Christ is baptized. ST. LUKE. 15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men bmu. | sed in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not? 16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: 17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable. 18 And many other things, in his exhortation, preached he un'o the people. 19 But Herod the tetrarch, being 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. 21 Now when all the people were baptized, fit came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 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, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, 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 Nauin, 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, a Or, in suspense-b. Or, reasoned, or, debated.-c Matt. 3. 11.-d Micah 4. 12. Matt. 13, 30.-e Matt. 14. 3. Mark 6. 17.-f Matt. 3. 13. John 1. 32.-g See Numb. 4. 3, 35, 39, 42, 47. The genealogy of our Lord, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Sala thiel, which was the son of Neri, 23 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, 30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 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, k 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, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which 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 Jared, which was the son of Malelcel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, P which was the son of God. b Matthew 18. 5. John 6. 42.-i Zech. 12. 12-k 2 Samuel 5. 14. 1 Chron. 3,5Ruth 4. 18. &c. 1 Chron. 2 10, &c.-m Gen. 11. 24, 26.-n Zee Gen.11.12-0 Gen. 5.6, &c. & 11.10, &c.-p Gen.5.1, 2. exacted much more from the people than government autho- about thirty years of age, being, as was SUPPOSED, the son of rized them to do, ver. 13. and the surplus they pocketed. This, Joseph-of Heli-of Matthat, &c. This receives considerable I am inclined to think, is too common an evil; and the execu- support from Raphelius's method of reading the original or tive government is often the people's scapegoat, to bear the (ws evoμigeto vios Iwang) rov Hλi, being (when reputed the crimes of its officers-crimes in which it has no concern. son of Joseph) the son of Heli, &c. That St. Luke does not alFor an account of the publicans, see the note on Matt. v. 46. ways speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and 14. The soldiers likewise demanded of him] He thirdly in last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the sup structs those among the military. They were either Roman posed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his soldiers, or the soldiers of Herod or Philip. Use no violence mother Mary; and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, to any, undeva diacciants, do not extort money or goods by force was such only by creation. After this observation it is next ne or violence from any. This is the import of the words necessary to consider, that in the genealogy described by St. Luke, minem concutite, used here by the Vulgate, and points out a there are two sons improperly such: i. e. two sons-in-law, incrime, of which the Roman soldiers were notoriously guilty, stead of two sons. 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 pretence unde avkopavτnonre, 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 persous, which is the reason why this advice is added. See the note on chap. xix. 7. Be content with your wages] Oriots. 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. 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 Mes. siah. Thus John came in the spirit and power of Elijah, and reformed all things; showed the people, the tax-gatherers, and the soldiers, their respective duties; and persuaded them to put away the evil of their doings. See on Matt. xvii. 11. 16, 17. On these verses see Matt. iii. 11, 12. and Mark i. 7, 8. and particularly the note on John iii. 5. 19. Herod the Tetrarch] See this subject explained at large, Matt. xiv. 1, &c. and Mark vi. 21, 23. 21. Jesus-being baptized] See on Matt. iii. 16, 17. 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: Tovrov nais voute rai, he was SUPPOSED to be this man's son. 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 inserted her husband as the son of him, who was in reality but his father-in-law. This import, Bishop Pearce has fully shown voμiceolat bears, in a variety of places-Jesus was consider ed 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 Jacób, 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 Jacol, according to St. Mat thew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to St. Luke. And Sa lathiel, son of Jechonias, according to the former, was son-inlaw 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 mar Much learned labour has been used to reconcile this genea- riage of Salathiel, chief of the regal family of Solomon, with logy with that in St. Matthew, chap. i. and there are several the daughter of Neri, chief and heretrix of the family of Naways of doing it: the following, which appears to me to be the than. Thus it appears, that Jesus son of Mary reunited in best, is also the most simple and easy. For a more elaborate himself all the blood, privileges, and rights of the whole famidiscussion of the subject, the reader is referred to the addily of David; in consequence of which he is emphatically calltional observations at the end of the chapter. ed 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 genes. logy 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. 