Reconciling the Gospel Genealogies of Jesus Christ

By Jeff Jones

The two genealogies of Jesus Christ given in the Gospels have for centuries puzzled scholars and laymen alike. The obvious differences between the accounts of Matthew and Luke pose an important critical question and stand as staples of lists of biblical difficulties.1 The genealogical issue has given occasion for enemies of the Christian faith to question the inspiration of the Bible and the true ancestry of Christ.2 For evangelical Christians who are committed to the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, it would be inconsistent with their beliefs to simply declare the lists as irreconcilable. Furthermore, while there are biblical difficulties that must be simply accepted as beyond the ability of modern scholars to solve at this point in history, this is not one of those. Proceeding on the assumptions of the unity and infallibility of Scripture, this paper endeavours to demonstrate that the Gospel genealogies can be harmonized. PRELIMINARY GENEALOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS Before delving into the various approaches that scholars have suggested to solve the genealogical puzzle, it is necessary to first examine some pertinent issues that are necessary for a good understanding of the problem. First among these is the matter of the importance of genealogies in the Jewish culture of the first century. It is beyond doubt that the Jews of

1 1

Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Thomas Aquinas, Treatise on the Incarnation, in Summa Theologica, Third Part

1982).
2 2

[book online]; available from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q31_A3.html;

Internet; accessed 19 October 2006. 1

2 Jesus day attached great value to their genealogies, vital as they were for legal issues such as inheritance and marriage,3 and so maintained detailed public registers. It was these registers that the Evangelists likely consulted when compiling their genealogies, though some have raised questions about whether the public registers were actually available to the Gospel writers. This doubt is based chiefly upon a statement by Julius Africanus, quoted in the church history of Eusebius, alleging that well before Christ, Herod, embarrassed by the circumstances of his birth, had the registers burned to prevent their discovery.4 However, Africanus himself threw doubt on this report, saying: Whether this be so or not no one could give a clearer account.5 The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing well after Christ, makes absolutely no mention of the alleged Herodian destruction of the registers, and indeed cites them himself: Thus have I set down the genealogy of my family as I have found it described in the public records.6 Furthermore, the repeated emphasis in Pauls epistles on genealogical controversies (1 Tim. 1:4, Tit. 3:9) presupposes that the records were available as fodder for speculation. The existence of the registers can thus be considered an established fact. Second, it must also be observed that, while Jesus legitimacy as Messiah was continually challenged by the Pharisees and other opponents, there do not appear to have been any serious questions raised about his Davidic lineage. This lineage in no way is dependent on the two Gospel lists, as plenty of other evidence supports the point. Jesus Thomas Lea and David Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 173.
3 3 4

Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, trans. Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949), 63.
5

Ibid.
6

Flavius Josephus, The Life of Flavius Josephus, in The Works Of Flavius Josephus, vol. II, trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974), 4.

3 repeatedly allowed himself to be referred to as the Son of David, Peter mentioned his Davidic background in his speech at Pentecost (Acts 2:29-32), and Paul cites him as being a descendant of David at least three times (Rom. 1:3, 2 Tim 2:8, Acts 13:23). Fairbairn observes that one of the objections that was raised against Christ, that of his Galilean heritage, was due to the conviction that a descendant of David was expected to arise from Bethlehem.7 Since Jesus home in Nazareth should have provided his adversaries a prima facie ground to question [his Davidic lineage] that these doubts did not find any audible utterance or assume a tangible form, can only be accounted for by the conclusive evidence which existed of His royal parentage.8 Third, the Gospel genealogies, taken as they were from Jewish public records, can be expected to reflect certain idiosyncrasies common in Hebrew genealogies. For example, it was common that a man would be known by more than one name,9 a fact that could account for some (though certainly not all, or even most) of the differences seen in the Gospel accounts.10 This fact must be used with care, however. Gregory of Nazianzus attempted to argue that the two names listed as fathers of Joseph Heli and Jacob were one and the same man, but as Aquinas pointed out in response, the two are stated as descending from different sons of David.11

Patrick Fairbairn, Opening Scripture (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1858; reprint, Vestuvia Hills, Alabama: Solid Ground Christian Publications, 2005), 181 (page citations are to the reprint edition).
7 7 8

Ibid.
9 9 1 10

Ibid., 190.

