^  %t?  ;  3  1931 
 
 p-  i.i 
 
 ion 
 
 b^ctiou 
 
 :b5^425 
 M5q 
 
October,  1853. 
 
 MACMILLAN  &  Co.,  Cambridge, 
 
 HAVE   JUST   PUBLTSHED 
 
 History  of  the   Christian   Church  from    the 
 
 Seventh  Century  to  the  Reformation.  By  the  Rev.  CHARLES 
 HARDWICK,  M.A.,  Fellow  of  St  Catharine's  Hall,  and  late 
 Cambridge  Preacher  at  the  Chapel  Royal,  Whitehall,  Author 
 of  "  A  History  of  the  XXXIX  Articles."  With  Four  Maps 
 constructed  for  this  Work  by  A.  Keith  Johnston.  Crown  8vo. 
 cloth,  10s.  Qd. 
 
 "  This  forms  one  of  a  series  of  Theological  Manuals  which 
 ISIessrs  jMacmillan,  the  toell-knoum  Cambridge  publishers,  have  in 
 course  of  publication.  If  the  other  volumes  of  the  series  are  as  well 
 and  carefully  ivritten  as  this,  theological  students  will  have  good 
 cause  to  thank  them." — Clerical  Journal,  Sept.  22, 1853. 
 
 "  It  is  full  in  references  and  authority^  systematic  and  formal  in 
 division,  with  enough  of  life  in  the  style  to  counteract  the  dryness 
 inseparable  from  its  brevity,  and  exhibiting  the  results  rather  than 
 the  principles  of  investigation.  INIrHARDWicK  is  to  be  congratulated 
 on  the  successfil  achievement  of  a  difficult  task." — Christian  Re- 
 membrancer, October,  1853. 
 
 "  He  has  bestoived  patient  and  extensive  reading  on  the  collection 
 of  his  materials  ;  he  has  selected  them  icith  judgment ;  and  he  pre- 
 sents them  in  an  equable  and  compact  style," — Spectator,  Sep- 
 tember 17,  1853. 
 
 "  It  is  distinguished  by  the  same  diligent  research  and  conscientious 
 acknowledgement  of  authorities  ichich  procxired  for  Mr  Hardwick's 
 '  History  of  the  Articles  of  Religion'  such  a  favourable  reception." — 
 Notes  and  Queries,  October  8, 1853. 
 
THEOLOGICAL   MANUALS. 
 
 The  following  will  shortly  appear. 
 
 Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Old  Testament, 
 
 Notes  on  Isaiah. 
 
 Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels. 
 
 Epistles. 
 
 Notes  on  the  Gospels  and  Acts. 
 
 Epistles  and  Apocalypse. 
 
 Church  History,  the  First  Six  Centuries. 
 
 The  Middle  Ages.         Ready,  price  los.  m. 
 
 — The  Reformation. 
 
 VI th  Century  to  the  Present  Time. 
 
 The  Common  Prayer:  its  History  and  Rationale. 
 
 The  Three  Creeds. 
 
 The  Thirty-Nine  Articles. 
 
 Others  are  in  progress  and  will  be  announced  in  due  time. 
 MACMILLAN  &  Co.,  CAMBRIDGE. 
 
THE    GENEALOGIES 
 
 OF 
 
 OUR    LORD    AND    SAVIOUR 
 JESUS    CHRIST. 
 
Catntiriligc : 
 Prtntcti  at  tf)c  SHniijrrsitg  Press, 
 
 FOR    MACMILLAN    AND    CO. 
 
 iLotmon:  T,  HATCHARD,  AND  GEORGE  BELL. 
 (BxtoxTs :  J.  H.  PARKER. 
 ©Ulnfiurfll) :  EDMONSTON  AND  DOUGLAS. 
 SubUn:  HODGES  AND  SMITH. 
 JAMES  MACLEHOSE. 
 
THE    GENEALOGIES 
 
 OF 
 
 OUR    LORD    AND    SAVIOUR 
 JESUS    CHRIST, 
 
 ^s  containetr  itt  tlje  ^ospds  of  ^t  iIWatti)c(xi  anU  ^t  Uufec, 
 
 RECONCILED  WITH  EACH  OTHER, 
 
 AND  WITH  THE  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID, 
 
 FROM  ADAM  TO  THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  CANON 
 
 OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT; 
 
 AND   SHEWN   TO  BE   IN  HAEMONY  WITH   THE   TRUE 
 CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  TIMES. 
 
 BY 
 
 LORD   ARTHUR'HERVEY,   M.A, 
 
 KECTOR   OP    ICKWORTH    WITH    IIORKINGEU. 
 
 aDambriiiige :    MACMILLAN   AND   CO. 
 aontort:   T.  HATCHARD  187  PICCADILLY. 
 
TO  THE 
 
 REV.  WILLIAM   FREMANTLE,  M.A. 
 
 RECTOE  OF  CLAYDON  AND  VICAR  OF  STEEPLE  CLAYDON. 
 
 My  dear  Fremantle, 
 
 A  S  the  following  pages  owe  their  existence  to  the 
 perusal  of  the  proof-sheets  of  your  Sermon  on 
 The  Crucifixion^  preached  at  St  Mary's,  Oxford, 
 last  year,  and  to  our  conversations  and  correspond- 
 ence on  the  subject  of  it,  I  feel  bound  in  justice, 
 no  less  than  moved  by  inclination,  to  inscribe  them 
 to  you.  I  was  encouraged,  moreover,  to  pursue  my 
 researches,  by  finding  that  you  thought  my  original 
 suggestions  concerning  Rhesa,  and  concerning  the 
 identity  of  Hananiah  and  Joanna,  and  of  Hodaiah, 
 Juda,  and  Abiud,  and  my  proposed  rectification  of 
 1  Chron.  iii.  21,  22,  sufficiently  probable  to  give 
 them  a  place   in  your  Appendix  (pp.  33 — 36). 
 
 Subsequent  reflection  and  study  have  greatly 
 confirmed  my  own  belief  in  the  truth  of  those  sug- 
 gestions :  as  regards  the  removal  of  Rhesa  from  the 
 
VI  DEi>l€ATION. 
 
 list,  and  the  identity  of  Hananiah  and  Joanna,  that 
 befief  amounts  to  very  little  short  of  certainty. 
 
 The  view  concerning  the  failure  of  Solomon's 
 line  in  Jehoiachin,  which  I  first  learned  from  you — 
 for  I  had  not  previously  considered  the  subject—has 
 been  also  so  much  strengthened  by  all  I  have  since 
 read  and  thought  upon  the  subject,  that  the  cor- 
 rectness of  it  seems  to  me  as  if  it  ought  to  be  con- 
 sidered as  an  axiom  by  all  future  enquirers  into  the 
 Genealogy. 
 
 But  on  two  important  points  you  will  perceive 
 that  I  differ  from  you — one,  as  to  the  introduction 
 of  the  law  of  Levirate  to  account  for  the  two  Gene- 
 alogies, which  I  do  not  think  necessary  or  probable, 
 and  which  on  the  hypothesis  of  neither  of  the  lines 
 being  derived  from  Solomon  appears  to  me  irrele- 
 vant and  superfluous ;  the  second,  as  to  one  of  the 
 Genealogies  being  traced  to  Joseph,  and  the  other 
 to  Mary.  My  reason  for  the  firm  conviction  that 
 both  lines  are  traced  to  Joseph,  the  one  marking 
 him  as  Solomon's  heir,  the  other  as  David's  son, 
 you  will  find  in  the  second  chapter. 
 
 In  the  course  of  my  studies,  and  in  the  deve- 
 lopment of  the  subject,  I  found  myself  unintention- 
 ally entangled  in  several  difficult  questions,  which  I 
 was  forced  to  enter  upon,  because  the  solution  of 
 
DEDICATION.  Vll 
 
 them  powerfully  affected  the  solution  of  the  genea- 
 logical enquiry.  After  a  vain  attempt,  therefore,  to 
 avoid  them,  I  was  forced  to  gird  up  the  loins  of  my 
 mind,  and  in  spite  of  my  consciousness  of  inadequate 
 resources,  to  do  my  best,  under  the  blessing  of 
 God,  to  solve  them  to  my  own  satisfaction,  and,  if 
 it  might  be,  to  that  of  my  readers.  I  allude  espe- 
 cially to  the  chapters  on  the  second  Cainan,  on  the 
 Chronology  of  the  period  covered  by  the  generations 
 from  Salmon  to  David,  and  on  the  chronology  of 
 the  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 
 
 In  the  progress  of  these  enquiries  I  derived 
 much  incidental  and  indirect  support  to  the  con- 
 jectural emendations  of  1  Chron.  above  proposed, 
 and  the  identification  of  names,  because  I  became 
 acquainted  with  abundant  demonstrations  of  the 
 imperfection  of  the  Masoretic  Hebrew  text,  espe- 
 cially as  regards  proper  names  and  numbers.  So 
 that,  whereas  at  first  I  felt  doubtful  whether  it  were 
 lawful  to  propose  the  smallest  correction  of  the 
 text,  I  have  now  the  fullest  conviction  that  in  such 
 matters  as  names  and  numbers  the  text  in  many 
 places  absolutely  requires  correction.  Dr  Kenni- 
 cott  has  made  this  so  clear  and  so  certain  that  I 
 cannot  conceive  the  possibility  of  any  one  doubting 
 
Vlll  DEDICATION. 
 
 The  two  points  on  which  I  have  the  least  satis- 
 faction, are  the  contradiction  offered  to  the  chrono- 
 logical statement  of  St  Paul,  concerning  the  dura- 
 tion of  the  rule  of  the  J  udges,  and  the  considerable 
 alteration  suggested  as  to  the  arrangement  of  the 
 facts  recorded  in  the  Book  of  Judges.  I  do  not 
 feel  satisfied  by  the  observations  either  of  the  Bi- 
 shop of  Csesarea,  or  of  Thomas  Scott,  that  St  Paul 
 did  make  an  erroneous  statement,  though  it  is 
 merely  on  a  matter  of  chronology,  and  cannot  but 
 suspect  that  the  numbers  may  after  all  not  be  the 
 Apostle's,  but  inserted  by  some  other  hand.  And 
 as  regards  the  Book  of  Judges,  it  seems  to  me  that 
 much  still  remains  to  be  done  to  place  it  and  the 
 Book  of  Joshua  in  perfect  harmony  with  each  other, 
 and  with  that  historical  truth  which  they  seem  to 
 bear  witness  to,  but  in  a  disjointed  and  somewhat 
 confused  manner.  Whether  this  can  be  done  with- 
 out an  inspired  interpreter  may  be  doubtful;  but 
 I  trust  that  the  attempt  to  approach  such  an  end 
 has  nothing  in  it  inconsistent  with  reverence  and 
 love  for  the  inspired  Scriptures,  or  that  can  give 
 offence  to  the  Church  of  God. 
 
 You  at  least,  I  well  know,  will  read  my  book 
 with  indulgence  and  charity,  and  will  join  me  in  the 
 hearty  prayer  that  nothing  in  these  pages  may  be 
 
DEDICATION.  IX 
 
 prejudicial  to  the  great  interests  of  the  Gospel  of 
 Christ ;  but  that  rather,  by  God's  mercy  and  grace, 
 they  may  tend  to  the  elucidation  of  the  truth,  to 
 the  edifying  of  the  Church,  to  the  confirmation  of 
 Christ's  disciples,  to  the  conversion  of  the  Jews  to 
 their  Messiah,  the  Son  of  David  and  the  King  of 
 Israel,  and  to  the  promotion  of  the  glory  of  our 
 common  Master  and  Saviour  the  Lord  Jesus,  for 
 whose  Presence  and  Kingdom  we  are  waiting,  and 
 at  whose  hands  it  is  our  hope  that  we  may  receive 
 a  crown  of  righteousness  and  of  glory  which  fadeth 
 not  away. 
 
 Believe  me,  yours  affectionately, 
 
 ARTHUR  HERVEY. 
 
 ICKWORTH, 
 
 June  20th,  1853. 
 
 b2 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER  I. 
 
 Difficulties  and  importance  of  the  subject.      The  three 
 main  points  of  enquiry  stated p.  1 
 
 CHAPTER  II. 
 
 The  Genealogies  in  St  Matthew's  and  St  Luke^s  Gospels 
 shewn  to  he  both  the  Genealogies  of  Joseph     .      p.  5 
 
 Direct  proofs  of  this  from  Scripture.  All  the  incidental  notices  of 
 Jesus  as  the  Son  of  David  connected  with  his  being  the  son  of  Joseph. 
 Reasons  which  have  induced  learned  men  to  advocate  the  opposite 
 opinion.  Violent  wrestings  of  the  text  of  Scripture  by  which  such 
 views  have  been  supported.  These  rendered  unnecessary  by  the 
 interpretation  about  to  be  proposed. 
 
 CHAPTER  III. 
 
 The  principle  upon  luhich  these  Genealogies  are  framed. 
 
 p.  11 
 
 SECTION  I. 
 
 St  Matthew's  list  shewn  to  be  the  succession  to  David's  and  Solo- 
 mon's throne.  Reasons  why  it  cannot  be  the  list  of  Joseph's  direct 
 ancestors  :  (1)  Because  there  is  another  pedigree  given  by  St  Luke, 
 which  there  could  not  be  if  the  steps  of  Joseph's  ancestry  coincided 
 with  the  steps  of  the  succession.  (2)  Because  one  of  the  persons  in  St 
 Matthew's  list  was  childless.  Jer.  xxii.  29,  80,  considered.  The  in- 
 terpretation of  it  confirmed  by  Jer.  xxiii.  5,  6,  and  Isai.  xi.  1.  (3)  Re- 
 markable confirmation  of  this  view  from  the  fact  that  immediately 
 
Xll  CONTENTS. 
 
 after  that  person  said  to  be  childless,  the  two  Genealogies  coincide  for 
 three  or  four  generations.  The  principle  of  the  Genealogies,  there- 
 fore, shewn  to  be  that  Matthew  gives  the  succession  to  Solomon's 
 throne,  and  Luke  the  descent  from  David  through  Nathan.  Consist- 
 ency of  this  with  the  promises  to  David  and  Solomon  respectively. 
 
 SECTION  II. 
 
 Further  support  of  this  view :  (1)  From  the  accounts  preserved  by 
 Josephus  and  others,  of  the  method  in  which  the  Jewish  genealogies 
 were  kept,  both  public  and  private.  (2)  From  the  fact  that  we  have 
 several  double  genealogies  in  Scripture,  the  one  according  to  birth, 
 the  other  according  to  inheritance.  Instances  of  this :  Jair,  Caleb, — 
 the  sons  of  Zeruiah,  Amasa,  Ahlai,  &c.  (3)  By  the  names  in  the  lists 
 themselves,  from  which  it  may  be  inferred  that  Joseph  and  his 
 ancestors  in  St  Luke's  list  were  lineal  descendants  of  Nathan,  and 
 that  those  in  St  Matthew's  list,  subsequent  to  Jehoiachin,  while  they 
 also  were  descendants  of  Nathan,  were  adopted  into  the  line  of  Solo- 
 mon. 
 
 SECTION  in. 
 
 Three  chief  objections  answered,  by  shewing,  (1)  That  the  scheme 
 propounded  by  Africanus  has  no  authority  as  a  tradition,  nor  inti-insic 
 merit.  (2)  That  the  term  '  begat,'  used  by  St  Matthew,  by  no  means 
 necessarily  implies  paternity  in  the  strict  sense.  (3)  That  we  do  not 
 weaken  the  evidence  of  the  Virgin  Mary  being  of  the  lineage  of  David 
 by  our  scheme.     Proofs  that  she  was  so. 
 
 CHAPTER  IV. 
 
 The  Genealogies  reconciled  ivith  the  .  Genealogy  of  the 
 House  of  David  contained  in  the  Old  Testament, 
 as  far  as  regards  that  portion  of  them  which  syn- 
 chronizes with  it p.  G2 
 
 .    SECTION  I. 
 
 THE  GENEALOGY  OF  ST  MATTHEW  SHEWN  TO  AGREE  WITH  THE  OLD 
 TESTAMENT  GENEALOGIES  FROM  ABRAHAM  TO  JEHOIAKIM  AND 
 THE  CAPTIVITY. 
 
 I.    Comparison  of  the  names  in  St  Matthew  with  those  in  the 
 LXX.   from  Abraham  to  David.     Their  identity.      Chronological 
 
CONTENTS.  Xlll 
 
 difficulty  reserved  till  Chap.  ix.  Reasons  for  believing  that  St  Mat- 
 thew framed  his  list  from  some  existing  genealogy,  and  not  directly 
 from  Scripture.  (1)  St  Stephen  has  nearly  the  same  words  for  a 
 part  of  the  Genealogy,  which  does  not  occur  in  Scripture  in  the  shape 
 in  which  St  Matthew  gives  it.  (2)  The  mention  of  Rahab.  (3)  The 
 omission  of  several  kings.  (4)  The  necessity  for  consulting  such 
 Genealogy  for  the  times  after  the  close  of  the  canon.  Probable  source 
 of  St  Matthew's  information  concerning  Rahab. 
 
 II.  Comparison  of  the  names  in  St  Matthew  with  those  in  the 
 LXX.,  from  Solomon  to  Jehoiakim.  Resemblance  less  close  than  in 
 the  first  tesseradecade.  Division  into  fourteens.  Omission  of  three 
 kings :  reasons  of  this.  Omission  of  Jehoiakim.  The  first-named 
 Jechonias  proved  to  mean  Jehoiakim.  (1)  From  the  mention  of  his 
 brethren,  as  compared  with  1  Chron.  iii.  15.  (2)  Because  the  num- 
 ber 14  cannot  be  complete,  without  reckoning  Jehoiakim  in  the  first, 
 and  Jehoiachin  in  the  second  tesseradecade.  (3)  Because  he  was  be- 
 gotten by  Josiah,  though  not  at  the  time  of  the  Captivity.  Proof 
 from  these  words  that  a  clause  has  fallen  out  of  the  text.  (4)  From 
 the  constant  confusion  in  the  Apocryphal  bfioks,  and  in  the  fathers, 
 between  the  two  names.  Instances  of  this.  Conjectural  emendation 
 of  the  text. 
 
 SECTION  II. 
 
 THE  GENEALOGY  OF  ST  LUKE  AGREES  WITH  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 
 GENEALOGIES  EROJI  ADAM  TO  ABRAHAJI. 
 
 St  Luke's  genealogy  as  traced  from  Adam  in  harmony  with  the 
 scope  of  his  Gospel.  No  evidence  from  this  circumstance  that  he 
 gives  the  genealogy  of  IVIary.  Descent  from  Nathan  shews  the  ful- 
 filment of  the  promise  to  David  :  that  from  Adam,  that  Jesus  was 
 the  Saviour  of  the  whole  world.  Agreement  of  St  Luke's  list  with 
 Old  Testament,  except  in  the  insertion  of  the  second  Cainan.  Shewn 
 by  placing  names  in  St  Luke,  the  Septuagint,  and  the  English  Version  of 
 the  Hebrew,  side  by  side.  Difficult  questions  arising  from  the  dis- 
 crepancies between  Hebrew  text  and  LXX.  Consideration  of  the 
 second  Cainan  reseiTed  to  Ch.  vni.  True  age  of  Terah  when  he 
 begat  Abram.  Abram  not  his  eldest  son.  Opinions  of  Petavius  and 
 Usher. 
 
 SECTION  III. 
 
 ST  LUKE'S   genealogy  agrees  with  the    old   TESTAMENT    GENEALO- 
 GIES FROM  ABRAHAM  TO  DAVID. 
 
 Juxtaposition  of  St  Luke's  list,  LXX.,  and  English  Version  of 
 Hebrew  Text. 
 
XIV  CONTENTS. 
 
 SECTION  IV. 
 
 THE  GENEALOGY  ACCORDING  TO  ST  LUKE  FROM  DAVID  TO  NERI. 
 
 Number  of  generations  21,  agrees  with  the  number  in  Solomon's 
 line,  as  given  in  Old  Testament,  viz.  19.  More  numerous  than  one 
 Avould  expect  in  the  period  of  years  ;  being  only  23  years  to  a  gene- 
 ration. Strange  contrast  in  the  number  of  generations  from  Nahshon 
 to  David,  for  about  an  equal  space  of  time,  according  to  received 
 chronology.  Error  in  the  Chronology  shewn  in  Ch.  ix.  Numerous 
 generations  accounted  for  by  early  marriages  of  the  kings.  St  Luke 
 consulted  private  genealogical  tables.  Explanation  of  the  names. 
 Evidence  of  particular  fashions  prevailing  at  different  times.  Appa- 
 rent corruption  of  several  of  these  names,  an  evidence  of  the  sub- 
 stantial genuineness  and  antiquity  of  the  pedigree. 
 
 SECTION  V. 
 
 AGREEMENT  OF-THE  GOSPEL  GENEALOGIES  WITH  THOSE  OF  THE  OLD 
 TESTAMENT,  FROM  THE  CAPTIVITY  TO  THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  CANON 
 OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 
 
 Great  obscurity  in  which  this  part  of  the  subject  has  hitherto 
 been  involved.  Utter  failure  of  all  attempts  to  identify  the  ancestors 
 of  Christ  in  either  of  the  Gospels  with  the  descendants  of  Zerubbabel 
 in  the  Old  Testament.  Incredible  that  the  ancestors  of  Christ  should 
 have  been  omitted  in  the  record  of  the  remnant  of  the  House  of 
 David  in  1  Chron.  iii.  Double  names  a  most  unsatisfactory  expedient, 
 without  a  clue  to  connect  them.  Juxtaposition  of  the  lists,  of  St 
 Matthew,  St  Luke,  and  1  Chron.  iii.  Salathiel  she\\n  to  be  really 
 the  son  of  Neri,  as  St  Luke  says  ;  but  being  Jechoniah's  heir,  is,  by  St 
 Alatthew  and  the  author  of  1  Chronicles,  said  •  to  be  his  son.  Sala- 
 thiel's  brothers,  one  of  whom  was  Pedaiah  the  father  of  Zerubbabel, 
 also  reckoned  as  sons  of  Jechoniah.  Who  Assir  was.  No  posterity 
 assigned  in  1  Chron.  iii.  to  Salathiel,  which  accovints  for  his  nephew 
 Zerubbabel  being  called  his  son.  Perplexity  caused  by  finding  that 
 though  six  generations  of  Zerubbabel's  descendants  seem  to  be  given, 
 it  is  impossible  to  identify  any  one  of  them  with  any  one  of  our 
 Lord's  ancestors  of  the  corresponding  generation.  Further  strange- 
 ness that  so  many  generations  should  be  given  at  all,  reaching  after 
 the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great.  LXX.  make  10  or  11,  or  200  j'ears 
 after  close  of  canon.  No  posterity  assigned  to  Shimei  the  brother  of 
 Zerubbabel.  Strangeness  of  this,  considering  Zech.  xii.  10 — 14. 
 Anachronism  involved  in  Hattush  being  the  5th  or  Gth,  much  more 
 
CONTENTS.  XV 
 
 10th  or  11th  from  Zerabbabel,  and  yet  coming  up  with  Ezra.  Fur- 
 ther evidence  that  the  text  of  1  Chron.  iii.  is  corrupt.  Correction  pro- 
 posed. Shemaiah  in  ver.  22,  identified  with  Shimei  of  ver.  19.  Origin 
 of  the  error  explained.  Immediate  removal  of  all  the  difficulties  and 
 anachronisms  by  this  correction;  and  specially  each  generation  in 
 1  Chron.  iii.  identified  with  one  of  our  Lord's  ancestors  in  the  corre- 
 sponding generation.  Excess  in  the  number  of  generations  in  St 
 Luke.  One  too  many  between  Zerubbabel  and  Christ.  Strangeness 
 of  the  name  Rhesa.  Shewn  to  be  no  proper  name  in  Hebrew,  but  a 
 Chaldee  appellative,  and  the  title  of  the  Prince  of  the  Captivity.  Its 
 insertion  into  the  text  accounted  for.  Juxtaposition  of  the  Genealogy 
 of  St  Luke  as  emended  by  the  rejection  of  Rhesa — of  that  of  St  IVIat- 
 thew, — and  of  1  Chron.  iii.  19 — 24,  as  according  to  proposed  emendation. 
 Joanna  shewn  to  be  identical  with  Hananiah,  and  Juda  and  Abiud 
 with  Hodaiah.  How  Hodaiah  was  the  son  of  Hananiah.  Perfect 
 harmony  resulting  between  the  Genealogies  of  the  Old  Testament 
 and  those  of  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke  from  the  Captivity  to  the  close 
 of  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament. 
 
 CHAPTER  V. 
 
 Harmony  of  the  Genealogies  of  St  Matthew  and  St 
 Luke  for  the  times  subsequent  to  the  closing  of  the 
 Canon  of  the  Old  Testament       ....     p.  128 
 
 Separation  of  the  lines  after  coinciding  for  four  generations,  as 
 above  shewn.  Continue  separate  for  thirteen  generations,  that  in  St 
 Matthew  being  derived  from  the  eldest  son  of  Abiud  or  Judah, 
 named  Eliakim  ;  that  in  St  Luke,  from  a  younger  son  named  Joseph. 
 Coalesce  again  in  Matthan  or  Matthat.  Jacob  and  Heli  his  two  sons. 
 Jacob,  the  father  of  the  Virgin.  Heli,  the  father  of  Joseph.  Joseph, 
 according  to  Jewish  custom,  marries  his  cousin,  and  is  his  uncle's  heir 
 and  successor  in  the  royal  dignity ;  therefore  said  to  be  begotten  of  him. 
 Several  generations  omitted  by  St  Matthew.  Nineteen  the  number  in 
 St  Luke  without  Rhesa,  exactly  the  right  number.  Internal  evi- 
 dence, from  the  names  themselves,  of  genuineness  of  the  Genealogy- 
 Analysis  and  explanation  of  the  names  in  St  Matthew.  Also  of  those 
 in  St  Luke.  Remarkable  accordance  of  the  names  in  the  two  Genea- 
 logies with  the  names  of  the  house  of  David  in  the  Old  Testament, 
 and  those  of  our  Lord's  kindred  named  in  the  New  Testament.  Ar- 
 gument dra^vn  from  these  undesigned  coincidences  in  favour  of  the 
 truth  of  the  Gospel  Genealogies. 
 
