THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST JESUS.
Project Gutenberg EPUB3 edition
Doane, T. W. (Thomas William)
The biographers of Jesus, although they have placed him in a position the most humiliating in his infancy, and although they have given him poor and humble parents, have notwithstanding made him to be of royal descent. The reasons for doing this were twofold. First, because, according to the Old Testament, the expected Messiah was to be of the seed of Abraham,[160:1] and second, because the Angel-Messiahs who had previously been on earth to redeem and save mankind had been of royal descent, therefore Christ Jesus must be so.
The following story, taken from Colebrooke's "Miscellaneous Essays,"[160:2] clearly shows that this idea was general:
"The last of the Jinas, Vardhamâna, was at first conceived by Devanandā, a Brahmānā. The conception was announced to her by a dream. Sekra, being apprised of his incarnation, prostrated himself and worshiped the future saint (who was in the womb of Devanandā); but reflecting that no great saint was ever born in an indigent or mendicant family, as that of a Brahmānā, Sekra commanded his chief attendant to remove the child from the womb of Devanandā to that of Trisala, wife of Siddhartha, a prince of the race of Jeswaca, of the Kasyapa family."
In their attempts to accomplish their object, the biographers of Jesus have made such poor work of it, that all the ingenuity Christianity has yet produced, has not been able to repair their blunders.
The genealogies are contained in the first and third Gospels, and although they do not agree, yet, if either is right, then Jesus was not the son of God, engendered by the "Holy Ghost," but the legitimate son of Joseph and Mary. In any other sense they amount to nothing. That Jesus can be of royal descent, and yet be the Son of God, in the sense in which these words are used, is a conclusion which can be acceptable to those only who believe in alleged historical narratives on no other ground than that they wish them to be true, and dare not call them into question.
The Matthew narrator states that all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen, from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen, and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Jesus are fourteen generations.[161:1] Surely nothing can have a more mythological appearance than this. But, when we confine our attention to the genealogy itself, we find that the generations in the third stage, including Jesus himself, amount to only thirteen. All attempts to get over this difficulty have been without success; the genealogies are, and have always been, hard nuts for theologians to crack. Some of the early Christian fathers saw this, and they very wisely put an allegorical interpretation to them.
Dr. South says, in Kitto's Biblical Encyclopædia:
"Christ's being the true Messiah depends upon his being the son of David and king of the Jews. So that unless this be evinced the whole foundation of Christianity must totter and fall."
Another writer in the same work says:
"In these two documents (Matthew and Luke), which profess to give us the genealogy of Christ, there is no notice whatever of the connection of his only earthly parent with the stock of David. On the contrary, both the genealogies profess to give us the descent of Joseph, to connect our Lord with whom by natural generation, would be to falsify the whole story of his miraculous birth, and overthrow the Christian faith."
Again, when the idea that one of the genealogies is Mary's is spoken of:
"One thing is certain, that our belief in Mary's descent from David is grounded on inference and tradition and not on any direct statement of the sacred writings. And there has been a ceaseless endeavor, both among ancients and moderns, to gratify the natural cravings for knowledge on this subject."
Thomas Scott, speaking of the genealogies, says:
"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.
To commence with Crishna, the Hindoo Saviour, he was of royal descent, although born in a state the most abject and humiliating.[163:1] Thomas Maurice says of him:
"Crishna, in the male line, was of royal descent, being of the Yadava line, the oldest and noblest of India; and nephew, by his mother's side, to the reigning sovereign; but, though royally descended, he was actually born in a state the most abject and humiliating; and, though not in a stable, yet in a dungeon."[163:2]
Buddha was of royal descent, having descended from the house of Sakya, the most illustrious of the caste of Brahmans, which reigned in India over the powerful empire of Mogadha, in the Southern Bahr.[163:3]
R. Spence Hardy says, in his "Manual of Buddhism:"
"The ancestry of Gotama Buddha is traced from his father, Sodhódana, through various individuals and races, all of royal dignity, to Maha Sammata, the first monarch of the world. Several of the names, and some of the events, are met with in the Puranas of the Brahmins, but it is not possible to reconcile one order of statement with the other; and it would appear that the Buddhist historians have introduced races, and invented names, that they may invest their venerated sage with all the honors of heraldry, in addition to the attributes of divinity."
How remarkably these words compare with what we have just seen concerning the genealogies of Jesus!
Rama, another Indian avatar—the seventh incarnation of Vishnu—was also of royal descent.[163:4]
Fo-hi; or Fuh-he, the virgin-born "Son of Heaven," was of royal descent. He belonged to the oldest family of monarchs who ruled in China.[163:5]
Confucius was of royal descent. His pedigree is traced back in a summary manner to the monarch Hoang-ty, who is said to have lived and ruled more than two thousand years before the time of Christ Jesus.[163:6]
Horus, the Egyptian virgin-born Saviour, was of royal descent, having descended from a line of kings.[163:7] He had the title of "Royal Good Shepherd."[163:8]
Hercules, the Saviour, was of royal descent.[163:9]
Bacchus, although the Son of God, was of royal descent.[164:1]
Perseus, son of the virgin Danae, was of royal descent.[164:2]
Æsculapius, the great performer of miracles, although a son of God, was notwithstanding of royal descent.[164:3]
Many more such cases might be mentioned, as may be seen by referring to the histories of the virgin-born gods and demi-gods spoken of in Chapter XII.