1.7.1
VII. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὴν περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενεαλογίαν διαφόρως ἡμῖν ὅ τε Ματθαῖος καὶ ὁ Λουκᾶς εὐαγγελιζόμενοι παραδεδώκασι διαφωνεῖν τε νομίζονται τοῖς πολλοῖς τῶν τε πιστῶν ἕκαστος ἀγνοίᾳ τἀληθοῦς εὑρησιλογεῖν εἰς τοὺς τόπους πεφιλοτίμηται, φέρε, καὶ τὴν περὶ τούτων κατελθοῦσαν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἱστορίαν παραθώμεθα, ἢν δι’ ἐπιστολῆς Ἀριστείδῃ γράφων περὶ συμφωνίας τῆς ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις γενεαλογίας ὁ μικρῷ πρόσθεν ἡμῖν δηλωθεὶς Ἀφρικανὸς ἐμνημόνευσεν τὰς μὲν δὴ τῶν λοιπῶν δόξας ὡς ἂν βιαίους καὶ διεψευσμένας ἀπελέγξας, ἢν δ’ αὐτὸς παρείληφεν ἱστορίαν τούτοις αὐτοῖς ἐκτιθέμενος τοῖς ῥήμασιν· Επειδὴ γὰρ τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν γενῶν ἐν Ἰσραὴλ ἠριθμεῖτο ἢ φύσει ἢ νόμῳ, φύσει μέν, γνησίου σπέρματος διαδοχὴ, νόμῳ δέ, ἑτέρου παιδοπιουμένου εἰς ὄνομα τελευτήσαντος ἀδελφοῦ ἀτέκνου (ὅτι γὰρ οὐδέπω δέδοτο ἐλπὶς ἀναστάσεως σαφής, τὴν μέλλουσαν ἐπαγγελίαν ἀναστάσει ἐμιμοῦντο θνητῇ, ἵνα ἀνέκλειπτον τὸ ὄνομα μείνῃ τοῦ μετηλλαχότος). ηλλαχότος)· ἐπεὶ οὗν οἱ τῇ γενεαλογίᾳ ταύτῃ ἐμφερόμενοι, οἱ μὲν διεδέξαντο παῖς πατέρα γνησίως, οἱ δὲ ἑτέροις μὲν ἐγεννήθησαν , ἑτέροις δὲ προσετέθησαν κλήσει, ἀμφοτέρων γέγονεν ἢ μνήμη, καὶ τῶν γεγεννηκότων καὶ τῶν ὡς γεγεννηκότων. οὕτως οὐδέτερον τῶν εὐαγγελίων φεύδεται, καὶ φύσιν ἀριθμοῦν καὶ νόμον. ἐπεπλάκη γὰρ ἀλλήλοις τὰ γένη, τό τε ἀπὸ τοῦ Σολομῶνος καὶ τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ναθάν, ἀναστάσεσιν ἀτέκνων καὶ δευτερογαμίαις καὶ ἀναστάσει σπερμάτων, ὡς δικαίως τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἄλλοτε ἄλλων νομίζεσθαι, τῶν μὲν δοκούντων πατέρων, τῶν δὲ ὑπαρχόντων· ὡς ἀμφοτέρας τὰς διηγήσεις κυρίως ἀληθεῖς οὔσας ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰωσὴφ πολυπλόκως μέν, ἀλλ’ ἀκριβῶς κατελθεῖν. ἵνα δὲ σαφὲς ἦ τὸ λεγόμενον, μένον, τὴν ἐναλλαγὴν τῶν γενῶν διηγήσομαι. ἀπὸ τοῦ Δαυὶδ διὰ Σολομῶνος τὰς γενεὰς καταρι- θμουμένοις τρίτος ἀπὸ τέΛους· εὑρίσκεται Ματθάν, ὃς ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰακώβ, τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ τὸν πατέρα· ἀπὸ δὲ Ναθὰν τοῦ Δαυὶδ κατὰ Λουκᾶν ὁμοίως τρίτος ἀπὸ τέλους Μελχί· Ἰωσὴφ γὰρ υἱὸς Ἥλι’ τοῦ Μελχί. σκοποῦ τοίνυν ἡμῖν κειμένου τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, ἀποδεικτέον πῶς ἑκάτερος αὐτοῦ πατὴρ ἱστορεῖται, ὅ τε Ἰακὼβ ὁ ἀπὸ Σολομῶνος καὶ Ἡλὶ ὁ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ναθὰν ἑκάτερος κατάγοντες γένος, ὅπως τε πρότερον οὗτοι δή, ὅ τε Ἰακὼβ καὶ ὁ Ἠλί, δύο ἀδελφοί, καὶ πρό γε, πῶς οἱ τούτων πατέρες, Ματθὰν καὶ Μελχί, διαφόρων ὄντες γενῶν, τοῦ Ἰωαὴφ ἀναφαίνονται πάπποι. καὶ δὴ οὖν ὅ τε Ματθὰν καὶ ὁ Μελχί, ἐν μέρει τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγαγόμενοι γυναῖκα, ὁμομητρίους ἀδελφοὺς ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο, τοῦ νόμου μὴ κωλύοντος χηρεύουσαν, ἤτοι ἀπολελυμένην ἢ καὶ τελευτήσαντος τοῦ ἀνδρός, ἄλλῳ γαμεῖαθαι· ἐκ δὴ τῆς ’Eαθὰ (τοῦτο γὰρ καλεῖσθαι τὴν γυναῖκα παραδέδοται ) πρῶτος Ματθάν, ὁ ἀπὸ τοῦ Σολομῶνος τὸ γένος κατάγων, τὸν Ἰακὼβ γεννᾷ, καὶ τελευτήσαντος τοῦ Ματθὰν Μελχί, ὁ ἐπὶ τὸν Ναθὰν κατὰ γένος ἀναφερόμενος, χηρεύουσαν, ἐκ μὲν τῆς αὐτῆς φυλῆς, ἐξ ἄλλου δὲ γένους ὤν, ὡς προεῖπον, ἀγαγόμενος αὐτήν, ἔσχεν υἱὸν τὸν Ἡλί. οὕτω δὴ διαφόρων δύο γενῶν εὑρήσομεν τόν τε Ἰακὼβ καὶ τὸν Ἡλὶὁμομητρίους ἀδελφούς, ὧν ὁ ἕτερος, Ἰακώβ, ἀτέκνου τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τελευτήσαντος Ἡλί, τὴν γυναῖκα παραλαβών, ἐγέννησεν ἐξ αὐτῆς τρίτον τὸν Ἰωσήφ, κατὰ φύαιν μὲν ἑαυτῷ (καὶ κατὰ λόγον, δι’ ὃ γέγραπται