6

of Zephaniah, the son of Thaar, the son of Asir, the son of Abiasar, the son of Korah, the son of Issachar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, the son of Israel;” and see if Luke has not openly imitated a similar manner to these; and you yourself could find countless such examples; from which it remains to be confessed, that the evangelists of our Savior have done nothing strange; for one does not correctly suppose them to disagree; for each has made his exposition of the scripture according to his own reasoning, the one beginning from Abraham on account of the economy of the word with him, which it is not the time now to interpret; the other, having gone beyond Abraham and ascended to the first man; and not stopping even at this, but referring the entire account to God, he brings up the mystery through the regeneration in Christ.

3. How Matthew, from the successors of David and Solomon

brings down the generations to Jacob and Joseph; while Luke, from David and Nathan's children to Heli and Joseph, genealogizes contrary to Matthew.

a. It is time to examine the third of the proposed points; therefore intently to the words

themselves let us fix our own mind; let us see what Luke says: “And 22.896 Jesus himself was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, of Heli, of Melchi.” But Matthew certainly did not use the phrase, “as was supposed;” but what does he say? “And Matthan begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph;” and surely it is one thing to suppose, and another to be assured that it is so; for if, while Matthew affirmed that Joseph was the son of Jacob and Matthan, Luke had likewise insisted that Joseph was the son of Heli and Melchi, there would truly be a battle and a war, and there would be need of those who would arbitrate for them; but now, since, while Matthew affirms it, Luke does not contend, but puts forth an opinion supposed among the many, not the one prevailing with him, I think no inquiry is left.

b. For since different opinions concerning the Christ prevailed among the Jews, and while all agreed in tracing him to David, because of God's promises to David, and some were persuaded that the Christ would come from David and Solomon and the royal line, while others avoided this opinion, because of the great accusation brought against those who had reigned, and because Jeconiah had been proclaimed an outcast by the prophet Jeremiah, and because it had been said that no seed from him would arise to sit on the throne of David, therefore, because of these things, taking another path, and confessing him to be from David, but not through Solomon, but through Nathan, who was the son of David—and they say that Nathan also prophesied according to what is reported in the books of Kings—and they affirming that the Christ would come from the successors of Nathan, and tracing the genealogy of Joseph from somewhere there, Luke, very necessarily, recording their opinion, but not his own, added to his history the phrase “as was supposed;” conceding to Matthew to record not what was supposed, but how the matters of the birth were in truth; this then is the first explanation.

c. There might also be another deep and secret account in the matters before us; for Matthew, confessedly recording the carnal birth of Christ, and wishing to show that Joseph was truly from David, has used the necessary introduction of the account; but I think that Luke, not wishing to genealogize the birth of Jesus according to the flesh, has now done this; for if he were doing this by intention, he would not have been ignorant that it was necessary to set this out; but since he now mentions the regeneration through the font, introducing him as the Son of God, he wishes as in an example

6

Σοφονίου, υἱοῦ Θαὰρ, υἱοῦ Ἀσεὶρ, υἱοῦ Ἀβιάσαρ, υἱοῦ Κορὲ, υἱοῦ Ἰσσαὰρ, υἱοῦ Καὰθ, υἱοῦ Λευῒ, υἱοῦ Ἰσραήλ·» καὶ ὅρα εἰ μὴ ἄντικρυς τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις μεμίμηται τρόπον ὁ Λουκᾶς· μυρία δ' ἂν καὶ αὐτὸς εὕροις τοιαῦτα· ἀφ' ὧν λείπεται ὁμολογεῖν, μηδὲν ξενίζον πεποιηκέναι τοὺς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν εὐαγγελιστάς· οὐκ ὀρθῶς γὰρ οἴεταί τις αὐτοὺς διαφωνεῖν· ἑκάτερος γὰρ οἰκείῳ λογισμῷ τὴν ἔκθεσιν πεποίηται τῆς γραφῆς, ὁ μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ἀρξάμενος διὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν τοῦ παρ' αὐτῷ λόγου, ὃν οὐ καιρὸς νῦν ἑρμηνεύειν· ὁ δὲ καὶ τὸν Ἀβραὰμ ὑπερβὰς ἐπί τε τὸν πρῶτον ἄνθρωπον ἀνελθών· καὶ μηδὲ μέχρι τούτου στὰς, τὸν πάντα δὲ λόγον ἐπὶ τὸν Θεὸν ἀναρτήσας, διὰ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ παλιγγενεσίας μυστήριον ἀναβιβάζει.

Γʹ. Πῶς ὁ μὲν Ματθαῖος ἀπὸ τοῦ ∆αβὶδ καὶ Σολομῶ νος διαδόχων

ἐπὶ Ἰακὼβ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ τὰ γένη κατάγει· ὁ δὲ Λουκᾶς ἀπὸ ∆αβὶδ καὶ Νάθαν παίδων ἐπὶ Ἡλὶ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ, ἐναντίως γενεαλογῶν τῷ Ματθαίῳ.

