on the ground that His Davidic descent was doubtful. St. Paul in Ro P speaks of Christ as ' born of the seed of David according to the flesh,' and in 2 Ti 2* he names this descent, along witli the Resurrection, as one of the salient points of the gospel he preached : ' Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, of the seed of David, accord- ing to my gospel.' Similarly in his speech at the Pisidian Antiocli, as recorded in Ac 13^, he says : ' Of this man's (/.-'. David's) seed hath God accord- ing to )ii.iiMi<i' linni-ht unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.' M. I'.i r 111 his speech on the Day of Penteni-i , Ar J i ui iitionsGod'spromise to David, 'that ol tlie liuit .if lii> loins he would set one uix)n his throiif,' ;uiil ]i lint- to its fulfilment in Christ; but in uililn—iiiL: Cunielius (1(F) he speaks of Christ ,is • .l.-us m Nazareth' ; and this would seem to imj)ly tliat tlie birtli at Bethlehem, which brought into prominence the claim to Davidic descent, did not form part of his onlinary missionary preaching. The author of the Ejiistle to the Hebrews (7") says : ' It is evident that our Loril hath .-<|)rung out of Judah.' In the Second Gospel Ijlind Bartinueus (Mk 10^"-, cf. parallels) uses the title ' Son of David ' in addressing Christ, and the crowds at the Triumphal Entry irito Jeru- salem (1P», cf. Mt -Jl^ ' Husanna to the Son of David') speak of the ' kiiigdniii that cometli' .as the ' kingdom of our fatlicr David ' -. but in a ilittionlt passage (12^-^, cf. parallels) Jer-ii- .11111, - 1,, i.iise difficulties as to the appropriatcm -- .1 1 h. . uriiiit application of tlie title to the Mi - -.ih . Unit/- mann, Hdcom." ad loc). In tlic .\i.uial\ ]>>i- the Davidic de.scent is apparently assumed ( Rev i-J'") as wellastliebirthfromthetribeof Judah(5') ; but the use of the phrase ' the root of David ' in botli p,as- .sages shows that the essential and spiritual )iriority to' David was ninre pmiiiincnt in the writer's iiund than the phvsiial .Irsimt frinii liiiu. The eviilencc to he derived Inmi the I'uurth ( Josi,..! is of a iloiil.l.
of Jewish thought according to which the Messiah ■would appear suddenly and his origin would be secret : the answer of Jesus implies that the people did indeed know His human, but not His spiritual, origin. It is clear from V"- *- that He was re- garded by both the crowd and the rulers at Jeru- salem as being of Galilean, and therefore presum- ably not Davidic, parentage ; it is by no means certain, and to many it may seem in no way prob- able, that tlie writer, in the interest of a ' tragic irony' (see Westcott, Speaker's C'oiiiincntart/ on 7''-), refrained from noting the fact of the birtli at Bethlehem, and the Davidic lineage of Joseph or Mary. Jesus' words in 7^'* show clearly that He did not choose to support His claim by an ajjpeal to fleshly parentage ; while the ■words of Philip (1^ ' We have found him, of ■whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph '), and of the crowd at Capernaum {Q-" ' Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother ■we know ? '), left, as they are, without comment by the Evan- gelist, suggest that he ■was unacquainted with tlie story of the birth at Bethlehem, and laid no stress on the Davidic descent.
In all the books thus far mentioned no intima- tion is given whether the descent of Jesus is traceil through Mary or Joseph : this fact must be recog- nized, however it is explained. In the Catholic Epistles tliere is no reference, direct or indirect, to the tribe or family of the Lord. The First and Third Gospels, which (at all events in their present form) teach the doctrine of the birth from a virgin, also contain formal pedigrees of Joseph, with the evident intention of proving that Jesus was the heir of David. In this lies the most imixirtant problem which the genealogies of Jesus present for solution.
2. The general facts in regard to the divergences of the two pedigi'ees of Joseph are well known. St. Matthew (1'-'"") begins with Abraham, and traces the line in fourteen generations to David ; then through Solomon in fourteen generations to Jechoniah at the time of the carrying away to Baby- lon : then in fourteen (or thirteen according to our present text) generations through Shealtiel antl Zerubbabel to Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, and Jesus. Thus he brings the Messiah into relation with all who, whether in a literal or a spiritual sense, could call Abraham their Father.