I turn to the particular objections.
The first is, that Matthew was under manifest mistake in inserting fourteen names instead of eighteen, and in saying that there were only fourteen generations. This is a poor objection in presence of the moral power of the gospels; it shows a mind descended on low ground: but we will consider it. That Matthew has omitted three kings, none disputes; but this does not prove he made a mistake in doing so. The point he is showing is Christ's legal connection with the throne of David: this, the omission of the three names did not in the smallest degree affect. The descent and the proof of it remain identically the same. Matthew and every one else knew of these three kings. What was his motive in omitting them may or may not be discoverable; but it does not affect the descent. What he gives is perfectly right. Mr. N. says, "I was struck with observing that the corruption of the two names, Ahaziah and Uzziah, into the same sound (Oziah), has been the cause of merging four generations into one." (Phases, p. 107.) Now this is a mere assertion without the smallest foundation whatever. In the genealogy in Chronicles, where the names are found together, there is no similarity in sound or anything else. Uzziah is not used, but Azarias, which does not resemble Ozias in sound or in any way. In the general history there are long chapters of details which absolutely preclude all confusion. Where did this corruption of both names into the same sound exist? Not in the LXX: there, where brought together, we have Ὀχοζίυς and Ἀζαμίας. Nor is there any confusion between these names. Uzziah is called Ozias by the LXX in 2 Chronicles. But there is not the smallest ground whatever for saying there is any confusion with Ahaziah. Azariah and Uzziah are much more alike in Hebrew, and even interchanged; but it is Ozias in Greek where it is read Uzziah, and Azarias where it is read Azariah. But with Ahaziah there is never any confusion whatever.
This argument is merely one which plays in the ear of the English reader..
If Matthew used the Septuagint, and it is there Ozias is found, the Septuagint gives no occasion to any confusion. If the Hebrew, Ahaziah and Uzziah could lead to none; they are in different parts of the history, and the letters are so different they could not mislead.
If Matthew, indeed, looked at the genealogies, it could not be mistake-he would have copied the genealogy as he found it; if at the history, then there is no possible ground for confusion. Nor did the circumstances of the history afford any occasion thereto. It is a perfectly gratuitous supposition, without any foundation in fact. Matthew has left them out intentionally, or what he was led of God to copy did; and there is no mistake: he has counted the generations he has given, and he has counted them correctly. Had he put them in and said there were fourteen, mistake might have been alleged. He has omitted the first three descendants of Athaliah-Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. It is easily to be believed that the Spirit of God led Matthew to take the Jewish registers, for such would be the authentic means of proving a genealogy where the public fact was to be proved. To men it would have been even more suited to his purpose than any other, for they could not reject it. To the believer the revelation of the fact was sufficient; but an appeal to what men acknowledge is a means the Holy Ghost uses continually in grace. No one who has paid the least attention to Hebrew genealogies can have any difficulty whatever. Whole families are given under a name, nay, whole peoples, or even under the name of a district, if they were known by it; they are recommenced again, if any one had the character of a new stock. Many links are often left out, provided the family relationship is established; little else is generally aimed at. This is evident, on comparing them.
The taking this from the registers, and to take it as it was there, would be the natural way, I may say the right way, to authenticate it to the Jews. Faith has no difficulty in it. It believes on other grounds that Christ was the Son of David, as the gospels also set it on other grounds of proof. To have departed from the registers would have hindered the testimony, nay, destroyed the effect of this testimony.
Was it anything unworthy of God to use it in grace?
To use it is really of no avail, and evidently unascertainable, and hence, I may add, a good field for an objection when we wish to find one. That Matthew was familiar with scripture is evident, unless he is admitted to have quoted it by inspiration; if he did, we need not reason about the genealogy. If he was familiar with it, all this argument about a mistake is perfectly absurd, because there is no ground for it in reading the Old Testament. The histories of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah are as largely related, or more so, than those of the greatest number of the kings.
