to name the progenitors of Christ, is he found naming more? But if in the genealogy they say things that are at war with themselves and with each other, how will they be able to possess trustworthiness in the remaining teachings concerning the savior, from the very outset moving to contradiction the one who wishes with reason to be joined to our religion? Answer. In the genealogy according to Luke, Heli alone is the father of Joseph according to the law; but from Heli to Nathan, all those listed below are by nature sons of those listed above, who, because of the relation that Heli has to Joseph, are counted as forefathers—of Joseph alone according to the law, but of all the rest by nature. And with this so understood, all the slander against the evangelists on account of the contradiction is done away with, which was supposed by those who misunderstood it to arise from a misunderstanding of their words. Question 132. If according to the Mosaic law the brother of one who had died childless, taking the wife of the departed, begot children by her—by nature for himself, but by law for his brother—then, if it happened that the surviving brother had a wife, did he take the wife of his deceased brother as a wife in addition to her? And how is this not absurd? And if such a woman also happened to be barren, how did the marriage not introduce uselessness in addition to the absurdity, and the commandment of the law prove in every way impracticable, with the deceased not receiving a memorial through the begetting of a child? And what is the benefit that accrues to the deceased, that through the childbearing of another he, after his end, is named the father of another's offspring? Answer. Since the law did not forbid the Israelites to take a wife if they wished, not only a kinswoman but also a captive and a concubine, there is therefore nothing absurd nor does it cause harm for the surviving brother of the deceased to take a wife in addition to a wife, as the law is not being broken. For all absurdity consists in the transgression of the law. And even if it should happen that the wife of the deceased is barren, yet this can be unknown to the woman; and one cannot transgress or disregard the law on account of something unknown. But this law was established so that what death took away from the deceased—that is, both fatherhood and an heir—these things the providence of the law might provide for him. For if people enter into marriage for the sake of a memorial and an inheritance, it is clear that, in whatever way God might be called upon to provide these things to people, the matter does not become useless. And there is attached to this law also another useful thing, that by this marriage the heir may remain in the same tribe and not pass to another tribe. And since the woman, once joined to the first husband, has become one body, for this reason the deceased does not become the father of another's offspring, but

