or violence from any. This is the import of the words neminem concutite, used here by the Vulgate, and points out a crime, of which the Roman soldiers were notoriously guilty, their own writers being witnesses. Concussio has the above meaning in the Roman law. See RAPHELIUs in loco. Neither accuse any falsely] Or, on a frivolous pretenceμηδε συκοφαντησητε, be not sycophants, like those who are base flatterers of their masters, who, to ingratiate themselves into their esteem, malign, accuse, and impeach the innocent. Bishop PEARCE observes, that when the concussio above referred to, did not produce the effect they wished, they often falsely accused the persons, which is the reason why this advice is added. See the note on chap. xix. 7. Be content with your wages.] Οψωνίοις. The word signifies not only the money which was allotted to a Roman soldier, which was two oboli, about three half-pence per day, but also the necessary supply of wheat, barley, &c. See Raphelius. Verse 15. Whether he were the Christ] So general was the reformation which was produced by the Baptist's preaching, that the people were ready to consider him as the promised Messiah. Thus John came in the spirit and power of Elijah, and reformed all things; shewed the people, the tax-gatherers, and the soldiers, their respective duties; and persuaded them to put away the evil of their doings. See the note on Matt. xvii. 11. Verses 16, 17. On these verses see Matt. iii. 11, 12. and Mark i. 7, 8. and particularly the note on John iii. 5. Verse 19. Herod the tetrarch] See this subject explained at large Matt. xiv. 1, &c. and Mark vi. 21, 23. 19 Christ is baptized. But Herod the tetrarch, be. ing reproved by him for Herodias his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done, 20 Added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison. Α. Μ. 4030, A. D. 26. 21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus An. Olymp. also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, CCI. 2. 22. And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) 'the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, & Mic. 4. 12. Matt. 13. 30. Matt. 14.3. Mark 6. 17. Matt. 3. 13. John 1. 32. See Numb. 4. 3, 35, 39, 43, 47. Matt. 13. 55. John 6. 42. Verse 21. Jesus-being baptized] See on Matt. iii. 16, 17. Verse 23. Thirty years of age] This was the age required by the law, to which the priests must arrive before they could be installed in their office; see Numb. iv. 3. Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph] This same phrase is used by Herodotus to signify one who was only reputed to be the son of a particular person: τουτου παις νομίζεται, he was SUPPOSED to be this man's son. Much learned labour has been used to reconcile this genealogy with that in St. Matthew, chap. i. and there are several ways of doing it: the following which appears to me to be the best, is also the most simple and easy. For a more elaborate discussion of the subject, the Reader is referred to the additional observations at the end of the chapter. MATTHEW in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed Virgin, speaks of sons properly such, by way of natural generation: Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, &c. But LUKE in ascending from the Saviour of the world, to God himself, speaks of sons either properly or improperly such: on this account he uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons either putatively or really such. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being as was SUPPOSED, the son of Joseph of Heli-of Matthat, &c. This receives considerable support from Raphelius's method of reading the original ων (ως ενομίζετο υιος Ιωσηφ) του Ηλι, being, (when reputed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli, &c. That St. Luke does not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was The genealogy of our Lord Α. Μ. 4030. CCI. १. 24 Which was the son of Matthat, || 30 Which was the son of Simeon, An. Olymp. which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, Zech. 12. 12. 2 Sam. 5. 11. 1 Chron. 3. 