of our Lord. I agree also that Ochozias and Ozias begin with the same letter. But as we are told in v. 17 that the generations from David until the carrying away to Babylon are fourteen generations, we see that the omission of the three names, which would bring the number up to seventeen, must be deliberate.

The explanation which is given to us by Julius Africanus one hundred years after the time of Irenæus and one hundred and fifty after that of Justin (A.D. 250) is considerably qualified by his statement (Eusebius, H.E., i, 7), Καὶ ἡμῖν αὕτη μελέτω, εἰ καὶ μὴ ἐμμάρτυρός ἐστι, τῷ μὴ κρείττονα ἢ ἀληθεστέραν ἔχειν εἰπεῖν. This I translate, "And this is for us to consider, although there is not sufficient evidence for it, as there is nothing better or more true to be said."

The statement of Africanus, which he heard from a remote kinsman of our Lord two hundred and twenty years after the Resurrection, is thus summed up by himself. "Matthew of Solomon's line begat Jacob. Matthew having died, Melchi of Nathan's line begat Heli of the same woman. Heli and Jacob were therefore

brothers, and had the same mother. Heli having died without children, Jacob raised up seed unto him, having begotten Joseph, his own child by nature, but legally the son of Heli. Thus Joseph was the son of both."

It seems to me that we have to choose between the accuracy of St. Luke, who probably got his information for the rest of the story directly from our Lord's mother, and that of some unknown kinsman of the family two hundred and twenty years later, in whom Africanus did not himself place implicit trust. For St. Luke puts at least two generations between Melchi and Heli.

Mr. Crewdson suggests a Levirate marriage between Heli and the widow of Jacob. But this is not what Julius Africanus reports. Is this second version of the story founded on any evidence? or is it purely conjecture? Both versions cannot be true.

I am greatly obliged to Canon Girdlestone for drawing our attention to the law in Hammurabi's code, which binds an adopted son more closely to his adopted father, when the latter has taught him a craft, such as that of carpentry.

I fear that some of my audience are under the impression that the Syriac MS. which I found on Mount Sinai is a copy of Tatian's Diatessaron, or Harmony of the Gospels. Not so. It is the Four

D

Gospels of the Separated, expressly so called; being really an older form of the Old Syriac, or Curetonian Version. It is called Mepharresha, i.e., "Separated," exactly the same word, and I think the same grammatical form, as the fourth word which Belshazzar saw written by a mysterious hand on the wall. But as I am ignorant of Babylonian Semitic I cannot be quite sure of this. The Diatessaron is not extant, either in Syriac or in Greek. We have only Ephraim's Commentory on it, with numerous quotations, in an Armenian version translated into Latin by Moesinger. And we know its structure from two very late Arabic MSS., which have in the course of ages been so closely assimilated to the Peshitta that they have lost much of their value for textual criticism.

The examples of sons-in-law being called sons, as they were in the families of Sheshan and Barzillai, are most valuable for my argument, and I thank Mr. Rouse for them.

I agree with the Rev. G. Crewdson that I ought to withdraw my agreement with Dr. Heer's idea that a Jewish family would probably not recall its genealogy upwards for more than five generations. But when we find contradictory statements about the childless Jeconiah having children (Jer. xxii, 30; 1 Chron. iii, 17) how are we to interpret it? Surely that these children died young.

It is by no means proved that the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Luke's genealogy are the same people as those who bear similar names in Matthew's. They cannot, in fact, be so, if we allow to Luke even a moderate degree of accuracy. For he gives twenty names between Shealtiel and David, whereas Matthew gives fourteen. Between Zerubbabel and Heli, Luke gives seventeen names, while Matthew has eight between Zerubbabel and Jacob. Allowing for many mistakes of transcription, we cannot put the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Luke into the same period as those of Matthew.

It may be my want of perception, but I cannot see that the two genealogies show agreement for about five generations from Shealtiel to Abiud. I am very familiar with the mangling which Semitic names undergo on Greek lips, and vice versa, and I see a likeness between Hananiah and Joannan; also between Hodaiah and Judah. There is a very slight one between Abiud and Judah, but none at all between Abiud and Rhesa. Nor can we even be sure that Matthan and Matthat are identical.

