genealogies

All these were reckoned by genealogies in the days of Jotham king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam king of Israel.

And their brethren among all the families of Issachar were valiant men of might, reckoned in all by their genealogies fourscore and seven thousand.

And the sons of Bela; Ezbon, and Uzzi, and Uzziel, and Jerimoth, and Iri, five; heads of the house of their fathers, mighty men of valour; and were reckoned by their genealogies twenty and two thousand and thirty and four.

So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and, behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, who were carried away to Babylon for their transgression.

Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

Also of the sons of Aaron the priests, which were in the fields of the suburbs of their cities, in every several city, the men that were expressed by name, to give portions to all the males among the priests, and to all that were reckoned by genealogies among the Levites.

Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

And thus did these men go, a certain and determinate number out of every family, though I do not think it proper to recite particularly the names of those families, that I may not take off the mind of my readers from the connexion of the historical facts, and make it hard for them to follow the coherence of my narrations; but the sum of those that went up, above the age of twelve years, of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, was four hundred and sixty-two myriads and eight thousand the Levites were seventy-four; the number of the women and children mixed together was forty thousand seven hundred and forty-two; and besides these, there were singers of the Levites one hundred and twenty-eight, and porters one hundred and ten, and of the sacred ministers three hundred and ninety-two; there were also others besides these, who said they were of the Israelites, but were not able to show their genealogies, six hundred and sixty-two: some there were also who were expelled out of the number and honor of the priests, as having married wives whose genealogies they could not produce, nor were they found in the genealogies of the Levites and priests; they were about five hundred and twenty-five: the multitude also of servants that followed those that went up to Jerusalem were seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven; the singing men and singing women were two hundred and forty-five; the camels were four hundred and thirty-five; the beasts used to the yoke were five thousand five hundred and twenty-five; and the governors of all this multitude thus numbered were Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, of the posterity of David, and of the tribe of Judah; and Jeshua, the son of Josedek the high priest; and besides these there were Mordecai and Serebeus, who were distinguished from the multitude, and were rulers, who also contributed a hundred pounds of gold, and five thousand of silver. By this means therefore the priests and the Levites, and a certain part of the entire people of the Jews that were in Babylon, came and dwelt in Jerusalem; but the rest of the multitude returned every one to their own countries.

And thus did these men go, a certain and determinate number out of every family, though I do not think it proper to recite particularly the names of those families, that I may not take off the mind of my readers from the connexion of the historical facts, and make it hard for them to follow the coherence of my narrations; but the sum of those that went up, above the age of twelve years, of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, was four hundred and sixty-two myriads and eight thousand the Levites were seventy-four; the number of the women and children mixed together was forty thousand seven hundred and forty-two; and besides these, there were singers of the Levites one hundred and twenty-eight, and porters one hundred and ten, and of the sacred ministers three hundred and ninety-two; there were also others besides these, who said they were of the Israelites, but were not able to show their genealogies, six hundred and sixty-two: some there were also who were expelled out of the number and honor of the priests, as having married wives whose genealogies they could not produce, nor were they found in the genealogies of the Levites and priests; they were about five hundred and twenty-five: the multitude also of servants that followed those that went up to Jerusalem were seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven; the singing men and singing women were two hundred and forty-five; the camels were four hundred and thirty-five; the beasts used to the yoke were five thousand five hundred and twenty-five; and the governors of all this multitude thus numbered were Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, of the posterity of David, and of the tribe of Judah; and Jeshua, the son of Josedek the high priest; and besides these there were Mordecai and Serebeus, who were distinguished from the multitude, and were rulers, who also contributed a hundred pounds of gold, and five thousand of silver. By this means therefore the priests and the Levites, and a certain part of the entire people of the Jews that were in Babylon, came and dwelt in Jerusalem; but the rest of the multitude returned every one to their own countries.