5. only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam who is said to be the son of God, was such, only by creation. After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that in the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i. e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons. As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they in serted her husband as the son of him, who was in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, Bishop Pearce has fully shewn τομίζεσθαι bears, in a variety of places-Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli. The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy are Joseph the son-in-law of Heli; whose own father was Jacob, Matt. i. 16. and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri; whose own father was Jechonias, 1 Chron. iii, 17. and Matt. i. 12. This remark alone, is sufficient to remove every difficulty. Thus it appears that Joseph son of Jacob, according to St. Matthew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to St. Luke. which was the son of Juda, which was 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, Ruth 4. 18, &c. 1 Chron. 2. 10, &c. - Gen. 11. 24, 26. And Salathiel, son of Jechonias, according to the former, was son-in-law of Neri, according to the latter. Mary therefore appears to have been the daughter of Heli, so called by abbreviation for Heliachim, which is the same in Hebrew with Joachim. Joseph son of Jacob, and Mary daughter of Heli, were of the same family: both came from Zerubbabel; Joseph from Abiud, his eldest son, Matt. i. 13. and Mary by Rhesa, the youngest. See ver. 27. Salathiel and Zorobabel, from whom St. Matthew and St. Luke cause Christ to proceed, were themselves descended from Solomon in a direct line: and though St. Luke says that Salathiel was son of Neri, who was descended from Nathan, Solomon's eldest brother, 1 Chron. iii. 5. this is only to be understood of his having espoused Nathan's daughter, and that Neri dying, probably without male issue, the two branches of the family of David, that of Nathan, and that of Solomon, were both united in the person of Zerubbabel, by the marriage of Salathiel chief of the regal family of Solomon, with the daughter of Neri, chief and heretrix of the family of Nathan. Thus it appears, that Jesus son of Mary re-united in himself The genealogy of our Lord A. M. 4000. A. D. 26. 36 Which was the son of Cainan, || Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, A. M. 4030. An Olymp. which was the son of Arphaxad, which which was the son of Cainan, CCL. 2. was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of See Gen. 11. 12. Gen. 5. 6, &c. & 11. 10, &c. all the blood, privileges, and rights of the whole family of David; in consequence of which he is emphatically called The Son of David. It is worthy of being remarked that St. Matthew who wrote principally for the Jews, extends his genealogy to Abraham, through whom the promise of the Messiah was given to the Jews: but St. Luke who wrote his history for the instruction of the Gentiles, extends his genealogy to Adam, to whom the promise of the Redeemer was given in behalf of himself and of all his posterity. See the notes on Matt. i. 1, &c. A. D. 26. An. Olymp. CCI. 2. 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Gen. 5. 1, 2. and father of Sala, is not found in any other Scripture genealogy. See Gen. x. 24. xi. 12. 1 Chron. i. 18, 24. where Arpharad is made the father of Sala, and no mention at all made of Cainan. Some suppose that Cainan was a surname of Sala; and that the names should be read together thus, The son of Heber, the son of Salacainan, the son of Arphaxad, &c. If this does not untie the knot, it certainly cuts it; and the Reader may pass on without any great scruple or embarrassment. There are many sensible observations on this genealogy, in the notes at the end of Bishop Newcome's Verse 36. Of Cainan] This Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, || Harmony. FARTHER CONSIDERATIONS ON THE BEST MODE OF RECONCILING AND EXPLAINING THE GENEALOGY OF OUR LORD, AS GIVEN BY ST. MATTHEW AND ST. LUKE, CHIEFLY EXTRACTED FROM THE PROLEGOMENA OF THE REV. DR. BARRETT'S FAC-SIMILE OF A FRAGMENT OF THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW, FROM A MS. IN TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN. PERHAPS few questions have occasioned more trouble and perplexity to the learned, than that which concerns the genealogy of our blessed Lord, as it is given by the Evangelists, St. Matthew, and St. Luke. The tables found in these writers are extremely different, or, as some think, contradictory. Allowing the Divine inspiration of the authors, we must grant that they could make no mistakes in any point, and especially on a subject where the truth of the gospel history, and the fulfilment of the ancient prophecies are so nearly concerned. The expression of Le Clerc, however, Universam antiquitatem exercitam