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 pulatively, or really such. And Jesus himself began to be 36. Of Cainan] This Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, and Observations on the CHAPTER III. genealogy of our Lord. father of Sala, is not found in any other Scripture genealogy. had reigned conjointly with Tiberius,) to Augustus himself: See Gen. x. 24. xi. 12. 1 Chron. i. 18, 24. where Arphaxad is and date the reign of Tiberius from the death of his prede. made the father of Sala, and no mention at all made of Cai-cessor; and this they do merely for distinction's sake: but F Some suppose that Cainan was a surname of Sula; and that the nanies 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 embarrassinent. There are many sensible observations on this genealogy, in the notes at the end of Bishop Newcome's Harmony. ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS ON LUKE iii. Chronologers are generally agreed that our Lord was born four years before the commencement of what is termed the VULNAR ERA of his Nativity; that is, in the 749th year from the building of Rome, according to Varro Herod the Great died about the 751st year of Rome, two years before the vulgar era, according to the most accurate chronologers ; therefore, our common computation must be four years too late. It is universally agreed that Augustus reigned till A. D. 14. according to the common reckoning; therefore, the 30th year of | Christ's age must correspond to the 12th year after the death of Augustus; or, which is the same, to the 12th year of the sole reign of Tiberius Cesar; and as, according to the general custom of the Jews, a person was not deemed qualified to enter on the public work of the ministry before he was 30 years of age, (though some did at 25,) it may be safely stated, that the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius coincided with the 30th year of the Baptist's age; and therefore it must have coincided also with the 30th year of our Lord's age, as the latter was born only six months after the former. But here a question of great importance, and apparent difficulty, arises: if, as the greatest chronologers agree, Christ's 30th year was the same with the 12th year after the death of Augustus, how then can A. D. 26. which appears in these Notes in the margin of Luke, chap. iii. 1. be called both the 12th and 15th year of the reign of Tiberius? There are several ways of solving this difficulty: but I need refer only to the following, which is sufficiently obvious: on August 23, A. D. 11. Augustus associated Tiberius with himself, in the full government of the empire; or, as Velleius Paterculus expresses it, ut æquum ei jus in omnibus provinciis exerciti. busque esset, quam erat ipsi; "that he might have equal power with himself in all the provinces, and in all the armies of the empire." Now this accounts exactly for the three years of difference which appear to exist between the statement of St. Luke, and the computation of modern chronologists; the former reckoning from the time in which Tiberius was associated in the empire with Augustus; the latter from the death of Augustus, when Tiberius became sole emperor. For, as Tiberius was associated with Augustus on August 28, A. D. II. and Augustus died August 19, A. D. 14. it appears that the time in which the two emperors reigned conjointly, was exactly two years and 356 days, or three years all but nine days. we may safely state, that no man, who lived in the time of the conjoint reign of these emperors, as Luke did, would write in any other way concerning the reign of the surviving emperor, than Luke has done. The chronology of very few facts in the whole compass of ancient history, can be ascertained with greater accuracy than that of Herod's death. Josephus, in his Jewish Antiquities, lib. xiv. cap. 14. s. 5. has fixed the time when Herod was named king by the Romans, with so great precision, as to inform us who were the Roman consuls that were in office at the period of this monarch's accession to the throne. His words are : Ό μεν όπως την βασίλειαν παραλαμβάνει, τυχών αυτής επι της εκάτορες και ογδοηκος της και τέταρτης Ολυμπιάδος, ύπατεύοντος Γαια Δομετιο Καλεινε το δεύτερον, και Γαιν Ασινιό wλtwvos. "And thus he (Herod) received the kingdom, having obtained it in the one hundred and eighty-fourth Olympiad, when Caius Domitius Calvinus was consul the cecond time, and Caius Asinius Pollio the first time." Now it is certain, that these consuls were in office A. U. C. 714, according to the computation of Varro, which was that used by the Romans in the celebration of their secular games; and, consequently this year must have