Julius Africanus, Epistola ad Aristidem de genealogia Christi

(1) ‹anchor: EPISTOLA AD ARISTIDEM (title, spanning both columns)› · call in col 51

De hac celebri Africani ad Aristidem epistola videndus in primis Eusebius Hist. eccl. lib. I, 7, qui ejus partem ingentem refert, a Nicephoro postea Callisto Hist. lib. I, 11, repetitam. Videndi insuper Hieronymus comment. ad Matth. I, 16; Augustinus Retract. lib. II, 7; Photius cod. 34, p. 22; denique etiam Zacharias Chrysopol. in Bibl. PP. Lugdun., tom. XIX, pag. 751, in fin. Caeteroqui verus epistolae, quanquam haud integrae, conservator fuerat hactenus in Historia ecclesiastica Eusebius. Nunc nobis feliciter accidit, ut in hac quaestionum Eusebii epitome pars quaedam prior ejusdem epistolae comperta primum sit, nempe ab hoc initio, οὐκ ἀκριβῶς, usque ad ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν γενῶν ἐν Ἰσραὴλ, etc., quae in parte illa ab historico Eusebio relata deest, apud quem incipit ἐπειδὴ γάρ, etc. Et quidem illud γάρ, enim, in codicibus Historiae Eusebianae exstare, testatur Valesius, ita ut acephalum fuisse fragmentum satis constaret; nunc vero a nostra epitome prorsus demonstratur. Quid quod in hoc novo fragmento ea prorsus exhibetur materia, quam Eusebius in integra epistola se legisse significat? En verba Eusebii loc. cit., id est, Hist. I, 7: Φέρε τὴν περὶ τούτων κατελθοῦσαν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἱστορίαν παραθώμεθα, ἣν δι' ἐπιστολῆς Ἀριστείδῃ γράφων περὶ συμφωνίας τῆς ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις γενεαλογίας ὁ Ἀφρικανὸς ἐμνημόνευσε, τὰς μὲν δὴ λοιπῶν δόξας ὡς ἂν βιαίους καὶ διεψευσμένας ἀπελέγξας, ἣν δ' αὐτὸς παρείληφεν ἱστορίαν, τούτοις αὐτοῖς ἐκτιθέμενος τοῖς ῥήμασιν· Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν γενῶν, etc. De his traditionem quae ad nos usque deducta est proponamus, quam Africanus in epistola ad Aristidem de consensu evangeliorum in stirpe Christi narranda commemoravit. Ubi aliorum quidem opiniones tanquam violentas et falso confictas coarguit; ipse vero quam compererat historiam his refert verbis: Nam quia generationum nomina, etc. Vides itaque alienarum opinionum, utpote violentarum atque falsarum, coargutionem ab Africano factam, nonnisi apud nostram epitomen, statim initio, ut debuit, inveniri. MAI.

On this celebrated letter of Africanus to Aristides, see first of all Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History book I, 7, who gives a large part of it, repeated afterwards by Nicephorus Callistus, History book I, 11. See also Jerome's commentary on Matthew 1:16; Augustine, Retractations book II, 7; Photius, codex 34, p. 22; and finally also Zacharias of Chrysopolis in the Lyons Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. XIX, p. 751, at the end. Otherwise, the real preserver of the letter, though not entire, had until now been Eusebius in the Ecclesiastical History. Now it has happily fallen to us that in this epitome of Eusebius's questions a certain earlier part of the same letter has been found for the first time, namely from this beginning, οὐκ ἀκριβῶς ("not accurately"), down to ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν γενῶν ἐν Ἰσραὴλ ("for since the names of the generations in Israel"), etc., which is missing from the part quoted by Eusebius the historian, in whom it begins ἐπειδὴ γάρ ("for since"), etc. And indeed Valesius testifies that this γάρ, for, stands in the manuscripts of Eusebius's History, so that it was clear enough that the fragment lacked its head; but now this is fully proved by our epitome. What is more, in this new fragment is set out exactly the matter which Eusebius indicates he had read in the complete letter. Here are Eusebius's words in the place cited, that is, History I, 7: "Let us set out the account of these things that has come down to us, which Africanus recorded when writing a letter to Aristides on the harmony of the genealogy in the Gospels; having refuted the opinions of others as forced and false, he sets out the account he himself had received in these very words: 'For since the names of the generations,' etc." [Latin rendering:] Let us set out the tradition that has come down even to us, which Africanus recorded in his letter to Aristides on the agreement of the Gospels in narrating the lineage of Christ. There he refutes the opinions of others as forced and falsely invented, while he himself relates the account he had learned in these words: "For since the names of the generations," etc. You see, then, that Africanus's refutation of others' opinions, as forced and false, is found only in our epitome, right at the beginning, as it should be. MAI.

(printed under page 32)

JULII AFRICANI QUAE SUPERSUNT.

THE SURVIVING WORKS OF JULIUS AFRICANUS.

EPISTOLA AD ORIGENEM DE HISTORIA SUZANNAE ET ORIGENIS AD AFRICANUM RESPONSUM.

LETTER TO ORIGEN ON THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA, AND ORIGEN'S REPLY TO AFRICANUS.

(Vide inter Origenis Opera, tomi XI, proxime sequentis, initio.

(See among the Works of Origen, at the beginning of volume XI, which follows next.

AFRICANI EPISTOLA AD ARISTIDEM.

LETTER OF AFRICANUS TO ARISTIDES.

(Hujus epistolae, apud Eusebium acephalae, magnam partem ex codice Vaticano A. supplevit card. Angelo Mai in Bibliotheca nova Patrum, t. IV, p. 231 et 275. Uncis includimus quae apud Gallandium, qui Eusebium [Hist. eccl. I, 7] exscripsit, desiderabantur.)

(Of this letter, which in Eusebius lacks its beginning, Cardinal Angelo Mai supplied a great part from Vatican codex A., in the Bibliotheca nova Patrum, vol. IV, pp. 231 and 275. We enclose in square brackets what was wanting in Galland, who copied out Eusebius [Eccl. Hist. I, 7].)

