(c) If both the foregoing explanations be rejected, there remains no other course than to renounce the at- tempt to reconcile the two family lines of Jesus, and frankly acknowledge a discrepancy between the evan- gelists, as some have done (Stroth, in Eichhorn's Re- pert. ix, 131 sq. ; Ammon, Bihl. Theol. ii, 266 ; Thiess, Krit. Comment, ii, 271 sq. ; Fritzsche, ad Matt. p. 35; Strauss, i, 105 sq. ; De Wette, B. Crusius, Alford, on Luke iii). In the decayed family of Joseph it might not have been possible, especially after so much misfortune as be- fell the country and people, to recover any written ele- ments for the construction of a family register back to David. Were the account of Julius Africanus (in Eu- sebius, i, 7 ; compare Schottgen, Hor. Hehr. p. 885), that king Herod had caused the family records of the Jews to be burned, correct, the want of such information would be still more evident (but see Wetstein, i, p. 232 ; Wieseler, in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1845, p. 369). In that case, after the need of such registers had arisen, persons would n.1turally have set themselves to compiling them from traditional recollections, and the variations of these may readily have resulted in a double lineage. But even on this view it has been insisted that both lines present the descent of Joseph and not of Mary, since it was unusual to exhibit the maternal lineage, and the Jews would not have regarded such an extraction from David as the genuine one. There are, at all events, but two positions possible : either the supernatural genera- tion of Jesus by the Holy Spirit was admitted, or Jesus was considered a son of Joseph (Luke iii, 33). In the latter case a family record of Joseph entirely sufficed for the application of the O.-T. oracles to Jesus ; in the for- mer case it has been conceived that such a register would have been deemed superfluous, and every natural lineage of Jesus from David (Rom. i, 3) woidd have thrown his divine origin into the background. This has been alleged as the reason why John gives no gen- ealogy at all, and generally says nothing of the extrac- tion of Jesus from the family of David (see Von Ammon, Leb. Jes. i, 179 sq.). The force of these arguments, how- ever, is greatly lessened by the consideration that the early Christians, in meeting the Jews, would be very anxious, if possible, to prove Christ's positive descent from David through both his reputed and his real par- ent ; the more so, as the former was avowed to be only nominally such, leaving the whole actual lineage to be made out on the mother's side. (See generally Baum- garten, De genealogia Chr. Hal. 1749; Diirr, Genealogia Jesu, Gott. 1778 ; Busching's JIurmon. d. Evang. p. 187 sq., 264 sq.) See Gexkalogy of Christ.
5. The wonderful birth of .Tesus through the inter- vention of the Holy Spirit, which only the synoptical gospels relate (Luke i, 26 sq. ; ISIatt. i, 18 sq. ; the apoc- ryphal gospels, in order to remove all idea of the con- ception of Mary by Joseph, make him to have been absent a long time from home at work, Histor. Josephi, c. 5; Hist, de Naiiv. Marice, c. 10), has been imagined by many recent interpreters (Ammon, Biblic. Theol. ii, 251 sq., and Comm. in narrationum de primordiis J. C. fonf< x. liicnminta et nexum, c. rel. Chr. Gott. 1798 ; also
'jiiisr. p. 25
Bauer, Theol. N. T. i, 310
sq. ; liriifr iilxr Rationalismus,y,. 229 sq.; Kaiser, Bibl. Theulog. i, 231 sq. ; Greiling, p. 24 sq.) to have been a
JESUS CHRIST
879
JESUS CHRIST
