Africanus does, however, mention people called ' Desposyni ' on account of their kinship with the Saviour, and applies to them the epithet ' the l>efore-mentioned,' so that in those parts of the letter that are now lost he may have specified more exactly liow far his conjecture rested on evidence traditionally derived from them. After giving a very improbable story about the destruction of the public genealogical records of the Jews by Herod Antipas, he .says that many peo)>le reconstructed their genealogies from memory or private sources, among whom were the Desposyni of Nazareth and Cochaba ; probably, therefore, lie derived from them the information that Josepli's grandmother was called Estha. The main interest of this state- ment is that, in spite of its being somewhat dis-
GENEALOGIES OF JESUS CHRIST
GENERATION
639
ed )ij' its context, it suggests a source from St. I.nkc iniL'lit pnssil)ly have obtained the •(■(' he L:nis; wr iiiny well suppose that he
■.I lii> iiiM-ii^,ii loll-, 'ill Palestine during St.
. HE iii. 19, 20, and d. i. p. 212tr.)sup- lus in reference to 111 is not found in
li.irls tl,.. Mal.ii.M.I ,., Al tiK. Desposyni, tliu„:J, I In. tlie Iragments ot his w i n injs tli:i( an' |iif^crved : lie states that when Uuinii im 's^m- imlris d. kill tliose who were of ]).i\idV i.i.r, riiijin licictii-s gave information again^l t«ii ^mimKchi-- of .liulas the Lord's brother at-ccirdiiiL; to i hr llr-li. a- licing of David's race and akin to Clin i ; lionniiaii, on iinding out that they were ordinary ]iia-aiits, and that the kingdom ll'iey exprcdil wa-- imi o| (his world, released tliem, and issmd an iilicl stopiiing the persecution of the ('Imicli: liny look leading positions in the Churuh, ami li\ri| till the time of Trajan. He also relates that a similar accusation was brought against Symeon son of Clopas, ' the Lord's uncle,' who, in consequence, suflered martyr- dom at the age of one hundred and twenty. It would appear, therefore, that nothing was known of any who claimed kinship with .Jesus after the time of Trajan, so that the statement of Africanus probably rests, at the best, on mere tradition, and it is not wise to Imild much on it. Tlie statement of Africanus alioul (lie destruction of genealogical records liy llnd.l i, most improbable, and tends to discredit his wliolc story ; .Josephus (f. Ajy. i. 7 and Vita, \) speaks of the preservation of the genea- logies of priestly families in public records in the Temple, but there is no certain evidence that those of other families were similarly preserved.
The expedient of supposing levirate marriages and adoptions is not only improbable, but fails to explain why the descent of Jesus is traced through Joseph. Burkitt (I.e.) is probalily quite justified in saying that the compiler of the First Gospel was perfectly aware that the word 'begat' (iyivrqani') was not literally true in the pedigree he gixcs, and that he would Iiave folt no incoMCTuitv be- tween the physiral ivaliiy .it (lir \'ivjiii-l.ir( I'l and the legal dcsn.iil fidm l>a\iil (Ihohl'Ii -IosciiIi. But this reasoning can hardly \«- a|i|.lird to (he Third Gospel ; the \'iigiii-liirtli is certainly not in- sisted on in it in the same way as in the First ; the phrase 'thy father and I' in i^" (cf. 2^"-^') seems almost incomi)atible with the belief, and there is some reason for thinkinLi, on trxtnal L'loiinds, that the original text has in |ila.-.-- Iicin aliri-.,! : ii words 'as was supposed' mi-lii ra-ih lia'c 1.. > : inserted in 3=3, although the varial ions ol ivailin- aflbrd little or no evidence in favour of this suji- position ; above all, there is no reason to suppose that the writer had, or was likely to have, in mind the legal relation to Jesus in which Joseph, as husband of Mary, might be considered to stand. If, therefore, the suggesl ion liisl maile by Annius of Viterbo in the Ifith cent., aid -ince adopted by many eminent theoloi;ians, (bat St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, could be accepted, it would have important results. It is a matter on which argument is hardly possible, the only point being whether any unprejudiced jierson could understand tlie words in 3-' to mean ' lieiiv.;- (as was supposed, son of Josepli, but really) grandson of lleli — Heli being taken, withuut a 'shred of eviileuce, to have been the father of M.ary. A ]..as.sage has, imleed, been quoted from the Talmud (Jerus. Chag. 17b) to prove that Mary was called ' daughter of Eli' ; but this has been shown to be a mistake by G. A. Cooke, Expos., Oct. 1895, pp. 316 ff. In the Prot- evangeliuni Jacobi her parents are called Joachim and Anna. The early Fathers generally assumed that Mary was of the same family as Joseph, and
that her descent was involved in his ; see, for in- stance, Euseb. HE i. 7 nd Jin. and Qu. ad Steph. iii. 2 (Migne, iv. col. 881 f.), where reasons are .sug- gesteil why jiary's genealogy was not given ; this \'iew is based on a mistaken interpretation of Nu 30^ as if all women were commaudcd to marry in their own families, wlnava- lie- le.jniatioii applied only to heires-e-. I'luof oi the I ia\ alic desc-ent of Mary can be ohiained from IheN'i'.mh' li\- assum- ing (he (rut ii of III,, doclvii f the \n'_iii-liirth;