<!-- note: editors' matter, set under the rail of col 52 (the head of the page spans cols 51–52, full width). The volume titles and the pointer to Origen's Works stand at the top between the running head and a rule; the closing parenthesis of the pointer is not printed. Below the rule follow the work's title (AFRICANI EPISTOLA AD ARISTIDEM, with the footnote call (1) omitted here) and the editors' bracketed paragraph, set full width and in roman type, ending above a short dash; the author's bracketed titles in the columns (Latin and Greek) and the text of § 1 follow. The words "autois ektithemenos" at marginal letter B and the italic Latin beside them are NOT in the column: they belong to Mai's footnote (1) at the foot of the page (the second half of that note, ending MAI), so they are left for the footnote set and are not set here. Nothing runs over from col 51 or into col 53. -->

(¹) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 54 Exod. VI, 23.

Exodus 6:23.

(printed under page 33) (²) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 54 Ibid. 25.

Ibid., verse 25.

(printed under page 33) (³) ‹anchor: dum ait› · call in col 54 I Cor. XV, 12 sq.

1 Corinthians 15:12 ff.

(printed under page 33)

(2) ‹anchor: ἐξ οὐδεμιᾶς (Greek); ex nulla (Latin)› · call in col 54

In epitome codex habet omnino οὐ δεῖνες, sed veram nunc vides lectionem ἐξ οὐδεμιᾶς. MAI.

In the epitome the manuscript plainly has οὐ δεῖνες, but you now see the true reading ἐξ οὐδεμιᾶς ("from none"). MAI.

(printed under page 33)

(3) ‹anchor: Β΄. (start of § II)› · call in col 54

Hic incipit Eusebius.

Here Eusebius begins.

(printed under page 33)

(4) ‹anchor: τὰ ὀνόματα; generationum nomina› · call in col 54

Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τὰ ὀνόματα. Particula γὰρ abest a nostris codicibus Maz., Med., Fuk. et Savil., nec habetur in interpretatione Rufini. Exstat tamen in codice Regio, et apud Nicephorum in cap. II lib. I.

"For since the names." The particle γάρ ("for") is missing from our manuscripts Mazarinus, Mediceus, Fuketianus and Savilianus, nor is it found in Rufinus's translation. It does stand, however, in the Royal manuscript, and in Nicephorus, book I, chapter 11.

(printed under page 33)

(5) ‹anchor: συνεπεπλάκη γὰρ ἀλλήλοις τὰ γένη (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 55

Συνεπλάκη γὰρ ἀλλήλοις τὰ γένη. Ita quidem ex codice Medicaeo edidit Rob. Stephanus. In Regio exemplari prius scriptum erat ἐπεπλάκη. Postea vero emendatum est paulo recentiore manu, συνεπεπλάκη. Priorem illam lectionem ἐπεπλάκη retinuit Nicephorus, et Joannes Damascenus in oratione 3 de Nativitate B. Mariae. Codex autem Max. et Fuk. scriptum habent συνεπεπλάκει, vel, quod idem est, συνεπεπλάκη. Atque ita legisse videtur Rufinus: sic enim vertit: Reconjunctum namque est sibi invicem genus, et illud per Salomonem, et illud quod per Nathan deducitur, etc. Ubi vides Rufinum duas illas praepositiones verbi συνεπεπλάκη totidem Latinis exprimere voluisse. In vulgatis quidem Rufini editionibus legitur, conjunctum namque est sibi invicem genus, etc. Verum in duobus manuscriptis codicibus, altero bibliothecae Regiae, altero Parisiensis Ecclesiae, et in vetustissimis editionibus legitur reconjunctum. Nec tamen probare possum interpretationem Rufini. Nam reconjungi quidem dicuntur duae familiae, quae cum ex eadem gente ortae sint, mutuis postea connubiis inter se rejunguntur. Sed in hoc loco longe alia Africani mens est. Non enim dicit Africanus, Nathanaeos ac Salomonios, qui ex eadem gente Davidica originem ducebant, mutuis inter se connubiis postea rejunctos fuisse. Verum hoc dicit, generationes illas, tum quae a Nathane, tum quae a Salomone ducuntur, implexas esse atque intricatas, ob secundas scilicet nuptias viduarum, et seminum suscitationes, quae in multis generationum illarum gradibus occurrunt. Proinde praepositio illa ἐπί in verbo συνεπεπλάκη, non exponenda erat per re; ut fecit Rufinus, sed potius per praepositionem super. Ad verbum, συνεπεπλάκη, superimplexum est.

"For the lines were intertwined with one another." So Robert Estienne published it from the Medicean manuscript. In the Royal copy ἐπεπλάκη was first written, but afterwards it was corrected by a somewhat later hand to συνεπεπλάκη. Nicephorus kept the former reading ἐπεπλάκη, as did John Damascene in his third oration on the Nativity of the Blessed Mary. The Max. [i.e. Mazarin] and Fuketian manuscripts have συνεπεπλάκει, or, what is the same, συνεπεπλάκη. And Rufinus seems to have read it so, for he translates: For the line is joined again to itself, both that through Solomon and that which is traced through Nathan, etc. Here you see that Rufinus wanted to render the two prepositions of the verb συνεπεπλάκη by as many Latin ones. In the common editions of Rufinus, indeed, one reads for the line is joined to itself, etc.; but in two manuscripts, one of the Royal library, the other of the Church of Paris, and in the oldest editions, one reads joined again. Yet I cannot approve Rufinus's rendering. For two families are said to be joined again when, having sprung from the same stock, they are afterwards rejoined to each other by intermarriage. But here Africanus's meaning is quite different. He does not say that the descendants of Nathan and of Solomon, who drew their origin from the same Davidic stock, were afterwards rejoined by intermarriage. What he says is that those generations, both those traced from Nathan and those from Solomon, were interwoven and entangled because of the second marriages of widows and the raising up of seed, which occur at many steps of those generations. Accordingly the preposition ἐπί in the verb συνεπεπλάκη should not have been rendered by re-, as Rufinus did, but rather by the preposition super. Word for word, συνεπεπλάκη is was woven over together.