The term "begat" is constantly employed in Hebrew for a descendant. But whatever the motive of Matthew, there is no mistake. He has left out three kings, the children of an apostate woman, recommencing with him in whose reign the prophecies of Messiah dawned brightly on Israel, and he has counted his genealogies aright. It is very possible that the words " Jehoiakim" and "Jehoiakin" are blended in Jechonias, because this happens in other authors, that is, the two names are written the same. But Mr. N. does not see that this makes no difficulty. Jehoiakim, or Eliakim, was older than Jehoahaz, and is named with his brethren, Jehoahaz being omitted, and Jechonias, or Jehoiachin, is spoken of only in Babylon, whither he was carried. Or Josias, being the last independent king of David's family, and Jechonias, being the one actually carried away, is put forward as marking the epoch, and Josias named as being the last king who had any free place in Israel, for Jehoahaz was carried, after three months' reign, into Egypt, and Judah never after raised its head; hence the whole family is thrown together as the children of Josias, Jechonias being singled out as the person led captive and the fresh royal stock in Babylon. In either case, the descent of David's family remains alike made good.
The reader will remark that the three epochs are characteristic of the state of Israel or Judah, beginning, of course, with Abraham. These objections, then, have not the least weight. No one is called to believe that fourteen is eighteen. Matthew counts the generations he has given in the Jewish style of twice seven.
The Spirit meant to show the legal descent of Christ, so as to inherit the royal title; and this He has done perfectly by that which was the legal proof of it, and inspired Matthew to do it, and to do it in this way, which was the only right and valid one. It was the proof that Joseph, of whom Christ was heir legally, was descended from David, and so from Abraham.
How was this to be legally done? Not by inspiring a genealogy, but by showing it by the admitted tables. This is what is done. That it is the legal descent or title is evident; for the evangelist does not for a moment leave a cloud on the fact that Jesus was not Joseph's son. He says, "The husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." He publishes carefully what he is doing-that he is not giving the natural descent. Christ's miraculous birth follows, to make this clear. It is His legal title which is deduced here, and in the legal, right, and valid way. The designation of Joseph, by the angel, as son of David, confirms the truth of what I say as to the design of this part of Matthew.
Even if the chapter were spurious, this would encourage Mr. N. (so he says) to apply similar criticisms to other passages. Would he be glad to be thus encouraged in a classical author?
The very ancient objection of the difference of the two genealogies is then brought forward-a difficulty, amongst others, as old as Celsus and Origen. Mr. N. settles for his readers (assuming, I suppose, their ignorance) that "neither gives the genealogy of Mary, which alone is wanted." (Ib. p. 108.)
No one could object to his seeking to prove this, if he wished it; but to state it as an uncontested fact is merely trading on the credulity of the English public. It is, he says, an undeniable mistake, in spite of the "flagrant dishonesty with which divines seek to deny" it. (Ib.) Thus the subject is dismissed. Who can dare answer in face of such a judgment? Modesty might say, "I cannot disentangle a difficulty which depends on registers we have not got;" but this would not be the βασιλικὴ ἀτμαπὴ), the royal road to certainty needed to gain credit as a skeptic. I have no great respect for theology, nor can I pretend to be learned. Still I can say, that this is not quite so clear a matter as Mr. N. thinks. There is enough to "encourage criticism" on such a decision.
As regards the genealogy of Matthew, it is undoubtedly the genealogy of Joseph, and given as such.
Mr. N. says, this is not what we want. Now I apprehend Matthew must have known much better than Mr. N. (for I do not assume his inspiration here) what was required in his days, either from the expression of it by others, or the habits of his own mind formed by the same circumstances. The truth is, this was of great importance. If Jesus presented Himself to claim the throne of David, and Joseph had at that time a separate and hostile title in the direct line from Solomon, Jesus's title would have been void legally; and it was material to show Him rightful heir by this title. And we find, in fact, that Joseph never once appears after Christ makes the claim, though we have mother (and, remark, confided to another at the cross), brothers, sisters- never Joseph. Jesus had succeeded him in his title, in a Jewish way, to the crown of David and throne of Israel. Matthew, then, gives what was needed in this respect; and gives it suitably. Jesus was the legal heir of Solomon.