been the same with the thirty-ninth before the commencemen' of the vulgar era of Christ's nativity, according to the chronological table of Arch bishop Ussher, unquestionably one of the most accurate chronologers of modern times. Therefore, as Josephus, Antiq. lib. xvii. cap. 8. s. 1. and Bell. lib. i. cap. 33. s. 8. as well as other historians, has assigned the length of the reign of Herod the Great to be 37 years, it is certain that the death of this king must have happened about the 751st year of Rome, that is to say, about two years after Christ's birth, and in the 28th year of the reign of Augustus Cesar, if we reckon the years of his reign from the battle of Actium, at which time the government of the triumviri was abolished, and that of emperors properly commenced. It is also certain, from most indispu table evidence, collected from the whole body of the Roman and Greek historians, that Augustus Cesar died 44 years after the battle of Actiun, and, consequently, the 12th year of Ti berins's sole reign, must have been 28 years after the death of Herod; for 16, the years that Augustus reigned after Herod's death +12-28. It therefore follows, from the tables of Roman consuls, which have been carefully preserved in the Chronicon of Eusebius, that there was an interval of 65 years between the commencement of Herod's reign and that of Christ's public ministry; consequently, there is every evidence necessary to prove, that St. Luke did reckon the years of Tiberius's reign from the time that this monarch was as. sociated with Augustus in the empire. By all this it appears, that the time of which Luke speaks, was properly the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, though only the twelfth after the death of Augustus. And that as Herod did not die, as chronologers generally agree, till the 751st year of Rome, which was the second year of our Lord; therefore, the whole account of the murder of the Innocents, as given by St. Matthew, chap. ii. is perfectly consistent. This being the real state of the case, it seems exceedingly strange that learned men should have made objections to the verity of St. Luke's history on this account: and that some, to the disgrace of criticism, should have had the weakness or bigotry to pronounce, on such untenable ground, the evangelical history of the genealogy of our Lord to be spurious! But wisdom is jus tified of her children. Further 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 Col lege, Dublin. That St. Luke reckoned the years of Tiberius from the above period, as many others certainly did, and not from the death of Augustus, is exceedingly probable; because, taken thus, all his dates agree: and a person who has been so careful as St. Lake evidently was, to fix the dates of the most important transactions he relates, by several chronological data, (as I have had occasion, more than once, to remark on the Notes on his Gospel, and the Acts,) could not be guilty of such an oversight as this would be, had he dated from the death of Augustus, every candid reader must allow. Besides, he uses a term which may be fairly thus explained, Luke iii. 1. Ev erec de TEPTERUidenata ins hy Enovias Tißɛpir; In the fifteenth year of the GOVERNMENT of Tiberius; a term which is applied not only by the Sacred Writers, but also by the best Greek authors, to signify government in general, whether administered by king, emperor, deputy, toparch, prætor, or any other; and that the word should he understood of government in this general way, and not of that which is restricted to a basileus, imperator, or monarch, who reigns alone, not dividing the em pire with any, and consequently being accountable to none, is rendered extremely probable by this use of the term in the very next word in this sentence; Pontius Pilate being co-alogy of our blessed Lord, as it is given by the evangelists St. VERNOR, BYCHOortnovros, (executing the office of governor,) of Judea who certainly was not monarch of Judea, but a de puty of the Roman emperor. As Pilate, therefore, governed by the authority of Augustus, so Tiberius reigned in conjoint power with Augustus himself: and therefore, the term hypo1 government; and hypovce, to exercise, or, execute the wice of a governor, is with equal propriety attributed both to Tibering, in his conjoint authority with Augustus; and to Pontius Pilate, or any other governor acting under the imperial authority. It would be easy to multiply examples here, to show that the word may be as well understood of a conjoint or deputy governor, as of an emperor or monarch. To all this might be added, the consideration that Tiberius must be reputed and called emperor by all the Roman people, as well during the time he was associated with Augustus, as af ter he became sole monarch. And would it not be natural for them, in speaking on the subject, to say, Tiberins is now in the first, second, or third year of his reign, even while Augustus was yet living? Nor could they speak any other language with propriety. It is true that, after the death of Angustus, Le Roman historians generally attribute the whole forty-four years of the reign of Augustus, (the latter three of which he Perhaps few questions have occasioned more trouble and perplexity to the learned, than that which concerns the geneMatthew 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 wor thy 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 un derstood. The silence of the enemies of the Gospel, both henthen and Jewish, during even the first century, is itself a suf ficient proof that neither inconsistency nor corruption could be then alleged 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 prove Observations on the ST. LUKE. genealogy of our Lord. 