(printed under page 34)

(6) ‹anchor: ἀναστάσεσιν ἀτέκνων (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 55

Ἀναστάσεσιν ἀτέκνων. Vir doctissimus Joannes Langus qui Nicephorum Latine interpretatus est, hunc locum ita vertit: Implicata enim inter se sunt genera, et quod a Salomone, et quod a Nathan descendit, repraesentatione eorum qui liberos non creassent, secundisque nuptiis, ac resuscitatione seminum. Rufinus vero liberius quidem, sed non sine elegantia ita vertit: Reconjunctum namque sibi est invicem genus, et illud quod per Salomonem, et illud quod per Nathan deducitur, per legales substitutiones, quae fiebant his qui sine liberis decedebant, et per secundas nihilominus nuptias, quibus unus atque idem aliis parentibus progenitus, aliorum esse filius videbatur. Omisit Rufinus verba illa Africani καὶ ἀναστάσεσι σπερμάτων, quae certe superflua videntur. Cum enim jam antea dixerit ἀναστάσεσιν ἀτέκνων rejunctas fuisse familias, quid opus est addere ἀναστάσεσιν σπερμάτων, quod unum idemque est, teste Africano in hac ipsa ad Aristidem epistola? Damascenus quoque in orat. 3 de Nativitate B. Mariae omisit haec verba. Caeterum obscurum est, quod hic ait Africanus, reparatione scilicet seminis eorum qui sine liberis decessisent, misceri solitas esse familias. Nam quoties frater eodem patre natus relictam fratris sui in conjugium ducebat, nulla erat agnationis mutatio. Sed si forte frater uterinus viduam fratris sui uxorem duceret, tunc aliqua familiarum permistio nasci poterat. Itaque merito addidit Africanus, καὶ δευτερογαμίαις. Haec enim praecipua fuit causa permistionis familiarum, quoties mulier susceptis jam liberis ex priore matrimonio, ad secundas nuptias transvolabat, et filios ex posteriore etiam viro pariebat. Quo facto, filium ex priore matrimonio natum, uxorem duxisse et improlem postea obiisse fingamus. Tunc si frater illius uterinus viduam in conjugium duxerit, et ex ea liberos sustulerit, in persona liberorum erit aliqua familiarum confusio; ita ut natura quidem hujus, lege autem illius filii dicantur.

"By the raisings-up for the childless." The very learned John Lange, who translated Nicephorus into Latin, renders this place thus: For the lines are entangled with each other, both that descending from Solomon and that from Nathan, by the representation of those who had begotten no children, by second marriages, and by the raising up of seed. Rufinus, more freely but not without elegance, renders: For the line is joined again to itself, both that traced through Solomon and that through Nathan, by the legal substitutions made for those who died without children, and also by second marriages, by which one and the same man, begotten of some parents, was regarded as the son of others. Rufinus left out Africanus's words καὶ ἀναστάσεσι σπερμάτων ("and by raisings-up of seed"), which certainly seem superfluous. For since he has already said that the families were rejoined ἀναστάσεσιν ἀτέκνων ("by raisings-up for the childless"), what need is there to add ἀναστάσεσιν σπερμάτων, which is one and the same thing, as Africanus himself attests in this very letter to Aristides? Damascene too, in his third oration on the Nativity of the Blessed Mary, left these words out. For the rest, what Africanus says here is obscure: that families were commonly mixed by the restoring of the seed of those who had died without children. For whenever a brother born of the same father took his brother's widow in marriage, there was no change of agnatic line. But if a brother by the same mother happened to marry his brother's widow, then some mixing of families could arise. So Africanus rightly added καὶ δευτερογαμίαις ("and by second marriages"). For this was the chief cause of the mixing of families: whenever a woman who already had children by a former marriage passed to a second marriage and bore sons by the later husband as well. That done, let us suppose that the son born of the former marriage took a wife and afterwards died without issue. Then if his brother by the same mother took the widow in marriage and had children by her, in the person of the children there will be some confusion of families, so that they are called sons of the one by nature but of the other by law.

(printed under page 34)

(7) ‹anchor: καὶ ἀναστάσεσι σπερμάτων (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 55

Καὶ ἀναστάσεσι σπερμάτων. Apud Nicephorum legitur ἀναστάσει· atque ita in codice Regio prius scriptum fuerat: postea vero emendatum est alia manu, ἀναστάσεσι. Verum Nicephori lectio magis placet, cum paulo ante positum sit ἀναστάσεσι.

"And by raisings-up of seed." In Nicephorus one reads ἀναστάσει (singular); and so it was first written in the Royal manuscript, but afterwards corrected by another hand to ἀναστάσεσι. But Nicephorus's reading is preferable, since ἀναστάσεσι was used a little before.

(printed under page 34)

(8) ‹anchor: ἄλλοτε ἄλλων νομίζεσθαι (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 55

Ἄλλοτε ἄλλων νομίζεσθαι. Haec est scriptura Regii codicis, quam Nicephorus etiam confirmat. Nostri tamen codices Med., Maz. et Fuk. scriptum habent ἄλλοτε ἄλλως.

"To be reckoned now of some, now of others." This is the reading of the Royal manuscript, which Nicephorus also confirms. Our manuscripts Medicean, Mazarin and Fuketian, however, have ἄλλοτε ἄλλως ("now in one way, now in another").

(printed under page 34)

(9) ‹anchor: γενῶν (9) διηγήσομαι› · call in col 55

Τὴν ἀκολουθίαν τῶν γενῶν. Haec est scriptura codicis Regii, quem secutus est Stephanus. Nec aliter legisse videtur Rufinus, qui sic vertit: ipsas generationum consequentias enarrabimus. Reliqui tamen codices Maz., Med., Fuk. ac Savilii prae- (continues)

"The sequence of the generations." This is the reading of the Royal manuscript, which Estienne followed. Nor does Rufinus seem to have read otherwise, for he translates: we will relate the very successions of the generations. The other manuscripts, however, Mazarin, Medicean, Fuketian and Savile's, … (continues)

(printed under page 34)

(⁴) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 58 Luc. III, 23, 24.

Luke 3:23–24.

(printed under page 35) (⁵) ‹anchor: Jacob autem genuit Joseph› · call in col 58 Matth. I, 16.

Matthew 1:16.

(printed under page 35)

(9) (continued) ‹anchor: on the previous page› · call in col 58

ferunt τὴν ἐπαλλαγὴν τῶν γενῶν. Quam quidem lectionem etiam ad latus codicis Regii ascriptam inveni. Nicephorus autem habet, ἐναλλαγὴν, id est commutationem. Et Christophorsonus quidem vulgatam a Rob. Stephano lectionem secutus est. Ego vero alteram lectionem amplexus sum, quippe quam plures et meliores codices exhiberent. Deinde Africanus hoc loco nequaquam recenset seriem utriusque generationis. Neque enim progreditur ultra Matthan et Melchi. Sed tantum exponit ἐπαλλαγὴν, id est commistionem, seu complicationem duarum familiarum in genealogia Christi. Apud Damascenum in oratione citata legitur τὴν ἐπιπλοκὴν τῶν γενῶν, quod eamdem vim habet.

