to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, who bore Jesus Christ') represents the Greek from which the Syriac version was made more closely than does the Sinaitic. If, therefore, the compiler followed a pedigree ready to hand, he did so only as far as the step ' Jacob begat Joseph ' ; and textual criticism will not help us to reconstruct the presumed original document beyond tliat point. In the usual text stress is laid on Joseph being tlie husband of Mary, probably to show that, as he recognized his wife's son as in a Icqal sense his own, Jesus was legally the heir of David. In the reading that probably underlies the Ferrar group of MSS ('Jacob begat Joseph, to whom being be- trothed the Virgin Mary begat Jesus that is called Christ '), and also the Old Latin .and Syriac ver- sions, this point is missed, and there is little doubt that the Received Text is right.
Added to vv." and " arc notes which mark im- portant turning-points in the history of the family: with David it att.ained to royal standing, which it lost under Jechoniah at the Captivity. In v.'- the addition of ' and his brethren ' to the name Judah marks the beginning of the tribe, in that .Judah is chosen from among Ids brethren as founder of the royal tribe. The addition of Zerali to Perez in v.^ marks the division of the tribe, and it is interesting to notice that we find an allusion to the bouse of Perez in Ru 4'-; perhaps, tno, tl..' lompiler may have had in mind the stvaii;^.' >i..iy ..t Cn 38-*"'-, around which some Rabbinic l..i.> ......n- have clus- tered. The addition of 'an. I l.i- bivl Ineii ' to the name Jechoniah is more puzzling. Zahn (op. cit. p. 273) thinks it is meant to mark the fact that till then the fortunes of the Davidic house centred in the reigning monarch, whow.as heir of all the pro- mises, but that from that time onward a number of Davidic families existed, any one of which might be destined to receive the inheritance. Thus it would mark the change from the reigning family of the second section ton family of royal .Ii-.i-i.l in
the third section. But it is not cleai' fi tl..' ( il'
that Jechoniah ( = Jehoiachin) hail any lncill.ns, for the text of 1 Ch 3"* seems sus].iri..u^. A. .nnl- ing to 2 Ch 36i° his successor Znlekiali was his brother, according to 2 K 24" his fat In is l.n.lliri. Possibly there has been some ciniliisii.ii w.ih Jehohatim, wlio had three brothers (iiieludiiig a Zedekiah) according to 1 Ch 3'^ ; more probably the compiler has added the note, for the ]iur]iose indicated by Zahn, without regard for strict genea- logical data.
The four notes not yet referred to are of special interest, naming four of the ancestresses of Solo- mon. The selection of these names was evidently made witli a purjiuse ; il srni.s as if the compiler
wished to show that in (In- |.eili-i I (lie greatest
of Jewish kings c.ul.l I.,, fi.ini.l iiiMaii.es of the
breach of laws usually rm.si.liri.l st binding.
Tamar became a mother tliru.ijl. i... .stmius inter- course with her father-in-law ; I,',.l.:il. wns a har- lot ; Ruth was a Moabitess. an. I a.-, .n, ling to the Deuteronomic law (Dt 23^, ef. Neli i:!') no Moabite was ever to enter into the congregation ; Batli- sheba was an adulteress. Some have thought that these references to acknowledged breaches of mo- rality in the pedigree of David's first great son form some kind of answer to the charges of immo- rality brought by the .lews against the Virgin : the argument would be tliat, if they did not reject Solomon in spite of aciknowledged moral blots in his ancestry, they ought not to reject Jesus be- cause of unfounded scandal. But this explanation is obviously unsatisfactory ; there is no real force in such an argument, even supposing it to be worked out and not merely vaguely indicated ; and all must feel that the compiler would have shrunk from drawing a parallel between the
638 GEN^EALOGIES OF JESUS CHEIST " GENEALOGIES OF JESUS CHRIST
Mother of Jesus and notoriously sinful women ; also tlie reference to Kutli remains unexplained, as she was guilty of no immorality. Burkitt (op. cit. vol. ii. p. 260) suggests a ditierent explanation, that these four w-omen are thrust upon our notice ' as if to prep9,re us for still greater irregularity in the last stage.' But again a comparison between the Virgin-birth and incestuous or adulterous in- tercourse can hardly have been possible for the compiler.
The simplest explanation is probably the right one : the God about whom Jesus taught had shown Himself ready, in the history of the royal family, to accept strangers and sinners. In the case of Ruth this is fully satisfactory ; and the conduct of the other three women is represented in Scripture as justified or pardoned. Judah was obliged to say of Taniar, ' She is more righteous than I ' (Gn 38-*) ; the remembrance of Rahab's former life was blotted out by her subsequent faith (Ja 2^, He 11^'); there is no intimation in Scripture that Bathsheba was morally responsible for the sin into which she was forced by a powerful king, and cer- tainly the birth of Solomon is not reiiresented as in any way displeasing to God, but rather the contrary (see 2 S 12^, where Nathan named the child ' Jedidiah ['Beloved of Jab'] for the Lord's sake'; cf. the proijhecy of 7"'-). Probably the thought uppermost in the mind of the compiler would be God's acceptance of these women, and not their sin.