Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| - HELP
II.
For1039
1039 Here
what is given in Eusebius begins. |
whereas in Israel the names of their generations were enumerated either
according to nature or according to law,—according to
nature, indeed, by the
succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever
another raised up children to the name of a brother dying childless;
for because no clear hope of resurrection was yet given them, they had
a representation of the future promise in a kind of mortal
resurrection, with the view of perpetuating the name of one
deceased;—whereas, then, of those entered in this genealogy, some
succeeded by legitimate descent as son to father, while others begotten
in one family were introduced to another in name, mention is therefore
made of both—of those who were progenitors in fact, and of those
who were so only in name. Thus neither of the evangelists is in
error, as the one reckons by nature and the other by law. For the
several generations, viz., those descending from Solomon and those from
Nathan, were so intermingled1040
1040 Reading
συνεπεπλάκη.
Migne would make it equivalent to “superimplexum
est.” Rufinus renders it, “Reconjunctum namque est
sibi invicem genus, et illud per Salomonem et illud quod per Nathan
deducitur,” etc. | by
the raising up of children to the childless,1041
1041
ἀναστάσεσιν
ἀτέκνων. Rufinus and
Damascenus omit these words in their versions of the passage. | and by second marriages, and the raising up
of seed, that the same persons are quite justly reckoned to belong at
one time to the one, and at another to the other, i.e., to their
reputed or to their actual fathers. And hence it is that both
these accounts are true, and come down to Joseph, with considerable
intricacy indeed, but yet quite accurately.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|