^{page 203 note 1} Art. ‘Genealogies of Jesus Christ’, in The Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, ed. by J. Hastings (Edinburgh, 1906).Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 2} Allen, W. C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (New York, 1907).Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 3} Box, G. H., The Virgin Birth of Jesus (London, 1916).Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 4} A. H. McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew.

^{page 203 note 5} Taylor, V., The Historical Evidence for the Virgin Birth (Oxford, 1920).Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 6} Cf. Deut. xxv. 5–6.

^{page 203 note 7} Eusebius, Church History (H.E.) I. 7. 1–10.

^{page 203 note 8} The other main effort at harmonization follows the suggestion first advanced by Annius of Viterbo (c. A.D. 1490) that Matthew's genealogy was a record of Joseph's lineage, while Luke's was that of Mary (cf. Plummer, A., The Gospel According to Luke, Edinburgh, 1922, p. 103).Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 9} Africanus's hypothesis is problematical because (1) the same explanation of levirate-marriage must be invoked to account for Shealtiel's two different fathers (Matt. i. 1–12; Luke iii. 27), (2) there is no reason why Estha should have been compelled to marry again since she had already given birth to a son, (3) it is questionable whether the levirate custom also applied to half-brothers.

Annius of Viterbo's solution is equally unlikely because Luke explicitly states that Jesus was the son of Joseph (Luke iii. 21), and because it was not a Jewish custom to trace one's ancestry on the maternal side. Consequently, no such record would have been kept for Mary.

^{page 204 note 1} So Epiphanius, , Haer. 30Google Scholar. 14. 3. Cf. Haer. 29. 9. 4; 30. 13. 6. (See Hennecke, E., Schneemelcher, W. and Wilson, R., New Testament Apocrypha, London, 1963.)Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 2} So Jerome, , Comm. on Mt. 12. 13Google Scholar. (Hennecke et al. op. cit.)

^{page 204 note 3} Eusebius states that during Domitian's reign (A.D. 81–96) two indidviduals were brought to Rome for investigation because of their known Davidic heritage (H.E. 3. 20Google Scholar). Eusebius mentions also the martyrdom of a man named Simon who, he asserts, was also of Davidic background (H. E. 3. 32. 3Google Scholar). Thus, it would appear that Davidic descent was not kept secret by those who came from such a bachground.

^{page 204 note 4} cf.Josephus, , Vita, IGoogle Scholar; C. Ap. I. 7. In the light of Josephus' remarks regarding his own genealogy, J. Africanus', statement that Herod had the public archives burnt (H.E. I. 7. 13) is highly suspect. cf. Johnson, M. D., The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with special reference to the setting of the Genealogies of Jesus (Cambridge University Press, 1969), pp. 103 f.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 5} As noted by Box, G. H. (‘The Gospel Narratives of the Nativity and the Alleged Influence of Heathen Ideas,’ Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, VI, 1905, 80–101)Google Scholar, the numerical value of the consonants in David's name, daled, vav, daled, is 4+6+4+=14, the exact number of generations in the threefold division of names, suggesting that the genealogy has been cleverly manipulated so as to form an acrostic on David's name. Allen, op. cit. p. 6, cites 16 other arrangements of material into groups of three within the gospel of Matthew. Consequently, it is very likely that the evangelist was also directly responsible for the threefold division present in his gospel.

^{page 204 note 6} Joash, Amaziah, Azariah and Jehoiakim.

^{page 204 note 7} Tammar, Rahab, Ruth and Bath-sheba.

^{page 204 note 8} So Hervey, A. C., art., ‘Genealogy of Jesus Christ’, in Smith, W.'s Dictionary of the Bible (London, 1893)Google Scholar, who argued that only Luke intended to give the true pedigree.

The passage in the Jerusalem Talmud (Chagiga 77d) which identifies a certain Mary as the daughter of Eli Betzalim may contain a reference to the Heli of Luke's genealogy (Harris, J. Rendel, ‘The Blessed Virgin in the Talmud,’ Expos. 1895, II, 191–9Google Scholar; cf. however, G. A. Cooke, Ibid. pp. 316–20), but this does not constitute evidence for the historicity of Luke's genealogy, but rather Jewish acquaintance with Luke's gospel.

^{page 204 note 9} See Johnson, op. cit. pp. 99 f.

^{page 205 note 1} H.E. I. 7. 14.

^{page 205 note 2} Johnson, op. cit. p. 104.

^{page 205 note 3} McNeile, op. cit. p. xvii.

^{page 205 note 4} Tasker, R. V. G., The Gospel According to St. Matthew (London, 1961).Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 5} A concise summary of this hypothesis can be found in Hood, R. T.'s ‘The Genealogies of Jesus’, in Early Christian Origins, ed. by Wikgren, A. (Chicago, 1961)Google Scholar. Cf. also Mann, C. S., ‘The Historicity Of The Birth Narratives’, in Historicity And Chronology In The New Testament (S.P.C.K. London, 1965)Google Scholar, and Benoit, P., L'Évangile selon St. Matthieu (Paris, 1950).Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 6} Those who question the Matthean composition of the genealogy adduce as their evidence the fact that the genealogy does not harmonize with the doctrine of the virgin birth, and the fact that the word γένεσΙς is used with two entirely different meanings in the short space of eighteen verses (Matt. i. 1 and i. 18). So Bundy, W. E., Jesus And The First Three Gospels (Cambridge, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; von Campenhausen, H., The Virgin Birth in the Theology of the Ancient Church (London, 1964)Google Scholar; Hahn, F., The Titles of Jesus in Christology (Cleveland, 1969)Google Scholar; Lobstein, P., The Virgin Birth of Christ (N.Y. 1903)Google Scholar; Loisy, A., The Origins Of The New Testament (N.Y. 1950).Google Scholar

Those supporting a Matthean composition find no impasse at these two criticisms. So Allen, op. cit.; Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, 1964)Google Scholar; Kilpatrick, G. D., The Origins of the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Oxford, 1946)Google Scholar; Vögtle, A, ‘Die Genealogie Mat. I. 2–16 und die matthäische Kindheitsgeschichte,’ Biblische Zeitschrift (1965), IX, 32–49.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 1} Op. Cit.