And thus did these men go, a certain and determinate number out of every family, though I do not think it proper to recite particularly the names of those families, that I may not take off the mind of my readers from the connexion of the historical facts, and make it hard for them to follow the coherence of my narrations; but the sum of those that went up, above the age of twelve years, of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, was four hundred and sixty-two myriads and eight thousand the Levites were seventy-four; the number of the women and children mixed together was forty thousand seven hundred and forty-two; and besides these, there were singers of the Levites one hundred and twenty-eight, and porters one hundred and ten, and of the sacred ministers three hundred and ninety-two; there were also others besides these, who said they were of the Israelites, but were not able to show their genealogies, six hundred and sixty-two: some there were also who were expelled out of the number and honor of the priests, as having married wives whose genealogies they could not produce, nor were they found in the genealogies of the Levites and priests; they were about five hundred and twenty-five: the multitude also of servants that followed those that went up to Jerusalem were seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven; the singing men and singing women were two hundred and forty-five; the camels were four hundred and thirty-five; the beasts used to the yoke were five thousand five hundred and twenty-five; and the governors of all this multitude thus numbered were Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, of the posterity of David, and of the tribe of Judah; and Jeshua, the son of Josedek the high priest; and besides these there were Mordecai and Serebeus, who were distinguished from the multitude, and were rulers, who also contributed a hundred pounds of gold, and five thousand of silver. By this means therefore the priests and the Levites, and a certain part of the entire people of the Jews that were in Babylon, came and dwelt in Jerusalem; but the rest of the multitude returned every one to their own countries.

How can it then be other than an absurd thing, for the Greeks to be so proud, and to vaunt themselves to be the only people that are acquainted with antiquity, and that have delivered the true accounts of those early times after an accurate manner? Nay, who is there that cannot easily gather from the Greek writers themselves, that they knew but little on any good foundation when they set to write, but rather wrote their histories from their own conjectures? Accordingly, they confute one another in their own books to purpose, and are not ashamed. to give us the most contradictory accounts of the same things; and I should spend my time to little purpose, if I should pretend to teach the Greeks that which they know better than I already, what a great disagreement there is between Hellanicus and Acusilaus about their genealogies; in how many eases Acusilaus corrects Hesiod: or after what manner Ephorus demonstrates Hellanicus to have told lies in the greatest part of his history; as does Timeus in like manner as to Ephorus, and the succeeding writers do to Timeus, and all the later writers do to Herodotus nor could Timeus agree with Antiochus and Philistius, or with Callias, about the Sicilian History, no more than do the several writers of the Athide follow one another about the Athenian affairs; nor do the historians the like, that wrote the Argolics, about the affairs of the Argives. And now what need I say any more about particular cities and smaller places, while in the most approved writers of the expedition of the Persians, and of the actions which were therein performed, there are so great differences? Nay, Thucydides himself is accused of some as writing what is false, although he seems to have given us the exactest history of the affairs of his own time.

We have already shown that Jesus can be regarded neither as an arrogant man, nor a sorcerer; and therefore it is unnecessary to repeat our former arguments, lest, in replying to the tautologies of Celsus, we ourselves should be guilty of needless repetition. And now, in finding fault with our Lord’s genealogy, there are certain points which occasion some difficulty even to Christians, and which, owing to the discrepancy between the genealogies, are advanced by some as arguments against their correctness, but which Celsus has not even mentioned. For Celsus, who is truly a braggart, and who professes to be acquainted with all matters relating to Christianity, does not know how to raise doubts in a skilful manner against the credibility of Scripture. But he asserts that the “framers of the genealogies, from a feeling of pride, made Jesus to be descended from the first man, and from the kings of the Jews.” And he thinks that he makes a notable charge when he adds, that “the carpenter’s wife could not have been ignorant of the fact, had she been of such illustrious descent.” But what has this to do with the question? Granted that she was not ignorant of her descent, how does that affect the result? Suppose that she were ignorant, how could her ignorance prove that she was not descended from the first man, or could not derive her origin from the Jewish kings? Does Celsus imagine that the poor must always be descended from ancestors who are poor, or that kings are always born of kings? But it appears folly to waste time upon such an argument as this, seeing it is well known that, even in our own days, some who are poorer than Mary are descended from ancestors of wealth and distinction, and that rulers of nations and kings have sprung from persons of no reputation.