XVI  CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER  VI. 
 
 Classification  of  names  most   common  in  the  House  of 
 David  under  their  common  Boots     ...     p.  141 
 
 Custom  of  Jewish  families  to  repeat  ancestral  names.  Instance 
 in  Luke  i.  59 — 63.  Not  only  identical  names  repeated,  but  various 
 forms  of  tlie  same  root,  and  different  compositions  of  same  or  similar 
 elements.     Instances. 
 
 Examples  of  sets  of  names  in  the  House  of  David,  in  which  the 
 same  root  occurs.  Examples  of  repetition  of  the  same  name,  or  the 
 same  root  variously  modified,  in  other  families.  Adoption  of  royal 
 names  by  the  house  of  Jehu.  Pious  Jews  loved  to  derive  their  names 
 from  expressions  in  psalms  and  hymns.  Use  of  the  observation  in 
 leading  to  the  right  explanation  of  certain  names. 
 
 CHAPTER  VII. 
 
 Further  evidence  that  the  Shimei  of  Zech.  xii.  13,  is  the 
 person  mentioned  in  1  Cliron.  iii.  19  .      .      p.  160 
 
 Recapitulation  of  former  argument  concerning  Shimei  in  1  Chron. 
 iii.  Zech.  xii.  considered.  Reasons  for  believing  that  the  Shimei 
 there  named  was  alive  at  the  time  of  the  prophecy  being  delivered, 
 and  was  of  the  house  of  Da^id.  The  order  in  which  the  names  are 
 mentioned,  accounted  for.  Shimei  concluded  to  be  Zembbabel's 
 brother.  Confirmation  of  this  opinion  from  Jer.  xxxiii.  Strong  ad- 
 ditional argument  in  favour  of  the  proposed  emendation  of  1  Chron. 
 iii.  22,  drawn  from  hence.  Remarkable  literal  fulfilment  of  Zech.  xii. 
 as  regards  the  descendants  of  Shimei,  in  Luke  xxiii.  48,  49. 
 
 CHAPTER  VIII. 
 
 On  the  second  Cainan p.  168 
 
 Arguments  in  favour  of  his  genuineness  in  the  Gospel  of  St  Luke : 
 from  the  consent  of  MSS.,  of  the  Versions,  and  of  the  Fathers.  Ditto 
 as  regards  the  Old  Testament  from  MSS.  and  editions  of  the  LXX., 
 from  the  IlexapJa  of  Origen,  from  the  Old  Latin  Version,  from  De- 
 metrius, from  the  Fathers.  Arguments  against  his  genuineness  in 
 the  Old  Testament,  from  his  uniform  exclusion  from  the   Hebrew, 
 
CONTENTS.  XVll 
 
 Samaritan,  Clialdee  and  Syriac  versions.  Proofs  that  his  intrusion 
 into  the  LXX.  is  modem,  from  the  Vatican  MS,,  from  the  Armenian 
 Version,  from  Josephus,  from  Philo,  from  Theophilus  Bishop  of  An- 
 tioch,  from  Africanus,  from  Irenaeus,  from  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
 from  Origen,  from  Eusebius,  from  Epiphanius.  Passages  in  Epipha- 
 nius  of  a  contrary  tendency  shewn  to  be  interpolated.  If  he  did  see 
 any  copies  of  LXX.  with  Cainan,  probably  African  copies.  Further 
 proofs  that  Cainan  was  not  in  old  copies  of  LXX.,  nor  in  Origen's 
 Hexapla,  from  Jerome.  Cainan  was  in  Jerome's  copies  of  St  Luke. 
 Confirmation  of  the  opinion  that  Cainan  got  into  St  Luke's  Gospel 
 •first,  and  from  thence  into  the  LXX.  Argument  from  the  fact  that 
 he  was  both  in  the  Latin  Version  of  the  LXX.,  and  in  St  Luke, 
 as  used  by  Augustine,  to  shew  that  the  interpolation  of  Cainan 
 began  in  African  copies.  Arguments  against  his  genuineness  in 
 St  Luke's  Gospel,  from  Beza's  MS.,  from  Irenaeus,  from  proba- 
 bihty.  Inconclusiveness  of  argument  in  favour  of  his  genuineness 
 from  the  consent  of  versions,  from  alterations  made  in  several  of 
 them.  Review  of  the  conflicting  evidence.  Cogency  and  certainty 
 of  that  against  his  genuineness.  Vagueness  and  inconclusiveness  of 
 that  in  favour  of  it.  Internal  evidences  against  it.  Conclusion,  that 
 Cainan  has  no  right  to  a  place  among  the  ancestors  of  Christ. 
 
 CHAPTER  IX. 
 
 On  the  discordance  between  the  Genealogy  from  Sal- 
 mon to  David,  and  the  received  Chronology  of  the 
 corresponding  period p.  204 
 
 Value  of  authentic  Genealogies  for  chronological  purposes.  Fixed 
 laws  of  Genealogies.  Accuracy  of  Scriptural  ditto.  Discordance  of  that 
 in  Ruth  iv.  18 — 22,  with  the  chronology  of  the  period.  Attempts  to 
 reconcile  them  by  extending  the  number  of  generations  between 
 Nahshon  and  David.  Reasons  against  this  mode,  of  which  the  most 
 conclusive  is,  that  there  are  several  other  Genealogies  covering  the 
 same  interval  of  time,  all  of  which  correspond  with  that  of  David,  or 
 nearly  so.  Instances  given.  Necessity  of  enquiry  whether  Chrono- 
 logy is  not  at  fault.  Sources  of  the  Chronology  of  the  period  in  ques- 
 tion. Separate  consideration  of  each  of  these.  (1)  Of  the  periods  of 
 rest  and  war  under  Judges.  The  sum  of  these  cannot  give  the  right 
 number  of  years.  Reasons  for  contracting  the  number  of  years.  Un- 
 certainty of  the  numerals.  Systems  of  the  ancient  chronologists  built 
 solely  upon  the  numbers  in  Scripture.  Discordance  of  the  different 
 dates  for  this  period.  Other  circumstances  which  make  it  probable 
 that  the  books  of  Joshua  and  Judges  have  fallen  into  some  confu- 
 
XVlll  CONTENTS. 
 
 sion.  Evident  that  several  of  the  narratives  synchronizcj  and  that 
 several  of  the  events  narrated  in  the  later  parts  of  the  book  of  Judges 
 happened  soon  after  tlie  entrance  into  Canaan.  (2)  Of  three  specific 
 dates  in  Judg.  xi.  26,  1  Kings  vi.  1,  and  Acts  xiii.  20.  The  'three 
 hundred  years'  in  Judg.  xi.  2C,  shewn  to  be  a  mistake  for  300  cities. 
 Corroboration  of  this  from  Jephthah  being  the  son  of  Gilead.  Cliro- 
 nological  difficulty  considered.  Further  corroboration  from  Jair. 
 Difficulties  confessed.  The  date  in  1  Kings  vi.  utterly  irreconcileable 
 with  that  in  Acts  xiii.  Different  reading  in  the  LXX.  This  number 
 of  480  probably  founded  on  the  mistake  about  the  300  years  in 
 Judges.  The  original  number  perhaps  280.  St  Paul's  statement 
 in  Acts  xiii.,  if  genuine,  merely  an  adoption  of  tlie  current  system  of 
 Chronology  among  the  Jews  of  his  day.  Opinion  of  Scott,  and  of 
 Eusebius.  Internal  evidence  of  the  shortness  of  the  period  between 
 Joshua  and  David.  Absence  of  any  mark  of  a  long  time,  as  opposed 
 to  numerous  marks  of  a  short  time,  as  the  descent  of  Jonathan  the 
 grandson  of  Moses,  and  the  fact  of  Phinehas  being  still  alive  at  the 
 close  of  the  book  of  Judges.  The  genealogy  of  Abimelech,  of  Boaz, 
 of  Elkanah,  and  the  fact  of  no  High  Priest  being  named  between 
 Phinehas  and  Eli.  Relative  condition  of  neighbouring  nations  the 
 same  throughout  the  period.  Other  internal  marks  of  the  short- 
 ness of  the  period.  The  period  shewn  from  the  Genealogies  to 
 be  about  240  years,  which  would  give  48  years  to  a  generation 
 for  the  shorter  genealogy  of  David,  and  agrees  with  the  conjectural 
 emendation  of  1  Kings  vi.  Tlie  events  related  in  the  books  of  Judges 
 and  Samuel  shewn  to  be  well  capable  of  compression  within  this 
 space.  Remarkable  confirmations  of  this  scheme,  (which  brings  the 
 Exodus  dowTi  about  200  years  later)  from  Egyptian  history  and  chro- 
 nology. Conclusion  that  this  part  of  the  Genealogy  is  consistent  with 
 historical  probability  and  the  laws  of  nature. 
 
 CHAPTER  X.     . 
 
 Genealogy  of  the  High  Priests p.  277 
 
 Genealogy  from  Levi  to  Jaddua.  This  stem,  even  if  complete, 
 does  not  necessarily  compi-ise  all  the  High  Priests,  or  contain  none 
 but  High  Priests.  Which  of  them,  and  who  besides  them,  were 
 High  Priests,  to  be  learnt  from  the  parallel  history.  Examination  of 
 names  in  the  Genealogy ;  verification  of  those  who  certainly  were 
 High  Priests ;  insertion  of  names  of  others  known  to  have  filled  the 
 office.  Eli  possibly  successor  to  Phinehas.  High  Priests  of  the  house 
 of  Ithamar.  Mistakes  about  Abiathar  and  Ahimelech.  Mark  ii.  25, 
 26  considered.  Community  of  names  in  the  houses  of  Eleazar  and 
 Ithamar.     Zadok,  David's,   not  Solomon's  contemporary.    Azariah, 
 
CONTENTS.  XIX 
 
 High  Priest  at  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  temple.  Impossibility  of 
 applying  the  words  in  1  Chron.  vi.  10  to  the  Azariah  in  Uzziah's 
 reign,  on  several  accounts.  Spuriousness  of  Zadok  and  Aliitub. 
 Absence  of  Jehoiada  and  Zechariah  from  the  list.  Azariah  and  Uri- 
 jah  inserted  from  the  history.  Great  gap  in  the  genealogy  between 
 Amariah  and  Shallum.  High  Priests  from  Hilkiah  to  Jaddua.  Aza- 
 riah probably  misplaced,  causes  which  led  to  this.  Summing  up  of 
 Scriptural  evidence  on  the  subject.  Josephus's  list.  Corruption  of  it, 
 causes  of  this  corruption.  Similar  effects  from  same  causes  in  the 
 Seder  01am.  Correction  of  the  corruptions  in  Josephus.  Only  one 
 genuine  name  added  by  Josephus  to  the  Scriptural  list,  and  even  that 
 doubtful.  The  Seder  01am  and  Nicephorus.  Tabular  view  of  the 
 Kings  of  Judah  and  the  High  Priests.  Result  of  the  investigation 
 as  regards  the  number  of  High  Priests,  and  the  agreement  with 
 the  number  of  kings.  Possible  causes  of  the  gap  in  the  Genealogy. 
 Recapitulation. 
 
 CHAPTER  XL 
 
 Chronology  of  the  books   of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  with 
 reference  to  the  age  of  Hattush   ...      .p.  307 
 
 Dependence  of  the  previous  argument  concerning  Hattush  upon 
 the  identification  of  the  Persian  monarchs  named  in  Scripture.  Inter- 
 pretation of  Dr  Mill,  following  the  opinion  of  Hottinger  and  others, 
 supported  by  him  from  the  present  text  of  1  Chron.  iii.  22.  Who  the 
 Darius  of  Ezra,  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  is.  Reasons  for  being  sure  he 
 was  Darius  Hystaspes,  from  the  ages  of  Jeshua,  Zerubbabel,  and  those 
 who  had  seen  the  first  temple,  and  yet  lived  to  see  the  second  also,  as 
 is  positively  asserted  in  Hagg.  ii.  2,  3;  from  the  necessity  of  his  suc- 
 cessor Artaxerxes  meaning  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  because  Eliashib, 
 Jeshua's  grandson,  could  not  have  flourished  under  Artaxerxes  Mne- 
 mon,  but  would  naturally  flourish  under  Longimanus.  Four  objec- 
 tions urged  against  this  scheme,  given  in  Dr  Mill's  words,  and  con- 
 sidered one  by  one.  (1)  That  the  succession  of  the  Persian  kings 
 named  in  Ezra  iv.  5 — 8,  and  whom  the  Zendic  monuments  oblige  us 
 to  consider  as  Xerxes,  Artaxerxes,  and  Darius  Nothus,  can  only 
 accord  with  the  hypothesis,  that  Darius,  in  whose  reign  the  temple 
 was  rebuilt,  was  Darius  Nothus.  Assent  to  the  principle  of  under- 
 standing those  kings  to  be  meant  which  the  names  indicate.  Any 
 other  interpretation  unsatisfactory.  Explanation  of  Ezra  iv.  From 
 ver.  6  to  ver.  23  a  parenthesis,  probably  inserted  by  Ezra  by  way  of 
 explanation.  Proofs  of  the  truth  of  this  hypothesis.  Further  proof 
 from  the  sudden  commfencement  of  the  Chaldee  at  ver.  8.     Continua- 
 
XX  CONTENTS. 
 
 tion  of  the  Chaldee  beyond  the  parenthetical  passage,  accounted  for. 
 Further  confirmation  of  this  hypothesis  from  Ezra  vi.  14.  Removal 
 of  the  first  objection.  (2)  The  age  of  Hattush.  Tliis  objection 
 already  removed  by  the  correction  of  1  Chron.  iii.  (3)  From  the  cii-- 
 cumstance  of  Sanballat  having  headed  the  Samaritans  in  the  time  of 
 Alexander  the  Great.  The  story  shewn  to  rest  upon  the  sole  autho- 
 rity of  Josephus,  and  to  be  a  blunder  of  his.  Proofs  of  this.  Other 
 gross  errors  'of  Josephus  in  this  part  of  his  history.  That  he  con- 
 founded Darius  Nothus  with  Darius  Codomanus.  Quotation  from 
 Prideaux.  (4)  From  the  impossibility  of  interpreting  the  Seventy 
 Weeks  of  Daniel,  unless  they  begin  in  the  2nd  year  of  Darius  Nothus, 
 and  terminate  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  That  the  weeks 
 cannot  terminate  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  but  must  termi- 
 nate at  the  Crucifixion.  Proofs  of  this.  The  ceasing  of  the  Sacri- 
 fice and  Oblation  explained.  That  neither  can  they  commence 
 from  the  decree  of  Darius,  but  must  commence  from  some  decree 
 for  rebuilding  the  walls  of  Jerusalem.  No  such  decree  before  the 
 20th  of  Artaxerxes.  But  in  that  year  a  decree  was  given  for  that 
 very  purpose.  Proofs  of  this.  That  the  wall  was  built  in  troublous 
 times.  The  20th  of  Artaxerxes  undoubtedly  the  beginning  of  the 
 Seventy  Weeks.  In  what  year  b.c.  the  20th  of  Artaxerxes  fell ;  and 
 how  many  years  elapsed  to  the  Crucifixion.  Deficiency  of  eight  years. 
 Uncertainty  of  Chronology.  Different  ways  of  explaining  this  defici- 
 ency. Method  of  Usher  and  Petavius.  Another  explanation  proposed. 
 The  first  week,  no  more  than  the  last,  need  be  a  complete  week.  The 
 year  445  b.c.  the  6th  year  of  the  week  of  years.  Consequently  the 
 deficiency  reduced  to  three  years.  Divers  ways  of  accounting  for  this. 
 Conclusion  that  this  is  the  true  interpretation  of  Daniel  ix.,  and  the 
 last  of  the  four  obj  ections  is  removed  also.  That  Darius  does  mean 
 Darius  Hystaspes-    Africanus's  interpretation  of  the  weeks. 
 
 CHAPTER  XII.   . 
 Concluding  Chapter p.  343 
 
 Recapitulation.  INIajesty  and  truth  of  the  Word  of  God.  God's 
 providential  care  of  the  Scriptures.  Proper  function  of  human  skill 
 and  criticism.  Conjectural  emendations.  Appeals  to  reason  and 
 common  sense  not  to  be  confounded  with  a  rationalistic  spirit.  Truth, 
 neither  more  nor  less,  the  proper  object  of  man's  aim.  Truth  never 
 endangered  by  truth.     Conclusion. 
 
LIST  OF  BOOKS  MADE  USE  OF  IN  PREPAIIING 
 THIS  WORK. 
 
 Van  der  Hooght's  Hebrew  Bible. 
 
 Kennicott's  ditto. 
 
 Walton's  Polyglott  and  Prolego- 
 mena. 
 
 Septuagint. 
 
 Greek  Testament. 
 
 Ulfilas'  Gothic  Bible. 
 
 Vulgate. 
 
 English  Bible. 
 
 Evangelia  Apocrypha  (Tischen- 
 dorf). 
 
 Critici  Sacri. 
 
 Poole's  Synopsis. 
 
 Maldonati  Commentarium. 
 
 D.  Bened.  Aretii  Comment. 
 
 Vatabli  Biblia  Latina. 
 
 Kennicott's  Dissertations  on  the 
 Hebrew  Text. 
 
 Kennicott's  Sermons. 
 
 Rosenmiiller's  Scholia  in  Vet.Test. 
 
 Scott's  Bible. 
 
 D'Oyly  and  Mant's  Bible. 
 
 Dr  Adam  Clarke's  Bible. 
 
 Bengelii  Gnomon  Nov.  Test. 
 
 MiU's  Greek  Testament. 
 
 Alford's  Greek  Testament. 
 
 Fiirst's  Concordance  to  the  Heb. 
 Bible. 
 
 Simonis  Onomasticon. 
 
 Calmet's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 
 
 Kitto's  Biblical  Cyclopaedia. 
 
 Home's  Introduction  to  the  Study 
 of  the  Scriptures. 
 
 Hug's  Introduction  to  the  New 
 Testament. 
 
 CeilUer's  Auteurs  Ecclesiastiques. 
 
 Biographic  Universelle. 
 
 Wolf's  Bibliotheca  Hebrsea. 
 
 Routh's  Reliquiae  Sacrse. 
 
 Origenis  Opera.     (Delarue). 
 
 Irensei  Opera.     (Bened.  Edit.) 
 
 Eusebii  Pamphili  Ecclesiast.  His- 
 toria.     (Edit.  Valesii). 
 
 Eusebii  Prteparatio  Evangelica. 
 (Cologne  Edit.). 
 
 Eusebii  Chronici  Canones.  (Edit. 
 Mediol.). 
 
 Epiphanii  Opera.    (Petavius). 
 
 Hieronymi  Opera.  (Bened.  Edit.). 
 
 Augustini  Hippon.  Opera.  (Be- 
 ned. Edit.). 
 
 Gregorii  Nazianz. Opera.  (Morell). 
 
 Chrysostom's  Homilies.  (Oxford 
 Translation). 
 
 Procopii  Gazaei  Opera.     (Latine). 
 
 Josephi  Opera.     (Oberthur). 
 
 Whiston's  Josephus. 
 
 Annii  Viterbensis  Opera. 
 
 Archbp.  Usher's  Works. 
 
 Petavii  Opera. 
 
 Scaliger  (Joseph)  de  Emendatione 
 Temporum. 
 
 Scaligeri  Thesaurus  Temporum. 
 
 Jackson's  Chronological  Antiqui- 
 ties. 
 
 Hale's  Analysis  of  Chronology. 
 
 Clayton's  Chronology  of  the  He- 
 brew Bible. 
 
 Dr  Brett's  Chronological  Essay 
 on  the  Sacred  History. 
 
 Tho.  Allen's  Chain  of  Scripture 
 Chronology. 
 
 Bosanquet's  Chronology  of  the 
 Times  of  Ezra,  &c. 
 
 Prideaux's  Connexion. 
 
 Shuckford's  Connexion. 
 
 Hottinger's  Pentas  Dissertatio- 
 num. 
 
XXll 
 
 LIST  OF  BOOKS  USED  FOR  THIS  WOllK. 
 
 Hofctinger's  Dissertationes  duae  de 
 Genealogia  Christi. 
 
 Hayes'  Critical  Examination  of 
 the  Holy  Gospels. 
 
 Heidigger's  Historia  Patriarcha- 
 rum. 
 
 Seldeni  Opera. 
 
 Bocharti  Opera. 
 
 Liglitfoot's  Works. 
 
 Bunsen's  Egypt's  Place  in  Uni- 
 versal History. 
 
 Wilkinson's  Manners  and  Cus- 
 toms of  the  Egyptians. 
 
 Lepsius's  Letters  on  Egypt  and 
 Ethiopia,  &c.     (Bohn). 
 
 Layard's  Nineveh  and  Babylon. 
 
 Benjamin  of  Tudela's  Itinerary. 
 (Asher). 
 
 Basnage,  Histoire  des  Juifs. 
 
 Jost's  Geschichte  der  Israeliten. 
 
 Milman's  History  of  the  Jews. 
 
 G.  J.  Vossii  Dissertatio  de  Jesu 
 Christi  Genealogia. 
 
 Gomarus  de  Genealogia  Christi. 
 
 Bishop  Cowper'a  Works. 
 
 South's  Sermon  on  the  Lineal 
 Descent  of  Christ. 
 
 Yardley  on  the  Genealogies  of 
 Jesus  Christ. 
 
 Benliam's  Reflections  on  the  Ge- 
 nealogy. 
 
 Beeston  on  the  Genealogies, 
 
 Dr  Mill's  Vindication  of  the  Ge- 
 nealogies. 
 
 Burrington's  Genealogical  Tables. 
 
 Two  beautiful  MS.  Genealogical 
 charts  by  Mr  Bailey  of  Thet- 
 ford. 
 
 British  Magazine,  July  IBS 4, 
 '  The  Genealogies,  &c.' 
 
 An  article  by  F.  Delitzsch, '  tJ  ber 
 die  beiden  Geschlechtsregister 
 J.  Ch.'  in  the  Zeitschrift  fiir  die 
 gesamnite  Lutherische  Theo- 
 logie,  &c.  Viertes  Quartalheft, 
 1850. 
 
 Sermon  by  Rev.  W.  Fremantle : 
 The  Crucifixion  a  proof  that 
 Jesus  is  the  King  of  the 
 Jews. 
 
THE   GENEALOGY 
 
 OUR  LOED  AND  SAVIOUR,  JESUS  CHRIST. 
 
 CHAPTER  I. 
 
 Difficulty  and  importance  of  the  subject.     The  three 
 main  questions  to  he  solved. 
 
 rpHE  genealogy  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  given 
 -*-  by  the  evangelists  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke, 
 has  been  a  subject  of  acknowledged  difficulty  and 
 perplexity  to  commentators  from  the  earliest  days 
 of  Christianity.  Nor  are  the  difficulties  of  one 
 kind  only,  or  confined  to  one  gospel.  They  are, 
 on  the  contrary,  manifold  and  multiform.  They 
 attach  to  the  principle  as  well  as  to  the  details  of 
 the  statements.  They  comprise  questions  of  his- 
 tory, of  chronology,  of  law,  ofgrammar,  of  criticism, 
 of  agreement  between  inspired  writers,  of  harmony 
 between  the  Old  and  New  Testament;  in  short,  they 
 are  difficulties  of  every  kind  which  can  beset  a  pas- 
 sage of  Scripture.  But  though  the  most  learned 
 and  able  of  the  fathers  and  doctors  of  the  Church 
 in  all  ages  have  laboured  to  the  utmost  to  disen- 
 tangle these  perplexities,  and  have  in  some  points 
 
 1 
 
2  DIFFICULTY  AND  IMPORTANCE  [CH. 
 
 laboured  successfully,  still  the  subject  continues  to 
 be  involved  in  very  considerable  obscurity,  and 
 there  is,  consequently,  still  a  great  diversity  of 
 opinion  about  it.  And  yet  it  must  be  confessed 
 that  it  is  one  of  great  interest  and  importance :  not 
 only  because  it  is  always  important  to  vindicate 
 the  accuracy  of  the  inspired  writers,  and  their 
 agreement  with  each  other,  but  because  the  truth 
 of  the  claims  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  to  be  the 
 Christ,  and  the  heir  of  David's  throne,  rests  in 
 great  measure  upon  the  genealogies,  upon  their 
 accuracy  and  their  truth.  If  He  had  not  been 
 of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh  He  could 
 not  have  been  entitled  to  '  the  throne  of  His  father 
 David,'  (Luke  i.  32),  nor  could  He  have  been  what 
 Pilate  described  Him  to  be  in  that  trilingual  in- 
 scription which  he  affixed  to  the  cross,  THE  KING 
 OF  THE  JEWS.  It  seems  evident  too  that  the 
 genealogies  were  inserted  in  the  Gospels  in  order 
 to  establish,  on  indisputable  ground,  the  truth  of 
 His  descent  from  David,  and  His  right  to  David's 
 throne,  within  the  provisions  of  the  promise  made 
 to  David  by  God  (Ps.  cxxxii.  11).  It  must  there- 
 fore be  our  duty,  as  far  as  we  are  able,  to  make 
 the  genealogies  intelligible  to  ourselves  and  others, 
 that  they  may  answer  the  purpose  for  which  we 
 believe  them  to  have  been  inscribed  in  the  Book 
 of  Truth.  Especially  with  reference  to  the  con- 
 version of  the  Jews  to  the  faith  of  Christ,  does  it 
 seem  to  be  a  matter  of  vital  importance  to  exhibit 
 the  genealogies  of  Jesus  in  the  New  Testament  as 
 
I.]  OF  THE  SUBJECT.  3 
 
 in  accordance  with  those  of  the  house  of  David  in 
 the  Old,  as  in  harmony  with  each  other,  and  as 
 in  agreement  with  the  laws  and  customs  of  the 
 Jewish  people. 
 
