GENEALOGY
good
example
is
found
in
what
we
leain
of
Caleb
and
the
Calebites.
In
the
eariiest
tradition
(Nu
32'2,
Jos
146.
14)
he
is
descended
from
Kenaz,
a
tribe
of
Edom,
and
'grandson'
of
Esau
(Gn
36"-
«);
in
1
S
25»
30"
the
Calebite
territory
is
still
distinct
from
Judah.
But
in
1
Ch
2"'-
Caleb
has
become
a
descendant
of
Judah.
We
gather
that
the
Calebites
('dog-tribe')
were
a
related
but
alien
clan,
which
entered
into
friendly
re-lations
with
Judah
at
the
time
of
the
conquest
of
Canaan,
and
perhaps
took
the
lead
in
the
Invasion.
Ultimately
they
coalesced
with
Judah,
and
were
regarded
as
pure
IsraeUtes.
So
generally,
though
no
uniform
inter-pretation
of
the
genealogies
is
possible,
a
marriage
will
often
point
to
the
incorporation
of
new
elements
into
the
tribe,
a
birth
to
a
fresh
subdivision
or
migra-tion,
or
an
unfruitful
marriage
to
the
disappearance
of
a
clan.
Contradictory
accounts
of
an
individual
in
docu-ments
of
different
date
may
tell
us
of
the
history
of
a
tribe
at
successive
periods,
as
in
the
case
of
the
Calebites.
(6)
Though
the
genealogical
names
usually
represent
nations,
there
is,
no
doubt,
in
certain
cases
a
personal
element
as
well.
The
patriarchs
and
more
prominent
figures,
such
as
Ishmael
and
Esau
and
Caleb,
were
no
doubt
individuals,
and
their
history
is
not
entirely
figurative.
On
this
point
see
Driver,
Genesis,
pp.
Uv.
fl.
;
also
artt.
Abraham,
and
Tribes.
We
should
note
that
the
distinctive
feature
of
the
Greek
genealogies,
which
traced
national
descent
from
the
gods,
is
absent
from
the
OT.
A
trace
remains
in
Gn
6'
(cf.
Lk
3™).
2.
Genealogies
of
individuals.
—
Whatever
view
be
taken
of
the
genealogies
of
our
Lord
(see
next
article),
their
incorporation
in
the
Gospels
proves
the
importance
attached
to
descent
in
the
NT
period;
they
also
show
that
at
that
time
records
were
kept
which
made
the
construction
of
such
tables
a
possibility.
St.
Paul
was
conscious
of
his
pure
pedigree
(Ph
3'),
and
in
several
cases
in
the
NT
the
name
of
a
person's
tribe
is
preserved.
The
hope
of
being
the
ancestor
of
the
Messiah,
and
the
natural
pride
of
royal
descent,
probably
caused
the
records
of
the
house
of
David
to
be
preserved
with
great
care.
In
the
same
way
Josephus,
in
the
opening
chapter
of
his
Life,
sets
out
his
genealogy
as
vouched
for
by
the
public
records,
though
only
as
(ar
back
as
his
grand-.
father
Simon.
In
c.
Apion.
i.
7,
he
speaks
of
the
careful
preservation
of
the
Priestly
genealogies;
and
the
story
of
Africanus
(,ap.
Eus.
HEi.
1,
13),
that
Herod
the
Great
destroyed
the
genealogical
records
of
the
Jews
in
order
to
conceal
his
own
origin,
is
at
least
an
indication
of
the
existence
of
such
records
and
of
the
value
attached
to
them.
The
Talmud
speaks
of
professional
genealo-gists,
and
in
the
present
day
many
Jews,
especially
among
the
priests,
treasure
long
and
detailed
family
trees,
showing
their
pure
descent
(cf.,
for
an
earUer
period,
1
Mac
2',
Bar
1',
To
1').
There
can
be
no
doubt
that
this
careful
recording
of
genealogies
received
its
main
impetus
in
the
time
of
Ezra.
It
was
then
that
the
line
between
the
Jews
and
other
nations
became
sharply
drawn,
and
stress
was
laid
on
purity
of
descent,
whether
real
or
fictitious.
Alter
the
return
from
Babylon,
it
was
more
important
to
be
able
to
trace
descent
from
the
exiles
than
to
be
a
native
of
Judah
(Ezr
9).
Certain
families
were
excluded
from
the
priesthood
for
lack
of
the
requisite
genealogical
records
(2",
Neh
7").
And
in
fact
practi-cally
all
the
detailed
genealogies
of
individuals
as
pre-served
in
P,
Chronicles,
and
kindred
writings,
date
from
this
or
a
later
period.
No
doubt
the
injunctions
of
Dt
232
and
the
arrangements
for
a
census
(2
S
24)
imply
that
there
was
some
sort
of
registration
of
families
before
this,
and
the
stage
of
civilization
reached
under
the
monarchy
makes
it
probable
that
records
were
kept
of
royal
and
important
houses.
But
the
genealogical
notes
which
really
date
from
the
earlier
period
rarely
go
further
back
than
two
or
three
generations,
and
the
later
genealogies
bear
many
traces
of
their
artificiality.
The
names
are
In
many
cases
late
and
post-exilic,
and
GENEALOGY
OF
JESUS
CHRIST
there
is
no
evidence
outside
the
genealogies
that
they
were
in
use
at
an
earlier
period.
