485
ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα dpxdpevos,! dv, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, υἱὸς 2 Ἰωσήφ, τοῦ Ἠλί,Σ 24. τοῦ Ματθάτ, τοῦ Aeut, τοῦ Μελχί, τοῦ Ἰαννά, τοῦ Ιωσήφ, 25. τοῦ Ματταθίου, τοῦ ᾽Αμώς, τοῦ Ναούμ, τοῦ ᾿Εσλί, τοῦ Ναγγαί,
36. τοῦ Μαάθ, τοῦ Ματταθίου, τοῦ Σεμεῖ, τοῦ Ιωσήφ, τοῦ Ιούδα, 27. τοῦ Ἰωαννᾶ, τοῦ Ῥησά, τοῦ Ζοροβάβελ, τοῦ Σαλαθιήλ, τοῦ Νηρί, 28. τοῦ Μελχί, τοῦ “ASSi, τοῦ Κωσάμ, τοῦ Ἐλμωδάμ, τοῦ “Hp,
29. τοῦ ᾿Ιωσή, τοῦ Ἐλιέζερ, τοῦ ωρείμ, τοῦ Ματθάτ, τοῦ Λευέ,
1 αρχοµενος before ωσει €. T. in NBL 1, 33, 131, ete.
of ADA al. 2 wos ως ενοµ. in NBL 1, 131 al.
The order of T.R. = that
3 The spelling of many of the names in this genealogy varies in the MSS. As these variations are of little importance I let the names stand as in T.R. without «emark, referring the curious to W.H. or Tisch.
Vv. 23-38. The age of Fesus when He began His ministry, and His genealogy. —Ver. 23. καὶ αὐτὸς, etc., and He, Jesus, was about thirty years of age when He began. ‘The evangelist’s aim obviously is to state the age at which Jesus commenced His public career.— ἀρχόμενος is used in a pregnant sense, beginning = making His beginning in that which is to be the theme of the his- tory. There is a mental reference to am ἀρχῆς in the preface, i. 1; cf. Acts i. 1; «αἱ that Jesus began (ἤρξατο) both to do and to teach”’.—éaei, about, nearly, implying that the date is only approximate. It cannot be used as a fixed datum for chronological purposes, nor should any importance be attached to the number thirty as the proper age at which such a career should begin. That at that age the Levites began full ser- vice, Joseph stood before Pharaoh, and David began to reign are facts, but of no significance (vide Farrar in C. G. T.). God’s prophets appear when they get the inward.call, and that may come at any time, at twenty, thirty, or forty. In- spiration is not bound by rule, custom, or tradition.
Vv. 24-38. The genealogy. One is surprised to find in Lk. a genealogy at all, until we reflect on his preface with its professed desire for accuracy and thoroughness, and observe the careful manner in which he dates the beginning of John’s ministry. One is further surprised to find here a genealogy so utterly different from that of Mt. Did Lk. not know it, or was he dissatisfied with it? Leaving these questions on one side, we can only suppose that the evangelist in the course of his inquiries came upon this genealogy of the
_and others).
Saviour and resolved to give it as a contribution towards defining the fleshly relationships of Jesus, supplying here and there an editorial touch. Whether this genealogy be of Jewish-Christian, or of Pauline-Christian origin is a question on which opinion differs.
Ver. 24. dv, being, introducing the genealogical list, which ascends from son to father, instead of, as in Mt., descending from father to son, therefore beginning at the end and going back- wards.—as ἐνομίζετο: presumably an editorial note to guard the virgin birth. Some regard this expression with Ἰωσήφ following, as a parenthesis, making the genealogy in its original form run being son of Eli, etc., so that the sense, when the parenthesis is inserted, becomes: being son (as was supposed of Joseph but really) of Eli, etc., Eli being the father of Mary, and the genealogy being that of the mother of Jesus (Godet This is ingenious but not satisfactory. As has been remarked by Hahn, if that had been Lk.’s meaning it would have been very easy for him to have made it clear by inserting ὄντως δὲ before τοῦ Ἠλί. We must therefore rest in the view that this genealogy, like that of Mt., is Joseph’s, not Mary’s, as it could not fail to be if Jews were concerned in its compilation.