two pedigrees from the same remote ancestors; for in one of the priestly pedigrees in Chronicles we have two Elkanahs, and in another two Zadoks, two, if not three, Azariahs, and two Ahitubs, sons of Amariah and besides Isaiah's witness Zechariah, son of Jeberechiah, there seem to have been two Zechariahs, sons of Berachiah, known to history-the prophetic writer and a martyr who must have suffered long after that writer's period of religious revival: Isa. viii, 2 ; Zech. i, 1; and Matt. xxiii, 35. Colonel MACKINLAY said: Our heartiest thanks are due to the learned lady who has so kindly responded to our invitation to lecture to us. Her deep knowledge of Syriac MSS. gives great value to all her papers, but specially perhaps to her remarks about the true meaning of Luke i, 27. With regard to the star (p. 18), allowing that the words of Matt. ii, 2, may mean "We, being in the east, have seen His star," it does not necessarily follow that the star had been in the west because the Magi had journeyed in a westerly direction. We are not told that they were led by the star to Jerusalem; they evidently came there because they expected to find those who could tell them where Christ was to be born. Afterwards we are told the star "went before," this seems to be mentioned as a striking fact, and naturally suggests that during the long journey to Jerusalem the star had not been in front of them. The star would be more likely to be seen in the east than in the west, the place of power rather than of decadence. Colonel Mackinlay then gave his reasons for believing that the star was an exceptionally bright appearance of the planet Venus, and concluded by again thanking the Lecturer for her interesting paper. Dr. THIRTLE: Much of the Bible criticism of our time is vitiated by a lack of sympathy with Oriental ideals and modes of thought on the part of critics and expositors. The learned lecturer this afternoon has come to us with an equipment which, in this important respect, is altogether exceptional; and we cannot but express our gratitude to her for the paper she has read. I desire to make a few remarks upon the passage in which Mrs. Lewis dealt with the relation subsisting between Joseph and Mary at the time of the journey to Bethlehem, for the enrolment mentioned in Luke ii. Was it a state of betrothal or marriage? or might it not, very properly, be described by either of these terms? In the Authorized Version we read that Mary was "the espoused wife" of Joseph; in the Revised Version that she was "betrothed" to him. The word in the Greek is a participle of the passive voice of the verb mnêsteus. The event specified in Matt. i, 24-he "took unto him his wife "-was assuredly antecedent to the journey to Bethlehem; yet in connection with the latter event, the Evangelist Luke seems to find no difficulty in describing Mary as "betrothed" to Joseph (Luke ii, 4, 5, Revised Version)—the same term as is used in the previous chapter in the story of the Annunciation (Chapter i, verse 27). The circumstances as thus brought before us make it necessary to inquire what the Jews understood by betrothal. In the article on "Betrothal" in the Jewish Encyclopædia (vol. 3) by Rabbi Dr. Drachman, of New York, it is made clear beyond question that the ancient practice in this particular was much different from that which prevails in Israel at the present time. Speaking of the negotiations requisite for arranging marriages, the Rabbi says: "When the agreement had been entered into, it was definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except that of actual cohabitation." Note the situation: the betrothed were considered as man and wife, one condition alone being excepted. Dr. Drachman proceeds to show that the Hebrew word árăs, "to betroth," must be taken in this sense, i.e., to contract an actual though incomplete marriage. "In two of the passages in which it occurs, the betrothed woman is directly designated as 'wife'— II Sam. iii, 14, 'my wife whom I have betrothed'; and Deut. xxii, 23, 24, where the betrothed is designated as 'the wife of his neighbour."" Another such reference is I Macc. iii, 56, "them that were betrothing wires." The Rabbi continues: " In strict accordance with this sense, the Rabbinical Law declares that betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage, and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce." He goes on to explain the "home-taking" of the bride, whereby the marriage was completed, in ordinary circumstances at the end of twelve months, in cases where either of the parties had previously been married, at the end of thirty days. In the light of these facts we can trace without difficulty the progress of the events set forth in the Gospel story. After receiving from the angel of the Lord the message "Fear not," Joseph "took unto him his wife" (Matt. i, 20, 24). To the world this step would seem to mark the completion of the marriage; it was, at least, the formal home-taking. The Evangelist Matthew, however, proceeds to record another fact: Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth a son" (verse 25). This statement shows that, in truth, for the time, the betrothal had not eventuated in marriage as the same is contemplated in Rabbinical Law. See "betrothal " and "taking" distinguished in Deut. xx, 7; xxviii, 30. On a review of all the facts, we conclude that, while it was not incorrect to speak of Mary as the wife of Joseph, as is plainly implied in Matt. i, 24, yet, in view of the pious resolution which lies behind the words of verse 25, there was a refined propriety in the use of the Greek word mnêsteuô in the sense of "betrothed," thus suggesting an incomplete marriage. Accordingly, the Syriac versions, of