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 reunited in the marriage of Joseph and Mary. 2. Those who assert, that Salathiel and Zerubbaplace between the families previously to the inarriage 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 Solo mon; he therefore proposes to support the other hypothesis, and to clear away its difficulties. 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 impossi-bel were distinct individuals, and deny that any coalition took ble to suppose that the Jews would have withheld an allega tion which must fully vindicate them in denying his Messiah ship, 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 formerly 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 those 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. As Iræneus, Africanus, and Ambrosius assert, that Luke bas some names interpolated; to detect this error, Dr. B. divides the genealogy into four 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 con sent of MSS. and Versions, and from the books of the Old Tes tament, Ruth iv. 18. 1 Chron. ii. 9, 12. that neither of the evan gelists had suffered any interpolation in this part of the geneanother name between Aram and Esrom. Thus the Coptic; φα Αμιναδαβ, φα Αδμιν, φα Αρνι, φα Εσρωμ. Having accounted for this error, and finding no evidence, in the receiv ed text, of an interpolation in this second part of the genealo gy, 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. 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 prede-alogy; though in Luke iii. 33. some MSS. and Versions insert cessors 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. 1. 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: Recent interpreters have asserted, that two names, Matthat and Leri, 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. they are; it is possible he transposed Matthat and Levi; for it does not appear whom he makes the father of Melchi. Damascenes, 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 Maithat-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. "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 child. less, 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, nei-2. Though Africanus does omit some, it is not certain which ther 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 fathers-him whose natu ral 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, from Nathan the son of David, then the third person from the end will be Melchi, whose son was Heli, the father of Joseph; for 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 Estha.-After 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 doroovvot. 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 Joseph, but also by his real mother Mary. The writers who agree in 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. 24. Meλxi is omitted by the Cod. Vaticanus-Instead of Mar0ar, Tov Acvi, rov MeXxi, rov lavva, one of the Bodleian MSS. reads MEXX, Tov Mardar, Tov lavva, Tov Aɛvi. -Marlar, many MSS. read Maroar, and the Antehierony mian versions read, some Matthiæ-Mathei-Mathi-MatatMatha-and Matthatia. MSS. Instead of Ιωσηφ, Ιωανναν, is read in one of Matthais 25. Marradias, is omitted by several of the Antehieronymi. an versions, and by the Vulgate. Apos, omitted also by the same. -Naovp, is read Nauum by some, and Anum by others. Eo is read Eau, Ecoat, and Elo, in different MSS. and Sedi by four of the Antehieronymian. -Nayyat, in many MSS. Ayyat, in the Vulgate Magge, and in the Cod. Vercellensis, Nance; instead of Nayyar, one of Matthai's MSS. has Eaλpov. 26. Maal, is omitted by the Vulgate, and some of the Antebieronymian versions. The Cod. Forojuliensis has Manat. -MarTatov, the Cod. Leicestr. reads Marotov, and some of the Antehier. Mathiani, Matthia, and Mathath; and one adds Jae after Marraftov. Zepet, in one of Matthai's MSS. Acvi.— Semeja and Semein in the Vercell. and Veronensis. -Iwone, the Cod. Vatic. and Cod. L. in Griesbach read Iwonx: several others agree in the same reading, and with them the Coptic and Armenian versions, and Greg. Nazianzen. Some also read Osech, Osche, Joseth, and Joseph Osse. -lovda, read Iwda, in Cod. Vat. L. Cod. Leicestr. and Idda and Jorade by some Latin MSS Observations on the CHAPTER III. genealogy of our Lord. 27. I barva read Iway, by the Cod. Alexandr. Vatic. and | Salathiel and Josedek, therefore Salathiel and Josedek were several others, larvar, and Jona by some others. 