… have τὴν ἐπαλλαγὴν τῶν γενῶν ("the interchange of the generations"). I also found this reading written in the margin of the Royal manuscript. Nicephorus, however, has ἐναλλαγὴν, that is, exchange. Christopherson followed the reading published by Robert Estienne. But I have adopted the other reading, since more and better manuscripts give it. Further, Africanus in this place by no means recounts the series of both lines of descent, for he does not go beyond Matthan and Melchi. He only sets out the ἐπαλλαγή, that is, the intermixture or entanglement of the two families in the genealogy of Christ. In Damascene, in the oration cited, one reads τὴν ἐπιπλοκὴν τῶν γενῶν ("the interweaving of the generations"), which has the same force.

(printed under page 35)

(10) ‹anchor: Ἰωσὴφ γὰρ υἱὸς Ἡλὶ (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 58

Ἰωσὴφ γὰρ υἱὸς Ἡλὶ, τοῦ Μελχί. In textu hodierno Luc. III, 23, 24: Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἡλὶ, τοῦ Ματθὰτ, τοῦ Λευὶ, τοῦ Μελχί. Vulg.: Joseph, qui fuit Heli, qui fuit Mathat, qui fuit Levi, qui fuit Melchi. Ad quem locum Bernardus Lamy in Harmon. pag. 28, haec habet: « Duo illi, Levi et Mathat, dicuntur inserti a librariis. Divus Irenaeus lib. III Adversus haereses, cap. 33, non agnoscit in genealogia Domini secundum Lucam ultra septuaginta duas generationes. Nunc septuaginta et sex numerantur. Ita aliquae ex his generationibus additiae essent: saltem Levi et Mathat cum Cainan, quem viri docti insertum volunt comm. 36 inter Arphaxad et Sale. » Et paulo post pag. 31: « Non mirandum est, inquit, si Africanus inter Melchi et Heli duas reticeat generationes, nempe Levi et Mathat: etenim nondum insertae fuerant in codicem sacrum, ea qua scriptor ille antiquissimus vivebat aetate. » Hactenus vir doctus. Qua de re sub finem hujus capitis adnotat nonnulla in eamdem sententiam cl. Valesius.

"For Joseph was son of Heli, son of Melchi." In the present text of Luke 3:23–24: "Joseph, son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi." Vulgate: Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat, who was of Levi, who was of Melchi. On this place Bernard Lamy, in his Harmony, p. 28, says: "Those two, Levi and Mathat, are said to have been inserted by copyists. St Irenaeus, Against Heresies book III, chapter 33, recognizes no more than seventy-two generations in the Lord's genealogy according to Luke. Now seventy-six are counted. So some of these generations would be additions: at least Levi and Mathat, together with Cainan, whom learned men hold to have been inserted at no. 36 between Arphaxad and Sala." And a little later, p. 31: "It is no wonder," he says, "if Africanus passes over two generations between Melchi and Heli, namely Levi and Mathat: for they had not yet been inserted into the sacred text in the age in which that most ancient writer lived." Thus far the learned man. On this matter the renowned Valesius notes some things to the same effect at the end of this chapter.

(printed under page 35)

(11) ‹anchor: χηρεύουσαν (Greek); viduam (Latin)› · call in col 58

Χηρεύουσαν γυναῖκα. Hoc loco Africanus χηρεύειν promiscue dixit tam de mulieribus repudiatis, quam de iis quarum viri fato functi sunt.

"A widowed wife." In this place Africanus uses χηρεύειν ("to be widowed") indiscriminately both of divorced women and of those whose husbands have died.

(printed under page 35)

(12) ‹anchor: διαφόρων δύο γενῶν; diverso genere› · call in col 58

Διαφόρων δύο γενῶν. Hoc loco γένος sumitur pro familia. Gens enim dividitur in familias. Sic gens Cornelia, verbi gratia, in plures erat divisa familias, puta Scipionum, Sullarum, Lentulorum; qui omnes ex diversa quidem familia, sed ex una eademque erant gente; ac proinde gentiles dicebantur. Eodem modo Matthan et Melchi ex diversa erant familia; ambo tamen ex eadem gente Davidica, quae in duas familias erat divisa, Salomoniorum scilicet et Nathanaeorum.

"Of two different lines." Here γένος is taken for "family." For a gens is divided into families. Thus the Cornelian gens, for example, was divided into several families, namely the Scipios, the Sullas, the Lentuli; all of whom were of different families but of one and the same gens, and were therefore called gentiles. In the same way Matthan and Melchi were of different families, yet both of the same Davidic gens, which was divided into two families, namely the Solomonians and the Nathanites.

(printed under page 35)

(13) ‹anchor: κατὰ νόμον γένεσιν› · call in col 58

Τὴν γὰρ κατὰ νόμον γένεσιν. Hic vero nimium argutari videtur Africanus. Cum enim Lucas (continues)

"For the generation according to law." Here, however, Africanus seems to be over-subtle. For since Luke … (continues)

(printed under page 35)

(⁶) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 59 Luc. III, 23, 24.

Luke 3:23–24.

(printed under page 36)

(13) (continued) ‹anchor: on the previous page› · call in col 59

de Christo dixerit, ὡς ἐνομίζετο υἱὸς Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἡλὶ τοῦ Μελχί, etc., Africanus voces illas ὡς ἐνομίζετο referri vult non solum ad illa verba υἱὸς Ἰωσὴφ, sed etiam ad illa quae sequuntur, τοῦ Ἡλί. Quod etsi acutum videtur, est tamen ineptum atque insulsum. Nam si Lucas evangelista his vocibus ὡς ἐνομίζετο, legalem illam generationem seu adoptionem intelligit, ut vult Africanus, sequeretur Christum filium fuisse Josephi per adoptionem legalem, eodem plane modo quo Josephus filius fuit Heli. Ita dicendum esset, Mariam post mortem Josephi nupsisse ejus fratri, atque ex eo Christum peperisse, quod impium est et absurdum. Id tamen necessario sequitur ex verbis Africani. Praeterea si voces illae, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, extenduntur ad ea verba τοῦ Ἡλί, eadem ratione extendi etiam poterunt ad omnes generationum gradus qui sequuntur. Nulla enim ratio est, cur in secundo gradu subaudiantur potius quam in reliquis lineis. Hoc igitur primo improbandum est in explicatione Africani. Secundo loco notandum est, quod ait in generatione illa Christi quam refert Lucas, tertium esse Melchi: atqui in Evangelio Lucae tertius nominatur Mathat, avus scilicet Josephi; Melchi vero quintus, abavus scilicet Josephi. Itaque aut Africanum memoria lapsum esse dicendum est: aut certe in codice Evangelii quo usus est Africanus, Melchi scriptum fuisse pro Mathat: quae est conjectura Bedae in caput III Lucae. Certe Gregorius Nazianzenus in carmine 38 de Christi genealogia, Africanum sequens, Melchi pro Mathat posuit; et Ambrosius in lib. III Commentariorum in Lucam.