Mr. N. ought to know, if. he writes on such a subject, that many learned men think that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary pursued in the order of nature up to Nathan. I am well aware others have thought it that of Joseph also; and as Salathiel was son of Jechonias, and Zerubbabel his grandson through Pedaiah-so also he may have been collaterally, or by his mother or grandmother, descended from Nathan. If there were no brothers of such mother, he would rank as such. They have applied the same reasoning to Eli as regards Joseph. The truth is, in these Jewish genealogies, where grandsons are called sons- nephews and cousins, brothers-and children raised up to a man by a brother taking his widow, whose seed is called then after her dead husband, with the registers we have defective as a mere human testimony-no objection is of much weight, and answers can only be suppositions. But these last are quite sufficient; because, when a contradiction has to be proved, a case possible by supposition shows absolutely there is no contradiction.
If we consider it as the Lord's genealogy through Mary, it would stand thus: But Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age (being, as was supposed, son of Joseph); and τοῦ Ἡλί may be directly in connection with Jesus' Ιούδας Ἱακώβου, or, still more exactly, Ἐμμὸρ τοῦ Συχέμ. This abruptness would result from its being an extract of genealogical tables. Υἱὸς may be understood in these cases as ἀδελφὸς is in the case of Jude in Luke, and πατὴρ in Acts 7 (if we adopt the ordinary reading), and Herodotus 6: 98, quoted by Wetstein on Matt. 1:1717So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. (Matthew 1:17). As to abruptness, 1 Chronicles begins with far greater in an analogous case. The τοῦ refers entirely to the person of Heli, and marks its case as dependent on υἱὸς understood. The use of the article with names is habitual in genealogies, and constant in the gospel. Mark has τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίον... Ἰάκωβου τὸν τοῦ Ἀλφαίου, and in the whole genealogy of Matthew. So John 19:25: so that the absence of υἱὸς, and the presence of τοῦ, is nothing extraordinary. The form of it here is more abrupt. Were I to say ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ἡλί τοῦ Ματθάτ, it would be an easy and the correct form of speech; but to begin the extract of genealogy with ὁ τοῦ Ἡλί, after the long interruption, would be extremely unnatural; the rather as He had been said to be supposed the son of Joseph, so that υἱὸς as naturally suggests itself to the thought as it is commonly left out. But the example of many Greek genealogies would lead, as Luke generally writes correct Greek, to the supposition, that the connection of the series is with Joseph. The reader who possesses Wetstein's Greek Testament may see such examples in the notes.
If taken as Joseph's natural descent, this would prove that the object of the genealogies was, not to give Christ's descent according to the flesh by Mary, but, first, the natural descent of Joseph from David, and, secondly, His being that one of such descendants to whom the crown belonged; Matthew giving the latter, Luke the former. The descent from David, which was only necessary to the accomplishment of Jewish promises, was rested, to the Jews, on their known authentic records and acknowledged principles.
The fact of actual descent, if to be taken in the material and not in the legal sense, would rest on the uniform testimony of the gospels that He was Son of David, such as the angel's to Mary, a testimony resting on the general proofs of their authenticity. There is no mistake, for Luke is as careful to say, "being (as was supposed [or reckoned]) son of Joseph" as Matthew; so that, if it be Joseph's descent, he well knew and meant to express what he was thus proving. It remains to be proved whether, in any accomplishment of such a promise among the Jews, and made to the Jews, any other relationship was needed, and whether such relationship is not to be taken according to Jewish (scripturally Jewish) relationship, and not English. For instance, it is well known the widow's child by the brother was reckoned the son of the dead. This is foreign, we know, to all our thoughts; but, as a divine national law (for it was merely a national law connected with the inheritance of the land), every Jew did and was bound to count him so. The brother was guilty and despised who did not do it.
