The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard to the Genealogy of Christ. ( Church History, Book I, Chapter 7, by Eusebius Pamphilius, First Published in 313AD )
1. Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of Christ differently, and
many suppose that they are at variance with one another. Since as a consequence every believer,
in ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation which shall harmonize the
two passages, permit us to subjoin the account of the matter which has come down to us, and
which is given by Africanus, who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to Aristides,
where he discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies. After refuting the opinions of others as
forced and deceptive, he give the account which he had received from tradition in these words:
2. 'For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in
Israel either according to nature or according to law;- according to nature by
the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another
raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless; for because a clear
hope of resurrection was not yet given they had a representation of the future
promise by a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the one
deceased might be perpetuated;
3. whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural
descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to
another, mention was made of both of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were
so only in name.
4. Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the
line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by
the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly
considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed
fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down
to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.
5. But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain the interchange of the
generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is
found to be Matthan, who begat Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from
Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son Eli was the
father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Eli, the son of Melchi.
6. Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is
recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived
his from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that
their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers
7. Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begat children who were
uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of
her husband, from marrying another.
8. By Estha then (for this was the woman's name according to tradition) Matthan, a descendant
of Solomon, first begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back
to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, married her as before said, and begat
a son Eli.
9. Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet
brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took
the latter's wife and begat by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with
reason. Wherefore also it is written: 'Jacob begat Joseph.' But according to law he was the son
of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.
10. Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void, which the evangelist
Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: 'Jacob begat Joseph.' But Luke, on the other hand, says:
'Who was the son, as was supposed' (for this he also adds), 'of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of
Melchi'; for he could not more clearly express the generation according to law. And the expression
'he begat' he has omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the genealogy back to
Adam the son of God. This interpretation is neither incapable of proof nor is it an idle conjecture.
11. For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh,
whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in
either case truly, have handed down the following account:
Some Idumean robbers, having attacked Ascalon, a city of Palestine, carried away from a temple
of Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple
slave named Herod. And since the priest was not able to pay the ransom for his son, Antipater
was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the
high priest of the Jews.
12. And having been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and having restored to him
the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be
named procurator of Palestine. But Antipater having been slain by those who were envious of
his great good fortune was succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a decree of the
senate, made King of the Jews under Antony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other
tetrarchs. These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks.
13. But as there had been kept in the archives up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews
as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes, such as Achior the Ammonite
and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt
with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage,
and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the
genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from
the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled
with them, who were called Georae.
14. A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by
remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves
on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned,
called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from
Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid
genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.
15. Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according
to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can
urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing better or truer to offer.
16 In any case the Gospel
states the truth.' And at the end of the same epistle he adds these words: 'Matthan, who was
descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended
from Nathan begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having
died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law
the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both.'
17. Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually
shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, intermarriages between
different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and
lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here.