We have already shown that Jesus can be regarded neither as an arrogant man, nor a sorcerer; and therefore it is unnecessary to repeat our former arguments, lest, in replying to the tautologies of Celsus, we ourselves should be guilty of needless repetition. And now, in finding fault with our Lord’s genealogy, there are certain points which occasion some difficulty even to Christians, and which, owing to the discrepancy between the genealogies, are advanced by some as arguments against their correctness, but which Celsus has not even mentioned. For Celsus, who is truly a braggart, and who professes to be acquainted with all matters relating to Christianity, does not know how to raise doubts in a skilful manner against the credibility of Scripture. But he asserts that the “framers of the genealogies, from a feeling of pride, made Jesus to be descended from the first man, and from the kings of the Jews.” And he thinks that he makes a notable charge when he adds, that “the carpenter’s wife could not have been ignorant of the fact, had she been of such illustrious descent.” But what has this to do with the question? Granted that she was not ignorant of her descent, how does that affect the result? Suppose that she were ignorant, how could her ignorance prove that she was not descended from the first man, or could not derive her origin from the Jewish kings? Does Celsus imagine that the poor must always be descended from ancestors who are poor, or that kings are always born of kings? But it appears folly to waste time upon such an argument as this, seeing it is well known that, even in our own days, some who are poorer than Mary are descended from ancestors of wealth and distinction, and that rulers of nations and kings have sprung from persons of no reputation.

And let any one who peruses the treatise of Celsus observe whether it does not convey some such insinuation as the above, when he says: “And they attempted to derive their origin from the first race of jugglers and deceivers, appealing to the testimony of dark and ambiguous words, whose meaning was veiled in obscurity.” For these names are indeed obscure, and not within the comprehension and knowledge of many, though not in our opinion of doubtful meaning, even although assumed by those who are aliens to our religion; but as, according to Celsus, they do not convey any ambiguity, I am at a loss to know why he has rejected them. And yet, if he had wished honestly to overturn the genealogy which he deemed the Jews to have so shamelessly arrogated, in boasting of Abraham and his descendants [as their progenitors], he ought to have quoted all the passages bearing on the subject; and, in the first place, to have advocated his cause with such arguments as he thought likely to be convincing, and in the next to have bravely refuted, by means of what appeared to him to be the true meaning, and by arguments in its favour, the errors existing on the subject. But neither Celsus nor any one else will be able, by their discussions regarding the nature of names employed for miraculous purposes, to lay down the correct doctrine regarding them, and to demonstrate that those men were to be lightly esteemed whose names merely, not among their countrymen alone, but also amongst foreigners, could accomplish [such results]. He ought to have shown, moreover, how we, in misinterpreting the passages in which these names are found, deceive our hearers, as he imagines, while he himself, who boasts that he is not ignorant or unintelligent, gives the true interpretation of them. And he hazarded the assertion, in speaking of those names, from which the Jews deduce their genealogies, that “never, during the long antecedent period, has there been any dispute about these names, but that at the present time the Jews dispute about them with certain others,” whom he does not mention. Now, let him who chooses show who these are that dispute with the Jews, and who adduce even probable arguments to show that Jews and Christians do not decide correctly on the points relating to these names, but that there are others who have discussed these questions with the greatest learning and accuracy. But we are well assured that none can establish anything of the sort, it being manifest that these names are derived from the Hebrew language, which is found only among the Jews.