… says of Christ, "being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, son of Heli, son of Melchi," etc., Africanus wants the words ὡς ἐνομίζετο ("as was supposed") to apply not only to the words "son of Joseph" but also to those that follow, "son of Heli." Though this looks clever, it is in fact inept and tasteless. For if Luke the evangelist means by the words "as was supposed" that legal generation or adoption, as Africanus would have it, it would follow that Christ was the son of Joseph by legal adoption in exactly the same way that Joseph was the son of Heli. One would then have to say that after Joseph's death Mary married his brother and bore Christ by him, which is impious and absurd. Yet it follows necessarily from Africanus's words. Moreover, if the words "as was supposed" are extended to the words "son of Heli," by the same reasoning they could be extended to all the steps of generation that follow. For there is no reason why they should be understood at the second step rather than in the remaining lines. This, then, is the first thing to be rejected in Africanus's explanation. Second, note his statement that in the genealogy of Christ given by Luke, Melchi is third: yet in Luke's Gospel the third named is Mathat, that is, Joseph's grandfather, while Melchi is fifth, that is, Joseph's great-great-grandfather. So we must say either that Africanus's memory failed him, or certainly that in the copy of the Gospel Africanus used, Melchi was written for Mathat: this is Bede's conjecture on Luke chapter 3. Certainly Gregory Nazianzen, in poem 38 on the genealogy of Christ, following Africanus, put Melchi for Mathat; and so did Ambrose in book III of his Commentaries on Luke.

(printed under page 36)

(14) ‹anchor: ἕως τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ Θεοῦ (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 59

Ἕως τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Nostri codices Maz. ac Med. cum Fuk. ac Savil. particulam interserunt hoc modo, ἕως τοῦ Ἀδὰμ καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, quod quidem mihi videtur elegantius. Atque ita legit Rufinus, ut ex versione ejus apparet.

"Up to Adam, son of God." Our manuscripts Mazarin and Medicean, with the Fuketian and Savile's, insert a particle thus: ἕως τοῦ Ἀδὰμ καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ ("up to Adam and to God"), which indeed seems to me more elegant. And Rufinus read it so, as is clear from his translation.

(printed under page 36)

(15) ‹anchor: Ἀντίπατρον Ἡρώδου τινός (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 59

Ἀντίπατρον Ἡρώδου τινός. Haec narratio prorsus fabulosa est et commentitia. Nam Antipater patrem habuit non Herodem hierodulum templi Apollinis, sed Antipatrum Idumaeum, ut scribit Josephus in lib. XIV, cap. 2. Quem Antipatrum Alexander Judaeorum rex praefectum totius Idumaeae constituit. Primusque hic Antipater auctor fuisse videtur hujus potentiae, ad quam posteri ipsius postea pervenerunt. Nam et praefecturam Idumaeae gessit, Alexandro et Alexandra regnantibus; et hospitio atque amicitia cum Ascalonitis et Gazaeis et Arabibus inita, maximas sibi opes comparavit.

"Antipater, son of one Herod." This story is wholly fabulous and invented. For Antipater's father was not Herod, a temple slave of Apollo's temple, but Antipater the Idumaean, as Josephus writes in book XIV, chapter 2. This Antipater was made governor of all Idumaea by Alexander, king of the Jews. And this Antipater seems to have been the first founder of the power which his descendants afterwards attained. For he held the governorship of Idumaea in the reigns of Alexander and Alexandra; and by forming ties of hospitality and friendship with the people of Ascalon and Gaza and the Arabs, he acquired very great wealth.

(printed under page 36)

(16) ‹anchor: τὸν ἱερέα (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 59

Τὸν ἱερέα. Improprie sacerdotem vocat, qui erat hierodulus. Longe enim haec inter se differunt, ut supra notavi. Fieri tamen potuit, ut idem esset sacerdos et hierodulus; puta si haec erat conditio sacerdotii, ut non nisi exuta libertate sacerdotes caperentur.

"The priest." He improperly calls priest one who was a temple slave. For these differ widely from each other, as I noted above. Yet it could have happened that the same man was both priest and temple slave; suppose, for instance, that the condition of the priesthood was that priests were taken only after giving up their freedom.

(printed under page 36)

(17) ‹anchor: Ὑρκανῷ φιλιοῦται (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 59

Ὑρκανῷ φιλιοῦται. Hoc quoque in loco nostri codices Regius, Mazarinus, Medicaeus ac Fuketianus constanter scriptum habent φιλιοῦται. Quam scripturam nescio cur Robertus Stephanus repudiavit: φιλοῦται enim dicitur, ut ἐχθροῦται.

"He is made a friend of Hyrcanus." In this place too our manuscripts, the Royal, Mazarin, Medicean and Fuketian, consistently have φιλιοῦται. I do not know why Robert Estienne rejected this reading: for φιλοῦται is said, as is ἐχθροῦται.

(printed under page 36)

(18) ‹anchor: ἐπιμελητὴς τῆς Παλαιστίνης (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 59

Ἐπιμελητὴς τῆς Παλαιστίνης προκόψας. Antipater Herodis parens, sub Hyrcano Judaeorum rege procurationem totius regni gessit, et negotia tam civilia quam militaria administravit. Itaque ἐπιμελητὴς τῆς Ἰουδαίας et ἐπίτροπος vocatur a Josepho in dicto lib. Porro codex Med. et Savil. χρηματίσας scriptum habent, non προκόψας. In Maz. autem et Fuk. legitur χρηματίσαι. Quam scripturam confirmat Nicephorus. Sic enim habet cap. 9 libri I, ηὐτύχησεν οὗτος ἐπιμελητὴς τῆς Παλαιστίνης γενέσθαι. Eleganter Graeci dicunt εὐτυχεῖν τὸ γενέσθαι.

