Appendix to “The Nativity”

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke have generally been looked upon by Christian writers and theologians from the earliest days as being historically and factually inconsistent, each tendentiously putting forth its own concept of the role of Christ, that of King or Royalty in Matthew’s Gospel and that of Prophet or Priest in Luke’s.

“Various attempts have been made to harmonize the two genealogies,” says 8 NIB 131 (Matthew), of which it gives two categories; one has Luke giving Mary’s genealogy and Matthew giving Joseph’s, the other applies levirate marriages and adoptions. The first is said to have been extensively refuted by John Calvin, and the second is discussed below. It must be recognized, of course, that even if the genealogies could be harmonized in one of these ways, both Gospels then purporting to describe the birth of the same child, numerous inconsistencies would remain between the other portions of the two birth accounts.

The visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich are mentioned in fn 17 as including much verity but being somewhat veiled as they applied to the two Jesus children. As Powell said of her in CHA, pp. 21-22, “She beheld with the eye of the spirit the crossing of the two lineages, the fruit of which was Jesus,” but “the mystery of two children with the name Jesus—one born from the line of Solomon and the other from the line of Nathan—remained concealed from [her] spiritual gaze.” In his more recent work, CLC, at pp. 56-57 he quotes Clemans Brentano’s account of her actual vision as reported in The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary from the Visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, Rockford, IL, TAN Books, 1970, again recognizing its limitations in relation to Steiner’s own account. Her vision falls within the first category described in the above NIB account, but it seems impressive that the spiritual world is attempting to pass this truth through to humanity, even if the pre-Steiner versions have been seen, as Paul put it, “through a mirror in a riddle” (1 Cor 13,12 [KJV-NIV—INT]).

To my knowledge, in the entire history of Christianity, only one other scenario, the second category described in the NIB account, has been postulated that could possibly reconcile the two accounts historically and factually.33 Though that account is ancient and not widely acclaimed, it would thus be unfair to state that no such possible reconciliation, aside from Steiner’s account and the Solomon-Joseph Nathan-Mary version, has ever been proposed.

The scenario is postulated in the Epistle of Julius Africanus (ca. 180-250; 1 Brit 136, “Sextus Julius Africanus”) to Aristides. The text of the letter, and its editorial footnotes, as published in 6 Nicene-1 pp. 125-127 is set out below:

   
Nativity, Page 13
Nativity, Appendix Page 2