 It  is  the  object  of  the  following  pages  to  dis- 
 cover a  solution  of  the  chief  difficulties.  And  the 
 author  is  not  without  hope  that  under  God's  bless- 
 ing, partly  by  availing  himself  of  the  most  sound 
 and  judicious  explanations  of  former  writers,  and 
 partly  by  some  new  matter  which  has  been  the 
 result  of  his  own  investigations,  he  may  be  enabled 
 to  lead  his  readers  to  some  degree  of  satisfaction 
 on  this  hitherto  perplexing  subject.  May  the  Name 
 of  Jesus  Christ  be  glorified ! 
 
 The  most  important  questions  which  have  to 
 be  solved  in  the  first  instance,  by  those  who  desire 
 to  understand  the  genealogy  of  Christ,  are  the 
 following : 
 
 I.  Are  the  genealogies  in  St  Matthew's  and  in 
 St  Luke's  gospels  both  genealogies  of  Joseph,  or 
 is  one  the  genealogy  of  Joseph,  and  the  other 
 that  of  Mary ;  and  if  so,  which  is  the  genealogy 
 of  which? 
 
 II.  If  these  genealogies  are  both  Joseph's, 
 upon  what  principle  are  they  composed,  and 
 whence  does  it  happen  that  one  is  traced  through 
 Solomon,  and  the  other  through  Nathan,  and  yet 
 that  both  are  traced  through  Zerubbabel  and 
 Salathiel? 
 
 1—2 
 
4  THREE  MAIN  QUESTIONS  TO  BE  SOLVED.  [CH.I.] 
 
 III.  Can  either  or  of  both  these  genealogies  be 
 reconciled  with  the  genealogy  of  the  house  of 
 David  given  in  the  Old  Testament,  especially  in 
 1  Chron.  iii.,  as  far  as  regards  that  portion  of  them 
 which  synchronizes  with  it  ? 
 
 When  these  main  points  shall  have  been  settled, 
 other  subordinate  ones  may  come  under  consider- 
 ation. 
 
CHAPTER  II. 
 
 The  Genealogies  in  St  Matthews  and  St  Lukes 
 Gospels  shewn  to  he  both  the  Genealogies  of 
 Joseph. 
 
 AS  regards  the  first  question,  I  will  at  once  state 
 my  thorough  conviction,  that  both  St  Matthew 
 and  St  Luke  trace  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  Christ 
 through  Joseph  his  reputed  father.  That  we  should 
 rather  have  expected  our  Lord's  descent  to  be 
 given  through  His  only  real  human  parent,  His 
 Virgin  Mother,  may  be  perfectly  true;  and  it  may 
 be  that  we  cannot  fully  account  for  the  reasons 
 which,  while  they  caused  two  distinct  genealogies 
 of  Joseph  to  be  preserved  to  the  Church,  caused 
 the  lineage  of  Mary  to  be  suppressed,  or  rather  to 
 be  only  given  by  implication.  For  that  had  it 
 seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  to  give  us  in  ex- 
 press terms  the  lineage  of  Mary,  it  might  have 
 been  done  without  any  deviation  from  Jewish  or 
 scriptural  custom,  is  most  certain.  By  the  same 
 method  by  which  we  are  informed  of  the  lineage  of 
 Milcah,  Rebecca,  Rachel,  Elisheba,  Zeruiah,  Segub's 
 mother,  Bathsheba,  Elizabeth,  and  innumerable 
 others,  it  would  have  been  easy  to  record  the  name 
 of  the  father,  or  of  the  family  of  the  Virgin.  But 
 neither  our  ignorance  or  uncertainty  as  to  the  rea- 
 sons for  which  it  pleased  God  to  direct  one  rather 
 than   another  method,  nor  our   prepossessions  in 
 
6       GENEALOGIES  OF  ST  MATTHEW  AND  ST  LUKE  [CH. 
 
 favour  of  a  clifierent  method  from  that  which  has 
 been  adopted,  ought  to  sway  our  judgment  as  to 
 a  plain  matter  of  fact ;  and  if  we  turn  simply  to 
 the  Scriptures,  and  take  the  Scriptural  narrative 
 in  its  plain  natural  sense,  there  is  really  no  room 
 for  doubt  or  question,  but  that  in  both  Gospels 
 the  genealogy  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  traced 
 through  Joseph.  For  to  turn  first  to  the  genealo- 
 gies themselves.  St  Matthew,  after  tracing  the  line 
 from  Abraham  to  Jacob,  thus  concludes :  'Ia«:aj/3  ^e 
 
 eyevvrjae  tou   Iwaij(p  tov  avopa  Majo/a?,  e^  jJs  eyevfrjOrj 
 
 'lri(7ou?  6  Xeyofxevo^  Xpiaroq,  Matth.  i.  16:  'And  Ja- 
 cob begat  Joseph  the  husband  of  Mary,  of  whom 
 was  born  Jesus,  who  is  called  Christ.'  And  the 
 same  Evangelist  takes  care  to  record,  that  when 
 the  angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  to  Joseph  in  a 
 dream,  he  addressed  him  as  'Joseph,  thou  Son  of 
 David,' ver.  20:  'lco(T}](pvm  Aav'iS,  k.t.X.,  which  the 
 preceding  genealogy  had  just  shewn  him  to  be. 
 And  it  is  strictly  in  accordance  with  these  two 
 intimations  concerning  Joseph,  that,  in  the  next 
 chapter,  we  find  Joseph  at  Bethlehem,  and  Jesus 
 born  there;  and  St  Matthew,  as  an  independent 
 historian,  must  have  intended  his  readers  to  con- 
 nect this  birth  of  Jesus  at  Bethlehem  with  what  he 
 had  already  told  them  concerning  Joseph's  being 
 the  son  of  David.  In  like  manner,  St  Luke  thus 
 traces  the  lineage  of  Jesus  (iii.  23) :  kuI  avros  n^  o 
 
 '\rjaov<s  wael  erwv  TpiUKOvra  apyoixevos,  wu,  to?  evo/jLi^CTo, 
 
 vlo^  'lwai](p,  TOV  'HXJ,  K.T.X.  'And  Jesus  Himself 
 began  to  be  about  thirty  years  of  age,  being,  (as  was 
 
II.]  SHEWN  TO  BE  BOTH  THOSE  OF  JOSEPH.  7 
 
 supposed)  the  son  of  Joseph,  which  was  the  son  of 
 Heli,'  &c.^  And,  as  was  the  case  in  St  Matthew's 
 Gospel,  we  find  all  the  incidental  notices  of  the 
 lineage  of  the  holy  family  in  accordance  with  this 
 statement  of  Joseplis  pedigree.  Thus,  Luke  i.  26, 
 27,  we  read  that  the  angel  Gabriel  was  sent  7rjod9 
 
 TrapOevou  /mefxvrjcrTevfxeprjv  dvcpl  co  ovofxa  'lwa7]<p,  €^  o'ikov 
 Aavid'  /cat  to  oi'ojua  t^9  TrapOevov  Mapiafx,  '  tO  a  virgin 
 
 espoused  to  a  man  whose  name  was  Joseph,  of  the 
 house  of  David;  and  the  virgin's  name  was  Mary".' 
 
 And,  in  Luke  li.  4,  avefir]  ^e  kuI  'Iwar^Cp  aTTO  T^s  TaXi- 
 Xa'ia?,  e/c  TroAews  Na^OjOer,  et?  riju  'lov^aiav,  ek  iroXiv 
 Aav'ic,  i]Ti^  KuXeiTai  ^rjOXeen,  Sid  to  elvai  avTou  e^  o'ikov 
 Kal  Trarpid's  Aaulo,  diroypdy^/aaOai  gvv  MojOtajix  tj?  fxefx- 
 vt](TT€viuevrf    avrw    yvvaiKi    k.t.X.       'And  Joseph    also 
 
 went  up  from  Galilee,  out  of  the  city  of  Nazareth 
 into  Judsea,  unto  the  city  of  David,  which  is  called 
 Bethlehem,  because  He  was  of  the  house  and  line- 
 age of  David,  to  be  taxed  with  Mary  his  espoused 
 wife, -being  great  with  child.'  And  in  consequence, 
 as  we  learn  from  ver.  11,  the  child,  who  was  the 
 Saviour,  Christ  the  Lord,  was  born  in  the  city  of 
 David.     And  even  as  regards  that  passage  in  Luke 
 
 '  For  an  examination  of  this  passage,  see  note  A  at  the  end 
 of  this  volume. 
 
 '  St  Chrysostom,  and  others  after  him,  apply  the  words  '  of 
 the  house  of  David '  to  Mary.  But  that  they  belong  to  Joseph 
 is  clear  from  their  position,  from  the  allusion  to  the  same  fact  in 
 ii.  4,  from  a  comparison  of  the  similar  description  of  Zacharias,  in 
 1.5  :  ovofxaTi  Za'^apla^,  e'f  f(prifxepia^  'A(iid^  and  from  the  insertion 
 of  T»7?  Trapdevou  instead  of  avrfj^  after  the  following  to  oVoyua, 
 which  shews  that  the  intervening  words  had  applied  to  some  one 
 else. 
 
8      GENEALOGIES  OF  ST  MATTHEW  AND  ST  LUKE  [CH. 
 
 i.  32,  which  might  seem   most  favourable  to  the 
 idea  of  Jesus  being  called  the  son  of  David  on  His 
 mother's  account   rather  than  Joseph's,    'Behold, 
 thou  shalt  conceive  in  thy  womb,  and  bring  forth 
 a  son,  and  shalt  call  His  name  JESUS.    He  shall  be 
 great,  and  the  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  Him  the 
 throne  of  His  father  David,'  &c. ;    it  must  be  re- 
 membered that  she  was  actually  espoused  to   'a 
 man  whose  name  was  Joseph,  of  the  house  of  David,' 
 and  that  under  that  solemn  contract  she  belonged, 
 in  virtue  of  her  husband,  to  the  house  of  David, 
 in  which  (Luke  i.  69)  God  was  about  to  raise  up  a 
 horn  of  Salvation,  in  remembrance  of  His   Holy 
 Covenant.     It  is  only  a  following  up  of  this  same 
 view  that,  in  v.  41,  St  Luke  calls  Joseph  and  Mary 
 *  the  parents'  of  Jesus,  and  that  Mary  herself  (v.  48) 
 says  to  Jesus,  '  Son,  why  hast  thou  thus  dealt  with 
 us?  behold  thy  father  and  I  have  sought  thee  sor- 
 rowing.'   And  since  Jesus  was,  as  we  know,  com- 
 monly supposed  by  the   Jews  to  be  Joseph's  son 
 (Luke  iii.  23,  Matt.  xiii.  55,  John  vi.  42,  vii.  27,  &c.), 
 it  is  also  natural  to  conclude  that  it  was  in  virtue 
 of  Joseph's  descent  that  they  acknowledged  Him 
 to  be  the  son  of  David ^  (Matt.  xxi.  9,  15,  xx.  30, 
 31).      So   that  we   seem   to  be   fully  justified    in 
 saying,  that  all  the  incidental  notices  of  Jesus,  as 
 the  son  of  David-,  fall  in  with  that  view  which  the 
 
 '  This  appears  strongly  in  Philip's  speech  to  Nathanael,  '  "We 
 
 have  found  Him  of  whom  Moses and  the  prophets,  did  write, 
 
 Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  son  of  Joseph.'     John  i.  45,  comp.  49. 
 
 ^  Had  Mark  vi.   3   stood  alone,  it  might  have  seemed  an 
 
II.]  SHEWN  TO  BE  BOTH  THOSE  OF  JOSEPH.  9 
 
 genealogies  bear  upon  the  face  of  them,  viz.  that 
 he  was,  and  was  considered  to  be,  the  son  and  heir 
 of  David  in  virtue  of  the  descent  of  Joseph  his 
 (reputed)  father.  And  there  is  consequently  not 
 the  slightest  encouragement  from  Scripture  to  un- 
 derstand the  genealogies  otherwise  than  in  their 
 obvious  meaning,  as  the  genealogies  of  Joseph. 
 
 As,  however,  so  many  learned  men,  though  en- 
 tirely among  the  moderns,  and  chiefly  among  Pro- 
 testant Divines,  have  embraced  the  theory  of  St 
 Matthew's  genealogy  being  that  of  Joseph,  and  St 
 Luke's  that  of  Mary^,  it  may  be  well  to  observe 
 that  this  opinion  has  been  advocated  mainly  for  two 
 reasons.  One,  in  order  to  explain  the  double  line 
 of  ancestry  deduced  through  Solomon  and  Nathan 
 respectively.  The  other,  in  order  to  satisfy  the 
 feeling  which  is  natural  to  us,  that  Mary's  gene- 
 alogy ought  to  have  been  given,  and  that  if  she 
 was  not  of  the  seed  of  David,  the  promise  that  '  of 
 the   fruit   of  David's  loins,    God   would   raise   up 
 
 exception.  But  its  almost  identity  with  Matt.  xiii.  55,  prevents 
 lis  from  considering  that  the  omission  of  Joseph's  name  arose  from 
 their  not  looking  upon  Joseph  as  his  father.  Some  MSS.  and 
 W.  read  for  o  t€ktu)v,  6  tov  TeKroi/o?  moc,  as  in  Matt.  xiii. 
 55. 
 
 '  Dr  Mill  ( Vindication  of  our  LorcVs  Genealogies,  p.  ]  82), 
 tells  us  that  not  one  of  the  fathers  was  ever  tempted  '  to  transfer 
 either  of  these  genealogies  from  the  reputed  legal  father  to  her ; ' 
 and  that  Petrus  Galatinus,  in  the  16th  century,  was  apparently 
 the  first  of  the  Roman  communion  who  did  so.  He  mentions 
 Spanheim,  Luther,  Chemnitz,  Gomar,  as  having  advocated  this 
 view.  Of  commentators  and  writers  whom  I  have  had  the  op- 
 portunity of  seeing,  I  may  add,  besides  Gomar,  Yossius,  Yardley, 
 Broughton,  Kuinoel,  Hug,  &c. 
 
10     GENEALOGIES  OF  ST  MATT.  AND  ST  LUKE.  [CH.  II.] 
 
 Christ  to  sit  upon  His  throne,'  would  not  have 
 been  fulfilled,  inasmuch  as  in  no  real  sense  could 
 Jesus  then  be  said  to  be  '  of  the  seed  of  David.' 
 If,  then,  any  other  explanation  of  the  double  line 
 of  ancestry  can  be  given,  which  is  equally  satisfac- 
 tory, and  yet  leaves  both  the  genealogies  for  Jo- 
 seph, and  if  Mary's  descent  from  David  can  be 
 supported  with  as  much  probability  on  this  last 
 hypothesis  as  on  the  other,  then  I  apprehend  few 
 persons  will  be  found  who  will  not  gladly  return 
 to  the  natural  and  primitive  interpretation,  which 
 considers  both  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke  to  have 
 traced  the  genealogy  of  Christ  through  Joseph,  His 
 reputed  father.  Certainly  to  any  person  of  a  plain 
 understanding  and  a  candid  mind,  and  a  moderate 
 knowledge  of  Greek,  it  must  be  a  great  relief  not 
 to  be  forced  by  any  stress  of  weather  into  such 
 unsafe  and  unquiet  harbours  as  the  notion  that  m 
 euofxi^eTo  in  Luke  iii.  23,  was  intended  to  qualify 
 the  whole  remainder  of  the  chapter,  instead  of 
 only  the  assertion  that  he  was  the  Son  of  Joseph ; 
 or  that  we  are  to  understand  vlos  (in  the  nomina- 
 tive), before  tou  'HXl,  and  before  tov  Mar^ar,  &c., 
 &c.,  and  to  construe  the  words  as  signifying  that . 
 Jesus  (not  Joseph)  was  the  son  of  Heli,  and  that 
 Jesus  (not  Heli)  was  the  son  of  Matthat,  and  so  on 
 to  the  end.  Instead,  therefore,  of  arguing  against 
 these  and  similar  violent  wrestings  of  the  text,  it 
 will  be  sufficient,  I  conceive,  to  propose  such  an 
 interpretation  as  will  render  them  unnecessary, 
 when  they  will  at  once  fall  to  the  ground. 
 
CHAPTER  III. 
 
 The  principle  upon  mhicli  these  Genealogies  are 
 framed. 
 
 Section  T. 
 
 TT7E  proceed  then  to  consider  our  second  ques- 
 *  *  tion,  viz.  upon  what  principle  are  these 
 genealogies  framed,  and  whence  does  it  happen 
 that  while  in  one  the  line  is  traced  through  Solo- 
 mon, in  the  other  it  is  traced  through  Nathan,  and 
 yet  both  pass  through  Salathiel  and  Zerubbabel. 
 Now  if  we  look  at  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  which  is 
 given  by  St  Matthew,  we  shall  see  that  sixteen  of 
 the  middle  generations  are  a  succession  of  kings 
 who  reigned  over  the  house  of  Jacob,  and  that 
 after  a  further  succession  of  twelve  private  indi- 
 viduals who  were  not  kings,  the  list  closes  with  the 
 name  of  Him  who  was  'born  King  of  the  Jews,' 
 and  was  declared  on  the  cross  to  be  'Jesus  the 
 King  of  the  Jews.'  But  as  during  the  whole  period 
 that  those  twelve  private  persons  lived,  the  royalty 
 of  the  house  of  Judah  was  violently  suppressed,  it 
 is  natural  to  conclude  that  they  are  the  persons 
 who  would  have  been  kings  on  the  throne  of 
 Judah,  from  generation  to  generation,  had  the 
 throne  of  David  continued  to  stand.  In  other 
 words,  St  Matthew  gives  us  the  succession  of  the 
 heirs  of  David's  and  Solomons  throne.     But  as, 
 
12  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CH.  III. 
 
 according  to  the  Jewish  law,  this  succession  was 
 from  father  to  son  as  long  as  there  were  male  heirs, 
 we  should  have  no  reason  to  doubt  but  that  this 
 list  was  also  a  genealogical  stem  in  the  strictest 
 sense  of  the  word,  except  for  two  circumstances. 
 The  one,  that  we  have  in  St  Luke's  Gospel  another 
 genealogical  stem  for  Joseph,  which  gives  a  list  of 
 ancestors  from  David  downwards,  quite  different 
 from  this  of  St  Matthew's,  with  the  exception  of 
 three  names  (Matthan  or  Matthat,  Zerubbabel,  and 
 Salathiel) :  and  the  other,  that  we  have  the  express 
 declaration  of  Scripture  that  one  of  the  persons 
 inserted  in  St  Matthew's  list  should  be  childless, 
 and  that  neither  his  nor  his  father's  descendants 
 should  sit  upon  the  throne  of  Judah. 
 
 As  these  two  circumstances  are  of  vital  import- 
 ance to  our  argument,  we  must  examine  them  with 
 the  utmost  attention. 
 
 1.  I  maintain  that  the  mere  fact  of  the  exist- 
 ence of  another  genealogy,  besides  that  of  St  Mat- 
 thew which  gives  the  royal  successions  in  a  genea- 
 logical form,  amounts  almost,  if  not  quite,  to  a 
 proof  that  St  Matthew's  list  is  not  Joseph's  real 
 parentage.  Because  if  the  steps  of  Joseph's  parent- 
 age had  coincided  exactly  with  the  steps  of  the 
 royal  succession  to  Solomon's  kingdom,  so  that  one 
 and  the  same  table  exhibited  Joseph's  direct  ances- 
 tors and  Solomon's  successors,  what  possible  room 
 could  there  have  been   for  a  second  genealogy^? 
 
 '  Since  the  above  was  written,  the  author  has  read  the  same 
 view  very  forcibly  stated  by  Grotius   on   Luke  iii.  23.     After 
 
^  I.]     THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.      13 
 
 Is  it  likely  that  those  who  were  at  the  same  time 
 Solomon's  male  lineal  descendants,  and,  conse- 
 quently, legal   heirs  of  his  kingdom,  would  have 
 
 laying  the  blame  upon  Africanus  of  misleading  all  who  came 
 after  him,  by  his  statement  that  the  term  ejewrjo-e  proved  that 
 St  Matthew  gave  the  natural  descent ;  he  adds,  '  Ego  vero  non 
 conjecturis,  sed  liquidis,  ni  fallor,  rationibus  adductus,  certissinmm 
 arhitror  a  Matthceo  sj)ectari  juris  successionem.     Nam  eos  qui 
 
 regnum  obtinuerunt privato  nemine  admixto  rccenset.    Deinde 
 
 Jechonias,  inquit,  genuit  Salathiel.  Atqui  Jechoniam  sine  liberis 
 hac  vita  exiturum  non  obscure  prtedixerat  Jeremias...Quare  cum 
 Salathieli  Neri  parentem  ascribit  Lucas,  privatum  hominem,  Mat- 
 thceus  autem  Jechoniam,  apertissimum  est  a  Luca  jus  sanguinis, 
 a  Matthfeo  jus  successionis,  et  prEecipue  jus  ad  regiam  diijnitatem 
 spectatum ;  quod  jus  sine  liberis  mortuo  Jechonia,  et  si  qui  alii 
 erant  e  Solomonis  posteris,  ad  Salathielem  caput  familia?  Natha- 
 nis,  legitime  ordine  devolutum  est.'  This  view  is  also  taken  by 
 AVilliam  Cowper,  bishop  of  Galloway  in  the  time  of  James  I., 
 who  in  his  treatise  on  the  genealogy  of  Christ,  has  the  following 
 passages :  '  Saint  Luke  deduces  the  natural  line  of  Christ  from 
 David,  making  it  known  how  Christ  by  Nathan  is  the  natural 
 son  of  David,  according  to  the  flesh ;  but  St  MattheAV  deduces  the 
 legal  line  of  Christ  from  David,  making  it  known  how  Christ  as 
 Solomon's  heir  and  lawful  King  of  the  Jews,  succeeded  as  nearest 
 of  kin,  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of  David  his  father.'  Works,  p.  591. 
 And  again,  '  Christ  our  Lord  is  not  the  natural  son  of  Solomon, 
 neither  read  we,  that  at  any  time  it  was  promised  that  so  he 
 should  be,  but  he  is  the  natural  son  of  David  by  Nathan,  and  yet 
 Solomon's  lawful  heir.'  lb.  And  again,  '  Where  Saint  Matthew 
 calls  Salathiel  the  son  of  Jeconiah,  ixnderstand  his  legal  son,  suc- 
 ceeding as  nearest  of  kin.  Where  St  Luke  calls  Salathiel  son  of 
 Neri,  understand  the  natural  son  of  Neri.'  It  is  singular,  how- 
 ever, that  a  writer  who  so  clearly  saw  and  expressed  what  I  do 
 not  hesitate  to  call  the  true  view,  should  have  fallen  into  the 
 mistake  and  inconsistency  of  making  St  Matthew  give  Joseph's 
 natural  lineage  from  Zerubbabel  to  Christ,  and  Luke  that  of 
 Mary,  whose  name  he  actually  inserts  in  the  genealogical  table  ; 
 in  this  one  instance  leaving  the  authority  of  Scripture,  and  con- 
 sequently, as  I  doubt  not,  falling  into  an  error. 
 
14  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH         [CH.  III. 
 
 sought  to  make  out  any  other,  and  of  course 
 inferior  descent?  Whereas  on  the  contrary,  if  Na- 
 than's and  Neri's  lineal  descendants  had  by  the 
 failure  of  Solomon's  line  become  the  legal  heirs 
 and  successors  of  Solomon's  throne,  the  existence 
 of  two  genealogies  becomes  natural  and  indeed 
 necessary :  one  to  exhibit  the  succession  to  the 
 inheritance,  the  other  to  exhibit  the  real  parentage. 
 So  that  the  mere  existence  of  a  different  genealogy 
 besides  that  of  St  Matthew,  \s  prima  facie  evidence 
 of  the  strongest  kind,  that  St  Matthew's  list  is  not 
 a  list  of  Joseph's  direct  ancestors. 
 
 2.  In  exact  coincidence  with  this  independent 
 argument,  is  the  other  circumstance  above-men- 
 tioned, that  we  have  the  express  testimony  of 
 Scripture  that  one  of  the  persons  in  St  Matthew's 
 list  was  to  be  childless,  and  that  neither  his  nor 
 his  father's  descendants  should  sit  upon  the  throne 
 of  Judah.  '0  earth,  earth,  earth,  hear  the  word 
 of  the  Lord.  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Write  ye  this 
 man  childless,  a  man  that  shall  not  prosper  in  his 
 days :  for  no  man  of  his  seed  shall  prosper,  sitting 
 upon  the  throne  of  David,  and  ruling  any  more 
 in  Judah.'  Jerem.  xxii.  29,  30.  This  was  spoken 
 of  Coniah,  or  as  he  is  otherwise  called,  Jehoiachin. 
 And  in  equally  express  language  the  same  prophet 
 had  been  ordered  to  declare  concerning  his  father 
 Jehoiakim :  '  He  shall  have  none  to  sit  upon  the 
 throne  of  David.'  Jerem.  xxxvi.  30.  Now  that 
 Jehoiakim  and  Jehoiachin  should  notwithstanding 
 these  specific  declarations  of  the  particular  punish- 
 
§  1.]  THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  15 
 
 merit  of  their  sin,  have  been  both  of  them  the 
 lineal  progenitors  of  that  Son  of  David  who  was 
 to  reign  upon  the  throne  of  his  father  David  for 
 ever,  and  of  whose  kingdom  there  was  to  be  no 
 end,  does  certainly  seem  utterly  incredible  and  in- 
 compatible with  the  language  of  the  prophet.  Of 
 Jehoiakim  it  is  expressly  said,  '  He  shall  have  none 
 to  sit  upon  the  throne  of  David.'  And  if  we  inter- 
 pret this  expression  by  the  analogous  ones,  '  David 
 shall  never  want  a  man  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of 
 the  house  of  Israel,'  Jerem.  xxxiii.  17;  'If  ye  can 
 break  my  covenant  of  the  day,  and  my  covenant 
 of  the  night,  and  that  there  should  not  be  day  and 
 night  in  their  season ;  then  may  also  my  covenant 
 be  broken  with  David  my  servant,  that  he  should 
 not  have  a  son  to  reign  upon  his  throne,'  lb. 
 20,  21;  'Jonadab  the  son  of  Rechab  shall  not 
 want  a  man  to  stand  before  me  for  ever,'  lb.  xxxv. 
 19  ^ ;  it  seems  inevitable  to  conclude  that  the  sen- 
 tence upon  Jehoiakim  applies  to  all  ages,  and  ex- 
 cludes from  the  throne  of  David  his  remote  pos- 
 terity, as  well  as  his  immediate  descendants,  and 
 so  makes  it  impossible  that  Messiah  should  be  de- 
 scended from  him.  And  as  regards  the  sentence 
 against  Jehoiachin,  'Write  ye  this  man  childless,' 
 it  is  undoubted,  notwithstanding  all  the  efforts  of 
 critics  to  prove  the  contrary,  that  the  proper  and 
 only  known  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word  ^I^IJ^,  is 
 childless.  In  Gen.  xv.  3,  Abraham  complains 
 nn^.  IjSin  ^::  J5<,  '  To  me  thou  hast  given  no  seed,' 
 
 '  See  also  1  Kings  viii.  25. 
 