^{page 206 note 2} The Targum on Zechariah in the Codex Reuchlinianus, Johnson, op. cit. p. 241.

^{page 206 note 3} Lévi, I., ‘L'Apocalypse de Zorobabel et le Roi de Perse Siroès,’ Revue des Études Juives (1914), LXVIII, 129–60Google Scholar, quoted by Johnson, op. cit. p. 241.

^{page 206 note 4} Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI, 125.

^{page 206 note 5} Migne, , Patrologia Graec. XXII, 895Google Scholar, quoted by Johnson, p. 244.

^{page 206 note 6} Thus Fitzmyer, J. A., Th. Stud. (1969), XXX, 700–4.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 7} E.g. Theudas (Ant. 20. 97), an unknown Egyptian (Ant. 20. 167), Jonathan of Cyrene (War 6. 300), and the Samaritan who promised to disclose the vessels hidden by Moses on Mount Gerizim (Ant. 18. 85).

^{page 207 note 1} Wars 2. 159.

^{page 207 note 2} Note Black's, M. remark (The Scrolls and Christian Origins, N.Y. 1961, p. 158Google Scholar) that the ‘expectation of a Moses–like Prophet’ appears to have been ‘one of the liveliest popular beliefs in pre–Christian Judaism’. For a survey of the evidence, cf.Cullmann, , The Christology of the New Testament (Philadelphia, 1959)Google Scholar; Hahn, op. cit.; and Teeple, H. M., The Mosaic Eschatological Prophet, J. Bib. Lit. Monog. Ser. x (1957).Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 3} See Teeple, op. cit. pp. 67–8.

^{page 207 note 4} That the prophet Elijah was seen as a forerunner of the Messiah was, of course, a popular concept during this and the pre–Christian period (see Klausner, J., The Messianic Idea in Israel, N.Y. 1955)Google Scholar, but one may also distinguish a messianic figure known primarily as ‘the prophet’ who was totally separate from the figure of Elijah. See Strack, H. L.–Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash (Munich, 1922), II, 363 f.Google Scholar; cf. also Hahn, op. cit. pp. 354 f.

^{page 207 note 5} Hahn, op. cit. p. 354.

^{page 207 note 6} See Klausner, op. cit.; Mowinckel, S., He That Cometh (N.Y. 1956).Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 7} See Driver, G. R., The Judean Scrolls (Oxford, 1965), pp. 465 f.Google Scholar; Kuhn, K. G., ‘The Two Messiahs of Aaron and Israel’, in The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. by Stendahl, K. (N.Y. 1957)Google Scholar; cf. however Charles', R. H. remarks in ‘Test. of XII Patriarchs’, in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1913).Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 1} During the period of the monarchy the king, who was ‘anointed’, acted not only as national leader, but also as prophet and head of the priesthood, and as such he could offer sacrifices at the Temple (cf. I. Kings ix. 25). For the various functions of the king in Israel see Bentzen, A., King and Messiah (London, 1955)Google Scholar; cf. also James, E. O., ‘The Sacred Kingship and the Priesthood’, in La Regalita Sacra (Leiden, 1955)Google Scholar. After the return from Exile, priestly and royal functions were no longer combined, hence ‘the two sons of oil’ (Zech. iv. 14), but note, however, that in speaking of John Hyrcanus Josephus says that he was worthy of three honours: kingship, priesthood and prophetic office (Ant. 13. 10. 7. Cf. Philo, , Mos. 2. 1. 2–7Google Scholar). With respect to the anointing of prophets, cf. I. Kings xix. 16; Isa. lxi. 1; and Eusebius (H.E. I. 3), who specifically refers to the ‘anointed prophets’.

^{page 208 note 2} Macdonald, J., The Theology of the Samaritans (London, 1964), p. 209.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 3} Cf. Philo's statement that ‘the true priest is at once also a prophet’ (Spec). 4. 36. 192; cf. Mos. 2. 50. 275.

^{page 208 note 4} Ante-Nicene Fathers VI, 125.

^{page 208 note 5} Quoted by Johnson, op. cit. pp. 273–4.

^{page 208 note 6} See Hennecke, op. cit.

^{page 209 note 1} Cullmann, op. cit. p. 40. Cf. Paul (I Cor. XV. 34–45).

^{page 209 note 2} Mowinckel, op. cit. p. 322, remarks that in the gospel of John ‘the “Prophet” simpliciter was a title of the Messiah’. Thus John declares that in the person of Jesus the people saw ‘the Prophet who should come into the world’ (John. vi. 14). Note also the hailing of Jesus as ‘a great prophet’ who had ‘arisen among us’ in Luke (vii. 16). Cf. also Matt. xxi. 11, 46. For a discussion of the prophet–theme in John see Meeks, W. A., The Prophet–King (Leiden, 1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 209 note 3} Op. cit. p. 252.

^{page 209 note 4} Hervey, op. cit. p. 886, noted that Rhesa was probably not a personal name but rather the Aramaic word for ‘prince’, and was originally intended, therefore, as a title for Zerubabel who was appointed governor of Judaea after the return from Exile. As heir to the kingship of Judah, he could conceivably have borne such a title.