Now, as concerning what the Apostle said, “ there was no beginning to his days, and no end to his life’ (Heb. vii. 3) because when Shem, the son of Noah, took away Melchisedek from his parents, no word is said as to how old he was when he went up from the Fast, and it is not said how old he was at the time of his departure from this world. Now, he was the son of Malakh, the son of Arpakhshar, the son of Shem, and he was not the son of one of the Patriarchs. And the Apostle said that none of his father’s family had ever ministered at the altar (Heb. vii. 6). The name of his father is not written in the genealogies, because Matthew and Luke, the Evangelists [only] wrote down the [names of the] Fathers (in chief, i.e. Patriarchs]; and for this reason neither the name of his father, nor the name of his mother, is known. The Apostle did not say that he had no parents, but [only] that they were not written down in Matthew and Luke.

Now there are certain doctors who trace the genealogies of the Tribes from the death of Jacob, and who mix them together, but they do not do this in the light of knowledge. They set in the midst two genealogies, one of the “ Tribes,” and the other of the ‘‘ Children of Israel’. Now fix thine attention on these generations, and how they became mixed together. [When] they went forth from Egypt: Judah begot Pharez, Pharez begot Hesrén (Hezron), Hezron begot Aram (Ram, I Chron. ii. 9), Aram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshén (Nahson), and Nahshon was he who became prince of Judah. And Amminadab gave the sister of Nahshon to ‘Ir (so in the text, but read Eleazar), the son of Aaron, the priest; of her was born Phinehas, the great priest, who prayed “and the plague was I have shown thee that from Amminadab, the priesthood of the children of Israel was transmitted by the sister of Nahshon, and the kingdom by Nahshon her brother. Observe also that the priesthood and the kingdom were transmitted by Judah to the children of Israel.

Now there are certain doctors who trace the genealogies of the Tribes from the death of Jacob, and who mix them together, but they do not do this in the light of knowledge. They set in the midst two genealogies, one of the “ Tribes,” and the other of the ‘‘ Children of Israel’. Now fix thine attention on these generations, and how they became mixed together. [When] they went forth from Egypt: Judah begot Pharez, Pharez begot Hesrén (Hezron), Hezron begot Aram (Ram, I Chron. ii. 9), Aram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshén (Nahson), and Nahshon was he who became prince of Judah. And Amminadab gave the sister of Nahshon to ‘Ir (so in the text, but read Eleazar), the son of Aaron, the priest; of her was born Phinehas, the great priest, who prayed “and the plague was I have shown thee that from Amminadab, the priesthood of the children of Israel was transmitted by the sister of Nahshon, and the kingdom by Nahshon her brother. Observe also that the priesthood and the kingdom were transmitted by Judah to the children of Israel.

Now up to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem the Hebrew, Greek, and Syrian writers were in possession of the truth, and they were able to produce the registers of the genealogies of the tribes and the people. But from the destruction of Jerusalem and onwards there has been no truth in their writings, except as regards the heads of the tribes (i.e. the Patriarchs), and they are unable to prove whence the succession of the priests took its origin.

Neither the father nor mother of this Melchizedek were written down in the genealogies; not that he had no natural parents, but that they were not written down. The greater number of the doctors say that he was of the seed of Canaan, whom Noah cursed. In the book of Chronography, however, (the author) affirms and says that he was of the seed of Shem the son of Noah. Shem begat Arphaxar, Arphaxar begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Shalah and Mdlah. Shalah was written down in the genealogies; but Malah was not, because his affairs were not sufficiently important to be written down in the genealogies. When. oo C’saA. a.A, Uo U* bAo. ‘And Melchizedek was honoured by them all, and was called “ Father of Kings.” Because of that which the Apostle spake, “ His days had no beginning, and his life no end,” simple folk have imagined that he was not a man at all, and in their error have said of him that he was God. Far from it, that his days had no beginning and his life no end. For when Shem the son of Noah took him away from his parents, not a word was said how old he was when he went up from the east, nor in how many years his departure from this world took place; because he was the son of Malakh, the son of Arphaxar, the son of Shem, and not the son of one of the patriarchs; for the Apostle has said that no one of his father’s family ministered at the altar, and the name of his father is not written down in the genealogies, because Matthew and Luke the Evangelists wrote down the names of the patriarchs only, and hence neither the name of his father nor that of his mother are known. The Apostle then did not say that he had no parents, but only that they were not written down by Matthew and Luke in the genealogies.’

