(5.) But a far graver objection than that which is allcgad against Matthew for having omitted names is brought against Luke for having inserted that of Cai- nan as son of Arphaxad — a name neither to be found in the Heljrew nor Samaritan text, nor yet in any of the Targums or versions, save the Sept. We may in- fer from the fact that neither Philo nor Josephus, who in otlier respects followed this version, receive this name as genuine, that it was not found in the earlier copies of the Sept. ; it was, no doubt, borrowed from the corrupted Sept. which has come down to us, con- taining the name in question, but which cannot, with any propriety, be raised to a level of authority with the Ileb. text. It is clear, moreover, that Irena;us, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome reject it as an inter- polation. (See, on this sulyect, Whitby's Preface to the Reader, and Lightfoot's Harm. ; also Usher's Disserta- tion on Cainan, and Kidder's Demonstr. of Messiah.) See Cainan.
2. \\e are now to compare the evangelists as to the points on which they agree and diff r. It does not ap- pear that Celsns attacked the genealogies on the score of any inconsistency with each other. Not so the em- p >ror Julian ; he made their discrepancies the specific ground of attack. Jerome (in Matt, i) thus writes : " Julianus Augustus in this place attacks the evangel- ists on the ground of discrepancy : Slatthew calls Jo- seph the son of Jacob, whereas Luke calls him the son of Holi! Had Julian been better ac({uainted with the modes of speech of the Jews, he would have seen that one evangelist gives the natural and the other the le- gal pedigree of Joseph."
(1.) The first solution of the apparent discrepancies of the evangelists (one to which this ancient father ob- viously here alludes) is that of Africanus, which, he in- forms us (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. i, 7), he received from the relatives of our Lord, who, because of their cimsan- I guinity to him, were called AtdTforyvvoi. It is to the I efiect that Matthan, the third in the list from Joseph I in Matthew's genealogj', and Melchi, the third in Luke's list, married successively the same woman, by j whom the former begat Jacob, and the latter Ileli. Heli dying without issue, his maternal brother took his widow to wife, by whom he had Joseph, who, ac- cording to law (Deut. xxv, 6), was registered hy Luke as the son of Heli, though naturally the son of Jacob, as Matthew records him. This is the explanation which was generally admitted by Eusebius, Nazian- zen, the writer oi Ad orthodoxos, and others, _/b?- ayes. (2.) Grotius, however, availing himself of the tradi- tion that Heli and Jacob were both sons of the same mother, but of different fathers (Matthan and ^lel- chi), supposes that Luke traces the natural pedigree of Christ, and Matthew the legal. This he argues on two grounds : first, that Salathiel coidd not have been the natural son of Jechonias, who was childless — according to the declaration of God b}' Jeremiah (xxii) — and was, therefore, as Luke states, the son, properly so called, of Neri, of Nathan's line ; and, secondly, that the Levi- rate law imposed no necessity on Jacob to marry Heli's widow, they being onh' uterine brothers. The learned commentator might have been led to this view l)y St. Ambrose, who, in his Commentary on Luke, saj-s, " Heli, fratre sine liberis decedente, copulatus est fratris uxo- ri, et generavit filium Joseph, qui juxta legem Jacobi filius dicitur." But both the reasons assigned bj' Gro- tius for differing from the solution of Africanus would seem to be founded on a pHilvj principii. It does not appear an ascertained fact that Salathiel was not the natural son of Jechonias, nor yet that the law which obliged a man to marrj' the widow of his deceased brother might be departed from when they were only maternal brethren ; for even in cases of distant rela- tionship the law seemed obligatory, as we see in the case of Boaz marrying Rutli, the Midow of his distant kinsman. Whitbj- defends Africanus's account ; Ham- mond, Lc Clerc, and Wetstein agree with Grotius.
(3.) Dr. Barrett, who, in his preliminary dissertation to a curious facsimile of a most ancient 5IS. of 3Iat- thew's Gospel (an abridgment of which treatise may be found in Clarke's Commentary, at the end of Luke iii), brings to bear upon this difficult question a large share of sound learning and correct criticism, objects to the aI)ove theory as given bj' Africanus and altered by Grotius, on the ground principally that it refers entirely to the descent of Joseph from David, without attempting to prove that the son of IMary was the son of David. Dr. Barrett then states his own hypothesis, viz., that ]\Iatthew relates the genealogj^ of Joseph, and Luke that of ^larj'. He supposes a sufficient rea- son, that after ^latthew had given his genealogical ta- ble another should be added by Luke, fully to prove that Christ, according to the flesh, derived his descent from David, not onlj' by his supposed father Joseph, but also b}' his real mother Mary. The writers M'ho agree in this opinion Dr. B. divides into two classes : first, those who assert that the families of Solomon and Nathan met in Salathiel and Zorobabel, after which they separated, and were again reunited in Joseph and ?Jary ; secondlv, those who suppose that Salathiel and Zorobabel were distinct individuals, and deny that an}' union took place between them previoush' to the mar- riage of Joseph and Mary. He rejects this latter opin- ion Ijecause it seems to contradict the divine promise (2 Sam. vii, 12-16), which intimates that Christ should be lineaJly descended from David through Solomon. He therefore receives the former hypothesis, and sup- ports it by numerous and profound arguments. (See his Preliminary Dissertation to Codex Rescriptus ; see