34 MRS. A. S. LEWIS^ ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 



Gospels of the Separated, expressly so called ; being really an older 

 form of the Old Syriac, or Curetonian Version. It is called Mephar- 

 resha, i.e., " Separated," exactly the same word, and I think the 

 same grammatical form, as the fourth word which Belshazzar saw 

 written by a mysterious hand on the wall. But as I am ignorant 

 of Babylonian Semitic I cannot be quite sure of this. The 

 Diatessaron is not extant, either in Syriac or in Greek. We have 

 only Ephraim's Commentory on it, with numerous quotations, in an 

 Armenian version translated into Latin by Moesinger. And we 

 know its structure from two very late Arabic MSS., which have in 

 the course of ages been so closely assimilated to the Peshitta that 

 they have lost much of their value for textual criticism. 



The examples of sons-in-law being called sons, as they were in the 

 families of Sheshan and Barzillai, are most valuable for my 

 argument, and I thank Mr. Rouse for them. 



I agree with the Rev. G. Grewdson that 1 ought to withdraw my 

 agreement with Dr. Heer's idea that a Jewish family would probably 

 not recall its genealogy upwards for more than five generations, 

 But when we find contradictory statements about the childless 

 Jeconiah having children (Jer. xxii, 30 ; I Chron. iii, 17) how are we to 

 interpret it 1 Surely that these children died young. 



It is by no means proved that the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of 

 Luke's genealogy are the same people as those who bear similar 

 names in Matthew's. They cannot, in fact, be so, if we allow to 

 Luke even a moderate degree of accuracy. For he gives twenty 

 names between Shealtiel and David, whereas Matthew gives 

 fourteen. Between Zerubbabel and Heli, Luke gives seventeen 

 names, while Matthew has eight between Zerubbabel and Jacob. 

 Allowing for many mistakes of transcription, we cannot put the 

 Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Luke into the same period as those of 

 Matthew. 



It may be my want of perception, but I cannot see that the two 

 genealogies show agreement for about five generations from Shealtiel 

 to Abiud. I am very familiar with the mangling which Semitic 

 names undergo on Greek lips, and vice versa, and I see a likeness 

 between Hananiah and Joannan ; also between Hodaiah and Judah. 

 There is a very slight one between Abiud and Judah, but none at all 

 between Abiud and Rhesa. Nor can we even be sure that Matthan 

 and Matthat are identical. 



