4. The two family registers of Jesus (Matt, i and Luke iii), of which the first is descending and the latter as- cending, vary considerably from each other; inasmuch I as not only entirely different names of ancestors are glv-
JESUS CHRIST
878
JESUS CHRIST
6n from Joseph upwards to Zerubbabel and Salatliiel (Matt, i, 12 sq. ; Luke iii, 27), but also jMatthew carries back Joseph's hneage to David's son Solomon (ver. G sq.), while Luke rei'ers it to another son Nathan (ver. 31). Moreover, Matthew only goes back as far as Abra- ham (as he wrote for Jewish readers), but Luke (in agreement with the general scope of his gospel) as far as Adam (God). This disagreement early engaged the attention of the Church fathers (see Eusebius, //m^ A'y. i, 7), and later interpreters have adopted various hy- potlicses for the reconcilement of the two evangelists (sea especially Surenhus. Bi/JAof KaraWayiji:, p. 320 sq. ; Kus, Harmon, evanf). i, C5 sq. ; Thiess, Krit. Com- menfiir, ii, 271 sq. ; Kuin'iil, Proler/. in Matt. § 4). There are properly only two general representations possible. For the history of Christ's parents, see Joseph; Mary.
(«) JIatthew traces the lineage through Joseph, Luke gives the maternal descent (comp. also Neander, p. 21) ; so that the person called Eli in Luke iii, 23, appears to have been the father of ;Mary (see especially Helvicus, in Crenii Exercitat.philol. /list, iii, p. 332 sq. ; Spanheim, JJubia evang. i, 13 sq. ; Bengal, Heumann, Paulus, Kui- ntil, in their Commentaries ; Wiessler, in the Studien it. Krit. 1815, p. 361 sq. ; on the contrary, Bleek, Beitraf/e z. Ecangelienkrit. p. 101 sq.). But, in the first place, in that case Luke would hardly have written so expressly " tlie son of Eli" (rou 'HAi), since we must understand all the following genitives to refer to the actual fathers and not to the fathers-in-law (the appeal to Ruth i, 11 sq., for the purpose of showing that a daughter-in-law couhl be called daughter among the Hebrews, is una- vailing for the distinction in question) ; although, in the second place, we need not understand the Salathiel and Zerubbabel named in one genealogy to have been both different persons from those mentioned in the other (Paulus, Comment, i, 243 sq. ; Robinson, Gr. Harmon//, p. 186), wliich is a very questionable expedient (see especially Hug, Einleitunt/, ii, 266; Methodist Quarterb/ Review, Oct. 1852, p. 602 sq.). Aside from the fact that Luke does not even mention the mother of Jesus (but only Matt, i, 16), and from the further fact that the Jews were not at all accustomed to record the genealogies of women {Buba Bathra, f. 110, "The father's family, not the mother's, is accounted tne true lineage;" compare Wetstein, i, 231), we might make an exception in the case of the Jlessiah, who was to be descended from a virgin (compare also Paulus, Lehm J. i, 90). A still dif- ferent explanation (Voss, nt sup.; comp. also Schleyer, in the Th,-,,/.. (i,i,ni:il<rlir. is:i(;, p. 403 sq., 539 sq.), name- ly, tliat Kli, ahliiinij;h the fiitlier of Mary, is here intro- duced as being the grandt'iither of Joseph (according to the sui)pi)sition that 'Slixy was an heiress. Numb, xxvii, 8), proceeds upon an entirely untenable interpretation (see Paulus, Comment, i, 243, 26 1 ). Notwithstanding the foregoing objection to the view under consideration, it meets, perhaps better than any other, the difficulties of the subject. Sec Genkai,ogy.
(i) .Some assume that the jiropor fitlier of Joseph was Eli : he, as a brother, or (as the difference of the names up to Salathiel necessitates) as the nearest rela- tive (half-brother V), had married Mary, the wife of the deceased childless Jacob, and according to the Levirate law (cj. V.) Joseph would ajipear as the son of Jacob, and ■would, in fact, have two fathers (so Ambrosius) ; or con- versely, we may suppose that Jacob was the proper fa- tlicr of .Foseph, and Eli his childless deceased imcle (comp. Julius Afric. in Eusebius, Hist. Ev. i, 7; Cali.x- tus, Clericus). This hypothesis, which still conflicts with the Levirate ride that only the deceased is called father of the posthumous son (lieut. xxv, 6), Hug (Kinl. 11, 268 sq.), has been so modified as to presume a Levirate marriage as far back as Salathiel. l)y which the mention of Salatliiel and Zerubbabel in l)oth lists would be ex- plained; and Hug also introduces such a marriage be- tween the parents of Joseph, and still another among more distant relatives. This is ingenious, but too com'- plicatcd (see generally Paulus, ut sup. p. 260). If a di-
rect descent of Jesus could have been laid downi from David, there remains no reason why, when the natural extraction of the Messiah straight from David was so important, the very evangelist who wrote immediately for Jewish readers should have traced the indirect line- age. But if so many as three Levirate marriages had occurred together (as Hug thinks), we should suppose that jNIatthew, on account of the infrequency of such a case, would have given his readers some hint, or at least not have written (ver. 16) " begat" {tyivvrjai) in a man- ner quite calcidated to mislead. IMoreover, this hypoth- esis of Hug rests upon an interpretation of 1 Chron. iii, 18 sq., which that scholar himself could only have cho- sen in a genealogical difficulty. See Leviratk Law.