τοὺς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὀνομάζειν γεννήτορας, πλείονας ὀνομάζων εὑρίσκεται; Eἰ δὲ ἐν τῇ γενεαλογίᾳ ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἀλλήλοις μαχό μενα λέγουσι, πῶς ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος διδάγμασι τὸ ἀξιόπιστον κεκτῆσθαι δυνήσονται, ἐκ προοιμίων πρὸς ἀν τίῤῥησιν κινοῦντες τὸν μετὰ λόγου τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ θρησκείᾳ προσ τεθῆναι βουλόμενον; Ἀπόκρισις. Ἐν τῇ γενεαλογίᾳ τῇ κατὰ Λουκᾶν ὁ Ἡλεὶ μόνος ἐστὶ πατὴρ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ κατὰ τὸν νόμον· ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ Ἡλεὶ ἕως τοῦ Ναθὰν πάντες οἱ ὑποτεταγμένοι κατὰ φύσιν εἰσὶν υἱοὶ τῶν ὑπερτεταγμένων, τῶν διὰ τὴν σχέσιν, ἣν ἔχει ὁ Ἡλεὶ πρὸς τὸν Ἰωσήφ, πάππων καταλογιζομένων, τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ μὲν μό νου κατὰ τὸν νόμον, τῶν λοιπῶν δὲ πάντων κατὰ φύσιν. Τούτου δὲ οὕτως νοουμένου, ἀναιρεῖται πᾶσα ἡ τῶν εὐαγγελι στῶν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ διαβολή, ἡ ἐκ τῆς παρανοίας τῶν ἐκεί νων φωνῶν νομισθεῖσα τοῖς παρανοήσασιν. Ἐρώτησις ρλβ. Eἰ κατὰ τὸν μωσαϊκὸν νόμον ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ τελευτήσαν τος ἄπαιδος τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ μετηλλαχότος λαμβάνων ἐπαιδο ποίει ἐξ αὐτῆς, κατὰ φύσιν μὲν ἑαυτῷ, κατὰ νόμον δὲ τῷ ἀδελφῷ, ἆρα, εἰ συνέβη τὸν περιόντα ἀδελφὸν ἔχειν γαμετήν, σὺν ταύτῃ καὶ τὴν τοῦ τελευτήσαντος ἀδελφοῦ γαμετὴν εἰς γυ ναῖκα ἐλάμβανε; Καὶ πῶς τοῦτο οὐκ ἄτοπον; Eἰ δὲ ἡ τοιαύτη καὶ στεῖρα ἐτύγχανε, πῶς πρὸς τῷ ἀτόπῳ καὶ τὸ ἀνωφελὲς ὁ γάμος οὐκ ἐπήγετο, καὶ τοῦ νόμου τὸ πρόσταγμα πανταχόθεν ἐδείκνυτο ἄπορον, τοῦ τελευτήσαντος οὐ λαμβάνοντος τὸ διὰ παιδοποιΐας μνημόσυνον; Τί δὲ καὶ τῷ ἀποθανόντι προσγί νεται τὸ ὄφελος, τὸ διὰ παιδοποιΐας ἑτέρου ἐκεῖνον μετὰ τέλος πατέρα ἀλλοτρίας γονῆς ὀνομάζεσθαι; Ἀπόκρισις. Τοῦ νόμου μὴ κωλύσαντος τοὺς Ἰσραηλίτας γυναῖκα λα βεῖν εἰ βούλοιντο, οὐ μόνον συγγενίδα ἀλλὰ καὶ αἰχμαλωτίδα καὶ παλλακίδα, οὐδὲν ἄρα ἄτοπον οὐδὲ βλάπτει ἐκ τοῦ γυναῖκα ἐπὶ γυναικὶ λαβεῖν τὸν περιόντα ἀδελφὸν τοῦ τετελευτηκό τος, τοῦ νόμου μὴ καταλυομένου. Πᾶσα γὰρ ἀτοπία ἐπὶ τῇ παραβάσει τοῦ νόμου ὑφίσταται. Κἂν συμβαίη δὲ στεῖραν τὴν τοῦ τελευτήσαντος γυναῖκα ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλ' ἄδηλον τοῦτο εἶναι δύναται τῇ γυναικί· τῷ δὲ ἀδήλῳ οὐκ ἔστι παραβῆναι ἢ παριδεῖν τὸν νόμον. Ἐτέθη δὲ ὁ νόμος οὗτος, ἵνα ὧν ἀφεί λετο ὁ θάνατος τὸν τετελευτηκότα, τουτέστι τῆς τε πατρότητος καὶ τοῦ κληρονόμου, ταῦτα παράσχῃ αὐτῷ τῇ τοῦ νόμου προ νοίᾳ. Eἰ γὰρ μνημοσύνης ἕνεκεν καὶ κληρονομίας πρὸς τὸν γάμον οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἔρχονται, δῆλον ὅτι, ᾧτινι ἂν τρόπῳ παρακληθείη θεὸς ταῦτα παρασχεῖν ἀνθρώποις, ἀνωφελὲς οὐ γίνεται τὸ πρᾶγμα. Πρόσεστι δὲ τούτῳ τῷ νόμῳ καὶ ἕτερόν τι ὠφέλιμον, ἵνα ταύτῃ τῇ ἐπιγαμίᾳ ὁ κληρονόμος μείνῃ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ φυλῇ καὶ μὴ μεταβῇ εἰς ἑτέραν φυλήν. Καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἅπαξ συναφθεῖσα ἡ γυνὴ τῷ ἀνδρὶ τῷ πρώτῳ ἓν σῶμα γέγονε, διὰ τοῦτο οὐ γίνεται πατὴρ ἀλλοτρίας γονῆς ὁ τελευτήσας, ἀλλὰ