, 1875-05-23
THE. cENEALOCY OF JESUS.

~ tn Editor Of The Chicago 15:oszs:
CHICAGO Msy 21.-The questions IN TIE
Tn1pCxE Of thu: 9Th inst. were propounded to
Mr. Reed because he had shown = pretty
thorough acquaintance with somo branches at
1sast. OF biblical literature and these questions
we're thought TO pertain to that general subject.
But Mr. Reed chooses to consider them theu-
logical questions, and therefore not within. his
province. Let us, therefore, examine the 1e-
ply Of Mr. Work, and sea now far 1t can bs con-
g:dered satisfactory.
The questions, in the Light Of 1fr. Works re-
ply, may te reduced to tmo:
First-How Christ is shown to be Of the
e. seed Of David"
second-whether there ii any serious discrep-
ancy in the genealogy IS given by Matthew and
Luke. For, it there is no discrepancy, it is be-
Gauss Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus
through Mary, and. il 90, that 1t the Same drno
answers my third question.
1t il not explained BY Mr. Work how Jesus Was
OF the seed Of David He says the gcncalogy
Eas Of much consequence AIN the eyes Of the
Jews." But Hath jew eyes :" and II 30,
could he not SEQ that the geneafogies failed to
bhov that Christ was descended from David at
all?
Even il, sccording to this explanation Of Mr..
Work, Luko's genealogy mas through Mary. that
does not mend the matter, since, according to
the Jews. the descent must be through the male
line. at was their custom not to admit the
names of females into their geneaiogies." How,
then, could person be descended from David
whose only claim to such descent Was through q
female? It is difficult to eee Whist the iut1er-
i:ance Of property has to do with it. It is d
question OF Eneage or desce1t through chain
Of ancestors. The chain is given. and the ques-
tion is, whether it is given correctly and By IL
splraton.
Mr. Work says divine inspiration vas not re-
quired in making up the genealogy. The ques.
ton is not whether it Was required, but whether
it was given; whether it prompted these ao-
counts, or could have done 80. The accounts
might be correct and not be inspired, but, it in
correct, they could not be; inspired; and the
question of their correctness is the enc under
says, .' evidently through clerical error mada
in translatng Matthew's Gospel from Hebrew to-
Greek, the names Of three Kings were omitted
from Matthew's list! A very serious omission,
certainly. Suppose three converAnces should be
omitted BY any OF our ahstract-men in making
up chain ot title: would 1t be considered q
good and valid abstract OF title?
But these discrepancies, 40 freely admitted by
Mr.. W., aro not the only ones, Luke, tracing
tbs line back to Noah, makes 6ala, ths son OF
according to Genesis, Szlah Was the son OF Ar
phaxad. and Arpha1nd Lived five and thirty
years, and begat Salah."
But these question: fade into insignifcancs
EQu1a1eQ MIL hNa Ah1A9 A4APoAeAAS VAAS7 - ko
whether tho eenealogies Of Matthew and Luke
ate consistent With each other, and whether
either Of them is intended to be traced through
5iary. The argument of Nj Work is 1ngenious,
Int delusire and nnsoundr II Hen was
really, tha father OF Mary then re
would hnve, according to Luke, tho
awkward dilemma Of. Mary having married her
brother. Because thsre is no reasonable doubt
that Luxe says. and intended to aaJ, that Hell
was the father OF Josaph.
1t IL not denied thas Luke wrote in Greek. and
tbs Greek text NC have. Tho twenty-third and
twenty-fourth verses read Is follows:
Ksi kutoA Jssoua osct eton trl1konta arkoonos,
% hos enonaizeto. nioa Joseph, tou FL tou aatthat
eou Levi, tou Nelchi, tuQ Jauna, tou Joseph etc.
And Jesus began 70 Is about 50 yea1a Of age being,
= ~ supposed the son of Joseph, Of FL Tor He>, Ct
MaHhat of 1ev Of Nelchi Of Jauua, Of Joseph, etc.
Translated, (which was the son Of He'll, which
was The son Of Gattkat which MAS tho son Of
Lew, ETC.
Now. according 10 the fair construction Of
language, who Vas ''of Heli"2 Asniteatly,
Joseph Ind viio mas "a Of Mat:hat"? Belii
ETC. And Il Luke intends to say that Hell xas
the son Of Matthat, does he not also intend to
say that Joseph WAS the son Of He'll? Or does
he al the time. mean to Say that Mary Eas the
dAughte1 Of Hell?
It u useless to attempt to explain away tho
manifest. meaning Of language. We may say
that possibly man means anything but what he
sayB- Thus in note to this rventy-third ver.e
iu N sdltion Of the Bible published
. st. Matthew saya Jacob begat Joseph. Pos
hbly Joseph Was the adopted son Of He'll, N 80
called because he married Mary, the daughter OF
He'll" HeFStho theory Of adorted soaship, and
that Of genealogy throneh May, are cIassed
tho accounts being implicitly Admitted. But on
tse thsoe5 Of ADOPTION. 1ha9' becomes OF the
Tha translation of ths Vatican oopr, as
GxaA h1 az. VoSk. cannot b. ma;a:.;ccd.