20 MES. A. 5. LEWIS^ OX THE GEXEALOGIES OF OUE LORD. 



these sources caused the variety. But the fact that no attempt was 

 made in early times to make the two genealogies agree by cutting 

 out. or adding, spoke well for the honesty of transcribers. He 

 imderstood that the usually accepted theory was that both were 

 genealogies of Joseph : but the other theory made the matter easier of 

 reconciliation. Mrs. Lewis' explanation of the A^ision of the star as 

 suggested by the Sinai MS. was very interesting, and quite recon- 

 cilable with the Greek. The only difficulty was, as the star in this 

 case would be in the west, why did not the ^-ise men travel on from 

 Bethlehem till they reached the sea. He asked Mrs. Lewis to explain 

 on what grounds the revisers had rejected "wife" for "betrothed." 



Canon Girdlestone said : All vnll join in thanking Mrs. Lewis 

 for her interesting paper on a subject of very ancient dispute. If I 

 differ from her it will not be taken that I do not ajDpreciate her case, 

 and it may add interest to the discussion. Our subject involves the 

 study of Jewish methods of registration. St. Matthew traces the 

 line of Joseph down from the patriarchs ; St. Luke traces it up to 

 our first parents, and so to God. If we turn to i Chron. vi, we find 

 two genealogies of Samuel, one going down and the other up, and 

 •svith several variations of names. I discussed them in the Exjjositor 

 for November, 1899. In Josephus' life there is a reference to the 

 fact that at certain times genealogies had to be re-copied, and this 

 would possibly lead to mistakes and omissions. The first of the three 

 missing names in St. Matthew begins with the same letters as the 

 name that foUows (whether in Hebrew or in Greek), and this may 

 account for the omission, though the theory held by Mrs. Lewis 

 seems quite a reasonable one. The complications roimd 

 Zembbabel's name are considerable. Salathiel was probably son of 

 Neri of Nathan's line, and Zerubbabel the son of Pedaiah was adopted 

 by him. Something similar happened in the case of Joseph. This 

 ^-iew was worked out by Julius Africanus, one of the most learned 

 men of his age. Hammurabi's code deals with adoption and is at the 

 root of Jewish law. The ISSth section orders that if a man teaches 

 his adopted son a handicraft no one can take the lad away from him. 

 This was e^adently done by Joseph in the case of Jesus, who was his 

 legally adopted son. Two royal lines converged in the carpenter. 

 If the crown of David had been assigned to his successor in the days 

 of Herod it would have l^een placed on the head of Joseph. And 

 who would have been the legal successor to J oseph ? J esus of 



