By casting an eye over the two genealogies, it will be seen that they differ in all points except at certain nodes, and the usual answer is, that Luke’s is the pedigree of Joseph, and Matthew’s that of Mary. But there is not the slightest indication of this difference in the Gospel text; both profess to give the genealogy of Joseph. Matthew says, “Jacob begat _Joseph_, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born” (i., 16); there cannot be a shadow of doubt that this is meant for the pedigree of Joseph, the husband of Mary. If not, the genealogy was that of Rahab the harlot, for verse 5 tells us that Boaz was the husband of Rahab, of whom Obed was born. So again in verse 6, Bathsheba is given as the wife of David, and mother of Solomon. Luke says (iii., 23), Jesus was [as was supposed] the son of Joseph, the son of Heli; and does not even mention Mary. The three words in brackets are a mere gloss, and could not have been written by Luke, as they would destroy the very thing he was trying to prove: Jesus was the son of Joseph, Joseph of Heli, and Heli was a descendant of David, Abraham, and Seth. If Jesus was not really the son of Joseph, why trouble himself to show that Joseph was in the line of David, Abraham, and Seth? But it is quite evident that Matthew and Luke supposed Jesus to be the son of Joseph. So did the neighbours of Joseph and Mary, for they said (Matt, xiii., 55), “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” It never oozed out in his native village that Mary’s son was other than her son in the usual course of nature. Even Mary herself says to Jesus “thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing” (Luke ii., 48); Mary calls Joseph the father, and not the reputed father, of Jesus, and never seems to have had a shadow of doubt about it. So was it with the disciples; their adherence to Jesus had nothing to do with his divinity. They none of them ever hint at such a notion. Philip said to Nathaniel “We have found him of whom Moses spoke, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (John i., 45); not Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Jehovah, but Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. All were anxious to prove his lineage from David, and none cared to set aside so very important a point. Of course they spoke of him as “Christ,” but Christ was merely an accepted title for “King of the theocracy,” and in order that Jesus might be the “Christ,” it was absolutely essential that he should be a descendant of David. {54} _The interpolated legend of the miraculous conception is a fatal blunder_, _and if accepted would utterly destroy the claim of Jesus to the Messiahship_. Gen., ii., 17. Gen., iii., 17–19.