1

Supplementa ad quaestiones ad Stephanum

a. But concerning Matthew bringing the successions down from above, and Luke having done it in reverse, they having traveled one and the same road, one must find no fault; since even those who ascend a steep and upward path, and those who in reverse descend by the same one, no one would say they walk a different one, since one path is laid for both those ascending and those descending. In the same way, therefore, it is also possible in the succession of generations, for whoever wishes, at his discretion, to go through the same names, for some to ascend from below to those who came before, and for others, beginning from the ancestors above, to end with the last ones; and this way was dear to the Hebrews even from of old, etc., as in the epitome published by us, col. 891, lin. 4 from the end, up to the evangelists of our Savior, col. 893, lin. 37. But if anyone should say they disagree because Luke, in his ascent, did not stop at Abraham, nor did Matthew begin from Adam, at whom Luke ended, he does not think correctly; for each of them has made his exposition of the scripture according to his own reasoning, the one beginning from Abraham, the other passing over Abraham and ascending to the first man; and not even stopping there, but tracing the whole account back to God; for what conflict is there in these things? If to the one the genealogy from Abraham and onward appeared useful for the economy of the word in his account, while the other, because of the mystery of regeneration in Christ, leads up the one born through the bath beyond all generation; for observe that throughout the whole account he has been silent about the word 'generation,' and leading him up, he places him not upon any man, but upon the God of all, as it were presenting him, as one having become a Son to the Father.

b. Therefore, that we might refute the ignorance of the one who said this, and stop anyone from being scandalized by similar ignorance, I will set forth the true history of what happened; but first it is time to examine the proposition set before us; Matthew descends from Abraham to David, and thus to Solomon and his successors down to Jacob, from whom was Joseph who was called the father of Christ; but Luke says Joseph is not from Jacob, as Matthew does, but from Heli; then ascending from Heli he proceeds to others, whom Matthew did not mention at all; and so taking a kind of side path, he comes not to Solomon the son of David, but to Nathan, who was also of David; whereas he ought, if indeed their account was about the same genealogy, to have ascended through the same names as Matthew, or Matthew to have proceeded through the names Luke did; but if they were not thus brought into agreement with each other, such that the one said Joseph was the son of Jacob and of Solomon son of David; and the other, not of Jacob but of Heli and of Nathan son of David; through these things they seem to contain much disagreement with each other. -What then might one say to this problem that has been proposed? Come, let us open the eye of the soul, let us fix our thought intently on their very words, and see what Luke says. «And Jesus himself was beginning to be 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', etc., as in the epitome, col. 896, lin. 4, up to This, then, is the first explanation.

c. But there might also be another deep and secret meaning in the matters before us. For Matthew, while admittedly recounting the incarnate birth of Christ, and wishing to show that Joseph was truly from David, whence he ought to be, has used this introduction to his account, saying, 'The book of the generation of Jesus Christ,' and what follows; and consequently he sets down the whole subsequent history after the catalogue of the forefathers: the Magi, 22.961 the madness of Herod, the flight of Jesus into Egypt, the return from there, Archelaus; and how after these things John, now finally having come to manhood, with

1

Supplementa ad quaestiones ad Stephanum

αʹ. Περὶ δὲ τοῦ τὸν Ματθαῖον ἄνωθεν κατάγειν τὰς διαδοχὰς, τὸν δὲ Λουκᾶν ἀνάπαλιν πεποιηκέναι, μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδὸν πορευθέντας, οὐδὲν ἐπιμέμφεσθαι δεῖ· ἐπεὶ καὶ τοὺς ἀνάντη καὶ ὄρθιον πορείαν ἀνιόντας, καὶ τοὺς ἔμπαλιν διὰ τῆς αὐτῆς κατιόντας, οὐκ ἄν τις ἑτέραν φαίη βαδίζειν, μιᾶς ἀμφοτέροις κειμένης τοῖς τε ἀνιοῦσι καὶ τοῖς κατιοῦσι τρίβου. Τὸν αὐτὸν γοῦν τρόπον καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς τῶν γενῶν διαδοχῆς πάρεστιν, ὅτῳ φίλον ἐπ' ἐξουσίας διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν, τοῖς μὲν κάτωθεν ἐπὶ τοὺς πρόσω ἀνιέναι, τοῖς δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἄνωθεν προπατόρων ἀρξαμένοις, ἐπὶ τοὺς ὑστάτους καταλήγειν· οὗτος δὲ καὶ πόῤῥωθεν Ἑβραίοις φίλος ἦν ὁ τρόπος, etc., ut in impressa a nobis epitome, col. 891, lin. 4 a fine, usque ad τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν εὐαγγελιστάς, col. 893, lin. 37. Εἰ δ' ὅτι 22.960 μὴ μέχρι τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ ὁ Λουκᾶς ἀνιὼν ἔστη, μηδὲ ὁ Ματθαῖος ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ ἤρξατο ἐφ' ὃν κατέληξεν ὁ Λουκᾶς, διαφωνεῖν τις αὐτοὺς λέγοι, οὐκ ὀρθῶς οἴεται· ἑκάτερος γὰρ αὐτῶν οἰκείῳ λογισμῷ τὴν ἔκθεσιν πεποίηται τῆς γραφῆς, ὁ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ἀρξάμενος, 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· ποία γὰρ ἐν τούτοις μάχη; Εἰ τῷ μὲν χρήσιμος ἐφάνη ἡ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἑξῆς γενεαλογία, διὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν τοῦ παρ' αὐτῷ λόγου, ὁ δὲ διὰ τὸ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ παλιγγενεσίας μυστήριον, ἀναβιβάζει τὸν διὰ λουτροῦ γεγεννημένον, ἐπέκεινα ἁπάσης γενέσεως· τήρει γὰρ ὅτι δι' ὅλου τοῦ λόγου σεσιώπηκε τὸ τῆς γενέσεως ὄνομα, ἄγει τε αὐτὸν ἀνάγων, καὶ ἵστησιν οὐκ ἐπί τινα ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλ' ἐπὶ τὸν πάντων Θεὸν, μονονουχὶ προσάγων, ἅτε δὴ Υἱὸν γενόμενον τῷ Πατρί.

