The Morristown gazette. [volume] (Morristown, Tenn.) 1867-1920, 1881-02-09
CHRIST'S ANCESTRY.
About the GenralOgies Of Luke
and Matthew.

A late number of the Philadelphia
Record contains this interesting an
swer to the inquiry Of correspon
dent in a preceding number of tina
paper:
Why is the geneaIogy of JOSEPH
instead Of Mary given in the New
| Testament for the purpose of show
ing the human descent of Christ
when it is declared that Joseph wa.
not His father ?"
l would say, in the first place, the
| question propounded is based on q
wrong assumption. There are two
genealogies Of Jesus given in the
New Testament-O one by Matthew
Jew, and one by Luke, a born
Greek. The latter does not give the
genealogy of Joseph, the reputed
father Of Joseph, but Of Mary, His
Mother.
The question, it will be seen, is
based on the assumption that both
genealogies are that of Joseph. This
is inferred by the mixed-up way in
which the verse III Luke iii. %, is
rendered by our translators in the
King James version Says Penn !:
The common Interpretation Of this
passage, as it now stands in the re-
ceiUed Greek text, and which is also
that Of our Authorized Version, is
essentially vicious 1t will be seen
by the critical reader that the words
in our present English version do
NOT convey the signitcation which
the interpreters themselves designed
to draw from them. "Being Gas was
supposedly the son of Joseph affirms
positively that Joseph was the son
Of Joseph, as lie was supposed to
be This Interpretation, therefore,
contains within itself its own confu-
tatiOn, since it is certain that the re
visers did not intend to make such
an affirmation The difference in the
order of the wordsin the oldest copy
and in the later copies from which
the received text is taken reveals
the error in the latter The Vatican
and the Sinaiatic MSS, the two old
0st manuscripts known, thus give
the sentence: Being the son, while
he was supposed of Joseph, the son
of Hell" Later MSS. have vitiated
the reading so as to make it express:
" Being, as he was supposed, the son
of Joseph, the son of He'll" All the
force both Of external and internal
evidence combines to confirm the
former reading, which shows une-
quivocally that the Evangelist had
distributed to words "being the SON
to He'll, and the words "while he
was supposed to Joseph.
According to the received tradi-
ton of the Jews, incorporated into
their Talmud (Which national testi-
mony there is no ground of reason
whatever for calling in question,
since few genealogical facts are so
well attested,) Hell was the father Of
Mary. And according to the Jewish
law tiiatiOn was not to be referred
to the female, but to the male stock;
for which reason our Lord is said to
be "of He'll" the word 'son" sup
piled in italics in our version is there
fore to be understood with the lati-
tude prescribed by that law and as
intending "grandson," as in a still
more extended sense he was called
the "Son of David" The true read
ing, therefore, Of this verse in Luke,
according to the oldest and best
Greek text, is, in parenthcsis, thus
"And Jesus was at the beginning of
his thirtieth year; being the son
(while he was supposed Of Joseph
of Hell, the son of Matthat," etc.
Thus it is given in one of the latter
and better English translations. We
thus distinctly trace, in Matthew and
Luke, two separate lines of descent
from David through his two sons,
Solomon and Nathan, the one end
ing in Joseph, the other in Mary's
father, He'll. Thus:
DAVID.