Neither the father nor mother of this Melchizedek were written down in the genealogies; not that he had no natural parents, but that they were not written down. The greater number of the doctors say that he was of the seed of Canaan, whom Noah cursed. In the book of Chronography, however, (the author) affirms and says that he was of the seed of Shem the son of Noah. Shem begat Arphaxar, Arphaxar begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Shalah and Mdlah. Shalah was written down in the genealogies; but Malah was not, because his affairs were not sufficiently important to be written down in the genealogies. When. oo C’saA. a.A, Uo U* bAo. ‘And Melchizedek was honoured by them all, and was called “ Father of Kings.” Because of that which the Apostle spake, “ His days had no beginning, and his life no end,” simple folk have imagined that he was not a man at all, and in their error have said of him that he was God. Far from it, that his days had no beginning and his life no end. For when Shem the son of Noah took him away from his parents, not a word was said how old he was when he went up from the east, nor in how many years his departure from this world took place; because he was the son of Malakh, the son of Arphaxar, the son of Shem, and not the son of one of the patriarchs; for the Apostle has said that no one of his father’s family ministered at the altar, and the name of his father is not written down in the genealogies, because Matthew and Luke the Evangelists wrote down the names of the patriarchs only, and hence neither the name of his father nor that of his mother are known. The Apostle then did not say that he had no parents, but only that they were not written down by Matthew and Luke in the genealogies.’

Neither the father nor mother of this Melchizedek were written down in the genealogies; not that he had no natural parents, but that they were not written down. The greater number of the doctors say that he was of the seed of Canaan, whom Noah cursed. In the book of Chronography, however, (the author) affirms and says that he was of the seed of Shem the son of Noah. Shem begat Arphaxar, Arphaxar begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Shalah and Mdlah. Shalah was written down in the genealogies; but Malah was not, because his affairs were not sufficiently important to be written down in the genealogies. When. oo C’saA. a.A, Uo U* bAo. ‘And Melchizedek was honoured by them all, and was called “ Father of Kings.” Because of that which the Apostle spake, “ His days had no beginning, and his life no end,” simple folk have imagined that he was not a man at all, and in their error have said of him that he was God. Far from it, that his days had no beginning and his life no end. For when Shem the son of Noah took him away from his parents, not a word was said how old he was when he went up from the east, nor in how many years his departure from this world took place; because he was the son of Malakh, the son of Arphaxar, the son of Shem, and not the son of one of the patriarchs; for the Apostle has said that no one of his father’s family ministered at the altar, and the name of his father is not written down in the genealogies, because Matthew and Luke the Evangelists wrote down the names of the patriarchs only, and hence neither the name of his father nor that of his mother are known. The Apostle then did not say that he had no parents, but only that they were not written down by Matthew and Luke in the genealogies.’

Neither the father nor mother of this Melchizedek were written down in the genealogies; not that he had no natural parents, but that they were not written down. The greater number of the doctors say that he was of the seed of Canaan, whom Noah cursed. In the book of Chronography, however, (the author) affirms and says that he was of the seed of Shem the son of Noah. Shem begat Arphaxar, Arphaxar begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Shalah and Mdlah. Shalah was written down in the genealogies; but Malah was not, because his affairs were not sufficiently important to be written down in the genealogies. When. oo C’saA. a.A, Uo U* bAo. ‘And Melchizedek was honoured by them all, and was called “ Father of Kings.” Because of that which the Apostle spake, “ His days had no beginning, and his life no end,” simple folk have imagined that he was not a man at all, and in their error have said of him that he was God. Far from it, that his days had no beginning and his life no end. For when Shem the son of Noah took him away from his parents, not a word was said how old he was when he went up from the east, nor in how many years his departure from this world took place; because he was the son of Malakh, the son of Arphaxar, the son of Shem, and not the son of one of the patriarchs; for the Apostle has said that no one of his father’s family ministered at the altar, and the name of his father is not written down in the genealogies, because Matthew and Luke the Evangelists wrote down the names of the patriarchs only, and hence neither the name of his father nor that of his mother are known. The Apostle then did not say that he had no parents, but only that they were not written down by Matthew and Luke in the genealogies.’