habuere, is not strictly true. In later times, the difficulty has certainly excited much discussion; but it is worthy of remark, that while the archives of the Jews remained entire, the accuracy of the Evangelists was never called in question. Hence it follows, either that some corruptions have since that time crept into the text, or that the true method of reconciling the seeming inconsistencies was then better understood. The silence of the enemies of the gospel, both Heathen and Jewish, during even the first century, is itself a sufficient proof that neither inconsistency nor corruption could be then alledged against this part of the evangelical history. If a charge of this nature could have been supported, it unquestionably would have been made. The Jews and Heathens who agreed in their hostility to the religion of Christ, were equally interested in this subject; and could they have proved that a single flaw existed in these genealogical tables, they might at once have set aside the pretensions of our Lord and his disciples; for if the lineal descent of Jesus from David were not indisputable, he could not possess the character essential to the Messiah, nor any right to the Jewish throne. If his title, in this respect, were even questionable, it is impossible to suppose that the Jews would have withheld an allegation which must fully vindicate them in denying his Messiahship, and in putting him to death as an impostor. We may confidently assert, therefore, that his regular lineal descent from David could not be disproved, since it was not even disputed, at a time when alone it could have been done successfully, and by those persons who were so deeply interested in the event. The sincere believer may consequently be assured that whatever difficulties appear at present, had forinerly no existence, and are even now of such a nature as cannot be allowed to shake the faith of any reasonable man. I would not, however, be understood to intimate that these difficulties are now insuperable; on the contrary, I am satisfied that the real difficulties are few, and that these have, for the most part, been satisfactorily explained by most of the Evangelical Harmonists. Among those who have written on this difficult question, few seem to have studied it so deeply as Dr. Barrett; who, in his edition of a Fragment of St. Matthew's Gospel, has brought an unusual measure of general knowledge, correct criticism, and sound learning, to bear upon this point; and though it should not be admitted, that he has entirely cleared away the obscurities of the subject, yet by his criticisms, and even his conjectures, he has cast much light upon it generally, and certainly has lessened the difficulties which some of his predecessors in the discussion, had either left as they found them, or endeavoured to account for in a manner that could yield little satisfaction to the intelligent inquirer. As the subject is important, and Dr. Barrett's work is not likely to come into the hands of many Readers, and is written in a language which but few can understand, I shall lay before them the substance of his elaborate dissertation; abstract his principal arguments and illustrations; transcribe his various corrected tables; and freely intersperse such observations and explanations as the different branches of his reasoning may suggest. The opinion of Africanus in his Epistle to Aristides, (preserved by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. l. i. c. 7.) which was received by the Church for many centuries as the only legitimate mode of reconciling the Evangelists St. Matthew and St. Luke, is the following; 'The names of kindred among the Jews, were reckoned in two ways. 1. According to nature, as in the case of natural generation. 2. According to law, as when a man died childless, his brother was obliged to take his wife, and the issue of that marriage was accounted to the deceased brother. In this genealogy, some succeeded their fathers as natural sons, but others succeeded who bore their names only. Thus, neither of the gospels is false; the one reckoning the pedigree by the natural, the other by the legal line. The race both of Solomon and Nathan is so interwoven by those second marriages, which raised up issue in the name of a deceased brother, that some appear to have two fathershim, whose natural issue they were, though they did not bear his name; and him, to whom, having died childless, the children of his wife and brother were accounted for a seed, assuming his name. If we