John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. 1, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981)
1 11

Aquinas.

4 Another very important genealogical feature is that the Hebrews considered a descendant to be the son of even a distant ancestor,12 meaning that genealogical tables could skip generations while committing no real error. We see this in Matthews table, where Joram is said to be the father of Uzziah, though from Chronicles we know that Jorams direct son was Ahaziah, who fathered Jehoash, who fathered Amaziah, the biological father of Uzziah. In the case of Matthews list, his reason for passing by some is clearly to conform his list to a pattern of three fourteens. Furthermore, differences between the lists may reflect a lack of standardization in spelling, the fact that written Hebrew of the time had no vowel points, and the subsequent translation of the names of the public registers into Greek. An example of this can be seen in Matt. 1:15 and Luke 3:24, where the name given in the second generation before Joseph is Matthan by Matthew and Matthat by Luke; there can be little doubt that the same person is meant.13 Finally, Jewish legal practice with regard to adoption and marriage would have impacted the genealogical lines. One outstanding example of such practice is levirate marriage, of which more will be said later. For now it is sufficient to cite the Old Testament example of Jair, whose lineage is cited in 2 Chron. 2, Num. 32:41, and Deut. 3:14-15. In Chronicles, Jair descends from Judah, but the Penteteuchal accounts both refer to him as a Manassite. The oddity is resolved by looking to 2 Chron. 2:22-23, which explains that Jairs grandfather married the daughter of Machir, Manassehs son, and had Segub, who fathered Jair who thus took his inheritance in Manasseh, while another grandson of

Frank Stagg, Matthew, in General Articles, Matthew-Mark, The Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 8, ed. Clifton Allen et al (Nashville: Broadman, 1969), 81.
1 12 1 13

Fairbairn, 196.

5 Hezron, Asshur, had his inheritance in Judah.14 Fourth, there appears to be some textual problems with both the Gospel lists. Luke lists a second Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad (v. 36), who is not listed in the Hebrew genealogy (Gen. 10:21-24). Most extant Septuagint copies have the name, but not in the corresponding genealogy in 1 Chron. 1; the Septuagint used by Josephus, Theophilus of Antioch, and Africanus does not seem to have had the name; and Jerome, working from the Hebrew, omits any mention of Cainan in his commentary on that very verse.15 Augustine, however, writing in the fourth century, had the name in both his Septuagint and copy of Luke, suggesting that Cainan entered the Greek textual tradition before that time probably starting with a scribal error in a copy of the Septuagint and later incorporated as a correction to Luke.16 The evidence seems to lean against the name having been in either the original Hebrew or Greek, of both Testaments, but it is impossible to be certain. An easier textual problem is found in Matthews account, which, though it purports to present a genealogy arranged in three sets of fourteen generations, lists only 41 generations rather than the expected 42. It has already been observed above that Matthew omits generations (in the case of Uzziahs forebears), and this is done intentionally to conform the genealogy to his intended three fourteens. It is unlikely that, with this intent, Matthew would have miscounted and dropped too many generations, and so there has likely been a name dropped somewhere in the process of transmission. The most likely place is in the generations of Josiah and Jeconiah, as Josiah is said to have begotten Jeconiah and his brothers around the time of the exile a statement that is historically suspect.17 Josiah, well
1 14 1 15

Ibid., 194-195. Ibid., 197-98.

