............Οἱ μὲν οὖν ἤτοι τὴν εὐαγγελικὴν ἱστορίαν ἠγνοηκότες ἢ συνεῖναι μὴ δυνηθέντες δοξολογούσῃ πλάνῃ τὴν ἀγνωσίαν ἐπύκνωσαν εἰπόντες, ὅτι δικαίω

 ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν γενῶν ἐν Ἰσραὴλ ἠριθμεῖτο ἢ φύσει ἢ νόμῳ_φύσει μὲν γνησίου σπέρματος διαδοχῇ, νόμῳ δὲ ἑτέρου παιδοποιουμένου εἰς ὄνομα τελευ

 Ἵνα δὲ σαφὲς ᾖ τὸ λεγόμενον, τὴν ἐπαλλαγὴν τῶν γενῶν διηγήσομαι. ἀπὸ τοῦ Δαβὶδ διὰ Σολομῶνος τὰς γενεὰς καταριθμουμένοις τρίτος ἀπὸ τέλους εὑρίσκεται

 Οὐδὲ μὴν ἀναπόδεικτον ἢ ἐσχεδιασμένον ἐστὶ τοῦτο. τοῦ γοῦν σωτῆρος οἱ κατὰ σάρκα συγγενεῖς, εἴτ' οὖν φανητιῶντες, εἴθ' ἁπλῶς ἐκδιδάσκοντες, πάντως δὲ

 ἀναγράπτων δὲ εἰς τότε ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις ὄντων τῶν Ἑβραϊκῶν γενῶν καὶ τῶν ἄχρι προσηλύτων ἀναφερομένων ὡς Ἀχιὼρ τοῦ Ἀμμανίτου καὶ Ῥοὺθ τῆς Μωαβίτιδος τ

 ..............Ματθὰν ὁ ἀπὸ Σολομῶνος ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰακώβ. Ματθὰν ἀποθανόντος Μελχὶ ὁ ἀπὸ Νάθαν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς γυναικὸς ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἡλί: ὁμομήτριοι ἄρα ἀ

II.

For7    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 intermingled8    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,9    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.

ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν γενῶν ἐν Ἰσραὴλ ἠριθμεῖτο ἢ φύσει ἢ νόμῳ_φύσει μὲν γνησίου σπέρματος διαδοχῇ, νόμῳ δὲ ἑτέρου παιδοποιουμένου εἰς ὄνομα τελευτήσαντος ἀδελφοῦ ἀτέκνου: (ὅτι γὰρ οὐδέπω αὐτοῖς δέδοτο ἐλπὶς ἀναστάσεως σαφής, τὴν μέλλουσαν ἐπαγγελίαν ἀναστάσει ἐμιμοῦντο θνητῇ, ἵνα ἀνέκλειπτον τὸ ὄνομα μείνῃ τοῦ μετηλλαχότος)_ἐπεὶ οὖν οἱ τῇ γενεαλογίᾳ ταύτῃ ἐμφερόμενοι οἱ μὲν διεδέξαντο παῖς πατέρα γνησίως, οἱ δὲ ἑτέροις μὲν ἐγεννήθησαν, ἑτέροις δὲ προσετέθησαν κλήσει, ἀμφοτέρων γέγονεν ἡ μνήμη, καὶ τῶν γεγεννηκότων καὶ τῶν ὡς γεγεννηκότων. οὕτως οὐδέτερον τῶν εὐαγγελίων ψεύδεται, καὶ φύσιν ἀριθμοῦν καὶ νόμον. ἐπεπλάκη γὰρ ἀλλήλοις τὰ γένη τό τε ἀπὸ τοῦ Σολομῶνος καὶ τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ Νάθαν ἀναστάσεσιν ἀτέκνων καὶ δευτερογαμίαις καὶ ἀναστάσει σπερμάτων, ὡς δικαίως τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἄλλοτε ἄλλων νομίζεσθαι, τῶν μὲν δοκούντων πατέρων, τῶν δὲ ὑπαρχόντων, καὶ ἀμφοτέρας τὰς διηγήσεις κυρίως ἀληθεῖς οὔσας ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰωσὴφ πολυπλόκως μέν, ἀλλ' ἀκριβῶς κατελθεῖν.