βʹ. Ἵνα οὖν καὶ τοῦτο εἰρηκότος τὴν ἀμαθίαν ἐλέγξωμεν, παύσωμεν δὲ τοῦ μηδένα ὑπ' ἀγνοίας ὁμοίας σκανδαλισθῆναι, τὴν ἀληθῆ τῶν γεγονότων ἱστορίαν ἐκθήσομαι· πρότερον δὲ τὴν προταθεῖσαν ἡμῖν πρότασιν καιρός ἐστι ἐπισκέψασθαι· ὁ μὲν Ματθαῖος ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ἐπὶ τὸν ∆αυῒδ, καὶ οὕτως ἐπὶ τὸν Σολομῶνα καὶ τοὺς τούτου διαδόχους μέχρι τοῦ Ἰακὼβ, ἐξ οὗ Ἰωσὴφ ὁ τοῦ Χριστοῦ χρηματίσας πατὴρ, κάτεισιν· ὁ δὲ Λουκᾶς τὸν Ἰωσὴφ οὐκ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰακὼβ εἶναί φησιν ὡς Ματθαῖος, ἀλλ' ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἡλεί· εἶτα ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἡλεὶ ἀνιὼν ἐφ' ἑτέρους χωρεῖ, ὧν οὐδὲ ὅλος ἐμνημόνευσεν ὁ Ματθαῖος· καὶ οὕτως πλαγίαν τινὰ δραμὼν, ἔρχεται οὐκ ἐπὶ τὸν Σολομῶνα τὸν τοῦ ∆αυῒδ, ἀλλ' ἐπὶ Νάθαν τὸν καὶ αὐτὸν τοῦ ∆αυΐδ· ὀφείλων, εἰ δὴ περὶ τῆς αὐτῆς γενεαλογίας ὁ λόγος ἦν αὐτοῖς, διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν τῷ Ματθαίῳ ἀνελθεῖν, ἢ τὸν Ματθαῖον δι' ὧν ὁ Λουκᾶς χωρῆσαι ὀνομάτων· εἰ δὲ οὕτως οὐ συνηνέχθησαν ἀλλήλοις, ὡς τὸν ἕνα εἰπεῖν τοῦ Ἰακὼβ τὸν Ἰωσὴφ εἶναι υἱὸν καὶ Σολομῶνος υἱοῦ ∆αυΐδ· τὸν δὲ ἕτερον, μὴ τοῦ Ἰακὼβ, ἀλλὰ τοῦ Ἡλεὶ καὶ Νάθαν υἱοῦ ∆αυΐδ· δι' ὧν ἐοίκασι πολλὴν διαφωνίαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους περιέχειν. -Τί δὴ οὖν εἰς τὸ προταθὲν τοῦτο πρόβλημα εἴποι ἄν τις; φέρε τῆς ψυχῆς διανοίξαντες τὸ ὄμμα, ἀτενῶς ταῖς λέξεσιν αὐτοῖς ἐπερείσωμεν τὴν διάνοιαν, ἴδωμέν τε τί φησιν ὁ Λουκᾶς. «Καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἦν ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ὢν υἱὸς ὡς ἐνομίζετο τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ, τοῦ Ἡλεὶ, τοῦ Μελχί·» ἀλλ' οὐχ ὅ γε Ματθαῖος ἐχρήσατο τῇ ὡς ἐνομίζετο φωνῇ, etc., ut in epitome, col. 896, lin. 4, usque ad 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 ∆αυῒδ, ὅθεν ἐχρῆν τῇ εἰσβολῇ κέχρηται τοῦ λόγου, φήσας, Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς· ἀκολούθως τε τὴν ὅλην ἑξῆς ἱστορίαν τίθησι μετὰ τὸν τῶν προπατόρων κατάλογον, τοὺς Μάγους, 22.961 τὴν Ἡρώδου μανίαν, τὴν εἰς Αἴγυπτον Ἰησοῦ φυγὴν, τὴν ἐκεῖθεν ἐπάνοδον, τὸν Ἀρχέλαον· καὶ ὡς μετὰ ταῦτα ἤδη λοιπὸν εἰς ἄνδρας Ἰωάννης προβὰς μετὰ