1 16

1 17

Ibid., 198. Ibid., 19

6 before the exile, actually fathered Jehoiakim, who around the time mentioned by Matthew fathered Jeconiah (Jehoiachin). Jeconiah is listed at the beginning of the third set of generations, and this set, being not only the post-deportation set but also having only thirteen names if Jeconiah is not counted, seems to be the rightful place for the deported king. This, however, leaves the middle set with only thirteen if David is counted in only the first set. When one considers that the difference in the Greek between the two names is one letter (Jehoiakim is VIwakeim and Jehoiachin is VIwaceim), and the letters chi and kappa in the uncial (X and K) are extremely similar, it seems very likely that a scribe inadvertently dropped one name thinking them to be the same.18 If Jehoiakim were added into the lineage after Josiah, all sets would have fourteen, and the total number would again be 42. THREE POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS The early church fathers, like scholars throughout history, struggled with the genealogical differences in the Gospels. Ambrose, for instance, believed the two genealogies represented a kingly and priestly family of Christ.19 His student, Augustine, building on Ambrose foundation, expressed the opinion that due to her relationship with Elizabeth, the wife of a priest, Mary was actually a member of the tribe of Levi. This, to him, was an allegorical clue that Lukes genealogy was priestly, though he still believed it was that of Joseph.20 This had the appeal of having Jesus lineage traced from both David as king and

1 18

Ibid., 199.
1 19

Ambrose, Exposition of the Gospel of Luke 3:12-13, in Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture, vol. III, ed. Thomas Oden et al (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 70. 2 20 Augustine, Harmony of the Gospels 2.3.5, in Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture, vol. 1a, ed. Thomas Oden et al (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 4.

7 from Aaron as priest. From this supposition, Augustine, interpreting allegorically, saw Lukes genealogy as being a priestly genealogy, as Aquinas explains: But in Luke's genealogy the washing away of our sins is signified," which is effected by Christ's sacrifice. "For which reason Matthew traces the generations downwards, Luke upwards." For the same reason too "Matthew descends from David through Solomon, in whose mother David sinned; whereas Luke ascends to David through Nathan, through whose namesake, the prophet, God expiated his sin."21 However, this is a rather fanciful interpretation, based as it is on Lukes use of an ascending order and on a namesake! Augustines allegorical approach carries the weakness of subjectivity one can find almost anything they want in the text. Interpreting the text from a grammatical-historical approach, one finds no foundation whatsoever for this perspective. Lea and Black, in describing the genealogical issue, list three primary suggestions offered by New Testament scholars as potential solutions to the genealogical problem,22 of which two will be examined in this section. The first of these is the idea that Matthew lists Jesus adoptive lineage through Joseph and Luke provides his biological ancestry through Mary.23 Various scholars through church history have held this view. Calvin, though he rejected it, refers to this view and its adherents,24 and Fairbairn, writing in 1858, lists at least seven of its supporters.25 Gleason Archer advocates this view in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties: This seems to be implied by the wording of v.23 [of Luke 3]: Jesus being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph. This as was supposed indicates that Jesus
2 21

Aquinas.
2 22

Lea and Black, 174.

2 23

Ibid.
2 24

Calvin, 80.
2 25

Fairbairn, 187.

8 was not really the biological son of Joseph It further calls attention to the mother, Mary, who must of necessity have been the sole human parent through whom Jesus could have descended from a line of ancestors. Her genealogy is thereupon listed, starting with Heli26 However, this view poses another difficulty: how could Marys line have, after David, diverged from Josephs, converged in Shealtiel, and then diverged again afterwards? One possible solution is to assert that the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in each account are different from the pair in the other, but having identical (very prominent!) names and generations in the same epoch of Jewish history indicates that they are indeed the same. Furthermore, Luke does not mention Mary in the genealogy at all, and it would have been abnormal in the cultural and historical context to trace a genealogy through the mother.27 Fairbairn notes that the Marys genealogy view seems to have been a Reformationera development, as the early church writers were in general agreement that the two genealogies traced through Joseph, not Mary.28 Indeed, one of the earliest to advance this view was Annius of Vitterbo around 1490.29 Ambrose, stating that Marys lineage was included in that of Josephs, argued that Lukes genealogy was that of Joseph and that Jesus, being born according to the flesh, he must follow the usage of the flesh, and he who came into the world must be described in the custom of the world30 that is, by his fathers

2 26

Archer, 316. Malcolm Tolbert, Luke, in Luke-John, The Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 9, ed. Clifton Allen et al (Nashville: Broadman, 1970), 41.
2 27 2 28

Fairbairn, 186. Stagg, 81. Ambrose, Exposition of the Gospel of Luke 3:4, in Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture, vol. III, ed. Thomas Oden et al (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 70.
2 29 3 30