ἴ’ Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωαήφ’), κατὰ νόμον δὲ τοῦ Ἡλὶ υἱὸς ἦν· ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ὁ Ἰακώβ, ἀδελφὸς ὤν, ἀνέστησεν σπέρμα. δι’ ὅπερ οὐκ ἀκυρωθήσεται καὶ ἢ κατ’ αὐτὸν γενεαλογία· ἢν Ματθαῖος μὲν ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς Ι ἐξαριθμούμενος Ἰακὼβ δέ ’ φησίν ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσήφ,’ ὁ δὲ Λουκᾶς ἀνάπαλιν ‘ ὃς ἢν, ὡς ἐνομίζετο καὶ γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο προστίθησιν) τοῦ Ιωαὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ τοῦ Μελχί.’ τὴν γὰρ κατὰ νόμον γένεσιν ἐπισημότερον οὐκ ἢν ἐξειπεῖν, καὶ τὸ ἐγέννησεν ’ ἐπὶ τῆς τοιᾶσδε παιδοποιίας ἄχρι τέλους ἐσιώπησεν, τὴν ἀναφορὰν ποιησάμενος ἕως τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ θεοῦ ’ κατ’ ἀνάλυσιν. οὐδὲ μὴν ἀναπόδεικτον ἢ ἐσχεδιασμένον ἐστὶν τοῦτο. τοῦ γοῦν σωτῆρος οἱ κατὰ σάρκα συγγενεῖς, εἴτ’ οὖν φανητιῶντες εἴθ’ ἁπλῶς ἐκδιδάσκοντες, πάντως δὲ ἀληθεύοντες, παρέδοσαν καὶ ταῦτα· ὡς Ἰδουμαῖοι λῃσταὶ Ἀσκάλωνι πόλει τῆς Παλαιστίνης ἐπελθόντες, ἐξ εἰδωλείου ’ Ἀπόλλωνος, δ’ πρὸς τοῖς τείχεσιν ἵδρυτο, Ἀντίπατρον Ἡρῴδου τινὸς ἱεροδούλου παῖδα πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀύλοις αἰχμάλωτον ἀπῆγον, τῷ δὲ λύτρα ὑπὲρ τοῦ υἱοῦ καταθέσθαι μὴ δύνασθαι τὸν ἱερέα ὁ ’ Ἀντίπατρος τοῖς τῶν Ἰδουμαίων ἔθεσιν ἐντραφείς, ὕστερον Ὑρκανῷ φιλοῦται τῷ τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἀρχιερεῖ· πρεσβεύσας δὲ πρὸς Πομπήιον ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ὑρκανοῦ καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν ἐΛευθερώσας αὐτῷ ὑπὸ Ἀριστοβούλου τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ περικοπτομένην, αὐτὸς ηὐτύχησεν, ἐπιμελητὴς τῆς Παλαιστίνης χρηματίσας· διαδέχεται δὲ τὸν Ἀντίπατρον, φθόνῳ τῆς πολλῆς εὐτυχίας δολοφονηθέντα, υἱὸς Ἡρῴδης, ὃς ὕστερον ὑπ’ Ἀντωνίου καὶ τοῦ σεβαστοῦ συγκλήτου δόγματι τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐκρίθη βασίλευε ἱν· ὁδ’ παῖδες Ἡρῴδης οἵ τ’ ἄλλοι τετράρχαι. ταῦτα μὲν δὴ κοινὰ καὶ ταῖς Ἐλλήνων ἱστορίαις· ἀναγράπτων δὲ εἰς τότε ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις ὄντων τῶν Ἑβραϊκῶν γενῶν καὶ τῶν ἄχρι προσηλύτων ἀναφερομένων , ὡς Ἀχιὼρ τοῦ Ἀμμανίτου καὶ Ροὺθ τῆς Μωαβίτιδος, τῶν τε ἀπ’ Αἰγύπτου συμβαλλομένου ἐπιμίκτων, ὁ Ἡρῴδης, οὐδέν τι συμβαλλομένου τοῦ τῶν Ἰσραηλιτῶν γένους αὐτῷ καὶ τῷ συνειδότι τῆς δυσγενείας κρουόμενος, ἐνέπρησεν αὐτῶν τὰς ἀναγραφὰς τῶν γενῶν, οἰόμενος εὐγενὴς ἀναφανεῖσθαι τῷ μηδ’ ἄλλον ἔχειν ἐκ δημοσίου συγγραφῆς τὸ γένος ἀνάγειν ἐπὶ τοὺς πατριάρχας ἢ προσηλύτους τούς τε καλουμένους γειώρας, τοὺς ἐπιμίκτους . ὀλίγοι δὴ τῶν ἐπιμελῶν, ἰδιωτικὰς ἑαυτοῖς ἀπογραφὰς ἢ μνημονεύσαντες τῶν ὀνομάτων ἢ ἄλλως ἔχοντες ἐξ ἀντιγράφων, ἐναβρύνονται σῳζομένη τῆ μνήμη τῆς εὐγενείας · ὧν ἐτύγχανον οἱ προειρημένοι, δεσπόσυνοι καλούμενοι διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸ σωτήριον γένος συνάφειαν ἀπό τε Ναζάρων καὶ Κωχαβα κωμῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν τῆ λοιπῇ γῇ ἐπιφοιτήσαντες καὶ τὴν προκειμένην γενεαλογίαν ἔκ τε τῆς βίβλου τῶν ἡμερῶν, ἐς ὅσον ἐξικνοῦντο, ἐξηγησάμενοι. εἴτ’ οὗν οὕτως εἴτ’ ἄλλως ἔχοι, σαφεστέραν ἐξήγησιν οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι τις ἄλλος ἐξευρεῖν, ὡς ἔγωγε νομίζω πᾶς τε ὃς εὐγνώμων τυγχάνει, καὶ ἡμῖν αὕτη μελέτω, εἰ καὶ ἀμάρτυρός ἐστιν, τῷ μὴ κρείττονα ἢ ἀληθεστέραν ἔχειν εἰπεῖν· τό γέ τοι εὐαγγέλιον πάντως ἀληθεύει. καὶ ἐπὶ τέλει δὲ τῆς αὐτῆς ἐπιστολῆς προστίθησι ταῦτα. “ Ματθὰν ὁ ἀπὸ Σολομῶνος ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰακώβ. Ματθὰν ἀποθανόντος, Μελχὶ ὁ ἀπὸ αθὰν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς γυναικὸς ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἡλί. ὁμομήτριοι ἄρα ἀδελφοὶ Ἡλὶ καὶ Ἰακώβ. Ἠλὶ ἀτέκνου ἀποθανόντος ὁ Ἰακὼβ ἀνέστησεν αὐτῷ σπέρμα, γεννήσας τὸν Ἰωαήφ, κατὰ φύσιν μὲν ἑαυτῷ, κατὰ νόμον δὲ τῷ Ἡλί. οὕτως ἀμφότέρων ἦν υἱὸς ὁ Ἰωαήφ.”