Of
the
twenty-four
courses
of
the
sons
of
Aaron
in
1
Ch
241"-,
sixteen
names
are
post-exilic.
Names
of
places
and
clans
appear
as
individuals
(2i8-2<
T^"-*").
Gaps
are
filled
up
by
the
repetition
of
the
same
name
in
several
genera-tions
(.e.g.
6<-").
At
a
later
time
it
was
usual
for
a
child
to
be
named
after
his
father
or
kinsman
(Lk
!"■
"),
but
there
are
probably
no
cases
where
this
is
recorded
for
the
pre-exilic
period,
except
in
the
Chronicler's
Usts
(see
Gray,
HPN).
There
are
numerous
discrep-ancies
in
the
various
lists,
and
there
is
a
strongly
marked
tendency
to
ascribe
a
Levitical
descent
to
all
engaged
in
the
service
of
the
sanctuary,
e.g.
the
guilds
of
singers
and
porters.
So
Samuel
is
made
a
Levite
by
the
Chronicler
(6^-
^),
almost
certainly
wrongly,
as
his
story
shows.
In
the
same
way
the
position
of
clans,
such
as
Caleb
and
Jerahraeel,
which
in
the
early
history
appear
as
aUen,
is
legitimized
by
artificial
genealogies
(1
Ch
2).
In
25<
the
names
of
the
sons
of
Heman
seem
to
be
simply
fragments
of
a
hymn
or
psalm.
In
6'
there
are,
including
Aaron,
23
priests
from
the
Exodus
to
the
Captivity
—
an
evidently
artificial
recon-struction;
forty
years
is
a
generation,
and
40x12=480
years
to
the
building
of
the
Temple
(I
K
6'),
the
other
11
priests
fllUng
up
the
period
till
the
Exile,
which
took
place
in
the
eleventh
generation
after
Solomon.
Such
marks
of
artificiality,
combined
with
lateness
of
date,
forbid
us
to
regard
the
lists
as
entirely
historical.
No
doubt
in
certain
cases
the
genealogist
had
family
records
to
work
upon,
but
the
form
in
which
our
material
has
reached
us
makes
it
almost
impossible
to
disentangle
these
with
any
degree
of
certainty.
W.
R.
Smith
(Kinship
and
Marriage
in
Early
Arabia,
p.
6)
gives
an
interesting
parallel
to
this
development
of
genealogizing
activity
at
a
particular
period.
The
Arabian
genealogies
all
date
from
the
reign
of
Caliph
Omar,
when
circumstances
made
purity
of
descent
of
great
importance.
C.
W.
Emmet.
GENEALOGY
OF
JESUS
CHRIST.—
1.
The
two
genealogies.—
Both
the
First
and
Third
EvangeUsts
(here
for
brevity
referred
to
as
Mt.
and
Lk.)
give
our
Lord's
ancestry,
but
they
differ
from
one
another
very
largely.
Lk.
traces
back
the
genealogy
to
Adam,
Mt.
to
Abraham
only.
Both
lists
agree
from
Abraham
to
David,
except
that
Aram
or
Ram
In
Mt
1=
=
Arnl
in
Lk
3"
(best
text);
but
between
David
and
Joseph
the
lists
have
only
Shealtiel
and
Zerubbabel,
and
possibly
two
other
names
(see
below),
in
common.
(a)
The
Matthxan
list
from
Perez
to
David
is
taken
almost
verbatim
from
Ru
4'»i'-22
LXX
(inserting
Rahab
and
Ruth,
and
calling
David
'the
king'),
and
agrees
with
1
Ch
2i-'S;
it
then
gives
the
names
of
the
kings
to
Jechoniah,
from
1
Ch
3'»-«,
but
inserts
'the
[wife]
of
Uriah'
and
omits
kings
Ahaziah,
Joash,
and
Amaziah
between
Joram
and
Uzziah
(
=
Azariah),
and
also
Jehoiakim
son
of
Josiah
and
father
of
Jechoniah
(Coniah,
Jer
22")
or
Jehoiachin
(2
Ch
36*).
This
last
omission
may
be
merely
a
mistake,
for
the
list
is
made
up
of
three
artificial
divisions
of
fourteen
genera-tions
each,
and
Jechoniah
appears
both
at
the
end
of
the
second
and
at
the
beginning
of
the
third
division,
being
counted
twice.
Perhaps,
then,
originally
Jehoiakim
ended
the
second
division,
and
Jehoiachin
began
the
third,
and
they
became
confused
owing
to
the
similarity
of
spelling
and
were
written
alike
(as
in
1
Ch
3«,
Jer
52"
LXX)
;
then
the
synonym
Jechoniah
was
substituted
for
both.
In
the
third
division
the
names
Shealtiel,
Zerubbabel
(both
in
Lk.
also)
are
from
Ezr
32,
1
Ch
3"-
IS,
but
we
notice
that
in
Mt.
and
Ezra
Zerubbabel
is
called
son
of
Shealtiel,
whereas
in
1
Ch
(except
in
some
MSS
of
the
LXX)
he
is
his
nephew.
Both
in
Mt.
and
1
Ch.
Shealtiel
is
called
son
of
Jechoniah.
Between
Zerubbabel
and
Joseph
the
names
are
perhaps
from
some
traditional
list
of
the
heirs
of
the
kings,
but