"Advanced to be overseer of Palestine." Antipater, Herod's father, held the administration of the whole kingdom under Hyrcanus, king of the Jews, and managed both civil and military affairs. So Josephus, in the book mentioned, calls him "overseer of Judaea" and "steward." Further, the Medicean and Savile manuscripts have χρηματίσας ("having been styled"), not προκόψας ("having advanced"). In the Mazarin and Fuketian one reads χρηματίσαι. Nicephorus confirms this reading, for in chapter 9 of book I he has: "this man had the good fortune to become overseer of Palestine." The Greeks elegantly say εὐτυχεῖν τὸ γενέσθαι ("to have the good fortune to become").

(printed under page 36)

(19) ‹anchor: τῶν ἄχρι προσηλύτων› · call in col 59

Τῶν ἄχρι προσηλύτων. Mirum est in codi- (continues)

"Even of the proselytes." It is remarkable that in the manuscripts … (continues)

(printed under page 36)

(19) (continued) ‹anchor: on the previous page› · call in col 62

[… opening lines of this page's continuation lie above the image crop …] ἀρχιπροσήλυτοι sint principes, et quasi patriarchae proselytorum; cujusmodi fuit Achior Ammanites, et convenae illi qui Israelitis ex Aegypto egredientibus sese adjunxerunt. Quae quidem interpretatio mihi certe non displicet. In codice Regio scriptum est, ut in editis, ἄχρι προσηλύτων. Nicephorus quoque vulgatam lectionem tuetur. Paulo ante nostri codices Maz., Med. ac Fuk. scriptum habent εἰς τὸ τότε, cum articulo praepositivo.

[… lines missing above the crop …] are the archproselytes, chiefs and as it were patriarchs of the proselytes; such was Achior the Ammonite, and those strangers who joined the Israelites as they came out of Egypt. This interpretation certainly does not displease me. In the Royal manuscript it is written, as in the printed editions, ἄχρι προσηλύτων ("even of the proselytes"). Nicephorus too supports the common reading. A little before, our manuscripts Mazarin, Medicean and Fuketian have εἰς τὸ τότε, with the prepositive article.

(printed under page 37)

(20) ‹anchor: ἐνέπρησεν αὐτῶν τὰς ἀναγραφάς (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 62

Ἐνέπρησεν αὐτῶν τὰς ἀναγραφάς. Hanc etiam narrationem parum certam existimo. Nam Josephus in libro de vita sua originem et antiquitatem stirpis suae commemorans, ex publicis archivis eam repetit. Igitur restabant adhuc aetate Josephi publica tabularia, in quibus Judaicarum familiarum origines continebantur. Ac proinde falsum est, Herodem ea combussisse. Porro haec tabularia erant in templo Jerosolymitano sub custodia scribarum, ut equidem existimo. Itaque optime Rufinus verba Africani ita vertit: Omnes Hebraeorum generationes descriptae in archivis templi secretioribus habebantur.

"He burned their records." I also think this story is not very certain. For Josephus, in the book on his own life, recounting the origin and antiquity of his family, derives it from the public archives. So in Josephus's time the public record offices, in which the origins of the Jewish families were contained, still survived. Accordingly it is false that Herod burned them. Moreover, these records were kept in the temple at Jerusalem in the custody of the scribes, as I at least think. So Rufinus very well renders Africanus's words thus: All the generations of the Hebrews were kept written down in the more secret archives of the temple.

(printed under page 37)

(21) ‹anchor: ἢ προσηλύτους (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 62

Ἢ προσηλύτους. Mallem scribere ἀρχιπροσηλύτους, ut supra. Neque enim de novitiis ac recentibus proselytis hic loquitur Africanus, sed de nobilissimis quibusque et antiquissimis, quorum nomen in sacris libris commemoratum est; cujusmodi fuit Achior, de quo in libro Judith saepe fit mentio. Quippe hoc loco agit Africanus de nobilitate, cujus praecipuum insigne est antiquitas generis. Ait enim, Herodem origines familiarum ideo concremasse, ne quis ex publicis monumentis probare posset se ab ipsis patriarchis aut a proselytis originem generis sui ducere. Quod si novellos proselytos intelligamus, perit omnis hujus loci sententia; cum Herodis aetate innumerabiles essent in Judaea, qui genus suum ad novellos proselytos referrent, utpote avo nati proselyto; qui profecto archivorum suffragio opus non habebant, ut se ex proselytis oriundos esse approbarent. Huc accedit, quod ex proselytis originem ducere, ignobile potius quam splendidum apud Judaeos habebatur; exceptis, ut dixi, antiquis illis proselytis, quorum fides ac religio sacris Litteris nobilitata est.

"Or proselytes." I would rather write ἀρχιπροσηλύτους ("archproselytes"), as above. For Africanus is not speaking here of new and recent proselytes, but of the noblest and most ancient, whose names are recorded in the sacred books; such was Achior, who is often mentioned in the book of Judith. For in this place Africanus is treating of nobility, whose chief mark is the antiquity of a family. He says that Herod burned the records of the families so that no one could prove from the public records that he drew his family's origin from the patriarchs themselves or from proselytes. But if we understand new proselytes, the whole sense of this passage is lost; for in Herod's time there were countless people in Judaea who traced their family to new proselytes, being born of a proselyte grandfather, and they surely had no need of the archives' testimony to prove that they were descended from proselytes. Add to this that among the Jews descent from proselytes was held ignoble rather than glorious, except, as I said, for those ancient proselytes whose faith and religion are made famous by the sacred Scriptures.

