{"author":"Historical editor/translator (individual note author unspecified)","date_end":1888,"date_label":"1888 (historical English edition; transcription printing date uncertain)","date_start":1888,"edition_year":1888,"edition_year_basis":"Original NPNF Series I Volume VI title, contents and copyright, 1888; Salmond translation and Riddle editing and notes; physical transcription printing unknown","id":"ws-library-full-note:a7e4255df8b05337445b:cite_note-8","is_genuine_commentary_verified":false,"license_url":"https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Reusing_Wikisource_content","public_import_allowed":true,"publication_location":"source-library","record_type":"editorial-footnote","references":[],"rights_approved":true,"section":"Chapter I.—A Statement of the Reason Why the Enumeration of the Ancestors of Christ is Carried Down to Joseph, While Christ Was Not Born of that Man’s Seed, But of the Virgin Mary.; original source section: Chapter 1, editorial note cite_note-8","semantic_kind_reviewed":false,"source_context":["3. Christ, it is true, was also supposed to be the son of Joseph in another way, as if He had been born simply of that man’s seed. But this supposition was entertained by persons whose notice the virginity of Mary escaped. For Luke says: “And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.” This Luke, however, instead of naming Mary His only parent, had not the slightest hesitation in also speaking of both parties as His parents, when he says: “And the boy grew and waxed strong, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was in Him: and His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.” But lest any one may fancy that by the “parents” here are rather to be understood the blood relations of Mary along with the mother herself, what shall be said to that preceding word of the same Luke, namely, “And His father and mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of Him”? Since, then, he also makes the statement that Christ was born, not in consequence of Joseph’s connection with the mother, but simply of Mary the virgin, how can he call him His father, unless it be that we are to understand him to have been truly the husband of Mary, without the intercourse of the flesh indeed, but in virtue of the real union of marriage; and thus also to have been in a much closer relation the father of Christ, in so far as He was born of his wife, than would have been the case had He been only adopted from some other party? And this makes it clear that the clause,“as was supposed,” is inserted with a view to those who are of opinion that He was begotten by Joseph in the same way as other men are begotten."],"source_library_url":"/library/a7e4255df8b05337445b/#ws-library-full-note:a7e4255df8b05337445b:cite_note-8","source_url":"https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_I/Volume_VI/The_Harmony_of_the_Gospels/Book_II/Chapter_1#cite_note-8","translator":"Stewart Dingwall Fordyce Salmond (translation), Matthew Brown Riddle (editing and notes)","verification":{"proof_file":"raw/review/source-library-note-batch-0060/proof-records.jsonl","proof_file_sha256":"5ab7515afe3bdd69d27d5f8dcf7a632bd04e61bfac727cfe98b438bd75cdb4ce","proof_record_id":"ws-library-full-note:a7e4255df8b05337445b:cite_note-8"},"verified":true,"work":"The Harmony of the Gospels","work_id":"ws-npnf1-6-augustine-harmony-935e44cb4ef9bdd43601"}