9 ancestry. Hilary explicitly said, the origin of Joseph instead of Mary is recounted,31 and even Augustine stated the lists give two fathers (one natural, one adoptive) for Joseph.32 The next approach mentioned by Lea and Black is that of explaining the differences by reference to levirate marriage. This approach starts with the difference in the accounts about Josephs father said to be Jacob in Matthew, and Heli in Luke. This raises the obvious question: how can a man have two fathers? The Roman emperor Julian the Apostate raised this objection as part of an overall attack on the Christian faith, holding it as evidence that the Bible was hopelessly riddled with contradictions.33 The practice of levirate marriage holds a potential answer to this question. Essentially, levirate marriage involved one man uniting with the wife of a deceased and heirless man in order to produce an heir to continue the latters name. The Old Testament law laid down the parameters of these arrangements, and as seen above in the case of Jair, they were widely practiced. This is an ancient proposal. The third-century writer Africanus, as cited by Eusebius, stated: Since the names of the families in Israel were numbered either by nature or by law; by nature, in the succession of legitimate birth; by law, when a man begat children in the name of a brother who had died childless by following this kind of genealogy some succeeded in the legitimate order of father and son, but others were reckoned in name to one father though the children of another, the memory of both was retained, both of the actual and of the fictitious parents. Thus neither of the Gospels misstates, reckoning both nature and law.34

3 31

Hilary, On Matthew 1.1, in Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture, vol. 1a, ed. Thomas Oden et al (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 4.
3 32

Augustine, 4.
3 33 3 34

Aquinas. Eusebius, 55, 57.

10 Proponents of the levirate solution, beginning with Africanus, held that Matthew gave the actual lineage of Christ through Josephs biological father Jacob, and Luke gave the legal lineage through Heli.35 The problem with this view is that it explains too little. At best, it would account only for the differences in the postexilic period, because the two genealogies converge immediately after the exile. Both writers (Matt. 1:12-13 and Luke 3:27) give the same two names at the start of the post-exilic period: Shealtiel and his son Zerubbabel. There is little doubt that these are the same people, as this is the same Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, referred to repeatedly in Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah as the leader of the Jews returning from Babylon. A levirate marriage producing Joseph would, even if involving representatives of different families, still have these common ancestors. As observed previously, the preexilic genealogies are descended from different sons of David, and this theory will not account for this difference. In fact, a levirate marriage involving Heli and Jacobs generation would go back no further, because as discussed above, the names previous to them in each genealogy Matthat and Matthan, respectively most likely refer to the same person!36 Therefore, the levirate idea fails to fully solve the problem. A ROYAL AND A NATURAL DESCENT So if Luke is not giving an allegorical account or the line of Mary, as the two accounts were both intended to give Josephs lineage, and if levirate marriage cannot account for most of the differences in the genealogies, how are they to be reconciled? Lea and Black give a third option, which they attribute to J. Gresham Machen,37 that is a far more likely
3 35

Lea and Black, 174.

3 36 3 37

Fairbairn, 196. Lea and Black, 174.

11 possibility. In this scheme, Matthew gives the legal ancestry of Jesus that is, the Jewish line of royal succession and Luke provides (generally speaking, as shall be seen below) Jesus natural descent. Though attributed to Machen by Lea and Black, this view is actually far older than the twentieth century. John Calvin was one of the first to articulate this view. In his Harmony of the Evangelists, he refers to Africanus comments, and elaborates: Matthew and Luke unquestionably do not observe the same order; for immediately after David the one puts Solomon, and the other Nathan; which makes it perfectly clear that they follow different lines. This sort of contradiction is reconciled by good and learned interpreters in the following manner. Matthew, departing from the natural lineage, which is followed by Luke, reckons up the legal genealogy the kingdom, which had been established in the person of Solomon, passed in a lawful manner to Salathiel [Shealtiel ESV].38 Thus Calvin, in referring to good and learned interpreters, does not take credit for this idea himself, but suggests that others either contemporary or prior to him held the same opinion. He goes on: There is no absurdity in supposing, that Luke traces the descent of Christ from Nathan: for it is possible that the line of Solomon, so far as it relates to the succession of the throne, may have been broken off. It may be objected, that Jesus cannot be acknowledged as the promised Messiah, if he be not a descendant of Solomon, who was an undoubted type of Christ. But the answer is easy. Though he was not naturally descended from Solomon, yet he was reckoned his son by legal succession, because he was descended from kings.39 Calvin points to a critical assumption in this scheme: that since the two lists are derived from different sons of David, there must have been a failure in the Solomonic royal line. Consequently, the royal succession passed to the descendants of his brother Nathan. The question is, when did this occur?