(printed under page 37)

(22) ‹anchor: τούς τε καλουμένους γειώρας (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 62

Τούς τε καλουμένους γειώρας. Id verbum legitur in cap. XII, 19, Exodi, ubi Deus Moysi in Aegypto adhuc consistenti loquitur his verbis: Πᾶς [… lines above the crop of the right-hand note column not visible …] tur τοὺς ἀπ' Αἰγύπτου συνεκπεσόντας ἐπιμίκτους. Id est convenas, qui ex Aegypto simul cum Israelitis egressi fuerant. Duplex enim hominum genus Judaeis ab Aegypto egredientibus sese adjunxit. Alterum Aegyptiorum indigenarum, quos Moyses αὐτόχθονας vocat; alterum convenarum, id est promiscuae multitudinis, qui γειῶραι dicebantur. Hesychius, γέωρες, γεωφύλακες, μέτοικοι, πάροικοι. Georae ergo apud Aegyptios dicebantur homines extranei, qui terram colendam acceperant sub certa pensione; quales erant in Aegypto Judaei, antequam exiissent. Eos cum indigenis Aegyptiis confudisse videtur Africanus; quem tamen refellit Moyses in dicto loco. Utrosque vero, tam georas quam indigenas Aegyptios, uno ἐπιμίκτων nomine comprehendit sacra Scriptura in dicto capite, versu 38, καὶ ἐπίμικτος πολὺς συνανέβη αὐτοῖς, id est promiscua turba, συμμιγὴς λαός. Origenes tamen libro III De principiis, ἐπιμίκτων nomine Aegyptios solos intellexisse videtur, qui Hebraeis permisti ex Aegypto egressi sunt. Σκληρυσμὸν μὲν ἤλεγχε τὸν τοῦ Φαραὼ, διὰ τὴν κακίαν αὐτοῦ, πειθὼ δὲ τὴν τῶν ἐπιμίκτων Αἰγυπτίων συνεξορμησάντων τοῖς Ἑβραίοις. Drusius in lib. II De tribus sectis Judaeorum, agens de proselytis, vocem γειῶρα Hebraicae originis esse dicit, eaque significari proselytum, seu advenam. Idem scribit Hesychius: γειώρας, γείτονας ἐξ ἄλλου γένους, καλουμένους τῷ Ἰσραὴλ προσηλύτους.

"And those called geiorae." This word is read in Exodus 12:19, where God speaks to Moses while he was still in Egypt in these words: "Every …" [… lines not visible …] … the mixed multitude who fell out of Egypt with them. That is, the strangers who had come out of Egypt together with the Israelites. For two kinds of people joined the Jews as they came out of Egypt: one, native Egyptians, whom Moses calls αὐτόχθονας ("natives of the land"); the other, strangers, that is, a mixed multitude, who were called γειῶραι. Hesychius: "γέωρες: land-keepers, resident aliens, sojourners." So among the Egyptians georae were foreigners who had received land to till for a fixed rent; such were the Jews in Egypt before they went out. Africanus seems to have confused them with native Egyptians; Moses, however, refutes him in the place mentioned. But Sacred Scripture, in that chapter, verse 38, includes both, the georae as well as the native Egyptians, under the one name ἐπίμικτοι: "and a great mixed multitude went up with them," that is, a mixed crowd, συμμιγὴς λαός. Origen, however, in book III On First Principles, seems to understand by the name ἐπίμικτοι only the Egyptians who, mingled with the Hebrews, went out of Egypt: "He exposed the hardening of Pharaoh because of his wickedness, and the persuasion of the mixed Egyptians who set out together with the Hebrews." Drusius, in book II On the Three Sects of the Jews, treating of proselytes, says the word γειῶρα is of Hebrew origin and signifies a proselyte or newcomer. Hesychius writes the same: "γειώρας: neighbours of another race, called proselytes by Israel."

(printed under page 37)

(23) ‹anchor: γειώρας (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 62

Γειώρας. Hac voce usus est ante Africanum Justinus M., in Dial. cum Tryphone, cap. CXXII, supra tom. I, pag. 574. Ad quem locum videsis adnotata.

Geioras. Justin Martyr used this word before Africanus, in the Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 122, above, vol. I, p. 574. See the notes at that place.

(printed under page 37)

(24) ‹anchor: ἀπό τε Ναζάρων καὶ Κωχαβά (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 62

Ἀπό τε Ναζάρων καὶ Κωχαβά. Cochaba vicus fuit in Basanitide juxta Decapolim, ut tradit Epiphanius in haeresi Ebionaeorum, cap. 2 et 18.

"From Nazara and Cochaba." Cochaba was a village in Bashan near the Decapolis, as Epiphanius reports in the heresy of the Ebionites, chapters 2 and 18.

(printed under page 37)

(25) ‹anchor: τὴν προειρημένην γενεαλογίαν (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 62

Τὴν προειρημένην γενεαλογίαν. Nicephorus habet τὴν προκειμένην· et sic in codice Regio prius scriptum fuit, sed recentiore manu emendatum est προειρημένην.

"The aforesaid genealogy." Nicephorus has τὴν προκειμένην ("the one before us"); and so it was first written in the Royal manuscript, but it was corrected by a later hand to προειρημένην.

(printed under page 37)

(26) ‹anchor: ἔκ τε τῆς βίβλου τῶν Ἡμερῶν (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 62

Ἔκ τε τῆς βίβλου τῶν Ἡμερῶν. Per librum Dierum intelligit Africanus ephemeridas, quas paulo ante ἰδιωτικὰς ἀπογραφὰς appellavit. Plerique enim apud Judaeos originum suarum studiosi, privatos generis sui commentarios ex archivis publicis descriptos penes se habebant: quemadmodum apud nos etiamnum a nobilioribus fieri videmus. Porro (continues)

"And from the book of Days." By the book of Days Africanus means the day-books which a little before he called "private registers." For many among the Jews who cared about their origins kept private records of their family copied from the public archives, just as we see the nobility still doing among us. Further … (continues)

(printed under page 37)

(26) (continued) ‹anchor: on the previous page› · call in col 63

hoc in loco aliquid deesse apparet ex particula τε, quae in omnibus nostris codicibus, et apud Nicephorum habetur. Quare supplenda videntur haec verba καὶ ἀπὸ μνήμης ἐς ὅσον ἐξικνοῦντο. Ita certe legisse videtur Rufinus, qui sic vertit: Ordinem supradictae generationis partim memoriter, partim etiam ex Dierum libris, in quantum erat possibile, perdocebant.

… it appears that something is missing in this place, from the particle τε ("both"), which stands in all our manuscripts and in Nicephorus. So these words seem to need supplying: καὶ ἀπὸ μνήμης ἐς ὅσον ἐξικνοῦντο ("and from memory, so far as they could reach"). Rufinus certainly seems to have read it so, for he translates: They taught the order of the aforesaid generation thoroughly, partly from memory, partly also from the books of Days, as far as was possible.