16  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CH.  III. 
 
 or  literally,  I  go  childless;  and  in  Levit.  xx.  20,  21, 
 the  punishment  of  an  incestuous  marriage  is  said 
 to  be  )r\pl  dnnj;^  rn\  &nn^,  'they  shall  be  child- 
 less,' 'they  shall  die  childless.'  And  these  are  the 
 only  three  places  where  the  word  occurs,  besides  the 
 passage  in  Jeremiah.  So  that  the  clause  plainly 
 declares  that  Jeconiah  was  to  have  no  descendant : 
 none  at  least  who  should  live  to  inherit  or  beget 
 heirs  to  David's  throne.  For  as  the  fact  of  Jehoia- 
 chin's  reigning  three  months  at  Jerusalem  was  not 
 inconsistent  with  the  saying  concerning  Jehoiakim, 
 his  father,  'He  shall  have  none  to  sit  upon  the 
 throne  of  David,'  so  the  declaration  concerning  his 
 son  Jehoiachin,  'write  ye  this  man  childless,'  would 
 not  preclude  the  possibility  of  his  having  had  a 
 son  or  sons,  if  those  sons  died  in  their  father's  life- 
 time, and  left  him  without  posterity.  Indeed,  the 
 force  of  the  word  '''y^]l_,  'made  bare,  bereaved,' 
 would  be  yet  more  exactly  apparent  in  such  a  case, 
 than  if  he  had  never  had  any  child  at  all.  In  like 
 manner  the  subsequent  clause  of  ver.  30  goes  on  to 
 declare,  1)1  «D3  Sj?  n^'^  ^^^5  1^11^  rh)i\  ih  ^^ 
 ni)n'^  niy  hmf2V,  'For  there  shall  not'  prosper 
 one  of  his  seed  sitting  upon  the  throne  of  David, 
 and  ruling  any  more  in  Israel.'  Where  the  Hebrew 
 words  do  not  imply,  as  our  English  version  may 
 seem  to  do,  that  he  should  have  a  seed,  but  that 
 
 '  It  may  be  worth  noticing  that  the  word  ^{i?,^  to  rule,  here 
 
 -     T 
 
 used,  is  of  much  wider  signification  than  "rf'^Q  to  reign,  xxiii.  5, 
 
 and  would  equally  include  the  government  of  Zerubbabel,  or  the 
 reign  of  a  king. 
 
§  I.]  THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  17 
 
 none  amongst  them  should  prosper  and  reign, 
 (though,  it  is  true,  they  are  not  inconsistent  with 
 such  a  state  of  things,)  but  simply  assert,  as  I  have 
 endeavoured  to  render  it,  the  fact,  that  there  shall 
 not  prosper  and  sit  upon  David's  throne  and  reign, 
 one  of  Jehoiachin's  seed  :  a  statement,  as  I  con- 
 ceive, which  absolutely  precludes  the  possibility  of 
 the  glorious  King,  the  Messiah,  to  whom  God  has 
 given  the  throne  of  His  father  David,  being  sprung 
 from  the  loins  of  Jehoiachin.  This  argument  is 
 further  strengthened  and  made  yet  more  conclusive 
 by  what  follows  in  the  next  chapter.  For  within  a 
 few  verses  of  the  declaration  we  have  just  been 
 considering,  that  there  should  none  of  Jehoiachin's 
 seed  prosper,  sitting  upon  David's  throne,  and  ruling 
 any  more  in  Judah,  there  follows  in  chap,  xxiii.  5,  6, 
 the  beautiful  prophecy,  '  Behold,  the  days  come, 
 saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  raise  unto  David  a  right- 
 eous Branch,  and  a  King  shall  reign  and  prosper, 
 {'r'^Sb^ni  Tl'p^  ^12,  where,  however,  the  English 
 prosper  represents  a  different  Hebrew  word  from 
 that  of  xxii.  30,)  and  shall  execute  judgment  and 
 justice  in  the  earth.  In  his  days  Judah  shall  be 
 saved,  and  Israel  shall  dwell  safely.  And  this  is 
 his  name  whereby  he  shall  be  called,  The  Lord  our 
 Righteousness :'  where  the  conclusion  is  inevit- 
 able, that  this  King  whose  reign  was  to  be  so 
 prosperous,  should  not  be  of  the  seed  of  Jehoiachin, 
 but  should  be  descended  from  David  in  some  other 
 way. 
 
 Another  very  remarkable  prophecy  also  highly 
 
 2 
 
18  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CII.  III. 
 
 favours  the  view  here  taken  of  Christ's  descent 
 being  not  from  Solomon,  that  namely  of  Isai.  xi.  1, 
 where  Messiah's  descent  from  Jesse  and  David  is 
 distinctly  set  forth.  The  words  of  the  prophet  are 
 these :  H^Si'  r^im  l^^^ll  't^'  ^T-lD  "Ibh  ^^5^^1  'And 
 there  shall  come  forth  a  rod  from  the  stem  of 
 Jesse,  and  a  branch  shall  grow  out  of  his  roots.' 
 Here  the  exact  meaning  of  the  word  y]^,  is  not  as 
 our  version  renders  it,  *stem,'  but  as  Gesenius  ex- 
 plains it  in  his  Lexicon,  '  stock  or  stump  of  a  tree 
 that  hath  been  cut  down.'  And  the  image  pre- 
 sented to  us  by  the  prophet  is  that  of  a  tree  which 
 has  been  cut  down  to  the  ground,  and  from  whose 
 stump  a  new  shoot  springs  up,  or,  as  the  latter 
 hemistich  has  it,  a  sucker  grows  up  from  its  roots. 
 It  is  obvious  how  exactly  this  image  describes  the 
 state  of  the  case,  if  the  royal  tree  having  been  cut 
 down  to  the  ground  by  the  failure  of  Solomon's 
 line  in  Jehoiachin,  there  grew  up  from  the  very 
 stump  or  root  of  David,  another  line,  that  of  Na- 
 than, to  flourish  with  royal  majesty  and  power  in 
 the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  cannot,  I  think, 
 be  denied,  that  in  this  case  there  would  be  a  pe- 
 culiar beauty  and  force  and  propriety  in  the  figure 
 employed.  We  have  precisely  the  same  figure 
 used,  only  negatively,  in  Isai.  xl.  24,  where  it  is 
 declared,  with  reference  to  the  destruction  of  the 
 ungodly  powers  of  this  earth,  that  '  they  shall  not 
 be  planted ;  yea,  they  shall  not  be  sown  ;  yea, 
 thei?'  stock  {^V]^)  shall  not  take  root  in  the  earth;' 
 i.e.  no  suckers  shall  grow  up  from  their  root.     The 
 
I  I.]  THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  19 
 
 passage  quoted  by  Dr  Johnson,  from  Ray,  for  the 
 use  of  sucker,  is  very  appropriate :  '  Out  of  this 
 old  root  a  sucker  may  spring,  that  with  a  little 
 shelter  and  good  seasons  may  prove  a  mighty  tree.' 
 The  same  idea  is  beautifully  expressed  in  the  book 
 of  Job,  xiv.  7,  8,  '  There  is  hope  of  a  tree,  if  it  be 
 cut  down,  that  it  will  sprout  again,  and  that  the 
 tender  branch  thereof  (iripJV,  most  literally,  'its 
 sucker,'  from  pT,  'to  suck,')  will  not  cease.  Though 
 the  root  thereof  (itJ^'li^)  wax  old  in  the  earth,  and 
 the  stock  thereof  (i^Til)  die  in  the  ground.'  See 
 also  Isai.  liii.  2  (Heb.) 
 
 And  now  the  reader  is  requested  to  remark  a 
 third  circumstance,  which  comes  in  with  wonderful 
 force  to  confirm  the  conclusion  to  which  the  two 
 preceding  arguments  did  independently  lead  us. 
 Our  first  argument  shewed  that  St  Matthew  did 
 not  give  the  lineal  descent ;  our  second  argument 
 shewed  where  the  lineal  descent  must  necessarily 
 have  been  broken,  viz.  after  Jehoiachin ;  and  now 
 we  observe,  thirdly,  that  at  this  precise  point  of 
 the  genealogy,  viz.  in  the  generations  next  after 
 Jehoiachin,  the  two  genealogies  present  identical 
 navies,  Salathiel  and  Zeriibbabel,  (to  speak  of  no 
 more  at  present) ;  thus  affording  the  most  con- 
 vincing evidence,  that  in  point  of  fact  Jehoiachin's 
 line  was  supplied  by  heirs  taken  from  another  line, 
 which  line  was  no  other  than  the  line  of  Nathan, 
 as  we  learn  from  St  Luke. 
 
 Having  thus  established  the  point  that  St  Mat- 
 thew   does  not   give   us   in  his  gospel  the  lineal 
 
 2—2 
 
20  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CII.  III. 
 
 parentage  of  Joseph,  it  becomes  easy  to  see  upon 
 what  principle  these  genealogies  are  framed,  and 
 how  it  comes  to  pass  that  in  one  gospel  the  line 
 is  traced  through  Solomon,  in  the  other  through 
 Nathan,  and  yet  both  meet  in  Salathiel  and  Ze- 
 rubbabel.  For  evidently  with  a  view  of  shewing 
 that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  truly  the  King  of  the 
 Jews,  and  that  in  Him  were  fulfilled  the  promises 
 made  both  to  David  and  to  Solomon,  it  was  need- 
 ful to  shew  Him  to  be  David's  son,  and  Solomon's 
 heir.  For  so  much  did  the  prophetic  promises  of 
 God  to  each  respectively  guarantee.  The  promise 
 was  to  David,  that  *  of  the  fruit  of  his  loins,  ac- 
 cording to  the  flesh,  God  would  raise  up  Christ 
 to  sit  on  His  throne,'  as  St  Peter  expounds  it.  Acts 
 ii.  30.  The  promise  concerning  Solomon  was,  only 
 'that  the  throne  of  his  kingdom  should  be  esta- 
 blished for  ever,'  which  is  further  explained  by 
 the  declaration,  'My  mercy  shall  not  depart  away 
 from  him,  as  I  took  it  from  Saul,  whom  I  put 
 away  before  thee.'  And  then  again,  as  if  to  mark 
 distinctly  the  contrast  between  the  promise  to 
 David  and  the  promise  to  Solomon,  it  is  added, 
 *And  thine  house  and  thy  kingdom  shall  be  es- 
 tablished for  ever  before  thee  :  thy  throne  shall 
 be  established  for  ever,'  2  Sam.  vii.  13 — 16.  And 
 even  in  1  Chron.  xvii.  14,  which  is  perhaps  the 
 strongest  expression  of  the  promise  as  regards  So- 
 lomon, to  whom  it  must  primarily  be  applied, 
 although  it  is  strictly  and  fully  applicable  only  to 
 Christ  himself,  the  promise  is  still  only,  that  'his 
 
§  I.]  THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  21 
 
 throne  shall  be  established  for  ever.'  Neither  in 
 the  Old  or  New  Testament  is  there  any  thing  said 
 of  Solomon  similar  to  what  is  said  concerning 
 David,  2  Sam.  vii.  12,  or  that  in  Ps.  Ixxxix.  35,  36, 
 *  Once  have  I  sworn  by  my  holiness  that  I  will  not 
 lie  unto  David.  His  seed  shall  endure  for  ever,  and 
 his  throne  as  the  sun  before  me.'  I  would  repeat 
 then,  that  while  the  promises  to  David  distinctly 
 require  that  Christ  should  be  David's  seed,  the 
 promises  to  Solomon  will  be  quite  satisfied  by 
 Christ  being  his  heir.  For  if  Christ  were  Solo- 
 mon's legal  heir,  it  would  be  truly  Solomon's  throne 
 on  which  Christ  would  sit.  Now,  according  to  the 
 law  of  Moses,  which  provided,  that  'if  a  man  die, 
 and  have  no  son,  then  shall  ye  cause  his  inherit- 
 ance to  pass  unto  his  daughter  :  and  if  he  have  no 
 daughter,  then  ye  shall  give  his  inheritance  unto 
 his  brethren:  and  if  he  have  no  brethren,  then 
 shall  ye  give  his  inheritance  unto  his  father's  bre- 
 thren: and  if  his  father  have  no  brethren,  then  ye 
 shall  give  his  inheritance  unto  his  kinsman  that 
 is  next  to  him  of  his  family,  and  he  shall  possess  it;' 
 (Numb,  xxvii.  8 — 11);  it  is  obvious  how,  upon  the 
 failure  of  Solomon's  line,  the  descendants  of  Nathan 
 his  brother  might  be  his  legal  heirs.  And  if  we  for 
 a  moment  beg  the  question,  that  Salathiel  had  been 
 formally  acknowledged  as  heir  of  the  royal  house  of 
 Judah  at  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  captivity,  and 
 as  such  had  been  reckoned  among  the  '  sons  of 
 Jeconiah,'  then  it  is  further  clear  how  two  genea- 
 logies, one  professing  to  give  Christ's  lineal  descent 
 
22  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CH.  III. 
 
 from  David,  and  the  other  professing  to  give  his 
 legal  succession  to  the  throne  of  Solomon,  would 
 necessarily  meet  in  Salathiel^  and  then  part  off 
 again,  one  continuing  the  line  of  ascent  upwards 
 to  David  through  Nathan,  the  other  continuing  the 
 line  of  royal  succession  upwards  through  Solomon. 
 It  is  also  clear  how  the  lineal  descent,  as  traced  by 
 St  Luke,  is  necessary  to  prove  the  validity  of  the 
 right  of  succession,  as  traced  by  St  Matthew ;  be- 
 cause Joseph  was  Solomon's  heir  only  inasmuch 
 as  he  was  Nathan's  descendant.  Such  then,  on  a 
 broad  view  of  the  matter  in  hand,  I  conceive  to  be 
 a  thoroughly  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  prin- 
 ciple on  which  these  genealogies  are  framed,  and 
 of  the  discrepancies  as  well  as  of  the  agreement 
 between  them. 
 
 Section  II. 
 
 A  variety  of  arguments  may  be  adduced  in  con- 
 firmation of  the  general  statement  in  Sect.  I.  and  in 
 support  of  the  details  involved  in  it,  of  which  the 
 following  are  perhaps  the  most  important. 
 
 1.  From  the  accounts  we  have  preserved  to 
 us,  by  Josephus  and  Africanus,  of  the  method  in 
 which  the  Jewish  genealogies  were  kept,  it  appears 
 that  there  were  both  public  and  private  genealo- 
 
 *  They  might  have  coincided  all  the  way  from  Christ  to 
 Salathiel,  or  have  met  at  any  point  between  Christ  and  Salathiel. 
 In  point  of  fact,  as  will  appear  from  the  following  pages,  they  do 
 meet  first  in  Matthan,  and,  after  a  break,  again  in  the  fourth 
 generation  Tjelow  Salathiel,  and  coincide  for  four  generations. 
 
§  II.]  THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  23 
 
 gical  tables,  at  least  of  the  priestly  and  royal',  and 
 probably  other  principal  families.  For  Josephus, 
 in  the  first  section  of  his  life,  after  giving  an  accu- 
 rate account  of  his  own  family,  adds,  Ttju  iiev  olv  tov 
 
 'yeroi/s  rjfxwv  ciaco-)^i]i/,  ojs  ev  Tai9  crjfxoaiaii  ceXroi^  ava- 
 ycypafxfxevrjv   evpov,   ovrcos  iraparlOefxai'    '  TllUS  have  I 
 
 set  down  the  genealogy  of  my  family,  as  I  have 
 found  it  described  in  the  public  records'  (Whiston's 
 Transl.).  And  in  the  first  book,  cont.  Apion. 
 ch.  7,  he  tells  how  an  account  of  all  the  marriages 
 of  priests,  whether  living  in  Judsea,  or  in  Egypt, 
 or  in  Babylon,  or  anywhere  else,  was  sent  up  to 
 Jerusalem,  in  which  the  names  of  the  parents  and 
 ancestors  of  the  wife,  extracted  from  the  ancient 
 registers  2,  were  recorded,  and  subscribed  by  many 
 witnesses,  in  order,  he  says,  to  keep  the  priestly 
 families  pure  from  any  admixture  of  foreign  blood. 
 And  as  a  proof  of  the  accuracy  with  which  these 
 public  tables  (avaypacpal)  were  kept,  he  says  that 
 they  contain  the  lineal  descent  of  the  High-Priests 
 for  2000  years.  From  which  account  it  appears 
 both  that  there  were  public  or  national  tables  of 
 the  priestly  genealogies  kept  at  Jerusalem,  and  also 
 that  every  priestly  family,  whether  living  in  Judsea 
 or  in  the  dispersion,  kept  a  record  of  their  own 
 
 '  Dr  Kennicott  (Dissert.,  &c.  p.  27)  tells  us  that  the  Book 
 of  Chronicles,  (for  St  Jerome  says  the  two  Books  were  formerly 
 but  one)  was  an  extract  from  the  public  Registers  of  the  Kings 
 of  Israel  and  Judah. 
 
 *  'Ex  Twu  ctp-^aicju.  In  Africanus'  Epistle  to  Aristides,  we 
 find  TO.  dp-^e'ia  the  archives,  and  dvajpairro':  answering  to  the 
 dvajeypapnivrjv  of  Josephus. 
 
24  THE  PRINCirLE  UPON  WHICH  [CH.  III. 
 
 SfenealosfY.  For  otherwise  it  would  not  have  been 
 possible  for  them  to  send  up  a  list  of  the  names  of 
 the  parents  and  ancestors  of  the  wife  whom  they 
 had  married,  and  who  must  be  a  daughter  of  Aaron. 
 This,  however,  only  applies  to  the  families  of  priests. 
 But  Afrieanus,  reporting  the  pretended  tradition 
 of  the  Desposyni,  tells  us,  that  before  the  time  of 
 Herod  the  Great  the  genealogies  of  all  Hebrew 
 families,  as  well  as  of  those  descended  from  pro- 
 selytes, were  preserved  in  the  public  archives  {rd 
 ap^eia,  and  a  little  after,  ^t]iJi6aio<s  Gvyypacpt]) ;  but 
 that  Herod  the  Great,  jealous  of  a  distinction  which 
 made  his  own  ignoble  birth  apparent,  caused  all 
 these  public  genealogies  to  be  burnt  {eveirprjcrev  av- 
 
 Twv  TO?  avaypacpa.'i  twv  yeviav).      But  that  a  few  who 
 
 took  pains  about  the  matter  {oXlyoi  rwv  €7ri,u€\wi') 
 had  private  tables  {d7roypa(pd<:)  of  their  own,  which 
 they  had  either  transcribed  from  memory,  or  had 
 before  possessed  copies  of,  and  so  preserved  the 
 record  of  their  noble  birth ;  among  whom,  it  is 
 added,  were  the  Desposyni,  our  Lords  kinsmen  ac- 
 cording to  the  flesh.  Now,  although  I  do  not  con- 
 ceive the  tradition  relating  to  the  genealogy  of  our 
 Lord  which  follows  this  preamble,  and  professes  to 
 have  been  derived  from  the  Desposyni,  to  be  of 
 the  slightest  authority  (Afrieanus  himself  admits 
 that  the  whole  story  of  the  destruction  of  the  gene- 
 alogies, and  all  that  follows,  is  quite  unsupported 
 by  the  Greek  historians),  yet  we  may  take  it  for 
 granted,  that  whoever  invented  the  story  would 
 adopt  details  known  to  be  in  accordance  with  Jew- 
 
§   II.]    THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.      25 
 
 ish  customs.  Besides,  what  is  said  in  the  Gospel 
 of  St  Luke,  that  when  the  decree  went  forth  for 
 the  whole  world  to  be  taxed  {awoypacpeaOai,  to  be 
 enrolled  in  a  census),  they  went  every  one  to  his 
 own  city  for  the  purpose  of  being  taxed,  and  that, 
 among  the  rest,  Joseph  went  up  from  Nazareth  to 
 Bethlehem,  the  city  of  David,  to  be  enrolled  there 
 with  Mary  his  espoused  wife,  being  great  with 
 child  {dvefiri  ^e  /cat  'lwar](p  k.t.X.),  clearly  implies  that 
 the  genealogical  system,  and  the  division  of  the 
 land  according  to  it,  was  still  in  vigour  at  that 
 time :  it  implies  also  the  possession  of  their  gene- 
 alogies by  Jewish  families  dwelling  out  of  their 
 tribe,  and  also  of  some  public  tables  by  which  to 
 verify  the  pretensions  of  the  different  families  to 
 belong  to  such  or  such  a  tribe  or  house.  We  may 
 conclude  then  that  till  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
 there  were  both  private  and  public  genealogical 
 tables.  The  public  one  of  the  royal  house  of  Judah 
 would,  doubtless,  exhibit  Joseph,  and  after  him 
 Jesus,  as  the  heir  of  Solomon;  and  from  this  St 
 Matthew  may  be  supposed  to  have  framed  his  gene- 
 alogy. But,  doubtless,  there  was  in  possession  of 
 Joseph  the  stem  of  his  own  paternal  house ;  and 
 this  may  have  passed  into  the  possession  of  James 
 or  Jude.  And  when  St  Luke  was  collecting:  the 
 materials  for  his  Gospel  from  those  w*ho  from  the 
 beginning  were  eye-witnesses  of  the  Word  (Luke 
 i.  2),  and  among  other  things  was  seeking  for 
 information  respecting  the  genealogy  of  Christ,  he 
 may  have  received  from  one  of  the  above-mentioned 
 
0 
 
 I 
 
 26  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH         [CIT.  III. 
 
 brethren  of  our  Lord  the  stem  which  (of  course 
 under  Divine  inspiration)  he  inserted  in  his  Gospel. 
 Be  this  however  as  it  may,  the  fact  that  there  were 
 among  the  Jews  both  public  and  private  genea- 
 logical tables,  seems  to  fall  in  with  the  existence  of 
 two  genealogies  of  our  Lord . 
 
 2.  The  Gospels  do  in  point  of  fact  give  us 
 two  distinct  genealogies  of  our  Saviour,  each  traced 
 through  Joseph  His  reputed  father.  And  we  have 
 seen  already  a  satisfactory  reason  for  this  in  the 
 circumstance  that  while  Jesus  Christ  (or  Joseph) 
 was  the  legal  heir  of  Solomon's  throne,  he  was  not 
 a  descendant  of  Solomon.  We  have  also  seen  that 
 the  public  and  private  genealogical  tables  of  the 
 Jews  afford  a  probable  source  for  these  double 
 genealogies.  But  it  would  be  a  great  confirmation 
 of  the  view  taken,  if  we  could  shew  from  Scripture 
 itself  that  such  double  genealogies  were  not  uncom- 
 mon in  cases  where  property  was  inherited  not 
 from  the  direct  ancestor.  I  proceed  therefore  to 
 call  the  attention  of  my  readers  to  the  following 
 instances  of  double   genealogies   supplied   by  the 
 
 ^^  Holy  Scriptures. 
 
 ,^  J-   rv  The  most  remarkable  of  all  is  that  of  Jair '.    In 
 
 '  y  vf I  '  -^  Chron.  ii.  his  genealogy  appears  amongst  those  of 
 
 r  .J^tst.  fV  the  house  of  Judah  ;  and  he  is  shewn  to  derive  his 
 
 \  f  \%  origin  through  his  paternal  ancestors  from  Hezron 
 
 P  [^ ^^  {^  the  son  of  Pharez,   the   son   of  Judah.     For  his 
 
 l\^  'I  am  indebted  for  this  valuable  example  of  a  double  ge- 
 
 I    y^  \  nealogy  to  ]\Ir  Beeston's  tract,   On  the  Genealogies  contained  in 
 
 ^  ^  the  Gospels,  &c.  p.  32  sqq.     (London,  John  Hearne,  1842). 
 