There may be a difference of opinion as to whether "Mary the daughter of Heli," who is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud, is Mary the mother of our Lord, or Mary Magdalene. She is represented as suffering great torture in Gehenna, and I would submit that this really fiendish idea must have sprung from the spite which many of the Jews undoubtedly felt for the most blessed among women, and which nothing in the history of Mary Magdalene could have been sufficient to awaken. We know that

in their blind hate they confounded the two Marys, and gave out that the Virgin Mary had earned her living as a woman's hairdresser, the verb gadal in Hebrew meaning "to plait." Jewish tradition says that after the Virgin-birth had been spoken about at Pentecost, she had to bear with many gibes and insults from her fellow-countrymen. May it not have been for this reason that she perhaps ended her days at Ephesus, as well as for the purpose of being under the care of her sister's son, the Apostle John, to whom her Divine Son had entrusted her?

To Mr. E. Sewell I reply, that the question as to which Mary is mentioned in the Talmud would be best decided by Jewish scholars. He will find the subject discussed in Dr. Dalman's book, Jesus Christ in the Talmud, translated by Dr. Streane. I cannot see that Dr. Gore's authority, although great, is final, nor is Lightfoot's, because new editions and translations of the Talmud have appeared since his day.

The legends about Mary in the Talmud are certainly a tissue of confused nonsense; but still it is remarkable that the name of Heli should be brought into connection with Mary's at all.

Amongst the German scholars who support the Heli theory, I may mention Drs. Zahn, Laible, Vogt, and Bardenhewer. One of these, I think it is Dr. Zahn, points out that the name Joseph is not part of Luke's genealogy, for in that genealogy the name of each member is preceded by Toû, whereas the word vids stands before Joseph to express the supposition that our Lord was his son.

I cannot help thinking that Joseph would have clearly been included in the genealogy if Toû had stood before his name, i.e., if we had read υἱὸς τοῦ Ἰωσήφ. Τοῦ has the same effect in Greek as the Irish "O" in names like O'Donnell, or as I am told that the Northumberland miners put it when they call a boy "Jack o' Jim," "Tom o' Jack," without any further surname. I would point out

that we may read verse 23 thus: "And Jesus Himself, at about thirty years old (being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph), was of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi," etc.

Our English translators ought not to have inserted the explanatory words "which was " into that genealogy at all.

I have little space left to speak of the star. My one great objection to the theory of its having been Venus is that the varying appearances of that brilliant planet must have been long familiar to the Magi; for Venus is supposed to be older than our earth itself. Whether the star was a comet, or the appearance of a conjunction of stars seen in the same line, it is impossible now to ascertain. Astronomical calculations cannot help us much, for as my friend Sir Robert Ball said to me the other day, "We are not told from what country the Magi started." Dr. Zahn points out that the star is said to have stood, not over the house, but over the place, or rather "over where the young child was," "And when they came into the house," etc. Probably arriving at the gate of Bethlehem, the Magi inquired if there "were any children in it who had been born so many weeks ago," according to the time when they had first observed the star.

523RD ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 11TH, 1911, 4.30 P.M.

JAMES W. THIRTLE, ESQ., LL.D., M.R.A.S., TOOK THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed, and the following elections were announced :—

MEMBERS: Rev. S. H. Wilkinson (formerly an Associate); Mrs. Lewis (Camb.).

ASSOCIATES: Mrs. Gibson (Camb.); Thomas G. Hughes, Esq.

THAT

NATURAL LAW AND MIRACLE.

By Dr. LUDWIG VON GERDTELL, Marburg a/L.

HAT the Gospel of Jesus Christ stands or falls with a belief in miracles is beyond all doubt. The Gospel is essentially a matter of revelation, and revelation itself is miracle.

Modern unbelief has shown a true instinct therefore in directing its criticism against the faith in the miraculous which belonged to early Christianity. The two principal objections of a philosophic nature which modern unbelief levels at the miraculous are these:

1. Miracles are impossible, since they destroy the fundamental principle of modern science-the absolutely unalterable, the all-embracing Law of Causation.

2. Miracles are impossible, since they contradict the unchangeable Laws of Nature as known to us.

If these objections could be upheld, the Gospel would be destroyed. Thenceforward culture would be linked with unbelief, and the Gospel with barbarism. The Gospel could then advance only amongst those classes of mankind who were of deficient intelligence, and only prolong that miserable and