Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 6.djvu/469

 GENEALOGY

411

GENEALOGY

through Solomon. It is true that the First Gospel gives only twenty-eight names for this period, against the forty-two names of the Third Gospel; but it cannot be expected that two diiTerent hues of descendants should exhibit the same number of links for the period of a thousand years. Abstracting from the inspired character of the sources, one is disposed to regard the number given by the Third Evangelist as more in harmony with the length of time than the number of the First Gospel; bvit we have pointed out that St. Matthew consciously omitted a number of names in his genealogical list, in order to reduce them to the re- quired multiple of seven.

(4) Exceptions to (he Prefcding Explanation. — Three main difficulties are advanced against the foregoing harmony of the genealogies: First, how can they converge in St. Joseph, if they give different lineages from David downward? Secontlly, how can we ac- count for their convergence in Salathiel and Zoroba- bel? Thirdly, what do we know about the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin?

(1) The convergence of the two distinct genealogical lines in the person of St. Joseph, has been explained in two ways: (a) St. Matthew's genealogy is that of St. Joseph; St. Luke's, that of the Blessed Virgin. This contention implies that St. Luke's genealogy only seemingly includes the name of Joseph. It is based on the received Greek text, <!>v (us ivoixt^cro vlhi lbi(Til) ToO 'U\l, " being the son (as it was supposed, of Joseph, hut really) of Heli". This parenthesis really eliminates the name of Joseph from St. Luke's genealogy, and makes Christ, by means of the Blessed Virgin, directly a son of Heli. This view is supported by a tradition which names the father of the Blessed Virgin "Joachim", a variant form of Eliacim or its abbreviation Eli, a variant of Heli, which latter is the form found in the Third Evangelist's genealogy. But these two considerations, viz. the received text and the traditional name of the father of Mary, which favour the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin, are offset by two similar considera- tions, which make St. Luke's list terminate with the name of Joseph. First, the Greek text preferred by the textual critics reads, &v vi&i, us ivofiil^cTo, 'loi<rri<f) ToC'HXei, " being the son, as itwas supposed, of Joseph, son of Heli", so that the above parenthesis is rendered less probable. Secondly, according to Patrizi, the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary be- gan to be advocated only towards the end of the fifteenth century by Annius of Viterbo, and acquired adherents in the sixteenth. St. Hilary mentions the opinion as adopted by many, but he himself rejects it (Mai, "Nov. Bibl. Patr.", 1. 1,477). It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as representing the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin.

(b) Both St. Matthew and St. Luke give the gene- alogy of St. Joseph, the one through the lineage of Solomon, the other through that of Nathan. But how can the lines converge in St. Joseph? St. Augus- tine suggested that Joseph, the son of Jacob and the descendant of David through Solomon, might have been adopted by Heli, thus becoming the adoptive descendant of David through Nathan. But Augus- tine was the first to abandon this theory after learning the explanation offered by Julius Africanus. Accord- ing to the latter, Estha married Mathan, a tlescen- dant of David through Solomon, and became the mother of Jacob; after Mathan's death she took for her second husband Mathat, a descendant of David through Nathan, and by him became the mother of Heli. Jacob and Heli were, therefore, uterine brothers. Heli married, but died without offspring; his widow, therefore, became the levirate wife of Jacob, and gave birth to Joseph, who was the carnal son of Jacob, but the legal son of Heli, thus combining in his person two lineages of David's de-

scendants. The explanation will appear clearer in the following diagram:

Mathat 2nd husband of Estha widow of Mathan Heli left a childless widow ^''^'",,,'ffr';? Jacob

Joseph (levirate son)

Joseph

(2) The second difficulty urged against the harmony between the two genealogies is based on the occurrence of the two names Zorobabel and Salathiel in both lists; here again the two distinct lineages of David's descend- ants appear to converge. And again, two answers are possible: (a) It is more commonly admitted that the two names in St. Matthew's list are identical with the two in St. Luke's series; for they must have lived about the same time, and the names are so rare, that it would be strange to find them occurring at the same time, in the same order, in two different, genealogical series. But two levirate marriages will ex]il:iin tlio difficulty. Melchi, David's descendant through Nathan, may liave begotten Neri by a widow of the father of Jecho- nias; this made Neri and Jechonias uterine brothers. Jechonias may then have contracted a levirate mar- riage with the widow of the childless Neri, and be- gotten Salathiel, who was therefore the leviratical son of Neri. Salathiel 's son Zorobabel begat Abiud; but he also may have been obliged to contract a levirate marriage with the widow of a childless legal relative belonging to David's descendants through Nathan, thus begetting Reza, who legally continued Nathan's lineage, (b) A more simple solution of the difficulty is obtained, if we do not admit that the Salathiel and Zorobabel occurring in St. Mat- thew's genealogy are identical with those in St. Luke's. The above proofs for their identity are not cogent. If Salathiel and Zorobabel distinguished themselves at all among the descendants of Solo- mon, it is not astonishing that about the same time two members of Nathan's descendants should be called after them. The reader will observe that we suggest only possible answers to the difficulty; as long as such possibilities can be pointed out, our opponents have no right to deny that the genealogies which are found in the First and Third Gospel can be harmonized.

(3) How can Jesus Christ be called "son of David", if the Blessed Virgin is not a daughter of David? (a) If by virtue of Joseph's marriage with Mary, Jesus could be called the son of Joseph, he can for the same reason be called "son of David" (Aug., De cons, evang., II, i, 2). (b) Tradition tells us that Mary too was a descendant of David. According to Num., xxxvi, 6-12, an only daughter had to marry within her own family so as to secure the right of inheritance. After St. Justin (Adv. Tryph. C.) and St. Ignatius (Eph. XVIII), the Fathers generally agree in main- taining Mary's Davidic descent, whether they knew this from an oral tradition or inferred it from Scripture, e. g. Rom., i, 3; II Tim., ii, 8. St. John Damascene (De fid. orth., IV, 14) states that Mary's great-grand- father. Panther, was a brother of Mathat; her grand- father, Barpanther, was Heli's cousin; and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli's levirate son. Here Mathat has been substituted for Melchi, since the text used by St. John Damascene, Julius Afri- canus, St. IrenjEus, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory of Nazianus omitted the two generations separating Heli from Melchi. At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan.

Kn\benbaiier in Hagen, Lexicon Biblicum (Paris, 1907), II. 3S9 sq.; Pkat in Diclimnmre de la Bible (Paris, 190S), III, 166 sqq. The question is also treated in the recent Live."* of Christ by Fouard, Didon, Grimm, etc. The reader will find the subject treated also in the commentaries on the Gospel of St. Matthew or St. Luke, e.g. Knabenbauer, Schanz, Filion,