3 38

3 39

Calvin, 85. Ibid., 87.

12 Calvin held that the break occurred with the death of Ahaziah when the kingship passed to Joash, who he believed to be of Nathans line.40 He believed that the wicked queen Athaliah, who attempted to kill Joash, would not have done so if he was Ahaziahs son, because she could have ruled as regent without interference, pretending to be his tutor.41 Against this view, however, is the fact that the genealogies are still much different after this point, not converging until Shealtiel. Furthermore, there is no reason why Joashs particular descent would have made any difference in Athaliahs ability to serve as regent. Fairbairn, following the same general scheme, offered a better explanation of the Solomonic lines failure. Instead of locating the break at Ahaziah, he points to the judgment of God on the Jewish king Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:30):42 Therefore thus says the LORD concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: He shall have none to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out to the heat by day and the frost by night. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that Jesus is Jehoiakims physical descendant. If this prediction was indeed fulfilled, and there was a previous break in the royal line as Calvin believed, then there would have been two failures in the line of succession, resulting in the need for yet another adoption or levirate marriage to bring the genealogies together. It seems simpler to dismiss the idea of a failure at Ahaziah and accept the break as occurring after Jehoiachin, Jehoiakims son, who in Matthews line was succeeded by Shealtiel. As Shealtiel was also in Lukes list as the son of Neri, the solution is obvious: Shealtiel was the biological son of Neri and the physical descendant of Nathan, and assumed the title to the throne when Jehoiachin

4 40 4 41

Ibid., 86. Ibid.

4 42

Fairbairn, 194.

13 died without an heir.43 As such, Shealtiel (and later Jesus) was a legal, though not biological, descendant of Solomon. At this point there is another issue to be resolved. In 1 Chr. 3:17-19, Zerubbabel is listed as the son of Pedaiah, Shealtiels brother. Whose son was he? One possible resolution is to follow certain Septuagint manuscripts that drop out Pedaiah, but the Hebrew texts are far more likely to be correct.44 Machens solution is that Pedaiah raised up an heir for a presumably heirless Shealtiel in accordance with levirate law, and Luke then counted Zerubbabel as Shealtiels son on that basis.45 This requires a modification of the hypothesis, as Luke does not rigidly provide simply a biological ancestry, but in a general sense gives the natural descent of Christ. Luke thus follows close family and adoptive relationships, while Matthews list involved breaks where the scion of a more or less widely separated collateral line had to be taken into the succession of the heirs to the throne.46 This view explains the differences in the tables up to Shealtiel in the post-exilic period. Yet the two lists depart from one another again, either after Zerubbabel or Abiud (Matt. 1:13) who may be the same as the Joda listed by Luke (3:26).47 They do not coincide again until Matthat (Matthan), Josephs grandfather. How can this be explained? If the hypothesis that Luke provides Jesus natural descent is correct, then the lines did indeed diverge between Abiud and Matthat. They came together again with Matthat, probably the actual son of Levi (Luke 3:24), as the royal succession came to him from Levis relative
4 43 4 44

Ibid. J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1930), 206.

4 45

Ibid.
4 46

Ibid.
4 47

Ibid., 205.