§   11.]    THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.       27 
 
 father  Segub  was  the  son  of  Hezron.  But  Moses 
 always  calls  Jair  '  the  son  of  Manasseh,'  (see  Num. 
 xxxii.  41;  Deut.  iii.  14,  15);  and  tells  us,  moreover, 
 as  does  also  the  author  of  1  Chron.  ii.,  of  his  pos- 
 sessing a  number  of  small  towns  in  Gilead,  which 
 he  called  Havoth-Jair  {^^l  K^iri),  the  towns  of 
 Jair.  The  explanation  of  this  apparent  discrepancy 
 is  supplied  in  1  Chron.  ii.  21 — 23,  where  we  read 
 that  Hezron  married  in  his  old  age  the  daughter  of 
 Machir  the  son  of  Manasseh,  who  bare  him  Segub, 
 and  that  Segub  begat  Jair,  who  had  twenty-three 
 cities  in  the  land  of  Gilead.  But  it  is  added  that 
 Hezron's  other  son  by  Machir's  daughter,  Ashur, 
 had  his  inheritance  in  Judah;  for  he  was  the  father 
 of  Tekoah,  a  city  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.  Here 
 then  is  a  clear  instance  of  a  double  genealogy, 
 according  to  one  of  which  Jair  was  descended  from 
 Judah  his  true  paternal  ancestor ;  but  according  to 
 the  other  was  descended  from  Manasseh,  among 
 whose  decendants  he  became  possessed  of  a  con- 
 siderable property.  We  have  here  also  an  ex- 
 ample of  two  branches  of  the  same  family  being 
 reckoned  to  different  tribes;  for  while  the  children 
 of  Segub  were  reckoned  to  Manasseh,  the  children 
 of  his  brother  Ashur  were  reckoned  to  Judah.  And 
 it  is  obvious  to  conclude,  that  what  could  take 
 place  as  regards  different  tribes,  might  also  take 
 place  in  regard  to  different  families  of  the  same 
 tribe.  Perhaps,  too,  no  fitter  place  than  the  pre- 
 sent will  be  found  for  the  observation  which  I 
 believe  to  be  of  the  utmost  weight,  that  it  was  the 
 
28  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [cil.  III. 
 
 law  of  property  and  inheritance  which  swayed  the 
 genealogies.  I  believe  the  genealogies  of  the  Jews 
 to  have  been  as  much  affected  by  property  as  by 
 blood ;  to  have  been  almost  as  much  geographical 
 as  strictly  genealogical  divisions.  The  principle 
 being  once  laid  down  that  such  a  portion  of  the 
 country  was  the  property  of  such  a  tribe,  and  such 
 a  town  or  district  the  inheritance  of  such  a  family, 
 it  followed  that  whoever  in  the  lapse  of  ages 
 acquired  property  in  such  portion  or  district  must 
 make  out  his  genealogical  connexion  with  such 
 tribe  or  family.  This  would  of  course  often  be 
 done  by  marriage  with  a  female  of  the  tribe  or 
 family ;  but  sometimes  it  must  have  happened  that 
 a  collateral  branch  succeeded  to  an  inheritance  of 
 some  different  family,  or  that  means  were  found 
 even  for  incorporating  into  a  tribe  or  family  those 
 who  had  no  blood-relationship  with  it  at  all,  as  for 
 example  proselytes.  I  believe  however  that  when- 
 ever it  was  practicable  a  real  connexion  was 
 effected  by  marriage — as  many  of  the  following  ex- 
 amples will  shew.  The  point  however  here  insisted 
 upon  is,  that  whenever  any  person  had  property,  his 
 genealogy,  that  I  mean  which  was  recorded  in  the 
 public  and  national  tables,  would  exhibit  him  as 
 belonging  to  the  tribe  and  family  to  which,  accord- 
 ing to  the  original  settlement  and  partition  of  the 
 land,  that  property  belonged.  Thus  Jair  was  in- 
 scribed in  the  tribe  of  Manasseh,  because  Havoth- 
 Jair  lay  in  the  bounds  of  the  half-tribe  of  Manasseh 
 to  the  east  of  Jordan.     And  thus  Zerubbabel  and 
 
 J 
 
§  11.]  THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  29 
 
 Salathiel  were  ascribed  to  the  family  of  Jecoiiiah, 
 when  they  inherited    that   portion  in   Bethlehem 
 and   in  Jerusalem,  and   that   title    to   the  throne, 
 which  was  the  birthright  of  the  kings  of  Judah  of      ^—^ 
 the  line  of  Solomon  and  David.  ^-^^ 
 
 Another  example  of  a  double  genealogy  may 
 be  found  in  ^  Calebs  He  is  usually  called  the  son  -jj}^'^ 
 of  Jephunneh,  with  the  additional  information  that     cr^ 
 he  was  a  Kenezite,  which  is  further  explained  by    /ir^^'^ 
 Othniel  the  brother  of  Caleb  being  called  the  son .  ^jV^  ^ 
 of  Kenaz;  whence  it  is  obvious  to  conclude  that     '^^ 
 Kenaz   was   Caleb's   grandfather    or   ancestor   yet 
 more  remote,  and  the  founder  of  his  house  ^    But 
 in  1  Chron.  ii.  we  have   the  genealogy  of  Caleb 
 given  to  us.     And  there  he  is  made  out  to  be  the 
 son  of  Hur,  the  son  of  Caleb,  the  son  of  Hezron, 
 the  son  of  Pharez,  the  son  of  Judah  ^.    In  1  Chron. 
 
 ^  Dr  Kennicott's  observation,  that  the  phrases,  '  Jashobeam 
 the  Hachmonite,'  and  '  the  son  of  Hachmoni ;'  '  Dodi  the  Aho- 
 hite,'  and  '  the  son  of  Ahohi/  signify  just  the  same  thing,  is 
 well  illustrated  by  these  parallel  expressions,  '  the  Kenezite/  and 
 'the  son  of  Kenaz.'     See  Dissert.^  &c.  pp.  83,  135. 
 
 *  There  is  some  obscurity  in  the  account  of  Caleb's  descent 
 in  1  Chron.  ii.,  probably  from  confusing  Caleb  the  son  of  Hur 
 with  Caleb  the  son  of  Hezron.  It  is  needless  to  observe  that 
 chronology  makes  it  impossible  that  Caleb  the  son  of  Jephunneh 
 should  be  the  same  as  Caleb  the  son  of  Hezron.  We  may  note 
 by  the  way  that  the  words  in  v.  24,  n/T^Sh?  l^'Dl  '  in  Caleb- 
 Ephratah,'  are  in  all  probability  an  accidental  insertion  from  the 
 similarity  to  v.  19,  to  which,  if  anywhere,  they  belong,  and 
 should    be    read,    with    Jerome    and    the  Sept.,    ^j^    ^^3    ^2. 
 
 •■  T  T 
 
 ^il■^S^?  '  Caleb  went  in  unto  Ephratah  'j'^  np'^l  and  took  unto 
 him  Ephratab,  &c.'     There  is  no  such  place  as  Caleb-Ephratah, 
 
30  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CII.  III. 
 
 iv.  13,  15,  Caleb  and  Othniel  appear  amongst  the 
 sons   of  Judah,    as   the   sons   of  Jephunneh    and 
 Kenaz,  but  without  the  slightest  hint  who  Jephun- 
 neh and  Kenaz  are.     The  solution  I  believe  to  be^  jl 
 as  follows  :  Caleb  was  not  strictly  an  Israelite  at  ^ 
 all,  and  the  designation  '  the  Kenezite '  imports  as 
 much.     His  father  Jephunneh,  and  his  grandfather 
 or  ancestor  Kenaz,  belonged  to  some  tribe  probably 
 friendly  to  the  Israelites,  and  may  be  compared  to 
 Jethro,  and  to  the  Kenites.     That  Caleb  was  not 
 by  birth  an  Israelite  is  further  manifest  from  what 
 we  read  in  Joshua  xv.  13:  'Unto  Caleb  the  son  of/ 
 Jephunneh  he  gave  a  part  among  the  cJiildren  of  I 
 Judah;    and  with  this  clue  we  shall  see  a  peculiar' 
 propriety  in  Joshua  xiv.  14:  '  Hebron  therefore  be^ 
 came  the  inheritance  of  Caleb  the  son  of  Jephun- 
 neh the  Kenezite  unto  this  day,  because  that  he 
 wholly  followed  the  Lord  God  of  Israel'     Just  2^%^ 
 it  was  said  to  Ruth  by  Boaz,  '  A  full  reward  be 
 given  thee  of  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  under  whose 
 wings  thou  art  come  to  trust,'  (Ruth  ii.  12).    Com- 
 pare too  Ezra  vi.  21.     But   since  Caleb's  inherit^ 
 ance  lay  within  the  borders  of  the  tribe  of  Jii^ah, 
 therefore  it  was  necessarv  that  he  should  be  reck- 
 
 nor  is  it  possible  that  a  son  of  Hezron,  who  lived  and  died  in 
 Egypt,  could  have  gone  to  or  given  his  name  to  any  place  in 
 Canaan.  See  Dr  Mill's  tract  On  the  Geneal.,  p.  127.  Also  that 
 the  words  in  v.  42,  '  the  brother  of  Jerahraeel,'  are  probably  in- 
 terpolated, as  the  grandfather  of  Ziph,  and  the  father  of  Achsah, 
 was  Caleb  the  son  of  Jephunneh,  or  son  of  Hur.  (See  1  Chron. 
 iv.  15,  16;  Josh.  xv.  16,  17)'  But  the  whole  passage  seems 
 much  confused. 
 
■^/ 
 
 §  II.]         THESE    GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  31 
 
 oned  genealogically  as  one  of  that  tribe.     It  is  not 
 unlikely  that  either  Caleb's  mother  or  hi§_wife  may 
 have  been  a  daughter  of  Hur^  and  so  the  ties  of      >-^ 
 affinity  have  been  added  to  those  of  property  to  ) 
 
 connect  him  with  the  tribe  of-Judah.  What  how- 
 ever is  certain  is,  that  Caleb  has  a  double  genealogy, 
 through  Jephunneh  and  Kenaz  on  the  one  hand, 
 through  Hur,  Hezron,  and  Judah,  on  the  other.         — ' 
 
 This  argument  concerning  Caleb's  parent- 
 age is  greatly  strengthened  by  a  parallel  one, 
 drawn  from  a  comparison  of  names.  Caleb,  as  we 
 have  seen,  is  called  a  Kenezite,  ^pipH  (Josh.  xiv.  14), 
 and  Otliniel,  his  brother,  is  called  'the  son  of  Ke- 
 naz,' '^^0']^  (Josh.  XV.  17.)  But  ifjvve  turn  to  Gen. 
 xxxvi.  11,  we  shall  find  that  (^'Ivenaz^is  an  Edom- 
 itish  name.  '  And  the  sons  of  Eliphaz  were  Teman, 
 Omar,  Zepho,  and  Gatam,  and  Kenaz,'  T^p^ — 'Duke 
 Kenaz,'  ib.  15,  42.  See  also  1  Chron.  i.  36.  Less 
 striking  is  the  comparison  of  Zepho,  (Gen.  xxxvi. 
 1  J,  15),  called  Zephi  (1  Chron.  i.  36),  1*5^,  '^V  with 
 Ziph  and  Ziphah  (t|n,  n^']),  1  Chron.  iv.  16,' ii.  42. 
 But,  in  1  Chron.  ii.  50 — 52,  we  find  among  the 
 sons  of  Caleb,  the  son  of  Hur,  '  Shobal,  the  father 
 of  Kirjath-Jearim;'  and  are  told  that  Shobal  'had 
 sons,  Haroeh,  (called  Reaiah,  1  Chron.  iv.  2,)  and 
 half  of  the  Manahethites,'  Minp^H,  who  are  men- 
 tioned again  in  ver.  54,  but  with  the  name  diifer- 
 ently  pointed,  ^J|=in^^n.      Here  then  we  have  the 
 
 '  On  the  interchange   of  ^i  and  |,    the  softer  j  being  more 
 modern,  see  Ges.  Tkes.  Livr/.  Hebr.  under  the  letter  Zain. 
 
32  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CH.  Ill, 
 
 Manahetbites,  whose  name  is  formed  from  a  proper 
 name  Manahath,  nn^^,  described  as  tbe  descendants 
 of  Shobal,  tbe  son  of  Caleb  tbe  son  of  Hur.  But  in 
 Gen.  xxxvi.  20 — 23,  we  have  this  remarkable  coinci- 
 dence, that  Shobal  the  son  of  Seir  the  Horite  had  a 
 son  called  Manahath.  See  also  1  Chron.  i.  40.  A 
 stronger  confirmation  of  the  Edomitish  origin  of 
 Caleb  cannot  be  conceived.  Again,  in  1  Chron.  ii.  42, 
 43,  we  read,  'the  sons  of  Caleb  [the  brother  of 
 Jerahmeel]  were,  Mesha  his  first-born,  which  was  the 
 father  of  Ziph;  and  the  sons  ofMaresha^  the  father 
 of  Hebron.  And  the  sons  of  Hebron,  Korah  (Hhp).' 
 But  in  1  Cbron.  i.  35,  we  find  Korah,  one  of  Esau's 
 sons.  Compare  again  the  name  of  Temeni,  the  son 
 of  Ashur,  ^Jp^ri,  1  Chron.  iv.  6,  with  \t2'i^,  Teman, 
 the  son  of  Eliphaz,  1  Chron.  i.  36,  though  this 
 would  point  to  an  earlier  connexion  of  Hezron's 
 family  with  the  Edomites;  for  Ashur  (I'lrtSJ^J'l)  was 
 the  son  of  Hezron,  and  consequently  the  first 
 Caleb's  brother.  There  may  also  not  improbably 
 be  a  connexion  between  the  name  of  Ashur  and 
 Hur  and  Horite,  though  the  etymology  of  Ashur 
 is  obscure.  Compare  also  pri*.  (l  Chron.  i.  41) 
 Ithran,  a  Horite,  with  ^T)l  Jether,  apparently  a  de- 
 scendant of  Caleb,  the  son  of  Jephunneh,  (1  Chron. 
 iv.  17).  Lastly,  in  1  Chron.  iv.  15,  we  are  told  that 
 the  sons  of  Caleb  the  son  of  Jephunneh,  were  Iru, 
 Mail,  and  Naam.     And  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  41,  we  read 
 
 *  The  text    seems  corrupt.       Perhaps  for  i^;!^  we  ought  to 
 read  "i^t^fn?  to  answer  to  "nbl  ^s  in  1  Chron.  vi.  13  (Heb.) 
 
§  il]      these  genealogies  are  framed,  33 
 
 'Duke  Aholibamah,  duke  Slah,  duke  Pinon'.'  These 
 coincidences  of  names  appear  to  establish  to  de- 
 monstration the  Edomitish  or  Horite  origin  of  Ca- 
 leb the  Kenezite ;  and  it  is  not  improbable  that 
 Caleb  is  one  of  the  illustrious  proselytes  alluded 
 to  by  Africanus,  in  his  account  of  the  destruction 
 of  the  registers  by  Herod'.  See  Routh's  Reliq.  Sac. 
 II.  122,  and  Euseb.  Eccles.  Hist.  Lib.  i.  vii.  p.  17, 
 Edit.  Vales.  \fjjJi^  ^  ^ 
 
 This  same  chapter  supplies  us  further  with  three 
 instances  of  persons^  reckoned  in  the"  genealogy  of 
 the  tribe  to  which  their  mother  belonged,  which  of 
 course  makes  a  double  genealogy  supposable  in 
 their  case.  (1)  The  sons^f  Zeruiah,  David's  sister, 
 Abishai,  Joab,  and  Asahel,  who  are  reckoned  with 
 the  family  of  Jesse  ;  the  name  of  their  father  is  not 
 given,  but  we  are  told  in  2  Sam.  ii.  32,  that  when 
 Asahel  died,  they  'buried  him  in  the  sepulchre  of 
 his  father,  which  was  in  Bethlehem,'  by  which  it 
 should  seem  to  be  yet  further  proved  how  entirely 
 the  sons  of  Zeruiah  were  reckoned  as  of  the  house 
 of  Jesse :  a  fact  which  is  perhaps  also  indicated  in 
 the  name  of  Abishai,  *A  father  is  Jesse,'  ^^*  i^J. 
 (2)  Amasa,  the  son  of  Abigail,  David's  other  sister, 
 
 '  Is  there  any  connexion  between  Pinon  p'^'^S  Cren  xxxvi. 
 41,  and  Jephunneh  n32"*  Numb.  xiii.  6? 
 
 ^  Oio/xei/o?  euyei'fj?  dvaipaveiaQai^  tw  fxri  ce  aWov  e'veiv  c'k 
 ^rinoffiov  <TV<yypa(pri<i  to  'yevo<;  dvayeiv  eTri  tov<!  TraTotn'oya?,  ij 
 •jrpoffrjXvTOVS,  tou?  xe  KaXoufxevov^  yeioopa<;  (iVJ  proselytus)  T0J5 
 eVi/xiKToi;?.  Possibly  too,  Ittai  the  Gittite  may  be  another  ex- 
 ample. For  he  seems  to  be  reckoned  among  the  Benjamites, 
 2  Sam.  xxiii.  29. 
 
 3 
 
34  THE  TRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CH.  III. 
 
 whose  father,  Jether,  seems  to  have  been  an  Ish- 
 maelite  (1  Chron.  ii.  17.  Compare  2  Sam.  xvii. 
 25,  where  Israelite  seems  to  be  a  corruption  for 
 Islimaelite).  (3)  The  descendants  of  Sheshan  by  his 
 daughter,  whom  he  gave  in  marriage  to  his  Egyp- 
 tian servant  Jarha  (v.  35^).  All  these  are  reckoned 
 among  the  tribe  of  Judah.  The  last  example  which 
 I  will  adduce  is  the  well-known  one  of  the  priests 
 in  the  time  of  Nehemiah,  who  are  called  '  the  sons 
 of  Barzillai,'  Nehem.  vii.  G3,  because  their  ancestor 
 
 ^  In  V.  31,  we  read,  'And  the  children  (rather  sons  tj^l)  of 
 Sheshan,  Ahlai.'  And  at  v.  34,  returning  to  Sheshan,  it  is 
 said,  '  Now  Sheshan  had  no  sons,  but  daughters :  and  Sheshan 
 had  a  servant,  an  Egyptian,  whose  name  was  Jarha.  And  She- 
 shan gave  his  daughter  to  Jarha  his  servant  to  wife,  and  she 
 bare  him  Attai.  And  Attai  begat  Nathan,  and  Nathan  begat 
 Zabad,  &c/  Again,  in  1  Chron.  xi.  41,  we  read,  '  Zabad  the 
 son  of  Ahlai.'  The  question  arises,  "Who  is  Ahlai  ?  The  author 
 of  the  English  Version,  by  putting  children  instead  of  sons^ 
 seems  to  imply  that  Ahlai  was  the  name  of  Sheshan's  daughter, 
 which  is  the  opinion  of  Junius  and  Tremellius.  My  own  con- 
 jecture at  first  sight  was  that  Ahlai  (">':'nj^)  ^ii<i  (''tS^)  -^^tai 
 indicate  the  same  person,  viz.  the  son  of  Sheshan's  daughter, 
 who  was  grandfather  to  Zabad,  which  I  have  since  learnt  was 
 Wall's  conjecture  also.  A  third  solution  is  ingeniously  proposed 
 by  Mr  Beeston  (fin  the  Genealog.,  &c.  p.  28),  viz.  that  Ahlai  is 
 the  Hebrew  name  given  to  Jarha  on  his  circumcision,  signifying, 
 'Brother-to-me'  h^  HJ^)  to  express  his  adoption  into  the  family 
 of  Israel ;  and  he  thinks  this  is  a  clear  example  of  a  son-in-law 
 reckoned  as  a  son.  It  is  difficult  to  decide  which  of  these  is 
 the  true  solution.  A  fourth,  adopted  by  Mr  Burrington  {Ar- 
 rangement of  the  Genealogies,  &c.),  after  Houbigant,  that  Ahlai 
 was  the  true  son  of  Sheshan,  born  after  his  daughter's  marriage 
 with  Jarha,  strikes  me  as  highly  improbable,  and  as  being  ef- 
 fectually refuted  by  a  comparison  of  1  Chron.  xi.  41,  with 
 1  Chron.  ii.  35,  36. 
 
^11.]    THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.      35 
 
 '  took  one  of  the  daughters  of  Barzillai  the  Gilead- 
 ite  to  wife,  and  was  called  after  their  name,'  but 
 were  not  permitted  to  perform  the  office  of  a  priest, 
 because  they  could  not  prove  their  priestly  descent. 
 It  seems  probable  that,  allured  by  a  large  dowry 
 (for  Barzillai  was  a  very  great  man,  2  Sam.  xix.  32), 
 the  priest  who  married  one  of  his  daughters  had 
 allowed  himself  and  his  descendants  to  be  reckoned 
 as  children  of  Barzillai,  and  so  had  been  left  out  of 
 the  register  of  the  families  of  the  priests.  Anyhow 
 it  is  clear  that  these  priests  had  a  double  genealogy, 
 according  as  their  line  was  traced  up  to  Barzillai 
 and  his  ancestors,  or  through  Barzillai's  son-in-law 
 to  Aaron. 
 
 Other  doubtful  examples,  such  as  that  of  Salma 
 (1  Chron.  ii.  51),  whom  Dr  Mill  supposes,  with  con- 
 siderable probability,  to  be  the  same  as  Salmon, 
 or  Salma,  the  son    of  Naasson^;    Abigail,   who  is 
 
 called  the  daughter  of  Nahash of  Rabbah,  of  the 
 
 children  of  Ammon  (2  Sam.  xvii.  25 — 27),  though 
 she  was  the  daughter  literally  of  Jesse  (1  Chron.  ii. 
 
 *  I  do  not  however  at  all  agree  in  Dr  Mill's  view,  that  Salma 
 was  an  adopted  son  of  Caleb.  For  I  am  convinced  that  the 
 words,  '  the  brother  of  Jerahmeel '  in  v.  42,  are  an  interpolation, 
 and  that  the  first  part  of  v.  50, '  These  are  the  sons  of  Caleb  the 
 son  of  Hur  the  first-born  of  Ephratah,'  relate  to  the  preceding, 
 not  to  the  succeeding  verses.  Something  has  evidently  fallen  out 
 from  the  text  before  the  words,  '  Shobal  the  father  of  Kirjath 
 Jearim.'  I  conjecture  that  the  words,  '  Now  the  sons  of  Caleb 
 the  brother  of  Jerahmeel,'  belong  here.  It  is  quite  in  order,  that 
 having  given  Caleb's  descendants  through  his  wife  Ephratah,  he 
 should  now  give  his  descendants  through  his  other  wife  Azu- 
 bah :  compare  Shobab,  v.  18,  with  Shobal,  vv.  50,  52. 
 
 3—2 
 
36  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CH.  III. 
 
 16,  17),  &c.,  &c.,  I  pass  over,  I  conceive  that  the 
 instances  above  given  demouBtrate  that  it  is  in 
 accordance  with  the  customs  of  the  Jews,  as  handed 
 down  to  us  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament, 
 that  a  person  possessing  an  inheritance  which  he 
 did  not  derive  from  his  direct  male  ancestors, 
 should  have  a  double  genealogy,  one  that  of  his 
 real  progenitors,  the  other  that  in  virtue  of  which 
 he  inherited:  and  that  the  proof  of  this,  thus 
 afforded  by  Scripture,  is  a  very  important  confirm- 
 ation of  the  view  above  taken. 
 
 3.  A  further  support  of  the  hypothesis  that 
 St  Matthew  gives  the  list  of  the  succession  to  the 
 throne  of  David  and  Solomon,  and  St  Luke  the 
 list  of  Joseph's  real  ancestors,  may  be  drawn  from 
 a  careful  examination  of  the  names  in  the  respective 
 genealogies;  from  which  it  will  appear  probable 
 that  both  St  Matthew's  and  St  Luke's  lists  contain 
 the  names  of  members  of  Nathan's  descendants  for 
 the  time  subsequent  to  Jeconiah ;  that  Joseph 
 himself  was  lineally  descended  from  Nathan ;  and 
 that  the  persons  in  St  Matthew's  list  between  Jeco- 
 niah and  Jesus  were  adopted  into  Solomon's  line.  It 
 is  then  highly  worthy  of  observation  that  in  St  Luke's 
 list,  V.  31,  the  name  of  Nathan's  son  is  Mattatha; 
 that  another  descendant,  in  the  eleventh  generation, 
 was  called  Matthat,  v.  29 ;  and  that  betw^een  Sala- 
 thiel  and  Joseph  we  have  Mattathias  twice  (vv.  25, 
 26),  and  Matthat,  v.  24.  And  as  all  these  names  are 
 merely  different  modifications  of  the  root  fJl^  Na- 
 than {he  gave),  we  have  the  strongest  internal  evi- 
 
§   II.]    THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.      87 
 
 dence  that  this  line  is,  what  it  professes  to  be, 
 Nathan's  line.  Moreover,  as  against  those  who, 
 admitting  the  force  of  this  argument,  would  still 
 contend  that  it  only  proves  that  the  Virgin  Mary 
 was  of  Nathan's  line,  because  Heli  was  Joseph's 
 father-in-law,  not  his  father,  let  it  be  observed  fur- 
 ther, that  the  recurrence  of  the  name  Joseph  tki^ee 
 times,  (vv.  24,  26,  30),  once  between  David  and 
 Salathiel,  and  twice  between  Salathiel  and  Joseph 
 the  husband  of  Mary,  is  as  strong  an  indication 
 that  the  line  upwards  is  Joseph's  line,  as  the  recur- 
 rence of  the  different  forms  of  Nathan  is  that  the 
 line  downwards  is  Nathan's  line.  In  like  manner 
 the  names  of  Levi,  Melchi,  and  Juda,  before  and 
 after  Salathiel,  is  a  further  evidence  that  St  Luke 
 gives  us  an  unbroken  line  from  Nathan  to  Joseph. 
 And  not  only  so,  but  St  Matthew's  list  also  helps 
 us  to  the  same  conclusion,  because  there  also. 
 Matt.  iii.  15,  we  find  in  the  third  generation  above 
 Joseph,  the  very  same  name  Matthan,  (who  must 
 be  the  same  person  as  St  Luke's  Matthat^),  thus 
 connecting  St  Matthew's  line  with  Nathan  rather 
 than  with  Solomon.  And  mark  the  effect  of  this 
 argument  upon  the  great  question  whether  or  no 
 Jehoiachin  (or  Jeconiah)  i.ad  descendants.  St  Luke's 
 list  has  the  names  of  Zorobabel  and  Salathiel  in 
 the  midst  of  a  series  which,  both  in  that  part  which 
 precedes,  and  that  which  follows  these  two  names, 
 has  the  strongest  internal  evidence  of  being  the  list 
 
 '  See  below,  Chap.  v.    Harmony  of  Genealogies  of  St  Mat- 
 theic.  &c. 
 