30, 31. Ertasep, Medea, Murar, are omitted in some of the Latin MSS. MAɛa, only is omitted in one of the Antehieron. Matvar, in the Cod. Alexandr. and two others. From this collation of anthorities, Dr. B. concludes, 1. That the omission of Malchi, 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 versions 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. 36 although omitted in many MSS. is that which occurs ver. 25 As to the names Meleu and Mainan, both appear to be interpolated. Excluding these four names, Muttathias, 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. Heli, 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. 16. Juda. 17. Joanna. 18. Rhesa. 19. Zerubbabel 20 Salathiel. 21. Neri. 22. Melchi. 23. Addi. 24. Cosam 25. Elinodam. 26. Er. 27. Jose. 28. Eliezer. 29. Jorim. 30 Matthat. 31. Levi. 32. Simeon. 33. Juda. 34. Joseph. 35. Jonan 36. Eliakim. 37. Mattatha. 38. Nathan. 39. David. 40. Jesse. 41. Obed. 42. Booz. 43. Salmon. 44. Naasson. 45. Aminadab 46. Aram. 47. Esrom. 48. Pharez. 49. Judah. 50. Jarob. 51. Isaac. 52. Abraham. 53. Terah. 54. Nahor. 55. Serug. 56. Ragau. 57. Peleg. 58, Eber. 59. Sala. 60. Cainan. 61. Arphaxad. 62. Shem. 63. Noah. 64. Lamech. 65. Methusala. 66. Enoch. 67. Jona. 68. Mahalaleel. 69. Cainan. 70. Enos. 71. Seth. 72 Adam. From the generations thus laid down, there will be found fifty-one names between Christ and Abraham, excluding the latter, which agrees both with Africanus and Ambrosius. Now let thirty years be reckoned to each generation between Christ and David; Salathiel will then appear to have been born anno 570 before Christ, which will be found near the truth; and David 1140 David, in fact, was born 1085, B. C. whence there appears an error of fifty-five years, or about the twentieth part of the whole time in so many generations. But according to the received text of Luke, Salathiel must be born B. C. 630, and David 1260; this would be an error of 175 years, or one sixth part of the whole interval. Dr. B. endeavours to solve the principal difficulty by adopt ing the genealogy of David as delivered in 1 Chron. iii. In this chapter, and in the book of Kings, the whole is laid down in the most accurate manner, till the reign of Jechonias; after which, he supposes, some errors have been admitted into the contemporaries. Jeshua, the son of Josedek, was coeval with Zerubbabel; who was therefore the son, not the grandson, of Salathiel. St. Jerom himself, while he endeavours to prove that Salathiel and Pedaiah were the same person (Quæst. Heb. in Lib. Paral.) evidently grants that he considered Zerubba bel as the grandson of Jechonias, and that only two generations had intervened. 5thly. There are manifest errors in verses 18-22. for there are only five sons of Shemaiah numbered in ver. 22. and yet there are said to be sir. 6thly. The enumeration of the children of Zerubbabel, 1 Chron. iii. 19, 20. is imperfect, as it is evident, from 1 Esdr. v. 5. that Zerubbabel had a son named Joachim, of whom no mention is made, 1 Chron. iii. 19, 20. but Jechamiah, a name very similar to this, is found in verse 18. Nor are Rhesa or Abiud mentioned among his children, although Luke mentions the former, and Matthew the latter. 7thly. If we have recourse to the hypothesis of St. Jerom, which supposes that those who are mentioned, 1 Chron. iii. 18. are the children of Jechonias, and that Pedaiah, one of them, is the same with Salathiel; and that Zerubbabel was the grandson of Jechonias, and the son of Salathiel, alias Pedaiah-it may be objected, that it is not at all likely that he who is called Salathiel, ver. 17. should be called by a different name, ver. 18. nor will the difficulty be removed if it be grant. ed that Salathiel and Pedaiah were brothers, and that Zerubbabel was the actual son of the one, and the legal son of the other, according to the law, (Dent. xxv. 6.) Let it be supposed that one of these, e. g. Pedaiah, died childless, and that his brother took his wife; from this marriage Zerubbabel and Shimei are mentioned as sons of Pedaiah; but according to the law, the first-born only succeeded in the name of the deceased, and was accounted the legal child. Let Zerubbabel be the first born; as Shimei, therefore, was not the legal son of Pedaiah, he must have been his real son; therefore Pedaiah did not die childless,-which is contrary to the hypothesis. 8thly. The versionsd o not agree in the name of the father of Zerubbabel: instead of Pédaiah, the Arabic and Syriac bring in Nedabiah, and some MSS. of the LXX. read Sala thiel, in the place of Pedaian; and those which agree in making Pedaiah the father of Zerubbabel, express the name differently. For instance, Kennicott's MS. No. 1. both in ver. 18. and 19. reads Peraiah for Pedaiah, which is the reading of the Syriac and Arabic, in ver. 18. This is worthy of re mark, because the name of Rephaiah occurs, ver. 21. which, by the transposition of the two first letters, might be easily converted into Peraiah, or Pedaiah or Re phaiah: and it is further necessary to remark, that the father of this Rephaiah is not mentioned. As the names of the pos terity of Hananiah, the son of Zerubbabel, are mentioned in ver. 21. with the names of Rephaiah and his posterity, if, with Houbigant, we read a beno, his son, for 2 beni, sons, it will not appear improbable, that this Rephaiah was the son of Zerubbabel. Among those who were employed in repairing Jerusalem, Rephaiah, the son of Hur, who is said to have been prince of the half part of the city, is mentioned, Nehem. iii. 9. 