GEXEALOGY
774
GENEALOGY
also, on both In'potheses, Lightfoot's Harmony Ev. ; Soiith's Sermon on Rev. xii, 10, vol. iii ; Wetstein, ad 3futthu'itm, i, 17 ; Bishop Kidder's Demonst. of Messiah, part, ii to ch. xiii ; Hale's Analysis of Chronology , vol. iii.)
Ill constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholl}' by males, re- jecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson tlirough a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter's hus- band for the sou of the maternal grandfather (Kumb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7). On this principle Joseph, be- gotten by Jacob, marries Mary, the daughter of Heli, and in the genealogical register of his wife's family is counted for Heli's son. Salathiel, begotten by Jeco- niah, marries the daughter of Neri, and, in like man- ner, is accounted his son : in Zorobabel, the offspring of Salathiel and Neri's daughter, the lines of Solomon and Nathan coalesce; Joseph and Mary are of the .same tribe and family ; they are both descendants of David in the line of Solomon ; they have in them both the blood of Nathan, David's son. Joseph deduces his descent from Abiucl (Matt, i, 13), Marj^ from Kiiesa (Luke iii, 27), sons of Zorobabel. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke are parts of one perfect whole, and each of them is essential to the explanation of the oth- er. By Matthew's table we prove the descent of Mary, as well as Joseph, from Solomon; by Luke's we see the descent of Joseph, as well as Mary, from Nathan. But still it is asked how know we that JIary was the daughter of Neri .'
[1.] Because the angel Gabriel, at the Annuncia- tion, told the Virgin that God would uive her divine son the throne of his father David (Luke i, 32), and thus it was necessarj- to prove this b}' her genealogy afterwards.
[2.] Mary is called by the Jews ibl' m, "the daughter of Heli," and by the early Christian writers "the daughter of Joakim and Anna" (Lightfoot, on Luke iii, 23). But Joakim and Eliakim (as different names in Hebrew for God) are sometimes interchanged (2 Chron. xxxvi, 4) : Eli or Heli, then, is the abridg- ment of Eliakim.
[3.] The evangelist Luke has critically distinguish- ed the real from the legal genealog}' bj' a parenthetical remark: 'lijaovQ wv (ioQ ivoni'^tro') viuq 'lioaijrp, tov 'HAi, "Jesus being (as was reputed) the son of Joseph (but in reality), the son of Heli," or his grandson by the mother's side, for so the ellipsis should be supplied. Moreover, on comparing the two tables, we find that from Abraham to David they agree with each other because they are in accordance with the genealogies of Genesis, Ruth, and 1 Ciiron. iii; Init from David to Joseph they are evidently distinct lines of pedigree, agreeing only in two persons, viz. Salathiel and Zoro- babel.
Again, it is objected that there are now in Luke's genealog}' seventy-sf-r«8 names ; whereas Irenaeus, Africanus, and other early fathers, acknowledge but se\enty-t7cn. But if we omit the names jMaath, Ma(- t'lfh'ms, Melea, Mainan, and Cainnn, as being interpo- lations, then the number will be reduced to seventy- two.
It is said that Abiud and Rhesa are called by the evangelists the sons of Zorobabel, though in 1 Chron. iii, 11) we have no mention of them among liis sons. M'e remark that it was a custom with the Jews to call the s:imo person by different names, and that this cus- tom was )ieculiarly prevalent about the time of the captivity (Dan. i, d, 7; also comp. 2 Sam. iii, 3 with 1 Chron. iii, 1).
Lastly, it is inquired whence the evangelists hnd their genealogies from Zorobabel to Christ, there being nothing of them to l)e found in Scripture. AVo an- swer, from those authentic public tables? kept bv the Jews, of which, as before noticed, Josephus speaks ; and regarding which also Eusebius (^Uist. Eccks. i, 1) |
says, " Omnes Hebraiorum generationes descriptaj in archivis Templi secretioribus habebantur." It was doubtless from this source that they bad the above- named parts of our Lord's legal and natural pedigree ; for, otherwise, they would have exposed themselves to the cavils of the Jews ; nor could the apostles have appealed, as they did, with confidence, to Christ's ped- igree, as answering all the requirements of prophecy. — Kitto, s. V. ; Smith, s. v.
(4.) Rejecting all the above identifications and Le- virate marriages, Lord Hervey (^Genealogies of our Lord, Cambr. 1853) contends that both evangelists give the genealogy of Joseph, IMatthew's being the legal or royal line, and Luke's the private. He sup- poses that Mary was the dauchter of Jacob, and thus the first cousin of Joseph. Tlie discrepancies in the latter names of the two lists he attempts to reconcile by supposing "Rhesa" to be merely a title (Chald. for prince) of Zorobabel, so that "Joanna" of Luke will
GENEALOGY
111
GENERATION
be the " Ilananiah" of 1 Chron., but omitted by Matt. ; then identifyiiii,' Matthew's " Ahiiid" with Luke's " Ju- da," and both with tlie "Ilodaiah" of 1 Chron. ; also Matthew's "Matthau" with Luke's "Matthat;" and finally cutting off all the remaining names in 1 Chron., and supposing a number of generations to have been omitted in the following names of Matthew; so that the lists will, in this part, stand thus :