38  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CH.  III. 
 
 of  Nathan's  lineal  descendants  :  the  conclusion  is, 
 (shall  we  not  say  inevitable  ?)  that  Salathiel  and 
 Zerubbabel  were  Nathan's  lineal  descendants  them- 
 selves. And  is  not  this  a  sufficient  key  to  shew  us 
 how  to  understand  St  Matthew,  when  he  tells  us 
 that  Jeconias  begat  Salathiel?  viz.  that  Salathiel 
 (whom  we  know  to  have  been  Nathan's  descendant) 
 was  Jeconiah's  heir  and  successor  in  the  princedom 
 of  Judah ;  and  ought  we  not  to  be  grateful  for  the 
 further  indication  given  to  us  that  Solomon's  heirs 
 were  indeed  Nathan's  descendants,  in  the  breaking 
 out  of  Nathan's  name  in  Matthan,  just  before  we 
 come  to  'Joseph  the  husband  of  Mary,  of  whom 
 was  born  Jesus,  who  is  called  Christ  ? ' 
 
 But  the  names  in  St  Luke's  list  supply  us  with 
 another  indication,  that  those  who  are  called  sons 
 of  Jehoiachin  were  descended  from  Nathan  \  upon 
 which  point  it  is  needless  to  observe  how  much 
 of  the  controversy  depends.  For  it  appears,  from 
 Luke  iii.  27,  that  Salathiel  of  Nathan's  line  was 
 grandson  of  Melchi,  a  name  which  was  continued 
 in  the  family  so  late  as  the  fifth  generation  above 
 Joseph,  Luke  iii.  24.  But  among  those  called  sons 
 of  Jeconiah,  1  Chron.  iii.  17,  18,  we  find  a  brother 
 of  Salathiel  called  Malchi-ram.  His  name  reveals 
 that  he  was  not  a  son  of  Jeconiah,  and  grandson 
 of  Jehoiakim,  but  a  grandson  of  Melchi,  and  there- 
 
 ^  This  argument  tells  against  those  who  (as  Yardley,  p.  177» 
 178)  make  Salathiel  the  son-in-law  of  Neri.  It  is  an  evidence 
 of  his  real  descent  from  Neri  and  Melchi,  that  his  brother  Mal- 
 chi-ram thus  bare  the  name  of  his  grandfather  Melchi. 
 
J  II.]  THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  39 
 
 fore  a  son  of  Neri,  and  consequently  his  brother 
 Salathiel  was  so  also. 
 
 If  again  it  were  certain  that  the  Neri  (Nj/pJ)  of 
 St  Luke  were  the  same  name  as  the  Hebrew  Nea- 
 riah  (H^'nyj),  we  should  have  another  similar  argu- 
 ment :  for,  according  to  Luke  iii.  27,  Salathiel  was 
 the  son  of  Neri.  But  in  1  Chron.  iii.  22,  we  read 
 of  Neariah  the  son  of  Shemaiah.  And  if  Shemaiah 
 be,  as  I  suppose,  the  same  as  Shimei  the  brother 
 of  Zerubbabel,  and  the  son  of  Pedaiah,  Salathiel's 
 brother,  then  this  Neariah  was  the  grandson  of 
 Pedaiah.  But  Pedaiah,  as  Salathiel's  brother,  was 
 son  of  Neri.  We  should  therefore  have  Neri's  great- 
 grandson  Neariah  bearing  his  ancestor's  name.  But 
 as  the  name  Ntjpl  seems  rather  to  represent  the 
 Hebrew  nnj  Neriah  (Jer.  xxxii.  12,  &c.)  than  H^^J^J 
 Neariah,  the  coincidence  here  is  too  doubtful  to  lay 
 any  stress  upon. 
 
 But  the  names  in  St  Matthew's  list,  on  the 
 other  hand,  supply  evidence  that  the  persons  set 
 down  between  Jeconias  and  Christ,  while  by  birth 
 they  belonged  to  the  house  of  Nathan,  were  incor- 
 porated by  adoption  or  inheritance  into  the  family 
 of  Solomon.  For  though  Salathiel  was,  as  has  been 
 shewn,  himself  of  the  family  of  Nathan,  and  so 
 was  Matthan  or  Matthat,  as  both  his  name^  and 
 St  Luke's  authority   shew,  yet  several  of  the  in- 
 
 *  The  occurrence  of  the  name  Mattaniah,  2  Kings  xxiv.  17, 
 as  a  son  of  Josiah,  who  was  confessedly  of  Solomon's  line,  shews 
 that  it  is  not  safe  to  build  too  much  upon  the  occurrence  of  a 
 single  name. 
 
40  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CH.  Ill, 
 
 termediate  names  are  those  of  the  royal  line  of 
 Solomon.  For  out  of  nine  names  between  Zoro- 
 babel  and  Joseph,  three  are  identical  as  to  their 
 principal  element  with  names  of  kings  of  Judah. 
 Thus  'EXiuKelfx,  Eliakim,  Matt.  i.  13,  is  the  same  as 
 Eliakim,  whose  name  Pharaoh-Necho  changed  to 
 Jehoiakim  (2  Kings  xxiii.  34),  (in  Hebrew  d^p^7^), 
 1  Chron.  iii,  12.  ^aSwK,  Sadok,  is  a  shorter  form 
 of  Zedekiah  {)rvp'l'^),  2  Kings  xxiv.  17.  'Axelfx,  or 
 'A-xJn,  Achim,  is  a  shorter  form  of  Jehoiachin, 
 p^^in^,  2  Kings  xxiv.  8,  the  second  element  of 
 which,  p3\  Jachin,  is  rendered  by  the  Septuagint, 
 'Ap^etV,  or  in  some  MSS.  'la^^cV  or  '\a-)^eh',  and  'A^j/x 
 Gen.  xlvi.  10,  1  Chron.  xxiv.  17;  the  abbreviations 
 in  these  three  last  being  effected  by  omitting  the 
 Divine  Name.  Now  this  is  exactly  accounted  for,  if 
 we  suppose  that  the  descendants  of  Zerubbabel  (and 
 consequently  of  Nathan),  mentioned  by  St  Matthew 
 in  his  13th,  14th,  and  15th  verses,  passed  by  succes- 
 sion into  Solomon's  line.  For  in  this  case  they  would 
 naturally  adopt  the  names  of  that  royal  house ;  while 
 the  appearance  of  the  name  of  Matthan  after  Elea- 
 zar  is  accounted  for,  by  supposing  that  the  line  failed 
 in  Eleazar,  and  was  supplied  by  the  adoption  into  it 
 of  Matthan  or  Matthat,  the  son  of  Levi,  (as  St  Luke 
 tells  us  he  was)  the  next  chief  of  the  house  of  Na- 
 than. At  the  risk  of  being  wearisome,  I  would  repeat 
 that  the  occurrence  of  names  proper  to  the  royal 
 family  of  Solomon,  in  the  midst  of  a  series  of  which 
 we  know  from  St  Luke  that  the  first  two,  Salathiel 
 and  Zerubbabel,  were  descended  from  Nathan,  and 
 
§  III.]        THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  41 
 
 the  last  of  which,  Matthan,  we  learn  from  the  same 
 St  Luke,  as  well  as  from  the  name  itself,  was  also 
 of  the  family  of  Nathan,  is  exactly  what  would 
 probably  have  taken  place,  if  upon  the  failure  of 
 Solomon's  line  in  Jeconiah,  the  heads  of  Nathan's 
 house  had  become  his  heirs,  and  if  upon  a  second 
 failure  of  the  eldest  line  of  Nathan,  the  younger 
 branch  (represented  by  Matthan)  had  filled  up  the 
 gap.  It  is  further  remarkable  that  of  these  nine 
 names,  three  at  least  are  common  to  the  two  lines, 
 viz.  Eliakim,  Eleazar  and  Matthan. 
 
 Section  III. 
 
 Before,  however,  we  pass  on,  we  must  endeavour 
 to  answer  some  objections  which  may  be  made 
 against  the  above  scheme.  Because  in  intricate 
 subjects,  such  as  that  before  us,  it  is  not  enough 
 to  shew  that  any  given  hypothesis  has  much  to  be 
 said  in  its  favour,  it  must  also  be  shewn  that  there 
 is  no  considerable  objection  against  it  which  cannot 
 be  removed.  The  chief  objections  which  might  be 
 raised,  are  probably  the  following  : 
 
 1.  That  we  have  an  authoritative  tradition 
 preserved  by  Africanus,  a  trustworthy  writer  at 
 the  opening  of  the  third  century^,  which  gives  quite 
 a  different  account  of  the  matter. 
 
 '  Chevalier  Runsen  says  of  Africanus,  that  the  fragments  of 
 his  works  'exhibit  throughout  the  man  of  judgment,  integrity, 
 and  information.'     Eijypt's  place  in  Univ.  Hist.  Vol.  i.  p.  20 J . 
 
42  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CH.  III. 
 
 2.  That  the  use  of  the  term  'begat'  bj  St 
 Matthew,  necessarily  implies  proper  paternity. 
 
 3.  That  the  above  scheme  leaves  us  without 
 any  evidence  that  Jesus  was  truly  the  seed  of 
 David,  inasmuch  as  it  leaves  us  in  ignorance  of  the 
 parentage  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  our  Lord's  only 
 human  parent. 
 
 1.  As  regards  the  first  objection,  let  us  see 
 what  it  is  that  Africanus  tells  us.  After  refuting 
 the  interpretation  of  those  who  contended  that  the 
 genealogies  recorded  by  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke 
 were  merely  a  made-up  list  to  signify,  by  the  mix- 
 ture of  royal  and  priestly  names,  that  Christ  was 
 both  Priest  and  King;  and  after  asserting  in  be- 
 coming terms  the  veracity  of  the  Evangelists  in  this 
 matter  of  the  genealogies,  as  in  every  thing  else 
 narrated  by  them,  he  goes  on,  apparently  \  to  pro- 
 pose the  following  scheme :  If,  he  says,  ive  reckon 
 the  generations  given  hy  St  Matthew,  and  deduced 
 hy  him  from  David  through  Solomon,  we  shall  find 
 that  the  third  from  the  end  is  Matthan,  who  hegat 
 Jacob,  the  father  of  Joseph.  In  like  manner,  if 
 with  St  Luke,  we  reckon  from  David  through  Na- 
 
 '  The  preceding  passage  is  preserved  in  two  MSS.  edited  by 
 Dr  Routh  in  his  Reliq.  Sacr.,  what  follows  is  quoted  by  Eusebius 
 in  his  Bed.  Hist.  Book  i.  ch.  vii.  How  much  intervened  between 
 the  two  passages  we  cannot  say.  I  would  observe  by  the  way, 
 that  the  force  of  the  expression  in  the  extract  from  Africanus, 
 preserved  by  Eusebius,  Trai/Tw?  he  dXt]d£vovT£<;,  and  again,  to 
 fxei'Tot  evayyeXiov  ttuvtw^  dXtjOevei,  is  explained  by  the  argument 
 above  cited  against  those  who  held  that  the  genealogies  of  our 
 Saviour  in  the  Gospels  were  fictitious. 
 
^  III.]        THESE  GENEALOGIES  AEE  FRAMED.  43 
 
 tha7i^  we  sliall  find  that  the  third  from  the  end  is 
 Melchi,  whose  son  was  Heli,  the  father  of  Joseph. 
 How  then  is  it  that  both  Jacob  of  the  house  of  Solo- 
 mon, and  Heli  of  the  house  of  Natha^i,  are  said  to 
 he  the  father  of  Joseph  f  In  order  to  shew  this,  we 
 must  first  shew  how  Jacoh  and  Heli  were  brothers, 
 and  besides,  how  Matthan  and  Mclchi,  though  of 
 different  families,  were  yet  both  grandfatker  to  Jo- 
 seph. The  solution  is  this.  Matthan  and  M.dchi  ) 
 having  successively  married  the  same  woman  had 
 respectively  sons  by  her,  who  ivere  tlms  uterine  /^\ 
 bi'others.  TJiat  is  to  say,  Matthan,  of  the  familyf  ixy 
 of  Solomon,  havijig  first  married  her,  begat  Jacob ;  jy 
 and  after  his  death,  Melchi,  of  the  family  of  Na-  rW 
 than,  having  married  her,  had  by  her  a  son  named  W 
 Eli.  Thus,  by  their  common  mother  Estha  {for 
 that  was  her  name),  Jacob  and  Heli,  though  of  dif- 
 ferent families,  were  half-brothers.  Moreover,  Heli 
 having  married  and  died  without  issue,  his  brother 
 Jacob  married  his  widow,  and  had  by  her  a  son 
 Joseph,  who  by  nature  and  tridy  was  his  own  son ; 
 but,  according  to  the  law,  was  the  son  of  his  brother 
 Heli,  to  whom  he  had  thus  raised  up  seed,  &f. 
 Africanus  adds:  That  this  scheme  is  not  a  mere 
 random  guess  without  any  proof  to  rest  upon.  For 
 that  the  kinsmen  of  our  Lord  had  handed  down  an 
 account  how  Herod,  in  order  to  conceal  his  own 
 ignoble  birth,  had  destroyed  all  the  genealogical 
 tables  of  the  Jews.  But  that  many  private  indivi- 
 duals, among  whom  were  themselves^  {the  Desposyni), 
 had,  either  from,  memory,  or  from  private  copies  of 
 
 t/ 
 
44  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [ciI.  III. 
 
 the  public  registers  in  their  own  possession,  pre- 
 served the  record  of  their  own  noble  birth ;  and 
 that  this  tradition  of  the  family  of  Jesus  had  been 
 dispersed  by  the  Desposyni  themselves  in  various 
 places  where  they  went.  Such  is  the  substance  of 
 the  story  given  by  Africanus.  But  his  remark  at 
 the  end  of  it  must  be  given  word  for  word  :  e'/r  olv 
 
 OVTW9,  e'lT  a\Xw<s  'exet,  <Ta(peaT€pav  e^rlyrjaiv  ovk  av 
 'e'Xpi  Tts  aWo^  e^evpeiv,  ws  e'ywye  vo/jliXw,  Tra?  re  o?  ev- 
 yviv/xwv  Tvy^aiei.  Kai  ij/xiv  avrr)  jueAeraj,  ei  Kai  /jlyj 
 eiujudpTvposi  eaTi,  t(o  fxij  KpeiTTova  ij  aXrfdeaTepav  eyeiv 
 elireiv.   to  fxevToi  euayyeXiov  Trarrtos  aXijOevei.     "  Hovv- 
 
 "  ever  whether  this  (story  about  the  Desposyni)  be 
 "  so  or  not,  I  do  not  think  any  one  else  can  discover 
 "a  more  satisfactory  explanation,  and  so  think  all 
 "  whose  opinion  is  sound.  And  let  this  explanation 
 "  satisfy  us,  even  though  it  rest  upon  no  sure  testi- 
 "  mony,  since  we  have  none  better  or  truer  to  pro- 
 *'  pose.  At  all  events  one  thing  is  sure,  the  Gospel 
 "speaks  the  truth."  Now  it  must  be  obvious  to 
 every  one  that  there  are  two  main  considerations 
 to  be  kept  in  view,  as  regards  the  above  passage 
 from  Africanus,  a  writer  whose  antiquity  and  whose 
 character  alike  entitle  him  to  great  respect.  The 
 first  and  most  important  is,  the  weight  of  testimony 
 as  to  the  tradition  being  really  handed  down  by 
 our  Lord's  kinsmen.  The  second,  the  intrinsic 
 merits  of  the  scheme  itself  Of  the  latter  we  are 
 as  good  judges  as  Africanus  was.  But  if  Africanus 
 had  given  us  to  understand  that  the  tradition  in 
 question  was   known  in  his  day,   or  believed   by 
 
§  III.]         THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  45 
 
 himself  as  a  critical  historian  to  have  been  really 
 derived  from  the  Desposyni,  it  must  be  confessed 
 that  such  a  statement  would  have  carried  great 
 weight  with  it.  But  immediately  we  examine  this 
 part  of  the  statement,  it  all  crumbles  to  nothing. 
 Africanus  gives  us  no  clue  as  to  how  the  tradition 
 was  preserved  and  handed  down.  He  lays  no  stress 
 upon  its  authenticity,  but  after  telling  the  story, 
 doubtless  as  he  had  heard  it,  winds  up  with  '  whe- 
 ther, however,  this  be  so  or  no,  I  do  not  think 
 it  will  be  easy  to  find  out  any  better  explanation.' 
 He  had  before  significantly  warned  his  readers 
 that  the  whole  story  about  the  destruction  of  the 
 genealogies  rested  upon  no  concurrent  authority \ 
 and  now  he  adds  again,  that  though  the  whole 
 narrative,  as  he  gave  it,  rested  upon  no  sufficient 
 evidence  (juj)  eufxaprvpo^  ea-ri),  yet  it  was  best  to 
 accept  it,  inasmuch  as  no  one  had  anything  better 
 to  offer  in  its  room.  From  these  expressions,  as 
 well  as  from  the  manner  in  which  Africanus  intro- 
 duces the  subject,  I  conceive  it  to  be  absolutely 
 certain  that  the  authenticity  of  the  tradition  in 
 question,  in  Africanus's  judgment,  had  no  external 
 support.  Every  other  consideration  concurs  to 
 make  one  reject  it  as  an  authentic  tradition.  If  it 
 had  been  so,  if  James  and  Jude  had  tauo-ht  it, 
 if  the  Desposyni  had  really  gone  about  from  place 
 to  place,  informing  the  churches  of  it  as  a  matter 
 
 TavTa  fj.ev  crj  KOivd  nat  to??  'FjWtjvwv  la-ToplaK^  of  wliat 
 went  before  concerning  Herod's  origin;  evidently  implying  that 
 ■what  follows  was  not  to  be  found  in  any  Greek  history. 
 
46  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH         [CII.  III. 
 
 of  their  own  knowledge,  it  must  have  been  univer- 
 sally received.  Eusebius  would  have  known  of  it 
 through  other  channels  besides  Africanus's  work ; 
 the  notion  combated  by  Africanus,  that  it  was  an 
 imaginary  genealogy,  would  not  have  got  abroad. 
 Africanus  in  his  early  day  would  have  had  no  diffi- 
 culty in  verifying  so  important  a  tradition.  But 
 the  story  has  every  internal  mark  of  being  an  inge- 
 nious fabrication.  The  extreme  artificiousness  of 
 the  genealogical  scheme  itself,  the  ignorance  of 
 Jewish  law  displayed  in  the  opinion  that  the  law  of 
 Levirate  applied  only  to  real  brothers,  the  way  of 
 accounting  for  the  preservation  of  this  genealogy 
 when  all  other  public  ones  (with  which  it  might  be 
 desirable  to  compare  and  test  it)  were  hopelessly 
 destroyed — the  very  introduction  of  the  Desposyni, 
 and  the  particularity  with  which  their  going  about 
 from  Nazareth  and  Cochaba  to  disperse  the  story  is 
 told,  savours  unmistakeably  of  fiction.  Moreover, 
 the  asserted  destruction  of  the  public  genealogi- 
 cal tables  by  Herod  never  took  place.  Josephus 
 speaks  of  them  as  still  existing  in  his  time,  long 
 after  Herod,  and  says  that  he  extracted  his  own 
 pedigree  from  them.  They  must  have  existed  at 
 the  time  of  the  taxing,  quite  at  the  end  of  Herod's 
 reign,  when  '  all  went  to  be  taxed,  every  one  unto 
 his  own  city.'  They  must  have  existed  when  St 
 Matthew  wrote  his  .  Gospel,  and  extracted  from 
 them  the  genealogy  of  our  Lord,  and  were  not 
 destroyed  till  everything  Jewish  was  destroyed  at 
 the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  consequent 
 
{  III.]        THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  47 
 
 dispersion  and  desolation  ^  We  may  conclude, 
 therefore,  decisively,  that  this  pretended  tradition 
 was  no  tradition  at  all;  but  that  some  ingenious 
 person  having  constructed  this  scheme  for  recon- 
 ciling the  two  Evangelists,  endeavoured  to  give 
 weight  and  currency  to  his  view  by  inventing  the 
 story  about  the  Desposyni,  acting  perhaps  herein 
 with  no  worse  motive  than  other  originators  of 
 pious  frauds. 
 
 We  are  at  liberty  then,  or  rather  we  are  obliged, 
 to  judge  of  Africanus's  genealogical  scheme  accord- 
 ing to  its  intrinsic  merits.  And  the  following 
 defects  in  it  will  probably  be  sufficient  to  condemn 
 it  in  the  eyes  of  most  people.  First,  its  very  arti- 
 ficial and  complex  structure,  which  has  no  air  of 
 truth  about  it.  Secondly,  its  disagreement  with 
 the  received  text  of  Luke  iii.  24,  inasmuch  as  it 
 leaves  out  Matthat  and  Levi.  Thirdly,  the  circum- 
 stance of  its  applying  the  law  of  the  Levirate  to 
 those  who  were  brothers  only  by  the  mother's  side, 
 contrary  to  the  whole  spirit  of  the  Jewish  law,  and 
 the  letter  of  Deut.  xxv.  5.  Fourthly,  its  assuming 
 that  the  son  so  begotten  of  the  widow  by  a  brother 
 of  the  deceased,  would  be  called  the  deceased's  son, 
 whereas  in  the  only  two  analogous  cases  in  Scrip- 
 ture the  son  so  begotten  is  reckoned  in  the  gene- 
 
 '  It  seems  clear  that  this  story  was  not  invented  till  after 
 the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  though  by  ascribing  the  destruction 
 of  the  registers  to  an  earlier  period  it  was  probably  intended  to 
 conceal  this,  and  insinuate  an  earlier  date  for  the  story.  I 
 strongly  suspect  that  not  Jewish  but  Gentile  Christians  in- 
 vented it. 
 
48  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CH.  III. 
 
 alogy  as  the  son  of  his  real  father  I  (See  Gen. 
 xxxviii.  6 — 30,  compared  with  1  Chron.  ii.  4 — 6, 
 and  Ruth  iv.  1,  sqq.  and  18—22).  Fifthly,  that  it 
 attributes  posterity  to  Jehoiachin,  and  makes 
 Christ  his  seed,  of  whom  it  was  said  that  he  should 
 be  childless,  and  that  no  man  of  his  seed  should 
 prosper,  sitting  upon  the  throne  of  David.  Sixthly^ 
 that  it  necessarily  makes  the  Zerubbabel,  son  of  Sa- 
 lathiel,  of  Luke,  a  different  person  from  the  Zerub- 
 babel son  of  Salathiel  of  Matthew,  and  Ezra  (iii.  2), 
 and  Zechariah  (iv.  6),  and  Haggai  (i.  1),  and  the  Ze- 
 rubbabel nephew  of  Salathiel  of  1  Chron.  iii.  17 — 19, 
 which  is  to  the  last  degree  improbable,  especially 
 if  the  hypothesis  in  the  following  pages,  concerning 
 the  son  of  Zerubbabel,  is  established.  And  lastly, 
 that  it  allows  of  no  satisfactory  reason  why  two 
 genealogies  should  be  given  at  all.  So  that,  on  the 
 whole,  the  scheme  proposed  by  Africanus,  and  appa- 
 rently adopted  by  Eusebius  and  other  fathers  after 
 him,  is  neither  on  the  ground  of  authority,  nor  of 
 intrinsic  merit,  any  obstacle  in  the  way  of  a  more 
 probable  explanation  of  the  difficulty  before  us. 
 
 2.  Neither  is  there  any  truth  in  the  notion 
 first  broached  by  Africanus,  and  since  repeated  by 
 many  others^  that  the  term  'begat'  used  by  St 
 
 '  It  is  to  he  observed  that  Ohed  must  have  been  the  eldest 
 son  of  Boaz.  See  Ruth  iv.  13 — 17-  Had  we  not  had  so  par- 
 ticular an  account  of  his  birth,  we  might  have  thought  that  he 
 was  the  second  son,  and  so  reckoned  as  Boaz's  son,  according 
 to  Deut.  XXV.  5,  6. 
 
 ^  See  South's  sermon  '  the  lineal  descent  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,' 
 Vol.  in.  p.  273.    Yardley,  p.  47,  seqq.  &c.  &c. 
 
§  III.]         THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  49 
 
 Matthew  necessarily  implies  proper  paternity.  The 
 best  way  to  interpret  any  writer  is  by  his  own  lan- 
 guage ;  and  since  we  find  that  St  Matthew  says 
 that  'Joram  begat  Ozias,'  that  is  Uzziah,  though 
 Uzziah  was  really  the  son  of  Amaziah,  the  son  of 
 Jehoash,  the  son  of  Ahaziah,  the  son  of  Joram, 
 and  so  separated  from  him  by  three  intervening- 
 generations;  (Matt.  i.  8)',  that  'Jechonias  begat 
 Salathiel,'  (v.  12),  though  according  to  St  Luke 
 Salathrel  was  really  the  son  of  Neri;  that  'Sala- 
 thiel begat  Zerubbabel/  {ib.),  though  according  to 
 the  author  of  1  Chron.  (iii.  19),  Zerubbabel  was 
 the  son  of  Pedaiah ;  and  that  Zerubbabel  begat 
 Abiud,  though  in  all  probability  Abiud  was  not 
 his  son;  it  is  obvious  to  conclude  that  St  Matthew 
 does  not  intend  us  to  infer  for  certain  that  because 
 he  says  *  Jacob  begat  Joseph  the  husband  of  Mary,' 
 he  could  intend  nothing  else  but  that  Joseph  was 
 in  the  strictest  sense  the  son  of  Jacob.  But  St  Mat- 
 thew is  not  singular  in  this  use  of  the  word  'begat.' 
 When  we  read  in  Gen.  x.  13,  14,  'Mizraim  begat 
 Ludim,  and  Anamim,  and  Lehabim,  and  Naph- 
 tuhim,  and  Pathrusim,  and  Casluhim,  and  Caphto- 
 rim,'  and  in  vv.  15 — 18  that  'Canaan  begat  Sidon 
 his  first-born,  and  Heth,  and  the  Jebusite,  and 
 the  Amorite,  and  the  Girgasite,  and  the  Hivite, 
 and  the  Arkite,  and  the  Sinite,  and  the  Arvadite, 
 and  the  Zemarite,  and  the  Hamathite,'  it  is  obvious 
 that  we  are  to  understand  the  word  '  begat '  in  a 
 
 *  I  omit  the  example  of  Josias  (v.  11),  because  I  think  it 
 almost  certain  that  Jechonias  in  that  verse  means  Jehoiakim. 
 
