Vv. 24-31. From Foseph back to David. Compared with the correspond- ing section of Mt.’s genealogy these differences are apparent: (1) in both sub-divisions of the section (David to captivity, captivity to Christ) there are considerably more names (ao, 14), a fact intelligible enough in genealogies through different lines; (2) they start from different sons of David (Nathan,
486
30. τοῦ Συμεών, τοῦ Ιούδα, τοῦ Ιωσήφ, τοῦ Ἰωνάν, τοῦ Ἐλιακείμ, 41. τοῦ Μελεᾶ, τοῦ Μαϊνάν, τοῦ Ματταθά, τοῦ Ναθάν, τοῦ Δαβίδ, 32. τοῦ ᾿Ιεσσαί, τοῦ ᾿Ωβήδ, τοῦ Βοόζ, τοῦ Σαλµών, τοῦ Ναασσών, 33. τοῦ ᾽Αμιναδάβ, τοῦ ᾿Αράμ, τοῦ ᾿Εσρώμ, τοῦ Φαρές, τοῦ Ιούδα,
34. τοῦ Ιακώβ, τοῦ Ἰσαάκ,
τοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ, τοῦ Θάρα, τοῦ Naxwp,
35. τοῦ Σαρούχ, τοῦ Ῥαγαῦ, τοῦ Φαλέκ, τοῦ Ἔβερ, τοῦ Σαλά, 36. τοῦ Καϊνάν, τοῦ ᾽Αρϕαξάδ, τοῦ Σήµ, τοῦ Νῶε, τοῦ Λάμεχ, 37. τοῦ Μαθου. adda, τοῦ ᾿Ενώχ, τοῦ “lapéd, τοῦ Μαλαλεήλ, τοῦ Καϊνάν, 38. τοῦ ᾿Ενώς, τοῦ Σήθ, τοῦ "Addu, τοῦ Θεοῦ.
Svlomon); (3) they come together at the captivity in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel ; (4) after running in separate streams from that point onwards they meet again in Joseph, who in the one is the son of Eli, in the other the son of Jacob. The puzzle is to understand how two genealogical streams so distinct in their entire course should meet at these two points. The earlier coincidence is accounted for by harmonists by the hypothesis of adoption (Jeconiah adopts Shealtiel, Shealtiel adopts Zerubbabel), the later by the hypothesis of a Levirate marriage. Vide Excursus ii. in Farrar’s work on Luke (C. G. T.). These solutions satisfy some. Others main- tain that they do not meet the difficulties, and that we must be content to see in the two catalogues genealogical attempts which cannot be harmonised, or at least have not yet been.
Vv. 32-34a. From David back to Abraham. The lists of Mt. and Lk. in this part correspond, both being taken, as far as Pharez, from Ruth iv. 18-22.
Vv. 34b-38. From Abraham to Adam. Peculiar to Lk., taken from Gen. xi. 12- 26, v. 7-32, as given in the Sept., whence Canaan in ver. 36 (instead of
rus in Gen. xi. 12, in Heb.). It is
probable that this part of the genealogy has been added by Lk., and that his interest in it is twofold: (1) universalistie: revealed by running back the genealogy of Jesus to Adam, the father of the human vace; (2) the desire to give emphasis to the Divine origin of Jesus, revealed by the final link in the chain: Adam (son) of God. Adam’s sonship is conceived of as something unique, inasmuch as, like Jesus, he owed his being, not to a human parent, but to the immediate causality of God. By this extension of the genealogy beyond Abraham, and even beyond Adam up to God, the evangelist has deprived it of all
vital significance for the original purpose of such tables: to vindicate the Messianic claims of Jesus by showing Him to be the son of David. The Davidic sonship, it is true, remains, but it cannot be vital to the Messiahship of One who is, in the sense of the Gospel, Son of God. It becomes like the moon when the sun is shining. Lk. was probably aware of this.
This genealogy contains none of those features (references to women, etc.) which lend ethical interest to Mt.’s.
CHAPTER IV, THE TEMPTATION AND BEGINNINGS OF THE MINISTRY.—VV. I- 13. The Temptation (Mt. iv. 1-11, Mk. i. 12-13). Lk.’s account of the tempta- tion resembles Mt.’s so closely as to suggest a common source. Yet there are points of difference of which a not improbable explanation is editorial solicitude to prevent wrong impressions, and ensure edification in connection with perusal of a narrative relating to a delicate subject: the temptation of the Holy Jesus by the unholy adversary. This solicitude might of course have stamped itself on the source Lk. uses, but it seems preferable to ascribe it to himself.