change, how easy it would have been to remove all difficulties by placing Mary's name
instead of Joseph's in Luke iii. 23. That they did not do so is a sign that (1) the early
Christians, who knew all the facts of the case, found no difficulty in the matter, while any
difficulty that now exists arises from our not knowing all the circumstances; and that
(2) Christians in later times have had too much veneration for the Bible to venture to
make any change in its text in order to remove opponents' grounds for objections.
46. M. But if, as both the Bible and the Qur'an (Surahs XXI., Al Anbiya, v. 91,
and LXVI., At Tahrim, v. 12) assert, Jesus had no human father, what was the object of
giving Joseph's genealogy in Matt. i.?
C. It was doubtless given for the sake of the Jews 1, in order that,
whether they believed in His miraculous birth or not, they might see that He was descended
from David, according to prophecy (Amos ix. II, &c., &c). According to Mary's
genealogy in Luke iii. the same result follows.
47. M. There are many contradictions in the Bible which cannot be thus
explained. One is that of the blind men whose eyes Jesus is said to have opened at
Jericho. The Gospels give three contradictory accounts of this miracle. St. Mathew