Neither the father nor mother of this Melchizedek were written down in the genealogies; not that he had no natural parents, but that they were not written down. The greater number of the doctors say that he was of the seed of Canaan, whom Noah cursed. In the book of Chronography, however, (the author) affirms and says that he was of the seed of Shem the son of Noah. Shem begat Arphaxar, Arphaxar begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Shalah and Mdlah. Shalah was written down in the genealogies; but Malah was not, because his affairs were not sufficiently important to be written down in the genealogies. When. oo C’saA. a.A, Uo U* bAo. ‘And Melchizedek was honoured by them all, and was called “ Father of Kings.” Because of that which the Apostle spake, “ His days had no beginning, and his life no end,” simple folk have imagined that he was not a man at all, and in their error have said of him that he was God. Far from it, that his days had no beginning and his life no end. For when Shem the son of Noah took him away from his parents, not a word was said how old he was when he went up from the east, nor in how many years his departure from this world took place; because he was the son of Malakh, the son of Arphaxar, the son of Shem, and not the son of one of the patriarchs; for the Apostle has said that no one of his father’s family ministered at the altar, and the name of his father is not written down in the genealogies, because Matthew and Luke the Evangelists wrote down the names of the patriarchs only, and hence neither the name of his father nor that of his mother are known. The Apostle then did not say that he had no parents, but only that they were not written down by Matthew and Luke in the genealogies.’

Now two genealogies are handed down from David to Christ; the one from Solomon to Jacob, and the other from Nathan to Heli. David begat Solomon. Solomon begat Rehoboam. Rehoboam begat Abijah. Abijah begat Asa. Asa begat Jehoshaphat. Jehoshaphat begat Joram. Joram begat Uzziah. Uzziah begat Jotham. Jotham begat Ahaz. Ahaz begat Hezekiah. Hezekiah begat Manasseh.

Jacob from Kefar Naboraia went to Tyre. They came to ask him, may one circumcise the son of a Gentile woman on the Sabbath? He wanted to permit it from the verse: “They determined their genealogies for their families according to their fathers’ houses.” Rebbi Ḥaggai heard it and said, he shall come. They brought him in order to be whipped. He said to him, for what reason do you whip me? He said, from what is written: “Now we shall make a covenant for our God”. He said, you want to whip me based on tradition? He said, “and it should be done according to the Torah.” He said to him, from which teaching? He said, from that which Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai, it is written: “You shall not conclude marriage with them”. And it is written: “For he will divert your son from after Me.” Your son from a Jewish woman is called your son; but your son from a Gentile woman is not called your son but her son. He said to him, whip your whipping, because it is good to impress.

Jacob from Kefar Naboraia went to Tyre. They came to ask him, may one circumcise the son of a Gentile woman on the Sabbath? He wanted to permit it from the verse: “They determined their genealogies for their families according to their fathers’ houses.” Rebbi Ḥaggai heard it and said, he shall come and be whipped. He said to him, for what reason do you whip me? He said, from what is written: “Now we shall make a covenant to send away all foreign women and those born to them, etc”. He said, you want to whip me based on tradition? He said, “and it should be done according to the Torah.” He said to him, from which teaching? He said, from that which Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai, it is written: “You shall not conclude marriage with them,” etc. He said to him, whip your whipping, because it is good to impress.