myth siigjrested by the O.-Test. prophecies (Isa. vii, 14), and they have hekl Joseph to be the proper father of Jesus (as it is well known that many in the earliest Church, and individuals later, from time to time, have done, Umchuld. Nachr. 1711, p. ()22 sq. ; Walther, Vers, eines schriftmdss. Beweisse dass Joseph der leahre Vater Christisei, Berl. 1791 ; on the contrarj', Oertel, Antijose- phismus oder Kritik des SchriJ'Im. Heic, etc., Germ. 1793; Hasse, Josejihum veritm pcitrem e Script uj-a iion J'uisse, Keg. 1792; Ludewig, Ilistor. Untersuch. iiher die rersch. Meinunr/en v. d. Abkiinft /es.Wolfenbiittel, 1831 ; comp.also Korh, Anticurus oder histor.-krit. Beleuchtung der Schrift ; '■'■Die nuii'irl. Gehurt Jesu u.s.tc." Leipzig, 1831) on the following noways decisive grounds: (o) "John, who stands in so near a relation to Jesus, and must liave known the family affairs, relates nothing at aU of this wonderful birth, although it was very appo- site to his design." But this evangelist shows the high dignity of Jesus only from his discourses, the others from public evidences and a few astonishing miracles; moreover, his prologue (i, 1-18) declares dogmatically pretty much the same thing as the synoptical gospels do historicall}' in tliis respect. (Compare also the de- portment of Mary, John ii, 3 sq.; see Neander, p. IG sq.) (b) "Neither Jesus nor an apostle ever appeals in any discourse to this circumstance. Paul always says simply that Jesus was born ' of the seed of David' (Kom. i, 3; 2 Tim. ii, 8) ; once (Gal. iv, 4), more defi- nitely, ' of a woman' (t/c yvvaiKu^, not Tropes j/oi>)." It must be admitted, however, that an appeal to a fact which only one individual could positively know by ex- perience would be very ineffectual; and an apostle would be very likely to subject himself to the charge of irrelevancy if he resorted to such an appeal (comp. Nie- meyer, P?: ad illustrand. plurimor. N. T. scriptnrum si- lentium de primordiis vltm J. C. Halle, 1790). But this would be laying as improper an emphasis upon the word yvvi] (Gal. iv, •!) as that of the older theologians upon n?2P5 (Isa. vii, 14). (c) "Mary calls Joseph, without qualitication, thcjhiher of Jesus (Luke ii, 48), and also among the Jews Jesus was generally called Joseph's son (JIatt. xiii, 55; Mark vi, 3; Luke iii, 23; iv, 22; John i, 4G; vi, 42)." This last argument is wholly des- titute of force; but Mary might naturally, in common parlance, call Josejjh Jesus'syhMf?-, just as, in modern phrase, a foster-father is generally styled father when definiteness of exjiression is not requisite. (</) " The brothers of Jesus did not believe in him as the Messiah (John vii, 5), which would be inexplicable if the Deity had already indicated him as the ISIessiah from his very birth." Yet these brothers had not themselves person- ally known the fact ; and it is, moreover, not uncommon that one son in a family who is a general favorite ex- cites the ill-will of the others to such a degree tliat they even deny his evident superiority, or that brothers fail to appreciate and esteem a mentally distinguished broth- er, {e) " History shows in a multitude of examples that the birth of illustrious men has been embellished with fables (Wetstein, X. T. i, p. 236) ; especially is the notion of a birth without connection with a man (irao- &£j'oyfi'//c) wide spread in the ancient world (Georgi, A Ip/nibet. Tibet. Rom. 1762, p. 55 sq., 369 sq.), and among the Indians and Chinese it is even applied to the found- ers of religion (Paul, a Bartholom. St/stem. Brahman, p. 158; Du kalde, Beschr. d. Chines. Reichs, iii, 26)." In case it is meant by this that a wonderful generation of a holy man, effected immediately by the Spirit of God, was embraced in the circle of Oriental belief (Kosen- miiller, in CJaliler's Jonrn.f. ausserl. theol. Liter, ii, 253 sq.), this argument might make the purely historical character of the doctrine in question dubious, were it capable of proof that such an idea also harmonizes with the principles of the Israelitish monotheism, or could it be jnade probable (Weisse, Leben Jesv, i, 176 sq.) that this account of the birth of .Jesus is a heathen produc- tion (see, on the contrary, Neander, p. 12 sq.). On the other hand, however, this statement stands so isolated