 4 
 
 #• 
 
50  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CH.  III. 
 
 wider  sense  than  we  do  when  it  is  said  for  instance, 
 'Noah  begat  Shem,  Ham,  and  Japheth.'  It  in- 
 cludes a  founder's  paternity  over  all  who  remotely 
 derived  their  origin  from  him  —  descendants  of 
 daughters  as  well  as  descendants  of  sons,  whenever 
 such  female  branches  derived  from  him  as  their 
 founder,  on  account  of  cities  or  lands  or  other 
 inheritances,  rather  than  from  their  own  real 
 ancestors:  as  e.g.  Laban,  looking  upon  Jacob  in 
 the  light  of  a  servant,  said  of  Jacob's  family,  'Thou 
 hast  not  suffered  me  to  kiss  my  sons  and  my  daugh- 
 ters ;'  and  again,  '  These  daughters  are  my  daugh- 
 ters, and  these  children  are  my  chiklreii,  and  these 
 cattle  are  my  cattle,  and  all  that  thou  seest  is 
 mine,'  (Gen.  xxxi.  26,  28,  43).  It  is  with  the  same 
 latitude  of  meaning  that  we  find  the  expressions 
 in  1  Chron.  iv.  11,  12,  '  Chelub.... begat  Mehir, 
 which  was  the  father  of  Eshton.  And  Eshton 
 begat  Beth-rapha  and  Paseah,  and  Tehinnah  the 
 father  of  Ir-nahash,'  (i.e.  the  city  of  Nahash,)  where 
 Beth-rapha  is  manifestly  the  name  of  a  place,  and 
 I  suspect  Eshton  likewise.  So  again  in  v.  14, 
 'Meonothai  begat  Ophrah.'  In  every  other  place 
 where  it  occurs  Ophrah  is  the  name  of  a  town,  and 
 so  here  too  I  imagine  the  expression  is  equivalent 
 to  '  Meonothai  was  the  father  of  Ophrah,'  (whether 
 Meonothai  is  a  man's  name,  or,  as  is  not  impro- 
 bable, means  'an  inhabitant  of  Maon,'  Josh.  xv. 
 55,  and  1  Chron.  ii.  45,  from  a  fem.  plur.  form 
 Meonoth ;  or,  if  otherwise  pointed,  from  HJij^p 
 Meonah,  from   which  w^ould  be  regularly  formed 
 
§  III.]  THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  51 
 
 ^riJij^^  a  Meonathite),  and  is  exactly  analogous  to 
 '  Shobal  the  father  of  Kirjath-Jearim,  Salma  the 
 father  of  Beth-lehem,  Hareph  the  father  of  Beth- 
 Gader,'  1  Chron.  ii.  50,  51,  and  to  the  expression 
 in  V.  54,  '  The  sons  of  Salma :  Beth-lehem  and  the 
 Netophathites,  Ataroth-beth-Joab,  and  half  of  the 
 Manahethites.'  It  Avould  be  easy  to  multiply  ex- 
 amples of  similar  uses  of  the  word  '  begat  ^',  but 
 instead  of  doing-  so  I  would  ask  my  reader's  atten- 
 tion to  the  force  of  the  expressions,  '  the  father 
 of  Bethlehem,'  'the  father  of  Kirjath-Je^rim',  'Esh- 
 ton  begat  Beth-rapha,'  &c.  It  is  manifest  that 
 these  expressions  have  their  origin  in  the  prin- 
 ciple of  the  division  of  the  soil  of  Canaan  amongst 
 tribes  and  families,  according  to  real  genealogical 
 arrangement.  The  predominant  notion  is,  that  such 
 a  man,  of  such  a  family,  and  such  a  tribe,  took 
 possession  of  such  a  district  or  such  a  city,  and 
 parcelled  it  out  among  his  own  children,  and  when, 
 as  in  the  nature  of  things  must  have  been  the 
 case,  other  persons  acquired  possessions  within  the 
 circuit  of  his  domain  who  were  not  connected  with 
 him  by  blood,  yet  they  were  still  reckoned  as  his 
 family,  because  they  derived  their  possessions  from 
 him,  and  he  was  '  the  father '  of  the  whole  of  the 
 occupiers  of  the  soil  or  city  which  was  originally 
 his  portion.  And  it  is  easy  to  see  how  soon,  under 
 such  circumstances,  the  ideas  of  inheritance,  or  pos- 
 
 ^  In  Hebrew,  the  word  is  sometimes  -j^t,  and  sometimes 
 T"7')n  in  the  Hiphil,  but  without  any  difference  in  meaning  or 
 use. 
 
 4 2 
 
52  THE  TRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CH.  III. 
 
 session,  or  transmission  of  property,  would  be  as 
 readily  associated  with  the  terms  '  to  beget,'  *  father,' 
 '  sons  of,'  as  the  more  proper  ideas  of  strict  sonship 
 or  paternity  ^  It  was  thus  that  proselytes  were 
 incorporated  into  particular  tribes,  though  doubt- 
 less all  territorial  connexions  were,  whenever  prac- 
 ticable, further  cemented  by  marriage.  The  strong 
 genealogical  impulses  of  the  Hebrews  would  natu- 
 rally lead  to  this.  Where  however  this  was  impos- 
 sible, and  a  territorial  possession  must  needs  pass 
 away  to  one  not  at  all  or  very  remotely  connected 
 by  blood  with  the  previous  possessor,  still  the  force 
 of  long  habit  and  association,  and  the  extreme 
 dislike  to  acknowledge  an  entire  failure  of  issue  in 
 an  ancient  line  common  to  all  genealogists,  would 
 lead  to  the  application  of  the  genealogical  term 
 'begat'  to  him  who  transmitted  his  property  to 
 his  successor,  and  of  the  term  '  son '  to  him  to 
 whom  it  was  transmitted.  I  would  also  make  the 
 remark,  which  seems  to  have  some  weight  in  it, 
 that  the  form  of  pedigree  which  beginning  with 
 the  founder  comes  downwards  as  St  Matthew's  does, 
 is  more  likely  to  have  such  artificial  generations 
 inserted  in  it,  than  one  which,  like  St  Luke's,  be- 
 ginning with  the   individual   at   the    close   of  the 
 
 ^  The  following  passage  from  Mr  Layard's  Nineveh  and  Ba- 
 It/lon,  remarkably  confirms  this  observation.  On  the  inscription, 
 '  Jehu  the  son  of  Omri,!  he  says,  '  This  monarch  was  certainly 
 not  the  son,  although  one  of  the  successors  of  Omri,  but  the 
 term,  "son  of,"  appears  to  have  been  used  throughout  the  East 
 in  tliose  days,  as  it  still  is,  to  denote  connexion  generally,  either 
 by  descent  or  by  succession.'     p.  613. 
 
§  III.]  THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  53 
 
 line  goes  upwards.  For  this  reason :  supposing  a 
 table  to  exist,  according  to  the  form  of  that  in 
 St  Matthew,  on  which  at  the  birth,  or  coming  of 
 age,  of  each  successive  heir,  the  name  has  been 
 added ;  e.  g.  the  royal  table  of  Solomon's  house — 
 *  Solomon  begat  Roboam :'  when  Abia  was  born  or 
 came  of  age  it  is  added,  '  Roboam  begat  Abia ;' 
 then  'Abia  begat  Asa;'  then,  in  process  of  time, 
 '  and  Asa  begat  Josaphat,'  and  so  on  to  the  time  of 
 Jeconiah' — the  identical  parchment,  or  stone,  or 
 brass  table,  receiving  the  additional  name^  or,  may- 
 be, renewed  from  time  to  time  as  it  was  filled  up, 
 or  worn  out,  but  doubtless  looked  upon  with  pride 
 as  a  monument  of  the  family  antiquity.  But  when 
 on  the  failure  of  JeconialVs  issue  another  branch 
 succeeded  to  Jeconiah's  fortunes,  if  the  old  gene- 
 alogy was  to  stand  at  all,  and  not  to  be  utterly 
 swept  away,  with  all  its  revered  names,  from  the 
 records  of  Israel,  there  could  be  no  other  way  of 
 proceeding  than  to  apply  the  term  '  begat '  in  a 
 less  strict  sense,  and  to  add  '  Jeconias  besrat  Sala- 
 
 o 
 
 thiel,'  transmitted  to  him,  as  if  he  had  been  his 
 son,  his  honours,  and  his  inheritance  ^     The  other 
 
 *  I  would  suggest  whether  the  abbreviations  of  genealogies, 
 and  the  artificial  division  into  equal  periods,  as  the  three  tessera- 
 decades  of  St  ]\Iatthew,  may  not  in  part  at  least  have  been 
 owing  to  the  habit  of  using  the  same  table  as  long  as  possible ; 
 as  the  later  names  increased,  they  would  economize  their  space 
 as  much  as  they  could,  and  in  any  fresh  transcripts  would  leave 
 out  the  less  important  of  the  older  names. 
 
 ^  The  passage  in  Ovid  {Metam.  Lib.  xv.  near  the  end)  has 
 been  often  quoted  in  this  connexion,  where  he  calls  Augustus 
 Caesar  the  offspring  of  Julius  'sua  progenies,'  and  adds, 
 
54  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CII.  III. 
 
 form  of  genealogy,  on  the  contrary,  adopted  by 
 St  Luke,  is  much  less  open  to  such  a  necessity, 
 because  every  man  has  a  male  lineage,  which  he 
 can  carry  up  as  far  as  documents  exist  to  enable 
 him  to  do  so.  And  in  the  case  of  the  Jews,  as 
 they  all  traced  their  descent  from  Jacob  and  Abra- 
 ham, no  man  would  be  ashamed  of  his  lineage. 
 This  form  of  genealogy,  moreover,  would  be  very 
 useful,  side  by  side  with  the  other,  to  correct  and 
 explain  it.    As  e.  g.  when  one  table  asserted  '  Jeco- 
 
 Neque  enim  de  Cossaris  actis 
 TJllum  majus  opus,  quam  quod  pater  exstitit  Inijus. 
 Scilicet  Eequoreos  plus  est  domuisse  Britannos, 
 
 Quam  tantum  genuisse  virum  
 
 Natusque  suus,  qui  nominis  ha?res, 
 Impositum  feret  Urbis  onus,  csesique  parentis 
 Nos  in  bella  suos  fortissimus  ultor  habebit. 
 
 inque  futuri 
 
 Temporis  aetatem,  venturorumque  nepotuni 
 Prospiciens,  prolem  sancta  de  conjuge  natam 
 Ferre  simul  nomenque  suum,  curasque  jubebit. 
 
 Natique  videns  benefacta,  fatetur 
 Esse  suis  majora,  et  vinci  gaudet  ab  illo. 
 Hie  sua  pra^ferri  quanquani  vetat  acta  paternis. 
 Libera  fama  tamen,  nuUisque  obnoxia  jussis, 
 Invitum  prjefert. 
 
 See  further  examples  of  similar  langiiage  in  G.  I.  Yossius,  de 
 Geneal.  J.  C.  p.  25,  and  Yardley,  On  the  Genealogy  of  Christy 
 pp.  48,  49.  See  too,  St  Augustin's  de  Cons.  Evang.  Lib.  ii.  6, 
 wbere  though  he  thinks  St  Matthew  gives  the  real  generation, 
 and  St  Luke  the  adoption,  he  acknowledges  that  '  to  beget,'  is 
 equally  proper  of  adoption.  To  the  examples  above  given  from 
 Scripture,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  add,  that  in  Hebrews  i.  1 — G, 
 the  ideas  of  '  son,'  and  '  first-begotten,'  are  intimately  connected 
 with  those  of  'Heir  of  all  things,'  'inheritance,'  &c. 
 
§  III.]  THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  55 
 
 nias  begat  Salathiel,'  this  would  be  limited  and  ex- 
 plained by  the  other  table,  which  shewed  that 
 '  Salathiel  was  the  son  of  Neri.'  The  pith  how- 
 ever of  the  present  observation  is,  that  from  the 
 very  nature  of  things  a  genealogy  which  ran  *  A. 
 begat  B.,  and  B.  begat  C,  and  C.  begat  D.,  &c.' 
 would  be  more  likely  to  resort  to  the  contrivance 
 of  artificial  generations  (so  to  speak)  in  order  to 
 keep  up  the  appearance  of  A.  having  an  unbroken 
 line,  than  one  which  ran  'Z.  was  the  son  of  Y.,  which 
 was  the  son  of  X.  &c.,''  where  an  unbroken  line  must 
 needs  exist  without  any  artifice. 
 
 A  further  illustration  of  the  disposition  of  the 
 Jews  to  substitute  artificial  for  real  filiation  (and 
 consequently  a  further  evidence  of  the  probability 
 of '  to  beget'  being  sometimes  used  in  an  improper 
 sense)  may  be  found  in  the  practice  recorded  in 
 Gen.  xvi.  2  and  xxx.  8,  in  the  former  of  which  pas- 
 sages Sarah  says  of  Hagar,  '  It  may  be  that  I  may 
 obtain  children  by  her,'  and  in  the  latter  Rachel 
 says  of  Bilhah,  'She  shall  bear  upon  my  knees, 
 that  I  also  may  have  children  by  her,'  as  well  as 
 in  the  law  of  the  Levirate,  Deut.  xxv.  5,  6.  The 
 metaphorical  use  of  the  word  in  such  passages  as 
 Deut.  xxxii.  18,  'Of  the  Rock  that  begat  thee 
 thou  art  unmindful ;'  '  Blessed  be  the  God  and 
 Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  who  . . .  hath  be- 
 gotten us  again ...  to  an  inheritance  incorruptible,' 
 1  Pet.  i.  3,  4 ;  '  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have 
 I  begotten  thee.  Ask  of  me,  and  I  shall  give  thee 
 the   heathen  for  thine  inheritance,  and  the  utter- 
 
56  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CH.  III. 
 
 most  parts  of  the  earth  for  thy  possession,'  Ps. 
 ii.  7,8;  is  also  an  indication  of  the  close  connexion 
 in  the  Hebrew  mind  of  the  ideas  of  'begetting* 
 and  of  giving  blessings,  possessions,  property,  ho- 
 nours, to  be  inherited.     See  also  James  i.  18. 
 
 On  the  whole,  therefore,  the  use  of  the  term 
 'begat'  by  St  Matthew,  as  distinguished  from  St 
 Luke's  phrase,  'the  son  of,'  is  no  objection  to  our 
 theory  that  Joseph  was  truly  the  son  of  Heli  not 
 of  Jacob,  and  that  Salathiel  was  the  son  of  Neri 
 not  of  Jeconiah,  but  rather,  if  any  thing,  is  in  fa- 
 vour of  it. 
 
 3.  The  third  objection  of  any  weight  is,  that 
 the  above  scheme  leaves  us  without  any  evidence 
 that  Jesus  was  truly  the  seed  of  David,  inasmuch 
 as  it  leaves  us  in  ignorance  of  the  parentage  of  the 
 Virgin  Mary,  our  Lord's  only  human  parent.  To 
 which  it  may  be  answered,  that  if  in  point  of  fact 
 we  are  not  informed  in  Scripture  concerning  the 
 Virgin's  lineage,  there  is  no  help  for  it.  We  have 
 only  to  believe  that  the  wisdom  of  God  has  ordered 
 the  matter  better  than  our  wisdom  would  have 
 done,  though  we  may  not  exactly  perceive  the 
 reasons  which  determined  the  Divine  procedure. 
 That  both  genealogies  are  traced  through  Joseph 
 has  been  already  shewn  in  Ch.  ii.  Sect.  1  ;  and  if 
 the  argument  from  Scripture  was  there  stated 
 fairly,  the  objection  before  us  is  irrelevant,  and  one 
 which  we  are  not  bound  to  meet.  Had  it  seemed 
 good  to  God's  Holy  Spirit  to  record  totidem  verbis 
 the  lineage  of  the  Virgin  in  the  Gospels,  it  was, 
 
§  III.]  THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  57 
 
 as  we  have  already  seen,  perfectly  easy  and  natural 
 to  do  so.  The  matter  of  fact  that  this  has  not 
 been  done  is  not  altered,  whether  we  adopt  one 
 hypothesis  or  the  other.  But  having  said  thus 
 much,  it  may  be  well  to  add  my  firm  belief  that 
 not  only  are  both  the  genealogies  Joseph's,  but  that 
 both  are  also  Mary's.  For  if  the  Matthan  of  St 
 Matthew  is  the  same  individual  as  the  Matthat  of 
 St  Luke,  it  follows  that  Jacob  and  Heli  were  own 
 brothers.  And  if  Mary  were  the  daughter  of  Jacob, 
 and  Joseph  the  son  of  Heli,  Joseph  and  Mary 
 would  be  first  cousins,  grandchildren  of  the  same 
 grandfather  Matthat.  And  if  Jacob  had  no  son, 
 but  only  daughters,  and  his  male  heir  and  successor, 
 as  head  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  were  his  brother 
 Hell's  son  Joseph,  we  are  quite  sure,  from  the  con- 
 stant practice  of  the  Jews,  that  Joseph  would 
 marry  Mary  :  just  as  the  five  daughters  of  Zelo- 
 phehad  married  their  five  cousins,  Num.  xxxvi.  11, 
 and  as  the  daughters  of  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Mahli, 
 were  married  to  the  sons  of  Kish,  Eleazar's  bro- 
 ther, 1  Chron.  xxiii.  22.  Compare  also  Tobit  i.  9  ; 
 iii.  15 — 17;  vi.  10 — 12.^  The  strong  desire  of  the 
 Jews  to  make  inheritance   and   blood-relationship 
 
 '  It  is  important  to  observe,  how  strong  even  in  the  captivity, 
 when  there  could  be  no  land  to  inherit,  was  this  feeling,  that  a 
 daughter  should  marry  her  next  of  kin.  Exactly  the  same 
 feeling  still  exists  among  the  Arabs.  Mr  Layard  (Nineveh  and 
 Bahylon,  p.  294)  gives  an  instance  of  three  sisters  whom  'their 
 cousins,  the  three  brothers,  had  claimed  a''  their  brides,  according 
 to  the  Bedouin  law;'  and  adds  in  a  note,  that  'amongst  the 
 Bedouins  a  man  has  a  right  to  demand  his  cousin  in  marriage, 
 and  she  cannot  refuse  him.' 
 
58  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CII.  III. 
 
 go  together  as  far  as  possible,  would  be  sure  to 
 have  brought  about  such  an  union  between  the 
 daughter  of  David's  heir  and  the  next  heir.  Nor 
 are  there  wanting  indications  of  the  truth  of  this 
 supposition,  both  in  Scripture  and  early  tradition. 
 That  Mary  dwelt  at  Nazareth  before  her  marriage 
 as  well  as  Joseph,  is  clear  from  Luke  i.  26,  39 ;  ii. 
 4,  5.  But  (taking  for  granted  that  she  was  of  the 
 tribe  of  Judah)  there  is  no  such  ready  way  of 
 accounting  for  two  families  of  the  tribe  of  Judah 
 dwelling  at  Nazareth  in  the  tribe  of  Zebulun,  as  to 
 suppose  that  they  were  near  relations  whose  com- 
 mon ancestor  had  for  some  reason  come  to  reside 
 there.  And  that  Mary  had  no  brother  it  seems 
 reasonable  to  infer  from  the  total  silence  of  Scrip- 
 ture concerning  any  such,  as  well  as  from  her  son 
 being  born  King  of  the  Jews, — though  this  last 
 argument  is  of  doubtful  weights  The  silence  of 
 Scripture  is  however  a  valid  argument  as  far  as  it 
 goes,  and  is  perhaps  strengthened  by  the  mention 
 of  a  sister  of  Mary's.  '  Now  there  stood  by  the 
 cross  of  Jesus,  His  mother,  and  His  mother's  sister, 
 j  Mary  the  wife  of  Cleophas.'  Joh.  xix.  25.     Again, 
 
 ^  The  principle  of  hereditary  succession  of  the  first-born  to 
 the  throne,  was  not  sufficiently  fixed  among  the  Jews  to  make  it 
 safe  to  lay  much  stress  upon  an  argument  of  this  sort.  David 
 was  the  seventh  son  of  Jesse,  Solomon  was  younger  than  Ado- 
 nijah,  and  others,  Jehoahaz  was  younger  than  Jehoiakim  (2  Chr. 
 xxxvi.  1 — 5) ;  and  therefore  one  cannot  argue  for  certain^  that 
 because  the  Lord  Jesus  was  born  King  of  the  Jews,  therefore  He 
 was  necessarily,  considered  only  as  the  son  of  Mary,  the  legal 
 heir.  His  being  born  King  of  tlie  Jews  depended  rather  upon 
 His  being  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 
 
§  III.]         THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  59 
 
 it  is  worth  noticing  that,  supposing  Mary  the  wife 
 of  Cleophas  to  be  the  same  as  Mary  the  mother  of 
 James  the  less  and  Joses  (Mark  xv.  40),  as  is  com- 
 monly thought,  we  have  then  James,  'laKwfSos,  the 
 grandson  of  Jacob  the  father  of  the  Virgin  ^  And 
 supposing  Salome  to  be,  as  several  of  the  fathers 
 have  asserted,  another  sister  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
 we  have  then  another  grandson  of  Jacob,  also  bear- 
 ing his  name,  viz.  James  or  Jacob,  the  brother  of 
 John.  The  addition  of  the  surname  fxiKpo^,  ])tD'iO'!l 
 the  less  or  younger,  to  distinguish  one  James  from 
 the  other,  is  an  evidence  of  relationship  between 
 the  two  James's.  The  tradition  that  Cleophas  was 
 a  brother  of  Joseph^  is  rather  strengthened  than 
 the  contrary,  by  their  wives  being  sisters.  It  may 
 'also  be  noted  by  the  way  that  Zebedee  H^l  or 
 nn^T  was  a  name  not  uncommon  in  the  tribe  of 
 Judah ;  Josh.  vii.  1  ;  1  Chron.  ii.  36,  37 ;  and  appa- 
 rently of  the  royal  family  of  Judah,  2  Chr.  xix.  11 ; 
 
 '  *  I  have  not  thought  it  necessary  to  alhide  to  traditions 
 which  are  without  any  historical  weight.  It  may  however  be 
 worth  mentioning  that  the  tradition,  originating  in  apocryphal 
 gospels,  that  the  father  of  the  Virgin  was  Joacim,  arose  probably 
 from  her  being  styled  in  some  such  early  writing  '  the  daughter 
 of  Joacim/  in  the  same  sense  in  which  IreucEus  says  of  Joseph, 
 '  Joseph  Joacim  et  Jeconife  filius  ostenditur.'  Co7itr.  Hwres.  Lib. 
 III.  cap.  xxi.  (xxix.).  And  if  so,  her  being  styled  '  the  daughter  of 
 Joacim,'  would  be  a  striking  confirmation  of  our  hypothesis  that 
 she  was  the  daughter  of  Jacob,  Joacim's  (or  Jehoiakim's)  heir  and 
 successor.  Later  ages  misunderstood  the  tradition,  and  made 
 Joacim  her  father. 
 
 Tov  jdp  ovv  KAwTrai/  a.C>e\(pov  tov  'Iu><Tr](f)  VTrap')(eiv  njr]- 
 a-m-'KO':  laTopeT.  Apud  Euseb.  Uist.  Lib.  III.  c.  11 ;  Heliq'  Sac. 
 Vol.  I.  p.  203. 
 
60  THE  PRINCIPLE  UPON  WHICH  [CH.  III. 
 
 1  Chr.  xxvii.  7 ;  in  confirmation  of  which  see  Jer. 
 xli.  1,  where  the  remark  of  Simonis  under  ^^T 
 Zabad,  that  his  name  had  the  same  meaning  as  his 
 father  Nathan's  (1  Chron.  ii.  86),  must  not  be  for- 
 gotten. I  mean  it  is  remarkable  that  we  have  in 
 one  pLace  Ishmael  the  son  of  Zebadiah  (the  Lord 
 gave),  and  in  the  other  Ishmael  the  son  of  Netha- 
 niah  (the  Lord  gave),  both  of  the  royal  family,  and 
 not  improbably  of  the  house  of  Nathan.  See  also 
 1  Chron.  xxvii.  7.  So  that  Zebedee,  if  not  a  bro- 
 ther, may  have  been  a  near  kinsman  of  Joseph. 
 The  name  Salome  indicates  kindred  with  the  royal 
 house  of  Solomon,  as  do  also  the  names  John  and 
 Jude',  with  the  house  of  Zerubbabel. 
 
 The  scheme  before  us,  then,  does  not  obscure 
 any  Scripture  testimony  concerning  the  lineage' 
 of  the  Virgin  Mary,  nor  does  it  at  all  diminish  the 
 probability  of  her  being  of  the  house  of  David  as 
 well  as  Joseph.  On  the  contrary,  the  supposition 
 that  Joseph  was  not  the  issue  of  the  last  male  heir 
 of  the  throne  of  Zorobabel  and  David  harmonizes 
 remarkably  well  with  the  supposition  that  his  wife 
 Avas  ;  and  the  strangeness  in  our  view  of  no  direct 
 genealogy  of  Mary  being  given,  while  there  are  two 
 of  Joseph,  is  a  good  deal  mitigated  by  discovering 
 that  both  the  genealogies  belong  in  fact  to  Mary 
 !  as  much  as  to  Joseph,  and  yet  more  by  the  consi- 
 i  deration  that  the  genealogies  are  given  with  special 
 reference  to  the  succession  to  the  throne,  to  which 
 
 '  See  Chapter  v. 
 
§  III.]         THESE  GENEALOGIES  ARE  FRAMED.  61 
 
 a  woman  could  neither  succeed  nor  even  transmit 
 the  succession. 
 
 It  may  be  added,  that  another  reason  for  Mary's 
 genealogy  not  being  directly  given,  may  perhaps 
 be  found  in  that  remarkable  silence  concerning  the 
 Lord's  mother  which  is  observable  on  other  occa- 
 sions both  in  the  Gospels,  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles, 
 and  which  one  cannot  but  consider  as  a  protest 
 by  anticipation  against  the  extravagant  and  idol- 
 atrous honour  which  has  for  many  ages  been  paid 
 to  her.  Other  reasons  may  possibly  exist,  which 
 we  may  never  be  able  to  discover  in  this  world'. 
 It  is  enough  for  our  present  purpose  to  have  shewn 
 that  no  valid  objection  arises  against  the  scheme 
 here  proposed,  inasmuch  as  it  in  no  degree  aggra- 
 vates the  difficulty  in  question,  but  rather  miti- 
 gates it. 
 