1st Because what is recorded ver. 19. is repugnant to other "Hur," Dr. B. thinks, "was probably the same with Zerubbaparts of Scripture: viz. Pedaiah is said to be the father of bel; the Septuagint call him Zovo, and one of the Kennicott Zerubbabel, whereas Salathiel is reckoned to be the father of MSS. ." In this place it is difficult to comprehend Dr. B.'s Zerubbabel according to Ezra iii. 8. v. 2. Neh. xii. 1. Haggai i. 1, meaning: Papaia vios Zoup is certainly found in the Codex 12, 14. ii. 2, 23. 1 Esdr. v. 5. see also Josephus, Ant. book xi. 4. Vaticanus of the LXX. but in the Codex Alexandrinus vios 2dly. Although the obvious design of the writer is to bring Loup is omitted. No MS. of Kennicott's has ben sar, for down the regal family through Zerubbabel, yet the names vios Zoup. Two MSS. omit the whole verse; two the word which he mentions in the 22d, 23d, and 24th verses cannot be Hur; and one the following word sar: this last word connected (by the assistance of the 21st verse) with Zerubba- cannot possibly be put in the place of Hur, for, it is probel, mentioned in the 19th verse. The breach in the con-perly the first word of the following clause: D nexion renders it impossible to construct the genealogical tree sar chatsi pelec yerushalam, prince of the half part (or, downward from Jechonias; for although some copies men- the region) of Jerusalem. Among those who were employed tion the sons of Rephaiah, yet it no where appears who was in repairing the city, in Neh. iii. 12. is Shallum, the son of his father. Hallopesh, perhaps Meshallum, the son of the eloquent, 1 3dly. Many names occur in these verses, such as Delaiah, Chron. iii. 19. viz. Zerubbabel, whose eloquence and doctrine Pelaiah, Rephaiah, Pedaiah, or Pheraiah, which very nearly are celebrated, 1 Esd. iii. 4. Jos. Ant. xi. 4. It must, however, resemble each other, not only in the sound, but also in their be acknowledged, that the Syriac verse reads it differently, constituent letters. This very similitude is a ground of suspi-Neh. iii. 9. and Jeremiah the son of Hur, ver. 12. And Shal eion, as in such names it was impossible to prevent confusion.lum the son of Hatush. 4thly. Nor is the opinion of the rabbins exempt from simi- From these considerations Dr. B. concludes, that those who lar chronological difficulties: they assert that Salathiel, the are mentioned, ver. 18. were not the sons of Jechoniah (Obs. son of Jechonias, was the father of Pedaiah, and grandfather 7.) nor the sons of Salathiel, (Obs. 4.) and that consequently of Zerubbabel. This will appear to be impossible, when it they must be sons of Zerubbabel, as seems tolerably well asis considered that Jechonias and his queen were both led into certained by a collation of the 3d, 6th, and 8th observationscaptivity, B. C. 599. (Jer. xxix. 20, 21.) and none of his chil- that Pedaiah or Peraiah is the same, who, in ver. 21. is called dren are recorded, whence it is inferred that then he had none; Raphaiah, and who is mentioned, Neh. iii. 9. and that JechaSalathiel, therefore, could not be born before the year 598. miah is no other than Joachim, who according to Esd. v. 5. was Supposing him to have been born at this time, and at the age the son of Zerubbabel. Both these rames, Pedaial or Peraiah, of twenty to have had a son born, Pedaiah, who also shall be and Jechamiah, occur, 1 Chron. iii. 18. consequently a verse supposed at the same age to have had a son born; even then is transposed, a thing not unfrequent in the Sacred Writings. Zerubbabel could not have been born before 558: and yet he The text, therefore, of 1 Chron. iii. 18-22. should be read, as was superintendent of the Israelites on their return from the Dr. B. contends, in the following order: Babylonish captivity in 536; 1. e. when he would be only twenty-two years old. On the contrary, it is evident, from 1 Esdras, v. 5. that he had a son named Joachin, who was one of the chief men that conducted the returning Israelites; therefore he must be more than twenty-two years old. Besides, it will be manifest that only two generations had intervened, if we compare the sacerdotal with the regal line. Jechonias was contemporary with Seraial; their sons were 18. And the sons of Salathiel, Zerubbabel and Shimei and the sons of Zerubbabel, Meshullam, Hananiah; and Shelomith their sister. 19. Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushab-hesed. 20. And Malchiram, and Rephaiah, and Shenazar, Jécha miah, Hoshamah, and Nedabiah; sir. 21. And the sons of Hananiah, Pelatiah, and Jesiah; the Observations on the (.Bni בני or] ST. LUKE 22. The sons of Shechaniah; Shemaiah-the sons of She. maiah; Hattush, and Igeal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and Shaphat; five. | genealogy of our Lori. sons of Rephaiah; Arnan his son; Obadiah his son: She- tween which and Onan there is but little difference. 