Appendix, Note IV: The Genealogies of Our Lord
(Chap. XV. p. 198, azze.)
THE GENEALOGIES OF OuR LoRD.
Some people seem to assume that the gospel “Genealogies” were dictated to Matthew and Luke by the Spirit of God: others, that they were based on the gossip of Joseph’s family. It is not easy to decide which view is the more extraordinary. These genealogies were of course transcripts of Jewish records; for such pedigrees were a speciality with the Jews, especially in the case of families belonging to the Royal or Priestly houses. And if they had not been authentic they would have been promptly exposed, and the Gospels discredited, by the Jewish opponents of Christianity. As Dr. Bloomfield writes (Greek Test. Com.): “If these genealogies of Christ (which must be understood to have been derived from the public records in the temple) had not been agreeable thereto, the deception would have been instantly detected.”
This is so obvious that I should not notice it were it not for the use made of these genealogies by certain of the critics. For example, one of the lesser lights, quoted more than once in these pages, referring to the very probable hypothesis that Matthew gives the pedigree of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary, predicts that “a coming generation of Bible students will find it almost incredible that such an explanation should have been seriously urged.” He goes on to notice superciliously that
19 273 “‘Joseph’s family occupied twenty-eight generations, while in the same time Mary’s family got through thirty-eight generations;” and ends, “Luke inadvertently states that Joseph was the son of Heli, when he meant that Mary was the daughter of Heli.” This is meant to be very smart. The reader must decide whether such writing does not justify my treatment of the critics. The real question thus raised is not at all the inspiration of the Gospels, but whether the Evangelists are deserving of any attention or respect.
An alternative explanation, that Matthew gives Joseph’s genealogy as legal successor to the throne of David, and Luke his private genealogy, is maintained with much erudition and force in Lord Arthur Hervey’s Genealogies of our Lord Jesus Christ. An epitome of his argument will be found in his article, “‘Genealogy of Christ,” in Smith’s Bible Dictionary. A brief notice of the other view will be found in Dean Plumptre’s note to Luke iii. 23 in Bishop Ellicott’s ew Testament Commentary for English Readers.
Dr. Bullinger states the matter thus: — ‘ Matthew gives the royal and legal line through Solomon; Luke gives the natural and lineal line through JVathan. The former is the line according to legal succession; the latter is the line according to natural descent.... Both lines meet in Joseph, the son of Jacob by birth, and the son of Heli by marriage with Mary, Heli’s only daughter.” *
* Number in Scripture, p. 159. Ina footnote he notices that the verb used in Luke iii. 23 means ‘‘ to own as a custom or usage” (Liddell & Scott). It is not ‘‘as was supposed,” but ‘as was reckoned by Jewish customs.” (Bloomfield’s Gr. Test.)