VII. Since Matthew and Luke, having given us different traditions in their Gospels concerning the genealogy of Christ, are considered by many to disagree; and since each of the faithful, in ignorance of the truth, has been zealous in making guesses on these passages, come, let us set out the story that has reached us concerning them, which the Africanus mentioned by us a short time ago narrated in a letter which he wrote to Aristides on the harmony of the genealogies in the Gospels, confuting the opinions of others as forced and fictitious and setting out his own traditions in the following words: “Since the names of the families in Israel were numbered either by nature or by law; by nature, in the succession of legitimate birth; by law, when a man begat children in the name of a brother who had died childless; for because no certain hope of resurrection had as yet been given they portrayed the future promise by a mortal resurrection, in order that the name of him who had passed away might not fail to remain. Since then, by following this kind of genealogy, some succeeded in the legitimate order of father and son, but others were reckoned in name to one father though the children of another, the memory of both was retained, both of the actual and of the fictitious parents. Thus neither of the Gospels misstates, reckoning both nature and law. For the two families, the one descended from Solomon and the other from Nathan, were connected with each other by the ‘resurrections’ of the childless and second marriages and the raising up of seed, so that the same persons could be correctly regarded as the children of different persons at different times, either of their fictitious or of their real fathers. Thus both accounts are strictly true in coming down to Joseph in a manner complicated but accurate. In order that what has been said may be clear I will explain the relation of the families. Reckoning the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begat Jacob, the father of Joseph; but from Nathan, the son of David, according to Luke, the corresponding from the end is Melchi; for Joseph was a son of Eli, the son of Melchi. So then, fixing our attention on Joseph, it must be demonstrated how each is called his father, Jacob tracing his family from Solomon and Eli from Nathan, and how first they, that is Jacob and Eli, were two brothers, and, still earlier, how their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, belonging to different families, are represented as the grandfathers of Joseph. Now Matthan and Melchi, inasmuch as they took the same wife, were the fathers of step-brothers, for the law does not prevent a woman who has lost her husband either by her own divorce or by his death from being married to another. Now from Estha, for this is the traditional name of the woman, first Matthan, who reckoned his descent from Solomon, begat Jacob; and when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced himself by family to Nathan, took his widow, for he was of the same tribe though of another family, as I said before, and had a son, Eli. Thus we shall find that though the two families were different Jacob and Eli were step-brothers of the same mother, and the first of them, Jacob, when his brother Eli died without children, took his wife, and begat of her the third, Joseph, according