, 1875-05-23

Ths words Of tho y. Greek are,
Is On huios hos enonizeto ton: Joseph, tor,
Ell ~; and ira correctly translated, :" beng she
This is moi, materially different from tbs other
copies, Tbs text is tho same, except that tho
words are transposcd. By translating hos J"
"whilo" instead of t'as," Mr.. Work gives .
slight color to another meaning. The uso Of
':hos, !" is not allowable, as it is departure from
the plain, ordinary meaning Of that particle.
Sach departures are not to be permitted, unless
required by the context. Il is this very practice
Of going Outside the ordinary meaning Of words,
TO sanction some theory, which has given rise to
many controversies and 3 multitude OF scots.
The particle 81 hos" has En established mean
ing, which may be expressed by several deini-
tons, cognate in their general scope, though
led ,soda OF heSe heps @pt
are As much as .as soon as" :" as IT,"
:. since,,".;a g in the Bame manner as." to the
end that" DC. In Yongs's Ens1ish-Greok Lex-
con, a late work, edited by DR.. Drislor, Profess
Liddell l. SCOTS Greek-Englah Lexicon, tho
English word - while is defined BY nine difler-
ent Greek words and phrases, but (" boa ia not
among them. By what authority. therefore, or
on what principle: does Mr Work translate
He is equally unfortunate in his uss Of tho
word s'ulos," which, to support his theory Of
geneaiogy through Mary, must here mean grand
son. IA Hebtewism, be thinks sou may %
used for grandson. But Luke wrote N Greek;
and in Creek. "uios" means son, and not grand
eon, which has its own distinctive Greek word
"uionos." -:
One further argument remains to be noticed.
Hs thinks luke could not have meant thnt
Joseph was the son Of Heli, because that would
bo tracing tho gsnealogy Of Christ through
Joseph, and would have been impliedly Say
ing that Joseph was the father OF Christ.
But that uss precisely rhat Matthew had already
doue, who, after tracing the descent OF Joseph
from, David. says that from DAVID to tne carry
Ing ayay into Babylon WAS fourteen generations,
and from the carrying away into Babylon to
Christ (through Joseph) was fourteen genera
tions. It would be no more lnconsistent iof
Luke to do this than for Matthew Tha tact is,
descent OF Joseph from Solomon, and Luke
from Nathan Matthew making Jacob tho father
Of Joseph, and Nathan his grandfather Luxe
making Hell his father aud Matthnt his grand
father and the two differing as 10 bis kfoat-
grandfather.
The attempts that havs been made to explain
this discrepancy by different writers and CON-
mentasors only involve the subject in confusion:
Lord 4. Hervey has stoutty maintained that HeH
Was actually ths father Of Joseph, notHlthstand-
ing Matthews explicit declaration that Jacob.
begat Joseph" Dr.. W. Fl. Mill. agreeing with
Africanus, makes Joseph the son OF He'll, and
Jacob and He'll brothers. sons of the same
mother. st. Ambrose makes Joseph the son Of
He'll, and son-in-1.w of Jacob.
Other diyines have started tho theory adopted
by Afr. Work, of eenoalogy through Mary. max
9ng Joseph tho son-in-lav Of HeG,-any thing
but admit tho simple and apparent fact that the
two accounts disagree. Bunsen, great Biblical
scho]ar, for many years Prusslan Ambassador at
the Papal Court in Rome, aud later at tho Court
of St. James. in his great Biblewerk," vol ., P.
1885, comes to the following conclusion B:
Our last wurd, therefore, must bo: Tbs nature of
these genealoeies would be uisapprehendad any
historical weight should Be asczbed to thc We have
in them two attempts TO connect the esstane 1dss Of
partdical descent with tho history OF Joseph This
idea il not ths daughter but the mother, Of these
genealogical registers.
Baron >Dunsen did not belong to tho extreme
critical school OF Strauss, Renau. etc. He Has
warmly attached to the Protestant Church and
to the Bible.
II Mr. Work should make any reply to this.
will he please give the book and page of tbs Tai
mud which gives the information that Hsli was
ths father Of Mary? ".