"It is a favorite saying with those who seek to defend the history of the Pentateuch against the scrutiny of modern criticism, that the objections urged against it were known long ago. The objections to the genealogy were known long ago, indeed; and perhaps nothing shows more conclusively than this knowledge, the disgraceful dishonesty and willful deception of the most illustrious of Christian doctors."[161:2]
Referring to the two genealogies, Albert Barnes says:
"No two passages of Scripture have caused more difficulty than these, and various attempts have been made to explain them. . . . Most interpreters have supposed that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. But though this solution is plausible and may be true, yet it wants evidence."
Barnes furthermore admits the fallibility of the Bible in his remarks upon the genealogies; 1st, by comparing them to our fallible family records; and 2d, by the remark that "the only inquiry which can now be fairly made is whether they copied these tables correctly."
Alford, Ellicott, Hervey, Meyer, Mill, Patritius and Wordsworth hold that both genealogies are Joseph's; and Aubertin, Ebrard, Greswell, Kurtz, Lange, Lightfoot and others, hold that one is Joseph's, and the other Mary's.
When the genealogy contained in Matthew is compared with the Old Testament they are found to disagree; there are omissions which any writer with the least claim to historical sense would never have made.
When the genealogy of the third Gospel is turned to, the difficulties greatly increase, instead of diminish. It not only contradicts the statements made by the Matthew narrator, but it does not agree with the Old Testament.
What, according to the three first evangelists, did Jesus think of himself? In the first place he made no allusion to any miraculous circumstances connected with his birth. He looked upon himself as belonging to Nazareth, not as the child of Bethlehem;[162:1] he reproved the scribes for teaching that the Messiah must necessarily be a descendant of David,[162:2] and did not himself make any express claim to such descent.[162:3]
As we cannot go into an extended inquiry concerning the genealogies, and as there is no real necessity for so doing, as many others have already done so in a masterly manner,[162:4] we will continue our investigations in another direction, and show that Jesus was not the only Messiah who was claimed to be of royal descent.