The Ecclesiastical History. Eusebius
in this connection. We therefore prefer to follow Spitta (see ibid. pp. 87 sqq.) in reading ὑιόν instead of τρίτον, an emendation which he has ventured to make upon the authority of Rufinus, who translates “genuit Joseph filium suum,” showing no trace of a τρίτον. The word τρίτον is wanting also in three late Catenæ which contain the fragments of Africanus’ Epistle (compare Spitta, ibid. p. 117, note 12). 11 κατὰ λόγον. These words have caused translators and commentators great difficulty, and most of them seem to have missed their significance entirely. Spitta proposes to alter by reading κατ€λογον, but the emendation is unnecessary. The remarks which he makes (p. 89 sqq.) upon the relation between this sentence and the next are, however, excellent. It was necessary to Africanus’ theory that Joseph should be allowed to trace his lineage through Jacob, his father “by nature,” as well as through Eli, his father “by law,” and hence the words κατὰ λόγον are added and emphasized. He was his son by nature and therefore “rightfully to be reckoned as his son.” This explains the Biblical quotation which follows: “Wherefore”—because he was Jacob’s son by nature and could rightfully be reckoned in his line, and not only in the line of Eli—“it is written,” &c. 12 Matt. i. 6. 13 See Rev. John Lightfoot’s remarks on Luke iii. 23, in his Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations on St. Luke. 14 This passage has caused much trouble. Valesius remarks, “Africanus wishes to refer the words ὡς ἐνομίζετο (‘as was supposed’) not only to the words ὑιὸς ᾽Ιωσήφ, but also to the words τοῦ ῾Ηλὶ, which follow, which although it is acute is nevertheless improper and foolish; for if Luke indicates that legal generation or adoption by the words ὡς ἐνομίζετο, as Africanus claims, it would follow that Christ was the son of Joseph by legal adoption in the same way that Joseph was the son of Eli. And thus it would be said that Mary, after the death of Joseph, married his brother, and that Christ was begotten by him, which is impious and absurd. And besides, if these words, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, are extended to the words τοῦ ῾Ηλὶ, in the same way they can be extended to all which follow. For there is no reason why they should be supplied in the second grade and not in the others.” But against Valesius, Stroth says that Africanus seeks nothing in the words ὡς ἐνομίζετο, but in the fact that Luke says “he was the son of,” while Matthew says “he begat.” Stroth’s interpretation is followed by Closs, Heinichen, and others, but Routh follows Valesius. Spitta discusses the matter carefully (p. 91 sq.), agreeing with Valesius that Africanus lays the emphasis upon the words ὡς ἐνομίζετο, but by an emendation (introducing a second ὡς ἐνομίζετο, and reading “who was the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, the son of Jacob, who was himself also the son, as was supposed,—for this he also adds,—of Eli, the son of Melchi”) he applies the ὡς ἐνομίζετο only to the first and second members, and takes it in a more general sense to cover both cases, thus escaping Valesius’ conclusions expressed above. The conjecture is ingenious, but is unwarranted and unnecessary. The words which occur in the next sentence, “and the expression, ‘he begat’ he has omitted,” show that Africanus, as Stroth contends, lays the emphasis upon the difference of form in the two genealogies, “Son of” and “he begat.” The best explanation seems to me to be that Africanus supposes Luke to have implied the legal generation in the words “the Son of,” used in distinction from the definite expression “he begat,” and that the words ὡς ἐνομίζετο, which “he also adds,” simply emphasize this difference of expression by introducing a still greater ambiguity into Luke’s mode of statement. He not only uses the words, the “Son of,” which have a wide latitude, admitting any kind of sonship, but “he also adds,” “as was supposed,” showing, in Africanus’ opinion, still more clearly that the list which follows is far from being a closely defined table of descent by “natural generation.” 15 This seems the best possible rendering of the Greek, which reads τὴν ἀναφορὰν ποιησ€μενος ἑ& 240·ς τοῦ ᾽Αδὰμ, τοῦ θεοῦ κατ᾽ ἀν€λυσιν. οὐδὲ μὴν ἀναπόδεικτον κ.τ.λ., which is very dark, punctuated thus, and it is difficult to understand what is meant by κατ᾽ ἀν€λυσιν in connection with the preceding words. (Crusè translates, “having traced it back as far as Adam, ‘who was the son of God,’ he resolves the whole series by referring back to God. Neither is this incapable of proof, nor is it an idle conjecture.”) The objections which Spitta brings against the sentence in this form are well founded. He contends (p. 63 sqq.), and that rightly, that Africanus could not have written the sentence thus. In restoring the original epistle of Africanus, therefore, he throws the words κατ᾽ ἀν€λυσιν into the next sentence, which disposes of the difficulty, and makes good sense. We should then read, “having traced it back as far as Adam, the Son of God. This interpretation (more literally, ‘as an interpretation,’ or ‘by way of interpretation’) is neither incapable of proof, nor is it an idle conjecture.” That Africanus wrote thus I am convinced. But as Spitta shows, Eusebius must have divided the sentences as they now stand, for, according to his idea, that Africanus’ account was one which he had received by tradition, the other mode of reading would be incomprehensible, though he probably did not understand much better the meaning of κατ᾽ ἀν€λυσιν as he placed it. In translating Africanus’ epistle here, I have felt justified in rendering it as Africanus probably wrote it, instead of following Eusebius’ incorrect reproduction of it. 16 The Greek reads: παρέδοσαν καὶ τοῦτο, “have handed down also.” The καὶ occurs in all the mss. and versions of Eusebius, and was undoubtedly written by him, but Spitta supposes it an addition of Eusebius, caused, like the change in the previous sentence, by his erroneous conception of the nature of Africanus’ interpretation. The καὶ is certainly troublesome if we suppose that all that precedes is Africanus’ own interpretation of the Biblical lists, and not a traditional account handed down by the “relatives of our Lord”; and this, in spite of Eusebius’ belief, we must certainly insist upon. We may therefore assume with Spitta that the καὶ did not stand in the original epistle as Africanus wrote it. The question arises, if what precedes is not given upon the authority of the “relatives of our Lord,” why then is this account introduced upon their testimony, as if confirming the preceding? We may simply refer again to Africanus’ words at the end of the extract (§15 below) to prove that his interpretation did not rest upon testimony, and then we may answer with Spitta that their testimony, which is appealed to in §14 below, was to the genealogies themselves, and in this Africanus wishes it to be known that they confirmed the Gospel lists. 17 See above, chap. VI. notes 5 and 6. 18 We should expect the word “temple-servant” again instead of “priest”; but, as Valesius remarks, “It was possible for the same person to be both priest and servant, if for instance it was a condition of priesthood that only captives should be made priests.” And this was really the case in many places. 19 Appointed by Julius Cæsar in 47 b.c. (see chap. VI. note 1, above). 20 He was poisoned by Malichus in 42 b.c. (see Josephus, Ant. XIV. 11. 4). 21 Appointed king in 40 b.c. (see chap. VI. note 1, above). 22 The ethnarch Archelaus (see chap. VI. note 18) and the tetrarchs Herod Antipas and Herod Philip II. 23 Cf. Dion Cassius, XXXVII. 15 sqq. and