14 Eleazar (Matt. 1:15), who must have not had an heir of his own. Otherwise, there was perhaps a levirate marriage involved with Levi producing Matthat as an heir for Eleazar. From here, the problem of Josephs biological parentage is easily resolved. Matthews Jacob, son of Matthan, and Lukes Heli, son of Matthat, must in fact be brothers, sons of the same father.48 Fairbairn postulates that Jacob may have had only daughters, and Joseph, being Helis son, married one of these either before his marriage to Mary, or that she was herself Jacobs daughter.49 Joseph would then have become Jacobs heir with respect to the kingly succession. Furthermore, if Mary was indeed Jacobs daughter, she and Joseph would have been first cousins a marriage arrangement hardly foreign to Scripture. As Fairbairn points out, this: perfectly accords with Jewish practice It was the constant aim of the Jews to make inheritance and blood-relationship, as far as possible, go together. And it could not seem otherwise than natural and proper, that the daughter of the nearest heir to the throne of David, should be espoused to the next heir. Nor is it undeserving of notice as, at least, negatively favouring the supposition respecting Mary that, while we read of a sister, we never hear of a brother belonging to her; excepting Joseph, female relatives alone are mentioned. 50 Thus the differences between the Matthean and Lucan genealogies are, quite simply, a matter of emphasis and intent. One of Matthews great concerns, as a Jewish writer, was to vindicate Jesus claim to be the promised Davidic Messiah who would fulfill the covenants with Abraham and David.51 To that end, he provided his genealogy to show that Jesus was, through his adoptive father, the rightful and legal heir to the Davidic throne. Luke, on the other hand, was a Gentile writing to Gentiles, who lived in a culture steeped in philosophy
4 48 4 49

Fairbairn, 196. Ibid.

5 50

Ibid., 197. Stagg, 80.

5 51

15 that downplayed the importance and goodness of material and fleshly things. His concern, as shown in his lists culmination in Adam, was to demonstrate Jesus relation to the whole human race,52 as a real human being, with a real family, standing in the line of humanity from its beginning. CONCLUSION Apparent biblical contradictions may seem daunting at first, especially to the evangelical Christian committed to the unity and perfection of Scripture. Problems like the Gospel genealogies teach us that, inspired of God as it is, Scripture is also a production of the hands of men, reflecting the culture, priorities, and personality of human writers. They should not serve as a reason to question or abandon the faith much less as a pretext to attack it but rather as a humbling reminder that mans wisdom is far below that of God. By submitting to the teaching of Scripture regarding its perfection and consistency, rather than dismissing it as inadequate in light of fallible human first impressions, Christians are forced to look harder and deeper at what God has inspired. In doing so, valuable lessons may be learned that would be otherwise missed. Such difficulties are a useful reminder that understanding Gods Word is a discipline that requires dedication and hard work, but which promises rich and lasting rewards to those willing to humbly search for Gods truth.

WORKS CITED Ambrose. Exposition of the Gospel of Luke 3:4. In Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture, Vol. III. ed. Thomas Oden et al, 70. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003. Ambrose. Exposition of the Gospel of Luke 3:12-13. In Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture, Vol. III. ed. Thomas Oden et al, 70. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
5 52

Tolbert, 41.

16

Aquinas, Thomas. Treatise on the Incarnation. In Summa Theologica, Third Part [book online]; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q31_A3.html. Internet. Accessed 19 October 2006. Archer, Gleason. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982. Augustine. Harmony of the Gospels 2.3.5. In Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture, Vol. Ia. ed. Thomas Oden et al, 4. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001. Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. 1. Translated by William Pringle. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981. Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 1. Translated by Kirsopp Lake. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949. Hilary. On Matthew 1.1. In Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture, Vol. Ia. ed. Thomas Oden et al. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001. Fairbairn, Patrick. Opening Scripture. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1858. Reprint, Vestuvia Hills, Alabama: Solid Ground Christian Publications, 2005. Josephus, Flavius. The Life of Flavius Josephus. In Vol. II, The Works Of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston, 3-58. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974. Lea, Thomas, and David Black. The New Testament: Its Background and Message. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003. Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1930. Stagg, Frank. Matthew. In General Articles, Matthew-Mark. The Broadman Bible Commentary, Vol. 8. ed. Clifton Allen et al, 61-253. Nashville: Broadman, 1969. Tolbert, Malcolm. Luke. In Luke-John. The Broadman Bible Commentary, Vol. 9. ed. Clifton Allen et al, 1-188. Nashville: Broadman, 1970.