Now scriptural language is to be taken as it is given to us in scripture. It is quite evident, that this legal title was judged important, whatever fancies Mr. N. may have as to it as an Englishman-important where alone this promise had its proper and peculiar importance as to its effect, for Matthew, who especially occupies himself with the accomplishment of such promises, gives this only.
It is certain that in general the evangelists rest the Jewish part of the question on Joseph's position. (See Luke a: 4.) But, instead of being irreconcilable, these genealogies are open to so many explanations that the difficulty arises thence. Thus, if Mary had no brother and was the daughter of Eli, the Lord was descended from Eli; and Joseph would be called Tog `H2i as heir and representative of Eli. If Matthat and Eli were brothers, and one died without children, then Joseph would be counted the seed of one, though really child of the other, and might be heir of both.
Now these show that there is no contradiction, supposing both the genealogies Joseph's; their credit will then rest on that of the writer. Hence different persons, as Africanus (whom Augustine follows), who pretends to give it from relations of Jesus's family, and others, have adopted different ones. None can be proved: all prove there is no contradiction. If the genealogy be Mary's, there is clearly none. It may be however given as Joseph's, who through Mary would be τοῦ Ἡλὶ, representative of Eli in the family. In this case Luke would give the union of the legal and natural title, and the structure of the phrase would be, according to Greek genealogies, ὢν (ὡς ἐν.) υἱὸς Ἰωσὲφ, τοῦ Ἡλὶ, &c., and yet Eli would be the father of Mary, and the genealogy really hers. Its being thus the natural descent by Mary, though legally passing through Joseph, would meet another point in the genealogy of great importance in Luke's gospel, its being traced up to Adam, so that Jesus is Son of man, to which His natural genealogy has more reference. It would make Him also naturally son of David. Thus the natural genealogy would be traced and brought through Joseph, its legal representative; and this I rather apprehend to be the case, but I attach no kind of importance to it. I would add, "according to the flesh" has a broader meaning than mere natural descent, though founded no doubt on fleshly descent.
On the whole, I am satisfied that the descent itself is Mary's. I may add here, that the apocryphal vision of Isaiah, which is probably of the year 68, declares Mary to be of the lineage of David, as Joseph also. This I refer to merely as showing the popular general apprehension of that day. In Kaye's Tertullian, it is stated, that Tertullian uniformly appeals to the census as establishing the descent of Christ from David through Mary. It is the more likely that it may be so, as the Jewish Talmudists speak of Mary as the daughter of Eli, saying she is tormented in the other world.
On the whole, then, there are two questions. First, Do the generations contradict each other? This, it is clearly demonstrated, that there is not the slightest possible ground for asserting. With this all objection really falls to the ground. Secondly, Is Luke's genealogy that of Joseph or Mary? It may be legally Joseph's and naturally Mary's. But this is a question for theologians, not for infidels; for, whichever the Lord may have thought proper to have given, an infidel has nothing to say in the matter.
The question of inexactitude no human being can settle by any subsisting registers, for there are none. To impute it, therefore, is mere wantonness. To the question of inspiration it has nothing to say. The proofs of this rest on totally other ground. Were the genealogy as accurate as law could make it, it would not prove it inspired. Were it inspired, I should have no proof of its accuracy from other sources; I must rest it on inspiration proved in another way.
The fact of Christ's being in every sense Son of David, is rested, in the gospels, on proofs of quite a different character. On the other hand, His legal title to sit on the throne of David is given in a way which was conclusive to the Jews. The fact of His natural birth of Mary would not have proved it, Joseph being alive; nor if there were other relations of Joseph, unless He was his legal heir. Even if there were not, the legal title through Eli by Mary might be important to give also, as it was allowed He was not naturally Joseph's son. Thus every way He was heir, and the two genealogies had their just place.