which Mrs. Lewis has spoken, in referring to Mary as Joseph's "wife" express the ostensible fact; but the Greek text in maintaining the relation of the betrothal takes account of the heart and soul secret of the parties, whereby the nuptial contract was reverently qualified until the birth of our Lord. The Rev. E. SEELEY said: May I draw attention to another interesting genealogy which in some points illustrates the difficulties in our subject to-night? Our King George, and also nearly all the royal families of Europe, trace their descent backwards through many of the great men of past ages to the Odin of legendary glory but somewhat misty history. If we compare these various pedigrees and look for their point of contact, we may be struck by the interlacing of the pedigrees and puzzled by many difficulties. The Gospel genealogies go back to more remote ages and we have fewer side-lights to help us; while we know that sometimes a man was known by two different names, and in other cases several men all bore the same name; so it is quite natural that we puzzle over such pedigrees for want of knowledge. There is one statement, on p. 12, in the highly interesting paper read this afternoon, with which I cannot agree. "The private family registers would not, however, all disappear in this catastrophe. Some of them were re-written from memory, but in these cases they could hardly go beyond the fourth generation upwards." The last clause seems to me highly unlikely in the case of David's royal line. To me it seems much more likely that each branch of that family would keep careful memory of its own descent. Prebendary Fox said: I am ill qualified on literary grounds to discuss the problem before us, but I desire to thank Mrs. Lewis for the suggestion that "These genealogies, as part of inspired scripture, have their spiritual as well as historic uses"; such, for example, as the lesson conveyed by the omission of the three names in the second group, and the reason for that omission. Old Thomas Fuller, quaintest of English divines, writes somewhere: "How fruitful are the seeming barren places of scripture. Wheresoever the surface of God's word doth not laugh and sing with corn, there the heart thereof within is merry with mines, affording, where not plain matter, hidden mysteries." And he illustrates this elsewhere in his Scripture Obserrations, by a reference to the very chapter which we have been considering. "Lord, I find the genealogy of my Saviour (Matt. i, 7, 8) strangely chequered with four remarkable changes in four immediate generations. 1. Roboam begat Abia; that is, a bad father begat a bad son. 3. Asa begat Josaphat; that is, a good father, a good son. I see, Lord, from hence, that my father's piety cannot be entailed; that is bad news for me. But I see also that actual impiety is not always hereditary; that is good news for my son." COMMUNICATIONS. The Rev. GEORGE CREWDSON writes: There can be no doubt that the anticipation that Christ would be descended from David was very general in our Lord's time (St. John vii, 42, etc.). It is also clear that it was believed, at least by the disciples, that Jesus was actually descended from him (St. Matt. i, 1; Acts ii, 30, xii, 23; Rom. i, 3; Rev. xxii, 16, etc.). The genealogies in St. Matthew and St. Luke are apparently inserted to prove that this is the fact. But at first sight it would appear that the two genealogies were mutually destructive, and that one or both are entirely untrustworthy. They both appear to be genealogies of Joseph, but they start from two different sons of David, and end with a discrepancy, which cannot be ascribed to a copyist's error, in the name of Joseph's father. Further investigation shows that the two lines are distinct from the time of Solomon to the captivity; after which they show agreement for about five generations from Salathiel to Abiud. A similar succession of names may be rather more dimly traced in I Chron. iii, as far as Hodaiah, who is the last of David's line who is named by the Chronicler. (See pp. 28 and 29.) From this point they are again distinct till we reach Matthan or Matthat (if we may take these as variants of the same name), the (apparent) grandfather of Joseph; after which they again apparently diverge; St. Matthew giving Jacob as the name of Joseph's father, while St. Luke gives the name of Heli. It is scarcely credible that this could be due to an error on the part of the evangelists, for they were almost if not quite contemporaries of Joseph and Mary. It must also be noticed that St. Luke qualifies his statement of the parentage of Jesus by the words, "As was supposed." The problems before us then are four 1. To account for the coalescence of the two lines in Salathiel, etc. 2. To account for the similar coalescence in Matthan. 3. To explain how it is that Joseph has apparently two fathers. 4. To find what St. Luke means by his qualifying clause. 1. This can be easily explained by assuming that St. Matthew throughout traces the succession through the leading branch of the family, which of course at first is the line of Solomon; and that this line died out in Jehoiachin, the curse of Jeremiah that he should be childless being literally fulfilled. I do not see that the following words in Jer. xxii, 10, prove that this supposition is wrong, as Mrs. Lewis seems to think. If the royal line thus became extinct, the next senior branch would take its place, and Salathiel, son of Neri, would become the representative of the family. To suppose that Salathiel was Jehoiachin's own son would leave unexplained the remarkable coincidence which occurs at this period between the genealogies of St. Matthew and St. Luke and greatly discredit the latter. |