MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF ODR LORD. 25 



unto him his wife " (Matt, i, 20, 24). To the world this step would 

 seem to mark the completion of the marriage ; it was, at least, the 

 formal home-taking. The Evangelist Matthew, however, proceeds to 

 record another fact : Joseph " knew her not till she had brought 

 forth a son " (verse 25). This statement shows that, in truth, for 

 the time, the betrothal had not eventuated in marriage as the same 

 is contemplated in Rabbinical Law. See "betrothal " and " taking " 

 distinguished in Deut. xx, 7 ; xxviii, 30. 



On a review of all the facts, we conclude that, while it was not 

 incorrect to speak of Mary as the wife of Joseph, as is plainly 

 implied in Matt, i, 24, yet, in view of the pious resolution which 

 lies behind the words of verse 25, there was a refined propriety in 

 the use of the Greek word mnesteud in the sense of " betrothed," 

 thus suggesting an incomplete marriage. Accordingly, the Syriac 

 versions, of which Mrs. Lewis has spoken, in referring to Mary as 

 Joseph's " wife " express the ostensible fact ; but the Greek text in 

 maintaining the relation of the betrothal takes account of the 

 heart and soul secret of the parties, whereby the nuptial contract 

 was reverently qualified until the birth of our Lord. 



The Rev. E. Seeley said : May I draw attention to another 

 interesting genealogy which in some points illustrates the difficulties 

 in our subject to-night ? Our King George, and also nearly all the 

 royal families of Europe, trace their descent backwards through 

 many of the great men of past ages to the Odin of legendary glory 

 but somewhat misty history. If we compare these various 

 pedigrees and look for their point of contact, we may be struck 

 by the interlacing of the pedigrees and puzzled by many difficulties. 



The Gospel genealogies go back to more remote ages and we 

 have fewer side-lights to help us ; while we know that sometimes 

 a man was known by two different names, and in other cases several 

 men all bore the same name ; so it is quite natural that we puzzle 

 over such pedigrees for want of knowledge. 



There is one statement, on p. 12, in the highly interesting 

 paper read this afternoon, with which I cannot agree. " The 

 private family registers would not, however, all disappear in this 

 catastrophe. Some of them were re-written from memory, but 

 in these cases they could hardly go beyond the fourth generation 

 upwards." The last clause seems to me highly unlikely in the case 

 of David's royal line. To me it seems much more likel}^ that each 