αʹ. Τὸ τρίτον τῶν προταθέντων καιρὸς ἐπισκέψασθαι· ἀτενὲς οὖν ταῖς λέξεσιν

αὐταῖς ἐπερείσωμεν τὴν ἑαυτῶν διάνοιαν· ἴδωμεν δὲ τί φησιν ὁ Λουκᾶς· «Καὶ 22.896 αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἦν ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, ὢν υἱὸς, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ, τοῦ Ἡλὶ, τοῦ Μελχί.» Ἀλλ' οὐχ ὅ γε Ματθαῖος ἐχρήσατο τῇ, «ὡς ἐνομίζετο» φωνῇ· ἀλλὰ τί φησι; «Ματθὰν δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰακὼβ, Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰωσήφ·» ἄλλο δὲ δήπου ἐστὶ τὸ νομίζειν, καὶ ἄλλο τὸ οὕτως ἔχειν διαβεβαιοῦσθαι· εἰ μὲν δὴ τοῦ Ματθαίου διαβεβαιωσαμένου τὸν Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸν εἶναι Ἰακὼβ καὶ τοῦ Ματθὰν, ὁ Λουκᾶς ὁμοίως διισχυρίσατο τὸν Ἰωσὴφ γεγονέναι υἱὸν τοῦ Ἡλὶ καὶ τοῦ Μελχὶ, ἀληθῶς μάχη τις ἦν καὶ πόλεμος, καὶ ἦν τῶν διαιτησόντων αὐτοῖς χρεία· νῦν δὲ ὅτε, τοῦ Ματθαίου διαβεβαιωσαμένου, ὁ Λουκᾶς οὑ διατείνεται, δόξαν δὲ παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς νενομισμένην τίθησιν, οὐ τὴν παρ' αὐτῷ κρατοῦσαν, οἶμαι μηδεμίαν ὑπολείπεσθαι ζήτησιν.

βʹ. ∆ιαφόρων γὰρ παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις ὑπολήψεων περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ κεκρατημένων, καὶ πάντων μὲν συμφώνως ἐπὶ τὸν ∆αβὶδ ἀναγόντων, διὰ τὰς πρὸς τὸν ∆αβὶδ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπαγγελίας, ἤδη δὲ τῶν μὲν ἀπὸ ∆αβὶδ καὶ Σολομῶνος καὶ τοῦ βασιλικοῦ γένους πειθομένων ἔσεσθαι τὸν Χριστὸν, τῶν δὲ ταύτην μὲν φευγόντων τὴν δόξαν, διὰ τὸ πλείστην ἐμφέρεσθαι τῶν βεβασιλευκότων κατηγορίαν, διά τε τὸ ἐκκήρυκτον ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου Ἱερεμίου γεγονέναι τὸν Ἰεχονίαν, καὶ διὰ τὸ εἰρῆσθαι μὴ ἀναστήσεσθαι ἐξ αὐτοῦ σπέρμα καθήμενον ἐπὶ θρόνου ∆αβὶδ, διὰ δὲ οὖν ταῦτα, ἑτέραν ὁδευόντων, καὶ ἀπὸ μὲν ∆αβὶδ ὁμολογούντων, οὐ μὴν διὰ Σολομῶνος, ἀλλὰ διὰ Νάθαν, ὃς ἦν τοῦ ∆αβὶδ παῖς φασὶ δὲ τὸν Νάθαν καὶ προφητεῦσαι κατὰ τὰ ἐν ταῖς Βασιλείαις φερόμενα, ἀπό τε τοῦ Νάθαν διαδόχων προελεύσεσθαι τὸν Χριστὸν διαβεβαιουμένων, καὶ τόν γε Ἰωσὴφ ἐκεῖθέν ποθεν γενεαλογούντων, σφόδρα ἀναγκαίως ὁ Λουκᾶς τὴν τούτων ἀνιστορῶν δόξαν, ἀλλ' οὐ τὴν αὑτοῦ, προσέθηκε τῇ κατ' αὐτὸν ἱστορίᾳ τὸ «ὡς ἐνομίζετο·» τῷ Ματθαίῳ παραχωρήσας μὴ τὸ, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, ἱστορεῖν, ἀλλ' ὡς εἶχεν ἀληθείας τὰ τῆς γενέσεως· αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ πρώτη ἀπόδοσις.

γʹ. Εἴη δ' ἄν τις καὶ ἄλλος βαθὺς καὶ ἀπόῤῥητος ἐν τοῖς προκειμένοις λόγος· Ματθαῖος μὲν γὰρ ὁμολογουμένως τὴν ἔνσαρκον γένεσιν ἱστορῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ τὸν Ἰωσὴφ ἀποδεῖξαι βουλόμενος ἀληθῶς ἐκ ∆αβὶδ, ὅθεν ἐχρῆν τῇ εἰσβολῇ κέχρηται τοῦ λόγου· τὸν δὲ Λουκᾶν ἡγοῦμαι μὴ τὴν κατὰ σάρκα γένεσιν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ γενεαλογεῖν ἐθέλοντα, νῦν τοῦτο πεποιηκέναι· τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ εἰ κατὰ γνώμην ἔπραττεν, οὐκ ἠγνόει ὅτι ἐχρῆν ταύτην ἐκθέσεσθαι· ἐπειδὴ δὲ νῦν τῆς διὰ λουτροῦ ἀναγεννήσεως μέμνηται, υἱὸν αὐτὸν εἰσάγων Θεοῦ, βούλεται ὡς ἐν ὑποδείγματι