4. Obachaniah his son: (reading according to Houbigant, 12, beno, diah in 1 Chron. is the same as Judah in Luke. In this name may be found that of Abiud mentioned Matt. i. 13. who is the third from Zerubbabel; whence it is evident, that in St. Mat thew two generations are omitted. The MSS. in St. Luke also vary considerably in the name: some write it Iwada, which answers to the Hebrew Joida, or even y Obadiah. Oba. diah was one of the priests who signed and sealed the same covenant, Neh. x. 5. and seems to be the same with Iddo, Neh. xii. 4. who returned with Zerubbabel. See Newton, Chronol. p. 361. 5. Shechaniah in 1 Chron. is the same withi Joseph, or Osech, between which names there is a considerable: similitude. 6. Shemaiah in 1 Chron. is the same with Semei in Luke. In this place the names perfectly agree. Thus, through six successive generations in the same line, the names either perfectly agree, or are manifestly similar; each pre serving the same order. Hence it may be legitimately con cluded, that the preceding hypothesis is perfectly correct; and that Salathief in Luke is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chron. iii. especially, when we consider that the time which elapsed between David and Christ was nearly bisected by the captivity; so that the number of generations between them, was divided into two almost equal parts by Salathiel. The two generations which occur after Semei in Luke, Mattathias and Maath, of which no trace is found in 1 Chron. iii. are already rejected from the text of Luke, as interpolations, according to the proofs advanced in Dr. Barrett's second section. Immediately after Shemaiah, the writer of 1 Chron. iii, subjoins Neariah, in which Dr. B. supposes he has found the person called Nagge in Luke iii. 25. as he thinks the names do not differ widely, for the LXX. whom Luke generally follows, often express the Hebrew y ain, by the Greek I gamma; and even in this chapter, for the wof the Hebrew text, they write Payan. On the propriety of the substitution of beno, his son, for beni, sons, in ver. 21. I cannot but agree with Dr. B. That the latter is a corruption, appears to me self-evident; the mistake might easily be made, from the great similarity be. tween yod and vau; and numerous mistakes of this kind in the Sacred Text, have long been the perplexity and the complaint of critics. Houbigant's note on this verse is worthy of serious regard: "Illud quod hoc versu quater legitur, quater esse legendum 2 filius ejus, docet ipsa per se pagina sacra. Nec aliter legunt omnes Veteres, sed in fine post 2 addendum filius ejus, quod etiam legebant Veteres, et quod scriba omisit deceptus similitudine ejus 22 quod sequitur initio versus 22." Houbigant in loco. From these observations, Dr. B. concludes, that by an error of the transcriber, Pedaiah is put for Rephaiah, or Peraiah in ver. 18. whilst in ver. 21. the proper name Rephaiah is retained: hence those whose names are mentioned in ver. 18, were supposed not to be the sons of Zerubbabel, and so the whole verse in which they were contained, was transposed, and put before the 19th verse, where the naine of Zerubbabel Dccurs; and as the last word of this verse, viz. Nebadiah, or Nebadiah, according to the Septuagint, (who omitted the word siz in this place, and added it to ver. 22) contains al most all the letters of the words mɔ beni. Pedainh; this word, by a inistake of the transcriber, was changed into beni Peraiah, and thus it was supposed that a mistake in a name twice written was corrected; hence it was that Zerubbabel was called the son of Pedaiah, whose naine occurred in the preceding verse. Many examples of similar permutations occur in the Sacred Writings, see Job xl. 1-14. which ought to be placed, as both Kennicott and Heath have ob served, between what is related, chap. xl. 2, 6, and 7. see also Exod. xxx. 1, 10. also Job xxxi. 38, 39, 40. which should follow chap. xxxi. 25. A similar transposition may be seen 1 Chron. ix. 2, 17. where the whole clause appears to be taken from Neb. ix. 2, 19. Many other instances appear in Kennicott's Dissertations on the state of the printed Hebrew text. Dr. Barrett having thus far made his way plain, proceeds to Jay down a table of the regal line, taken froin 1 Chron. iii. on rach side of which he places the genealogy as given by the evangelists St. Matthew and St. Luke, that the general agreement may be the more easily discerned. Matthew, chap. 1. 1 Chron. chap. ii. Salathiel First generation Salathiel .... Zerubbabel omitted. Rephaiah Arnan, or Onan Abiud Obadiah Eliakim............................ Shechaniah A third generation omitted Fourth generation omitted Azor who is also From the above descends Joseph ..... ........ No corresponding Shemiah generation No corresponding Neariah Azrikam who is who espoused Joanan Joanam Mary Lnke, chap. ii. Rhesa Joanna or Jonan Semnei Manth Nagge Esli (from whom descended Mary) Naum or Anuin. Dr. Barrett then proceeds to lay down the two following propositions. 