MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OP OUR LORD. 33 



of our Lord. I agree also that Ochozias and Ozias begin with the 

 same letter. But as we are told in v. 17 that the generations from 

 David until the carrying away to Babylon are fourteen generations, 

 we see that the omission of the three names, which would bring the 

 number up to seventeen, must be deliberate. 



The explanation which is given to us by Julius Africanus one 

 hundred years after the time of Irenseus and one hundred and fifty 

 after that of Justin (a.d. 250) is considerably qualified by his 

 statement [EiLsebius, H.E., i, 7), Kou rjfXLv olvt-y] iieXkna^ el Kal firj 

 €fM[JbdpTvp6<s icTTL, T(p p) KpeLTTOvoc 7] aXrjOecTTepciv €\eLV ecTreLv. This 

 I translate, " And this is for us to consider, although there is not 

 sufficient evidence for it, as there is nothing better or more true to 

 be said." 



The statement of Africanus, which he heard from a remote 

 kinsman of our Lord two hundred and twenty years after the 

 Eesurrection, is thus summed up by himself. " Matthew of Solomon's 

 line begat Jacob. Matthew having died, Melchi of Nathan's line 

 begat Heli of the same woman. Heli and Jacob were therefore 

 brothers, and had the same mother. Heli having died without 

 children, Jacob raised up seed unto him, having begotten Joseph, 

 his own child by nature, but legally the son of Heli. Thus Joseph 

 was the son of both." 



It seems to me that we have to choose between the accuracy of 

 St. Luke, who probably got his information for the rest of the 

 story directly from our Lord's mother, and that of some unknown 

 kinsman of the family two hundred and twenty years later, in 

 whom Africanus did not himself place implicit trust. For St. Luke 

 puts at least two generations between Melchi and Heli. 



Mr. Crewdson suggests a Levirate marriage between Heli and the 

 widow of Jacob. But this is not what Julius Africanus reports. Is 

 this second version of the story founded on any evidence ^ or is it 

 purely conjecture Both versions cannot be true. 



I am greatly obliged to Canon Girdlestone for drawing our 

 attention to the law in Hammurabi's code, which binds an 

 adopted son more closely to his adopted father, when the latter has 

 taught him a craft, such as that of carpentry. 



I fear that some of my audience are under the impression that 

 the Syriac MS. which I found on Mount Sinai is a copy of Tatian's 

 Diatessawn, or Harmony of the Gospels. Not so. It is the Four 



D 



