Appendix to “The Nativity”, Page 3

The following portions of the editorial footnotes from Eusebius’ presentation of Africanus’ letter, 1 Nicene-3 pp. 91-94, (i.e., see fn 1 under Africanus above) seem pertinent also:

2.... Of this Aristides to whom the epistle is addressed we know nothing....

The attempt of Africanus is, so far as we know, the first critical attempt to harmonize the two genealogies of Christ. The question had been the subject merely of guesses and suppositions until his time. He approaches the matter in a free critical spirit (such as seems always to have characterized him), and his investigations therefore deserve attention. He holds that both genealogies are those of Joseph, and this was the unanimous opinion of antiquity, though, as he says, the discrepancies were reconciled in various ways. Africanus himself, as will be seen, explains by the law of Levirate marriages, and his view is advocated by Mill (On the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospel, p. 201 sq.); but of this interpretation Rev. John Lightfoot justly says, “There is neither reason for it, nor, indeed, any foundation at all.”

Upon the supposition that both genealogies relate to Joseph the best explanation is that Matthew’s table represents the royal line of legal successors to the throne of David, while Luke’s gives the line of actual descent. This view is ably advocated by Hervey in Smith’s Bible Dictionary (article Genealogy of Jesus). Another opinion which has prevailed widely since the Reformation is that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary. The view is defended very ingeniously by Weiss(Leben Jesu, I. 205, 2d ed.). For further particulars see, besides the works already mentioned, the various commentaries upon Matthew and Luke and the various lives of Christ, especially Andrews’, p. 55 sq.

3. Eusebius makes a mistake in saying that Africanus had received the explanation which follows from tradition. For Africanus himself says expressly ... that his interpretation is not supported by testimony. Eusebius’ error has been repeated by most writers upon the subject but is exposed by Spitta, ibid. p. 63.

7. We know nothing more of Estha. Africanus probably refers to the tradition handed down by the relatives of Christ, who had, as he says, preserved genealogies which agreed with those of the Gospels. He distinguishes here what he gives on tradition from his own interpretation of the Gospel discrepancy upon which he is engaged.