[Footnote 2:  Matt. ii. 5, 6, xxii. 42; Luke i. 32; John vii. 41, 42; Acts ii. 30.]

[Footnote 3:  Matt. ix. 27, xii. 23, xv. 22, xx. 30, 31; Mark x. 47, 52; Luke xviii. 38.]

One great difficulty presented itself—­his birth at Nazareth, which was of public notoriety.  We do not know whether Jesus strove against this objection.  Perhaps it did not present itself in Galilee, where the idea that the son of David should be a Bethlehemite was less spread.  To the Galilean idealist, moreover, the title of “son of David” was sufficiently justified, if he to whom it was given revived the glory of his race, and brought back the great days of Israel.  Did Jesus authorize by his silence the fictitious genealogies which his partisans invented in order to prove his royal descent?[1] Did he know anything of the legends invented to prove that he was born at Bethlehem; and particularly of the attempt to connect his Bethlehemite origin with the census which had taken place by order of the imperial legate, Quirinus?[2] We know not.  The inexactitude and the contradictions of the genealogies[3] lead to the belief that they were the result of popular ideas operating at various points, and that none of them were sanctioned by Jesus.[4] Never does he designate himself as son of David.  His disciples, much less enlightened than he, frequently magnified that which he said of himself; but, as a rule, he had no knowledge of these exaggerations.  Let us add, that during the first three centuries, considerable portions of Christendom[5] obstinately denied the royal descent of Jesus and the authenticity of the genealogies.

[Footnote 1:  Matt. i. 1, and following; Luke iii. 23, and following.]

[Footnote 2:  Matt. ii. 1, and following; Luke ii. 1, and following.]

[Footnote 3:  The two genealogies are quite contradictory, and do not agree with the lists of the Old Testament.  The narrative of Luke on the census of Quirinus implies an anachronism.  See ante, p. 81, note 4.  It is natural to suppose, besides, that the legend may have laid hold of this circumstance.  The census made a great impression on the Jews, overturned their narrow ideas, and was remembered by them for a long period.  Cf. Acts v. 37.]

[Footnote 4:  Julius Africanus (in Eusebius, H.E., i. 7) supposes that it was the relations of Jesus, who, having taken refuge in Batanea, attempted to recompose the genealogies.]

[Footnote 5:  The Ebionites, the “Hebrews,” the “Nazarenes,” Tatian, Marcion.  Cf.  Epiph., Adv.  Haer., xxix. 9, xxx. 3, 14, xlvi. 1; Theodoret, Haeret. fab., i. 20; Isidore of Pelusium, Epist. i. 371, ad Pansophium.]