to nature, for himself (and so also according to reason, for which cause it is written, ‘And Jacob begat Joseph’), but according to law he was the son of Eli, for to him Jacob, being his brother, raised up seed. Wherefore the genealogy concerning him will not be inaccurate. Matthew, the evangelist, reckoned it in this way, saying, ‘And Jacob begat Joseph,’ but Luke, on the other hand, said, ‘Who was, as it was supposed’ (for he adds this), ‘the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Melchi,’ for it was impossible to express legal descent more pointedly, and up to the end he suppressed the word ‘begat’ concerning such raising of children, for he traces the list back to its source with Adam, the son of God. This is neither devoid of proof nor is it conjecture, for the human relatives of the Saviour have handed on this tradition, either from family pride, or merely to give information, but in any case speaking the truth. When Idumaean brigands attacked the city of Ascalon in Palestine among their other spoils they took away captive from the temple of Apollo, which was built on the walls, Antipater, the child of a certain Herod, a hierodoulos, and since the priest was unable to pay ransom for his son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumaeans and later was befriended by Hyrcanus the high priest of Judaea. When sent on a mission to Pompey on behalf of Hyrcanus he won for him the freedom of the kingdom which had been taken away by his brother Aristobulus, and so was himself fortunate enough to gain the title of overseer of Palestine. Antipater was assassinated from envy of his great good fortune, and succeeded by a son Herod, who later was appointed by Antony and by decree of the august senate to be king of the Jews. His children were Herod and the other tetrarchs. So much is shared with the histories of the Greeks also. But since the Hebrew families and those traceable to proselytes, such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and the mixed families which had come out of Egypt, had until then been enrolled in the archives, Herod, because the family of the Israelites contributed nothing to him, and because he was goaded by his own consciousness of his base birth, burned the records of their families, thinking to appear noble if no one else was able by public documents to trace his family to the patriarchs or proselytes, or to the so-called georas of mixed descent. Now a few who were careful, having private records for themselves, either remembering the names or otherwise deriving them from copies, gloried in the preservation of the memory of their good birth; among these were those mentioned above, called desposyni, because of their relation to the family of the Saviour, and from the Jewish villages of Nazareth and Cochaba they traversed the rest of the land and expounded the preceding genealogy of their descent, and from the Book of Chronicles so far as they went. Whether this be so or not no one could give a clearer account, in my opinion and in that of all well-disposed persons, and it may suffice us even though it is not corroborated, since we have nothing better or truer to say: in any case the Gospel speaks the truth. And at the end of the same letter Africanus adds this: “Matthan of the line of Solomon begat Jacob. On the death of Matthan, Melchi of the line of Nathan begat Eli from the same woman. Thus Eli and Jacob were step-brothers with the same mother. When Eli died without children, Jacob raised up seed for him, begetting Joseph as his own natural son but the legal son of Eli. Thus Joseph was son of both.”