(printed under page 38)

(27) ‹anchor: εἰ καὶ μὴ ἐμμάρτυρος (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 63

Εἰ καὶ μὴ ἐμμάρτυρος. In codice Regio et apud Nicephorum legitur εἰ καὶ ἀμάρτυρος, quod idem est. Caeterum, quanti facienda sit haec evangelici loci explicatio, patet ex his Africani verbis: quippe qui fatetur eam nullo testimonio fulciri veterum scriptorum. Admitti tamen eam vult a nobis, eo quod nulla melior afferri possit. Quae cum ita sint, nollem Eusebium in vestibulo Historiae suae mentionem hujus rei fecisse. Satius profecto fuisset ac consultius hanc Evangeliorum dissonantiam silentio involvere, ne lectoribus a fide nostra alienis, cujusmodi tunc temporis erant quamplurimi, occasio subministraretur de Evangeliorum veritate dubitandi. Certe Julianus Augustus in libro contra Christianos hanc evangelistarum dissensionem nobis objicit, teste Hieronymo in Commentariis in Matthaeum. Locus Juliani exstat apud Cyrillum in libro octavo contra Julianum. Auctor Quaestionum Veteris et Novi Testamenti, cap. 56, de hac dissonantia loquens, Africani opinionem improbat. Sed ipse aliam affert minus probabilem.

"Even if not attested." In the Royal manuscript and in Nicephorus one reads εἰ καὶ ἀμάρτυρος ("even if unattested"), which is the same. For the rest, how much this explanation of the Gospel passage is worth is clear from these words of Africanus, since he admits that it is supported by no testimony of the ancient writers. Yet he wants us to accept it, because no better one can be offered. This being so, I could wish that Eusebius had not mentioned this matter at the very entrance of his History. It would surely have been better and wiser to wrap this discord of the Gospels in silence, lest readers estranged from our faith, of whom there were very many at that time, be given occasion to doubt the truth of the Gospels. Certainly the emperor Julian, in his book against the Christians, throws this disagreement of the evangelists at us, as Jerome attests in his Commentaries on Matthew. Julian's passage survives in Cyril, in the eighth book against Julian. The author of the Questions on the Old and New Testament, chapter 56, speaking of this discrepancy, rejects Africanus's opinion; but he himself offers another, less probable.

(printed under page 38)

(28) ‹anchor: Ματθὰν ὁ ἀπὸ Σολομῶνος (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 63

Ματθὰν ὁ ἀπὸ Σολομῶνος. Mira est varietas accentus in hoc nomine. Maz. quidem et Fuk. codex accentum habent in antepenultima. Nicephorus vero et Fuk. codex penultimam circumflectunt. In Regio ac Med. duplex est accentus, tum in penultima, tum in antepenultima syllaba. Idque in aliis etiam nominibus supradicti codices observant, quoties ambiguum est, quonam accentu notanda sint vocabula, ut denotetur in aliis quidem exemplaribus hunc accentum, in aliis vero illum reperiri. Quinetiam nostri codices paulo ante scriptum habent, ἀπὸ τοῦ Δαβὶδ διὰ Σολομῶντος τὰς γενεὰς καταριθμουμένοις. Sic enim omnes nostri codices, excepto Regio, qui Σολόμωνος illic habet.

"Matthan, the one descended from Solomon." The variety of accent in this name is remarkable. The Mazarin and Fuketian manuscripts have the accent on the antepenult; Nicephorus and the Fuketian manuscript [so printed] put a circumflex on the penult. In the Royal and Medicean there is a double accent, both on the penultimate and on the antepenultimate syllable. The said manuscripts do this in other names too, whenever it is doubtful with which accent the words should be marked, to show that this accent is found in some copies and that one in others. Moreover, a little before, our manuscripts have ἀπὸ τοῦ Δαβὶδ διὰ Σολομῶντος τὰς γενεὰς καταριθμουμένοις ("to those counting the generations from David through Solomon"). So all our manuscripts read, except the Royal, which has Σολόμωνος there.

(printed under page 38)

(29) ‹anchor: ὁμομήτριοι ἄρα ἀδελφοί (call not visible in the page-foot image)› · call in col 63

Ὁμομήτριοι ἄρα ἀδελφοί. In hac conciliatione quam refert Africanus, duo sunt quae nonnihil difficultatis habere videntur. Primum enim dubito, an licuerit uterino fratri viduam fratris sui uxorem ducere, et ex ea liberos procreare in nomen ac familiam fratris sui transituros. Lex enim Deuteronomii cap. XXV loquitur de fratre, qui habitat in eadem domo, et qui est συγγενής. Quod quidem solis germanis aut consanguineis competit. Nam uterinus frater non est ex eadem domo, neque ex eodem genere; cum genus, praesertim apud Judaeos, ex paterna stirpe ducatur. Certe Africanus diserte testatur Jacobum et Heli fratres uterinos contribules quidem fuisse, ex diverso tamen genere, ἐκ διαφόρων δύο γενῶν. Secundo loco dubitare quis non immerito possit, utrum in generationibus recensendis ratio a Judaeis habita sit patrum adoptivorum. Exemplum habemus illustre in Obed, cujus in genealogia Christi fit mentio. Nam cum Maalon mortuus (continues)

"So they were brothers by the same mother." In this reconciliation that Africanus reports there are two things that seem to carry some difficulty. First, I doubt whether a brother by the same mother was permitted to marry his brother's widow and beget children by her who would pass into his brother's name and family. For the law in Deuteronomy chapter 25 speaks of a brother who lives in the same house and who is a kinsman (συγγενής). This applies only to full brothers or brothers by the same father. For a brother by the same mother is not of the same house, nor of the same line, since the line, especially among the Jews, is traced from the father's stock. Certainly Africanus expressly testifies that Jacob and Heli, brothers by the same mother, were indeed of the same tribe, yet of different lines, "of two different lines." Second, one might with good reason doubt whether the Jews took adoptive fathers into account in reckoning generations. We have a famous example in Obed, who is mentioned in the genealogy of Christ. For when Mahlon died … (continues)

(printed under page 38)

(30) ‹anchor: κομπωδέστερον (30)› · call in col 63

Κομπωδέστ. Leg. χρόνων κομπωδέστερον φλυαροῦντες. GOAR.

"More boastfully." Read: "talking nonsense more boastfully about periods of time." GOAR.

(printed under page 38)