reckon the generations according to Matthew, from David by Solomon, Matthan will be found the third from the end, who begat Jacob, the father of Joseph; but if we reckon according to Luke, fron Nathan the son of David, then the third person from the end will be Melchi, whose son was Heli, the father of Joseph; for genealogy of our Lord. Joseph was the son of Heli, the son of Melchi-Matthan and Melchi having each successively married the same wife, the latter begat children, who were brethren by the mother. Matthan descending from Solomon, begat Jacob of EsthaAfter the death of Matthan, Melchi, who descended from Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another race, took his widow to wife, and begat Heli; thus Jacob and Heli were brethren by the mother. Heli dying without issue, Jacob married his widow, and begat Joseph, who by the law was accounted the son of Heli, because the law required the seed to be raised up to the deceased brother. Matthew therefore properly says, Jacob begat Joseph, but Luke says, he was the son of Heli, and it is worthy of remark, that this Evangelist never uses the term begot or begetting, because he traces up this genealogy by putative, and not by natural sons.' This is the substance of Africanus's account, which he says he received from the relatives of our Lord, who, because of their consanguinity to him, were called δεσποσυνοι. Dr. Barrett notices the difficulties of this hypothesis (pp. 18, 19.) and gives it up on the following principle, among others, which I think decisive; that it refers wholly to the descent of Joseph from David, without attempting to prove that the son of Mary was the son of David. Dr. B. then states his own hypothesis, viz. that Matthew relates the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. Hence appears a sufficient reason, that after Matthew had given his genealogical table, another should be added by Luke, fully to prove that Christ, according to the flesh, derived his descent from David, not only by his supposed father Jo-seph, but also by his real mother Mary. The writers who agree in this opinion, Dr. B. divides into two classes. 1. Those who affirm that the families of Solomon and Nathan coalesced in Salathiel and Zerubbabel, after which they became divaricated, till they were at last re-united in the marriage of Joseph and Mary. 2. Those who assert, that Salathiel and Zerubbabel were distinct individuals, and deny that any coalition took place between the families previously to the marriage of Joseph and Mary. Dr. B. rejects this latter opinion, because it appears to contradict the divine promise, 2 Sam. vii. 12-16. for according to this hypothesis it would be evident, that Mary, and consequently Christ, did not descend from David by Solomon. He therefore proposes to support the other hypothesis, and to clear away its difficulties. As Irenæus, Africanus, and Ambrosius assert, that Lukè has some names interpolated; to detect this error, Dr. B. divides the genealogy into 4 classes. 1. From God to Abraham. 2. From Abraham to David. 3. From David to Salathiel. 4. From Salathiel to Christ. From Abraham to Christ, Ambrosius reckons fifty generations, i. e. fifty-one names; Africanus reckons from Abraham to Joseph, fifty persons, i. e. to Christ, fifty-one names: but the present text contains fifty-six names. Hence it is probable, five names are interpolated, unless we suppose the name of Abraham to be excluded, and then... there are four names in the three succeeding classes to be expunged. In the first division therefore, there is no interpolation. As to the second division, from Abraham to David, it is evident, from the consent of the Fathers, from the consent of MSS. and Versions, and from the books of the Old Testament, Ruth iv. 18. 1 Chron. ii. 9, 12. that neither of the Evangelists has suffered any interpolation in this part of the genealogy; though in Luke iii. 33. some MSS. and Versions insert another name between Aram and Esrom. Thus the Coptic ; Φα Αμιναδαβ, φα Αδμεν, φα Αρνι, φα Εσρωμ. Having accounted for this error, and finding no evidence, in the received text, of an interpolation in this second part of the genealogy, Dr. B. examines whether the four names be not found in the two parts of the genealogy between David and Christ, or, which is more likely, in that which follows the Babylonish captivity; as previously, the Jews were both punctual and correct, in keeping their genealogical records. Recent interpreters have asserted, that two names, Matihat and Levi have been