St. Luke (3^"**) makes Joseph the son of Heli, and grandson of Matthat (bj' some identified with- out any proof with Matthan of Mt 1''), and traces his descent through Zerubbabel and Shealtiel to Nathan the son of David ; then (with only slight or textually doubtful divergences from Mt.) back to Abraham ; but, not stopping there, he carries the pedigree back to ' Adam the son of God,' thus
Mil into relation with all
i.ated. A more detailed 1 1 haracteristics of the two le fundamental differences tnieiit that exi.st between 1 extracting whatever may .iltempts that have been
id ti-
I
bringing men whom (Ii examination of genealogies will of conception a them, and preji: V)e of value fn made to hanim 3. St. M.fi/' translated in 1 (j3i/3Xo! 7fWu-< .. , the son of Abial tive rendering
■'I'f. — The heading is I : 1 louk of the generation : I :iiist, the son of David, lu the margin the alterna- cn ' the genealogy of Jesus Clirist.' If, sis seems probable, the latter render- ing is right, this heading will refer only to the pedigree which follows ; tlie phrase /3t'/3\os yevdffeiiJ! is most likely taken from (in 5' (aiTi; i] ^I'/SXot yfv^fffios dvDpJjtrwi' : cf. G'-* aurat S^ at ycvetrei^ NtSf, and lOM, where it introiluces a list of Ad.am's de- sceiidaiits, and tliils praetieallv forms the title uf
GENEALOGIES OF JESUS CHRIST GENEALOGIES OP JESUS CHRIST 637
Elnlclt
unq In d. NT"-,
i(l,..u(
jiil 11
a(..ataiileof .■«l„.l,. book; v.i.rliii- the
Illy 11 fullillc
.f II..' I.irtli, or s III.' title of .■ iiil.iition of as II. .J heir of il the jtromises
itself
is intended to
a genealogical taljle. Zahn {Et
ii. pp. 270 f. and 200) argues will
that the phrase could not 1"
ancestors, and takes it as a ti
he is, however, no doubt r
view that it refers to the nai
of the birtli and infancy. 'J
the pedigi-ee, it indicates oh
the writer — to show that in
David and of Abraham, were
made to them : the pedigree
illustrate this, rather than to prove it, and it is
not easy to avoid the conclusion that it is rpiite
artificial, as is indeed implied by the more or less
arljitrary division into 3 sections containing twice
seven names apiece.
Confining our attention for the moment to the direct male line, we note that in the first section the names are taken from 1 Ch 2'-'\ and that if Salmon was the younger contemporary of Joshua (as is implied by his marriage with Kahab), there are only four generations to cover the 300 or 400 years between that time and David's reign. In the second section the names are from 1 Ch 3'"'", but Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah are omitted be- fore Jotham, and .Jehoiakim before Jechoniah (=Jehoiachin). In the third section only Sheal- tiel and Zerubbabel are mentioned in the OT [the latter in 1 Ch 3'* is called son of Pedaiah, the brother of Shealtiel, but in Hag 1' and numerous other passages, he is called son of Shealtiel, or Shaltiel, but without any intimation that he was of Davidic descent ; it is often assumed that Sheal- tiel adopted his nephew]. We have no hint as to the source from whence the remaining names were drawn. For about 460 years, from David to the Captivity, we have 14 names, and know there should be 18 ; for about 590 years, from the Cap- tivity to Christ, we have, against all reasonable probability, only 13 (perhaps originally 14) names.
We now turn to the notes inserte.l at ditlerent points in the pedigree. A very small point may perhaps guide us to a true conclusion in regard to these. Holtzraann {op. cit. on Mt l") points out that the articles before Aaveid rhv ^aaCKia. in v.'', and be- fore 'Iwff?;^ rhv dvSpa Maplas in v.'^, are incorrect : it seems probable that the compiler of the Gospel had a pedigree before him in which each step was given in the simple form ' Abraham begat Isaac ' {'A^paa/j, iyivvq(rev rbv 'IcraaK), and that he added notes to tills at certain points : in vv.^ and "^ he did not notice that the use of the article became incorrect when the notes were added. This original document may or may not have ended ' Joseph begat Jesus ' ( lu{rr](p 5k i'^ivv-qff^v rhv ^Xriaovv) ; it is perhaps the easiest solution of the difficulties of this verse to snp]iose that, if it did so end, the compiler omitteil the last step, as in conflict with his belief in the Virgin-birth, and added a note to the previous step to explain the relation in which Jesus stood to Joseph. If in Westcott and Hort's edition of the NT the notes be struck out, it will be seen that a perfectly symmetrical pedi- gree of Josejih is left.
Mr. F. C. Burkitt, in a very important note on vv.'""-^ (EvanricUnn dri. - Mcjyharrcshc, Cambridge, 1904, vol. ii. pp. 258-266), argues with great force that the genealogy is an integral part of St. Matthew's Gospel, and that the compiler himself drew it up ; but really his arguments amily only to the notes inserted in the gencaloiry. He discusses fully the reading in v.^", aii.l r..i..lii.lis that we cannot look on the reading i.f ll.. Sii.aitic Syriac ('Jacob begat Joseph ; Jose].li, I" wli.nii was be- trothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, who is called the Christ ') as containing traces of an original text. Znhn -(op. cit. ii. p. 292 f.) thinks that the Curetonian Syriac (' Jacob begat Joseph,