1. That Salathiel in Matthew is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chron. iii. This admits of no doubt, and therefore he de. spatches it in a single sentence; both were descended from David through the same ancestors; both lived at the same time, viz. of the captivity; and both were born of the same father. II. That Salathiel in Luke is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chron. iii. 17. the same as in Matthew i. and consequently that Mary the mother of Jesus, descending from Salathiel in Luke, descends lineally from David by Solomon, a matter of vast consequence according to the opinion of Calvin, who asserts, "if Christ hus not descended from Solomon, he can. not be the Messiah." Having taken for granted that Salathiel in Matthew is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chron. he proceeds to deduce the following consequences from his hypothesis 1. Zerubbabel in 1 Chron. is the same with Zerubbabel in Luke: they agree in name, the time also is the same, and they had the same father. 2. Rephaiah in 1 Chron. is the same with Rhesa in Lake, where a notable coincidence occurs in the names. 3. Arnan in 1 Chron. is the same with Joanna in Luke; and here it is worthy of notice, that in one of Kenni. cott's MSS. the name was originally written 12 Onan, a vau being used instead of aresh. It is well known that the MSS. in Lake write the name in a great diversity of forms, viz. lavva, Iwavuv, Ivap, Iwvva, Iropa, and some lovar, be To this Neariah, says Dr. B. the book of Chronicles gives three children; in Azrikan, the first of these, we discover the Azor of St. Matthew, the son of Eliakim. But, according to the opinion of some critics, Abner should be inserted be. tween Eliakim and Azor: (See Le Clerc in Hammond, vol. i. p. 6.) or according to others, between Abiud and Eliakim (Drusius. Crit. sac. in Matt.) However this may be, Dr. B. thinks he can discover Shechaniah in Eliakim, and either Shemiah, or Neuriah, in Abner. Another son of Neariah was Elioenai, the same probably which Luke calls Esli or Es lim; nor can they be considered as different persons, though their names in Greek and Hebrew do not perfectly corres pond. He thinks also that Elioenai in 1 Chron. iii. and Elisthenan in the LXX. are different, although they certainly may be names of the same person differently written, and signify the same son of Neariah. As Elioenai and Azrikam are different, the same may be said of Esli and Azor; hence the family of Salathiel became branched out into two families, one of which is traced by Matthew, the other by Luke. It is not therefore surprising if the subsequent names, as far as Joseph, should differ, as a different line of descent is described. Luke gives to his Esli a son called Naum, or Anum; and in 1 Chron. iii, among the sons of Elioenai, we meet with Jounam sometimes written Joanan-names which have a considerable similitude to that recorded by Luke. Having thus fixed the genealogy, by proving that Salathiel in Matthew and Luke is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chiron. . 17. Dr. Barrett proceeds to inquire whether chronology will support him in the times of those generations, the cor relative succession of which he has endeavoured to ascer tain. In the year 445 B. C. Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem, at which time both Shemiah, the son of Shechaniah, and Rephaiah, who preceded him four generations, were employed in building the walls of the city. At this time, therefore, Sheiniah must have been very young, Dr. B. supposes about twenty years old; he also considers that each of the generations consists of the same number of years; that Rephaiah must consequently be about a hundred years old, to have been born in the year before Christ 545; his father Zerubbabel to have been born about the year 570, and Salathiel in 590 er 595; there is, consequently, no place for the supposititious Pediah, because Jechonias had not at that time begotten Solathiel, Matt. i. 12. as he was not led away captive till the year 599. Shemiah, above-mentioned, had a brother called Hat tush, the son of Shechaniah, who is mentioned Ezra viii. 2, 3. and 1 Esdr. viii. 29. as returning to Jerusalem with Ezra; and as Shemiah had more sons, the last but one of whom was Neariah; this Neariah may be considered as having been born in 420, when Shemaiah was about forty-five years old. We may also suppose, says Dr. B. that in the fortieth year of Neariah, or before Christ 380, Elicenai the youngest son was born. Now as Elioenai bega? several sons, the youngest of whom was Joanam or Naum, it will not appear improbable, if we consider Naum to have been begotten in the year 340, or the fortieth year of Elioenai. The line of Naum is carried no further in the book of Chronicles, whence we may sup pose he had reared no children in the time of Simon, surnamed the Just, who was high-priest from 242 to 283, and is thought to have put the finishing hand to this book. It is probable, therefore, that Naun begat Amos in 290, when he hun self was in the fiftieth year of his age. After Amos, let thirty years be computed for each generation, or a hundred years for three, and the dates of these generations will appear as under. |