interpolated, ver. 24. because Africanus, endeavouring to reconcile the Evangelists, places Melchi the third from the end, and making him the father of Heli, leaves no room for Matthat and Levi. This method of reconciling the Evangelists is followed by Ambrose, lib. 3. in Luc. Hieron. Com. in Matthew, Nazianzen in his genealogical verses, and Augustin Retr. ii. 7. But on the other hand, it is objected, 1. That the testimony of these Fathers is worthy of little credit, because inconsistent with itself. Austin himself mentions forty-three generations from David to Christ, seventy-seven persons in the whole genealogy; he therefore could omit none. 2. Though Africanus does omit some, it is not certain which they are; it is possible he transposed Matthat and Levi; for it does not appear whom he makes the father of Melchi. Damascenus, who endeavours to reconcile Africanus, transposes these names, and makes Levi the father of Melchi, not his son; as does also Epiphanius in a hitherto inedited fragment produced by Dr. B. in this publication, p. 46. In the Cod. A. of Matthai, instead of Matthat the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna; we read, Melchi, the son of Matthat of Janna-of Levi: it does not follow, therefore, that Africanus omitted Matthat and Levi. 3. These names are not omitted in any of the ancient Versions, nor in any MS. yet discovered. In order to give a satisfactory view of this part of the subject, Dr. B. introduces a synopsis of the principal various readings of MSS. Versions, &c. on Luke iii. 24-31; from which I judge it necessary to make the following extract. Verse 24. Μελχι is omitted by the Cod. Vaticanus-Instead of Ματθατ, του Λευι, του Μελχί, του Ιαννα, one of the Bodleian MSS. reads Μελχι, του Ματθατ, του Ιαννα, του Λευι. -Ματθατ, many MSS. read Ματθαν, and the Antehieronymian versions read, some Matthiæ - Mathei-Mathi-Matat -Mathæ- and Matthatiæ. genealogy of our Lord. Verse 25. Ματταθιας is omitted by several of the Antehiero- -Ναγγαι, in many MSS. Αγγαι, in the Vulgate Magge, and in the Cod. Vercellensis, Nance: instead of Nayyai, one of Matthaï's MSS. has Σαλμον. Verse 26. Μααθ, is omitted by the Vulgate, and some of the Antehieronymian versions. The Cod. Forojuliensis has Manat. -Ματταθιου, the Cod. Leicestr. reads Ματθίου, and some of the Antehier. Mathiani, Matthiæ, and Mathath; and one adds Jae after Ματταθιου. -Σεμει, in one of Matthaï's MSS. Λενι. - Semeja and Semein in the Vercell. and Veronensis. -Ιωσηφ, the Cod. Vatic. and Cod. L. in Griesbach read Ιωσηχ: several others agree in the same reading, and with them the Coptic and Armenian versions, and Greg. NazianSome also read Osech, Osche, Joseth, and Joseph Osse. -Ιουδα, read Iwda in Cod. Vat. L. Cod. Leicestr. and Idda and Joiade by some Latin MSS. zen. Verse 27. Iaawa, read Iwavar by the Cod. Alexandr. Vatic. and several others, Iarvas and Jonce by some others. Verses 30, 31. Ελειακειμ, Μελεα, Μαιναν, are omitted in some of the Latin MSS. Μελια only is omitted in one of the An tehieron. Μαιναν in the Cod. Alexandr. and two others. From this collation of authorities, Dr. B. concludes, 1. that the omission of Melchi, in the Codex Vaticanus is an error, as it contradicts Africanus, and all the Fathers, Versions, and MSS. 2. That three names have been omitted in the Antehieronymian version by Sabatier; and also in the Cod. Vercell. and Cod. Veron. viz. ver. 25. Mattathias and Amos; and in ver. 26. Maath. Of these, two, viz. Mattathias ver. 25. and Maath ver. 26. are omitted in Dr. B.'s MS. Z. which contains a copy of the Antehieronymian version; and which also reads Mattathias for Matthat. Hence arises a suspicion that Maath is an interpolation, and should be omitted, and that Mattathias ver. 26. although omitted in many MSS. is that which occurs ver. 25. As to the names Melea and Mainan, both appear to be interpolated. Excluding these four names, Mattathias, Maath, Melea, and Mainan, (unless, for one of these, Amos should be rejected) the genealogy will consist of seventy-two generations. These generations Dr. B. following Irenæus, thinks, should be laid down in the following order. 1. Jesus. 2. Joseph, (or Mary the daughter of Heli.) 3. Hou the grandfather of Christ. 4. Matthat. 5. Levi. 6. Melchi. 7. Janna. 8. Joseph. 9. Mattathias. 10. Amos. 11. Naum. 12. Esli. 13. Nagge. 14. Semei. 15. Joseph. -Instead of Ιωσηφ, Ιωανναν is read in one of Matthaï's 16. Juda. 17. Joanna. 18. Rhesa. 19. Zerubbabel. 20. Salathiel. 21. Neri. 22. Melchi. 23. Addi. 24. Cosam. MSS. |