 And  thus  the  three  chief  objections  which  might 
 be  made  being  shewn  to  be  of  no  real  force,  we 
 may  with  some  confidence  conclude  that  our  hypo- 
 thesis in  favour  of  which  so  much  direct  and  weighty 
 evidence  exists,  and  against  which  nothing  import- 
 ant can  be  urged,  is,  as  to  its  main  principles, 
 grounded  upon  truth. 
 
 '  Among  these  surely  cannot  be  included  St  Chrysostom's 
 solution,  '  He  would  not  that  it  should  be  manifest  to  the  Jews 
 at  the  time  of  the  birth,  that  Christ  was  born  of  a  virgin.'  Third 
 Horn,  on  St  Matt.  For  the  two  Evangelists  who  give  the  genea- 
 logy, take  particular  pains  to  declare  that  Christ  was  born  of  a 
 virgin.  The  first  four  homilies  indeed,  though  professing  to  treat 
 of  the  genealogies,  throw  absolutely  no  light  whatever  upon  the 
 difficulties  of  the  subject. 
 
CHAPTER  IV. 
 
 The  Genealogies  reconciled  with  the  Genealogy  of 
 the  House  of  Da,md  contained  in  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment, as  far  as  regards  that  portion  of  them 
 ovliich  synchronizes  with  it. 
 
 Section  I. 
 
 THE  GENEALOGY  OF  ST  MATTHEW  SHEWN  TO  AGREE  WITH 
 THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  GENEALOGIES  FROM  ABRAHAM 
 TO    JEHOIAKIM    AND    THE    CAPTIVITY. 
 
 THE  Gospel  of  St  Matthew  begins  the  genealogy 
 of  our  Lord  from  Abraham,  to  whom  the  pro- 
 mise was  explicitly  made  that  in  his  seed  should 
 all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed'.  And  he 
 traces  the  descent  downwards  to  'Joseph  the  hus- 
 band of  Mary,  of  whom  was  born  Jesus  who  is 
 called  Christ.'  He  divides  the  whole  number  of 
 generations  enumerated  by  him  into  three  equal 
 portions,  each  containing  fourteen  generations,  viz. 
 from  Abraham  to  David,  from  David  to  the  capti- 
 vity, and  from  the  captivity  to  Christ.     It  is  to  the 
 
 *  '  Matthew,  as  writing  to  Hebrews,  sought  to  shew  nothing 
 more  than  that  he  was  from  Abraham  and  David ;  bnt  Luke,  as 
 discoursing  to  all  in  general,  traces  up  the  account  higher,  going 
 on  even  to  Adam.  And  the  one  begins  with  His  generation, 
 because  nothing  was  so  soothing  to  the  Jew  as  to  be  told  that 
 Christ  was  the  ofiFspring  of  Abraham  and  David ;  the  other  does 
 not  so,  but  mentions  many  other  things,  and  then  proceeds  to.tlifi 
 genealogy.' — Chrysost.  Horn.  i.  on  St  Matt.  p.  6.     Oxf.  Trans. 
 
J  I.]  THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED,  &C. 
 
 63 
 
 two  former  tesseradecades  that  we  have  to  address 
 ourselves  at  present. 
 
 1.  From  Abraham  to  David,  both  inclusive, 
 there  are  fourteen  generations.  And  the  names 
 correspond  exactly  to  those  recorded  in  the  Old 
 Testament,  as  the  subjoined  comparison  of  the 
 Septuagint  Version  with  St  Matthew's  Gospel  will 
 shew. 
 
 St  Matth.  i.  2. 
 'A^paajj.    iyevvqae    tov     laaaK' 
 'laaoK    8e     eyevvrjae    tov      IaKco/3* 
 *IaKa>l3    8e     eyevvrjae     tov    'lovdav 
 Koi   Tovs  dde\(f)ovs  avTov. 
 
 St  Matt.  i.   3. 
 'lovSas   be  iyewTja-e  tov  ^apes 
 Koi  TOV  Zapa  €K  Trjs  Qa.p.ap' 
 
 3— G. 
 ^apes  8e  iyevvrjcre  tov  'Ecrpw/x* 
 Ecrpap,  fie  eyevvrjcre  tov  Apap' 
 Apap  fie  eyevvr](re  tov  ApivadajS' 
 'Apivadaji  8e  eyevvrjcre  top  Naacr- 
 aciv'  Naacrcrav  fie  eyevvrjae  tov 
 ^.akpcov  'Sakpcov  fie  iyivvrjcre  tov 
 Boo^  e'/c  Trjs  'Pa^al^-  Boo^  fie  eyev- 
 vrjcre TOV  'Q^fj8  eK  Trjs  'Povd-  Q,- 
 /3i)S  fie  eyevvrjcre  tov  ^leacrai  'lecr- 
 (Toi  fie  eyevvrjcre  tov  AaviB  tov 
 /3a(nXea. 
 
 Thus  far  there  is  no  difficulty  as  concerns  the 
 agreement  of  St  jMatthew's  genealogy  with  the  Old 
 Testament,  though  this  portion  of  the  Genealogy 
 contains  the  greatest  chronological  difficulty  per- 
 haps in  the  whole  Bible,  and  which  is  examined 
 at  large  in  Chap.  ix.  And  the  only  inquiries  of 
 importance   suggested  by  the  juxtaposition  of  the 
 
 Septuagint. 
 \^paap   eyevvrjcre  tov  ^IcxaaK, 
 Gen.  XXV.  20;    21  —  26;   (comp. 
 1  Chron.  i.  34 ;  ii.  1—2)  ;    Gen. 
 xxix.  XXX.  XXXV.  22 — 26. 
 
 Septuagint, 
 Gen.  xxxviii.   The  names  are 
 written    'louSns*     Qapap'    4>apef* 
 Zapa.    Comp.  1  Chron.  ii.  1 — 4. 
 
 Ruth  iv.  18—22. 
 ^apes  eyevvrjcre  tov  'Ecrpcop' 
 Ea-pcap,  eyevvrjcre  tov  Apdp'  Kal 
 'Apap  eyevvrjcre  tov  Apivada(3-  Kal 
 Apiva8al3  eyevvrjcre  tov  Naacrcrcof 
 Kal  Naatro-wf  eyevvrjcre  tov  ^aXpcov- 
 Kcii  SaX/iwy  eyevvrjcre  tov  Boo^- 
 Kal  Boof  eyevvrjcre  tov  'il/SijS*  Kal 
 'O/SfjS  eyevvrjcre  tov  'lecrtrar  Kal 
 'lecrcrul    eyevvrjcre  tov    Aavid.    (roi/ 
 
 jSficrtXe'a  adjicit  Cod.  Alexand;) 
 
64  THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH    [CH.  IV. 
 
 first  six  verses  of  St  Matthew  with  the  parallel 
 passages  from  the  Septuagint  seem  to  be  these  two. 
 I.  Did  St  Matthew  make  up  his  genealogy  from 
 the  Scriptures  ?  II.  Whence  did  he  obtain  the  in- 
 formation that  Rahab  was  the  mother  of  Booz  and 
 the  wife  of  Salmon? 
 
 I.  As  regards  the  first  inquiry,  the  identity 
 of  the  language  in  the  two  parallel  columns  is 
 so  striking  that  it  is  difficult  at  first  sight  to 
 resist  the  conviction  that  St  Matthew  compiled 
 his  genealogy  from  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
 Testament.  And  yet  there  are  several  circum- 
 stances which  rather  lead  to  the  conclusion  that 
 St  Matthew  adopted  some  existing  genealogy,  and 
 that  the  resemblances  to  those  in  the  Scriptures 
 arise  from  the  one  copied  by  St  Matthew  having 
 been  itself  mainly  identical  in  origin  with  the 
 Scriptural  genealogies  or  extracted  from  them  ^ 
 The  circumstances  are  these :  The  exact  exj^res- 
 sions,  '  Isaac  begat  Jacob,'  and  '  Jacob  begat  Judah 
 and  his  brethren,'  do  not  occur  in  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment. One  would  have  thought  that  St  Matthew 
 had  merelv  himself  eriven  the  substance  of  the 
 Scripture  narrative  in  a  genealogical  form,  but  for 
 the  circumstance  that  St  Stephen  in  his  speech 
 given  by  St  Luke  in  Acts  vii.  has  nearly  the  very 
 same  words :   kuI  ovtco?  {AjSpaajji)  eyewtjae  rov   Icraa/c, 
 
 '  Dr  Kennicott  says,  '  That  book  (for  St  Jerome  tells  us  the 
 two  books  of  Chronicles  were  formerly  but  one)  was  an  extract 
 from  the  public  registers  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah.'  Diss. 
 on  1  Chron.  &c.  p.  27« 
 
§  1.]  THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.  Go 
 
 Kal  o    JcraaK   tov  'laKwjS,    kui   o    fa/cw/B  tou9  cwoeKa  ira- 
 
 Tpidp-^a<i '  Acts  vii.  8.  It  seems  probable  from  this 
 that  both  St  Matthew  and  St  Stephen  referred  to 
 some  common  document. 
 
 2.  The  mention  of  Rachab  as  the  wife  of  Sal- 
 mon indicates  that  St  Matthew  consulted  other 
 documents  besides  the  Scriptures. 
 
 3.  The  omission  of  so  many  names  of  Kings 
 in  the  second  tesseradecade  which  are  not  omitted 
 in  any  Genealogy  contained  in  the  Old  Testament, 
 and  the  very  division  into  three  equal  portions, 
 looks  as  if  it  was  a  transcript  of  an  existing  pedi- 
 gree so  framed  for  convenience. 
 
 4.  The  necessity  of  consulting  such  a  pedigree 
 for  the  times  subsequent  to  the  closing  of  the  canon 
 of  Scripture,  makes  it  probable  that  he  would  have 
 used  it  for  earlier  times  also,  supposing  it  to  be 
 correct.  So  that  upon  the  whole,  notwithstanding 
 the  verbal  and  literal  agreement  of  many  parts  of 
 St  Matthew's  genealogy  with  the  books  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  it  is  probable  that  he  framed  it  from 
 some  public  genealogical  table  of  the  House  of 
 David. 
 
 11.  Our  only  other  present  inquiry  concerning 
 the  names  in  this  first  tesseradecade  is,  as  to  the 
 source  from  whence  St  Matthew  derived  his  know- 
 ledge that  Salmon  married  Rahab.  The  most 
 probable  source  appears  to  be  the  genealogical 
 table,  in  which  this  circumstance  was  recorded, 
 and  for  the  truth  of  which  we  now  have  St  Mat- 
 thew's apostolic  and   inspired  authority.     It   may 
 
 5 
 
66       THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH       [CH.  IV. 
 
 be  added  that  Lightfoot  (Vol.  xi.  p.  12,  Pitman's 
 Edition)  tells  ns  that  the  Jewish  writers  confess 
 that  Rahab  was  married  to  some  prince  of  Israel ; 
 as  the  Babylonian  Gemara  which  says,  'Eight 
 prophets,  and  they  priests,  sprang  from  Rahab;' 
 and  again,  '  There  is  a  tradition  that  she  was  mar- 
 ried to  Joshua."'  Of  course  the  genealogical  tables 
 in  many  of  which  her  name  must  have  been  re- 
 corded, had  been  destroyed  at  the  destruction  of 
 Jerusalem,  and  therefore  did  not  exist  at  the  time 
 the  Babylonian  Gemara  was  compiled.  But  the 
 tradition  concerning  Rahab  survived  though  con- 
 fused and  corrupted.  So  also  Dr  Mill's  tract, 
 p.  125,  to  which  I  am  indebted  for  this  reference 
 to  Lightfoot.  The  Aram  of  the  Septuagint  and 
 St  Matthew  is  in  the  Hebrew,  tyi  Ram.  And  where- 
 as the  Septuagint  has  2aX/xwi/  twice  (Ruth  iv.  19 
 and  20),  in  the  Hebrew  the  former  of  these  is 
 written  ilaji^  Salmah,  as  in  the  margin  of  our 
 Bible,  the  latter  ])^h^  Salmon.  But  these  slight 
 variations  are  doubtless  due  to  copyists,  and  are  not 
 of  the  smallest  importance  \  The  title  6  /SacrtXevs 
 affixed  to  David's  name  is  very  frequently  appended 
 in  the  2nd  book  of  Samuel,  from  the  2nd  chapter 
 and  afterwards.  See  e.g.  iii.  31,  32,  36,  38;  v.  3; 
 vi.12,16;  vii.  18;  viii.  10,11;  ix.5,6;  xiii.21,&c.; 
 1  Kings  i.  1,  &c.    Its  insertion  in  the  genealogy  is 
 
 *  It  has  however  been  thought  by  some  that  the  variation 
 between  ilDb\l^  ^"^  ]"i|2bli?    indicates  that  one  or  more  genera- 
 
 T  :   -  :  ~  ,  ... 
 
 tions  have  been  accidentally  omitted,  and  that  the  similarity  of 
 the  names  was  the  cause  of  the  error.  So  Kennicott,  Dissert. 
 Vol.  I.  pp.  543,  44. 
 
§  I.]  THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.  67 
 
 doubtless  owing  to  his  being*  the  first  of  his  line 
 who  attained  the  royal  dignity,  just  as  in  1  Chron. 
 ii.  10,  there  is  appended  to  Nahshon  the  title,  'prince 
 of  the  children  of  Judah.'     See  below,  Ch.  iv.  §  v. 
 
 2.  The  second  tesseradecade  begins  with  Solo- 
 mon and  ends  with  Jechonias,  or  rather  Jehoiakim. 
 The  Septuagint  version  of  the  parallel  passages 
 of  the  Old  Testament  are  again  placed  by  the  side 
 of  St  Matthew's  statement. 
 
 Matt.  i.  6 — 11.  Septuagint. 
 
 AauiS  8e  6  ^a(riKevs  iyevvrja-e  ^aXafxav.      2    Sam.    xii.    24. 
 
 Tov   SoKofiava   €k  rfjs  rov  Ovpiov  eXa^es    rfju    yvvaiKa   rov    Oiiplov 
 
 2oXo/xcoj/  Be  iyevvrjae  tov  'Po^oafi-  lb.    10.      Yiol    SaXco/ncof,    'Poj3oafi, 
 
 Po^oafji    8e    eyevvTjcre    tov    'A/3ia*  \^ia  vlos  avTov,  'Acra   vlos  avTOv, 
 
 'A/3ia   8e    eyewTjae  tov  'Aad'    'Acra  laxracpaT   vlos  avTov,  'icopafi   vlos 
 
 Be  iyevvqcre  tov  'icocracfxiT'   'loocra-  avTov,    '0)(o(ias  vlos   avTov,  'laas 
 
 (fiaT  Be  eyevvrjae  tov  'lapafi-   'la>-  vlos   avTOv,    'Afj.aalas   vlos    avTov, 
 
 pafi  Be  eyevvtjae  tov  'O^iav  'O^ias  'A^apias  vlos   avrov,  (called  'O^ta? 
 
 Be  iyevvrjae  tov  'laadap.'   'icoadap.  in  2Chron.  xxvi.  1,  2,  and'Ofet'of, 
 
 Be   iyevvqcre   tov  "Axa^'    "^X'^C   ^^  Isai.    i.    1,)    'icoadav    vlos    avTov, 
 
 iyevvqcre  tov  'E^eKiav    'EfeKt'as  Be  "Ax^C  '-''o?  avTov,  'E^eKias  vlos  av- 
 
 iyevvrjae  tov  Mavacraq-  MavaacTTJs  tov,  Mavacra-fjs   vlos   avrov,  'A/xwi/ 
 
 Be   iyevvqcre    tov  'Apcov     'Apav    Be  vlos  avTov,  'icoaia    vlos    avTOV'  Kai 
 
 iyevvqcre   tov  'laxriav'     'icoalas  Be  viol  'icocria,  TrpcoTOToicos  'icoavav,  6 
 
 iyevvqae    tov    'lexoviav    koI    tovs  Bevrepos  'icoaKip,  6  TpiTos  2eBeKias, 
 
 aBeXcpovs  avTov,  inl   Tqs  peTome-  6  TeTopTos   '2a\ovp'   Koi  viol  'icoa- 
 
 aias  Ba^vXavos.  nip,  'lexovias  vlos  avrov,   SeSfKt'as 
 
 vlos  avTov.   (1   Chron.  iii.   10 — 
 
 17.) 
 
 The  resemblance  between  the  two  parallel  ge- 
 nealogies in  this  tesseradecade  is  much  less  striking 
 than  in  the  first.  In  the  first  place,  the  genealogy 
 in  1  Chron.  iii.  instead  of  being  continued  in  the 
 form  of  that  in  the  book  of  Ruth,  adopts  the  for- 
 mula, '  The  sons  of  Solomon,  Roboam  his  son,  Abia 
 his  son,'  &c.  down  to  Josiah  inclusive,  of  whom  in 
 V.  15  the  same  formula  is   repeated,  and  again  of 
 
 5—2 
 
C8      THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH      [CII.  IV. 
 
 Jehoiakim,  v.  16,  and  of  Jechoniah,  v.  18,  whereas 
 St  Matthew  continues  the  same  form  as  that  of 
 Ruth  iv.  throughout.  David  begat  Solomon, . . .  and 
 Solomon  begat  Roboam,  &c.,  probably  following  in 
 this  the  genealogy  which  we  have  supposed  him  to 
 have  copied. 
 
 Again,  it  is  observable  that  Solomon's  name  is 
 differently  rendered.  In  the  Septuagint  as  well 
 as  in  the  Apocryphal  books  it  is  everywhere  SaXw- 
 txwv,  but  in  St  Matthew  it  is  '^oKoijlwv,  as  also  every- 
 where where  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament.  Ap- 
 parently therefore  '^oXofxwu  was  the  more  modern 
 pronunciation  current  in  our  Saviour's  time,  and  it 
 was  perhaps  so  written  in  the  genealogical  table. 
 The  only  other  difference  observable  in  the  names 
 is  that  'IwdOav  of  1  Chron.  is  '[wdOafx  in  St  Matthew, 
 in  closer  agreement  with  the  Hebrew  C^lV. 
 
 But  the  most  remarkable  differences  are  those 
 about  which  so  much  has  been  written,  viz.,  the 
 omission  of  the  three  names  of  Ahaziah,  Joash,  and 
 Amaziah,  between  Joram  and  Ozias,  i.  e.  Uzziah,  by 
 which  the  number  of  generations  is  reduced  to 
 fourteen,  instead  of  seventeen,  which  is  the  real 
 number :  and  the  apparent  omission  of  the  name 
 of  Jehoiakim  the  son  of  Josiah,  and  father  of 
 Jeconiah,  while  Jeconiah  himself  has  to  be  reck- 
 oned twice  over  to  make  good  the  number  fourteen 
 in  the  last  division'.  And  first,  as  regards  the  omis- 
 sion of  the  three  kings  between  Jorara  and  Uzziah. 
 
 ^  Hottinger's  expedient  to  reckon  Joseph  and  Mary  as  two 
 generations,  is  surely  absurd.  (De  Geneal.  J.  C.  Dissert.  Poster, 
 xxiv.) 
 
§   I.]       THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.        69 
 
 This  is  admirably  explained,  and  illustrated  by 
 similar  examples,  in  Dr  Mill's  Vindication  of  our 
 Lord's  Genealogy,  -where  he  shews  a  precisely 
 similar  handling  of  the  numhers  of  generations  in 
 order  to  bring  them  to  a  symmetrical  or  mystical 
 shape  by  Philo,  and  by  the  author  of  an  ancient 
 Samaritan  poem,  and  argues  conclusively  that  in 
 both  those  cases,  as  well  as  in  that  of  St  Matthew, 
 there  could  be  no  question  either  of  ignorance  or 
 deception,  but  merely  an  adoption  of  a  national 
 mode  of  thought  in  handling  numbers,  (pp.  112 — ■ 
 123).  If  the  table  from  which  St  Matthew  copied 
 this  genealogy  was  either  a  three-sided  pyramid, 
 or  any  otherwise  consisted  of  three  equal  spaces, 
 a  further  reason,  drawn  however  equally  from  the 
 Jewish  notions  about  numbers,  might  exist  for 
 these  three  double  hebdomads.  At  the  same  time 
 it  must  be  acknowledged  that  it  is  a  singular 
 circumstance  that  the  first  name  omitted,  which  in 
 Greek  is  '0;^o^tas,  should  be  identical  as  to  its  last 
 three  syllables  with  the  name  w  hich  in  St  Matthew 
 actually  follows  in  its  place,  viz.  'O^/as,  and  it  is 
 impossible  not  to  suspect  that  in  the  first  instance 
 the  omission  was  caused  by  this  circumstance, 
 either  through  the  accidental  mistake  of  a  copyist, 
 whose  eye  catching  the  concluding  oQiav  which  he 
 had  just  written  after  '\w^a\t.,  mistook  it  for  the 
 oXJ.av  in  his  copy  after  'kixaa'ia^,  and  so  passed  on  to 
 Jotham, '  and  did  not  care  afterwards  to  rectify  it 
 when  he    discovered   that  he   had  produced   two 
 
70    THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH   [CH.  IV. 
 
 foiirteens  by  his  mistake;  or  else  that  when  the 
 intention  existed  of  reducing  the  number  of  kings 
 to  fourteen,  the  particular  kings  to  be  left  out  was 
 decided  by  observing  the  near  resemblance  between 
 'Oxo^/as  and  'O^/a?.  That  there  is  any  mystical 
 or  Divine  reason  for  the  omission  of  these  three 
 particular  kings  rather  than  any  other  three,  or 
 that  their  wickedness  was  greater  than  that  of 
 Ahaz,  or  Manasseh,  or  Amon,  or  that  personal 
 wickedness  is  a  ground  for  exclusion  from  a  gene- 
 alogy, cannot  be  maintained  with  any  show  of 
 proof,  nor  by  any  analogy  from  Holy  Scripture. 
 It  is  much  simpler  to  suppose  that  the  original 
 genealogist  was  influenced  by  the  causes  above 
 named,  and  that  St  Matthew  adopted  the  genealogy 
 as  suited  to  his  purpose,  and  as  specially  adapted 
 for  the  Jews,  for  whom  in  the  first  instance  his 
 Gospel  was  intended. 
 
 As  regards  the  omission  of  Jehoiakim,  the  ex- 
 planation is  much  more  difficult,  and  in  my  judg- 
 ment impossible,  without  a  conjectural  emenda- 
 tion of  the  text.  That  the  first-named  Jechonias 
 ('Josias  begat  Jechonias')  means  Jehoiakim,  may 
 be  demonstrated  as  follows. 
 
 1 .  The  mention  of '  his  brethren'  is  not  appli- 
 cable to  Jehoiachin  or  Jeconias,  who  had  no  bre- 
 thren at  all ;  but  is  particularly  applicable  to 
 Jehoiakim,  whose  three  brethren  are  mentioned 
 by  name  in  the  parallel  genealogy  of  1  Chron.  iii. 
 15,  and  of  whom  two,  Shallum  or  Jehoahaz,  and 
 
§I.~\  THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.  71 
 
 Zedekiah,  sat  upon  the  throne  of  Judah.  Compare 
 above  the  expression  (v.  2)  'Jacob  begat  Judah 
 and  his  brethren.' 
 
 2.  The  number  fourteen  requires  Jeeonias 
 to  be  included  in  the  second  tesseradecade,  and  he 
 is  also  required  for  the  third.  It  is  quite  incom- 
 prehensible that  Jehoiachin,  who  only  reigned 
 three  months,  who  is  spoken  of  with  the  utmost 
 reprobation  in  Scripture,  and  who  had  no  posterity, 
 should  be  singled  out  of  the  whole  list  to  be 
 counted  twice  over.  And  though  one  might  have 
 been  content  to  overlook  a  slight  deficiency  in  the 
 number  fourteen,  or  a  little  contrivance  to  make 
 it  good,  if  necessity  had  so  required,  yet  it  seems 
 absurd  to  leave  out  one  name  arbitrarily,  and  then 
 to  make  the  loss  good  by  repeating  the  next  name 
 twice  over. 
 
 3.  That  Josiah  begat  any  body  about  the  time 
 they  were  carried  away  to  Babylon  is  not  true,  nor 
 is  it  natural  to  couple  the  name  of  the  good  Josiah 
 with  the  captivity  at  all.  But  that  Jehoiakim 
 begat  Jeconiah  about  the  time  of  the  captivity  is 
 strictly  true.  For  Jeconiah  his  son  was  quite  a 
 child  when  the  captivity  commenced  about  the 
 third  year  of  his  father's  reign  (Dan.  i.  1 ;  2  Kings 
 xxiii.  36 ;  xxiv.  8) ;  or,  if  we  follow  the  reading 
 in  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  5,  6,  9,  was  born  just  about  the 
 time  of  his  father's  captivity. 
 
 4.  The  two  names  Jehoiakim  and  Jehoiachin 
 are  all  but  identical  in  Hebrew,  Greek  and  Latin, 
 and   as  Dr  Mill  shews,    (p.    108),    are   frequently 
 
72         THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH      [CII.  lY. 
 
 confounded  by  the  fatliers\  Thus  for  example  in 
 the  Septuagint  of  the  Vatican,  we  read  in  2  Kings 
 
 XXxiv.  G,  Ktti  eKoiiuLtjOr)  'iwaaifx  /uerd  twv  iraTepwv  av- 
 Tou,    Kal    efiaaiXevaev     Iwa^j/a    vios    uutov  uvt     avrov' 
 
 It  is  obvious  how  very  easily  a  confusion  might 
 arise  between  two  names  differing  by  only  one 
 letter,  and  even  the  differing  letter  differing  so 
 little  as  a  /c  and  a  x^  ^>  OJ*  <^^^- 
 
 But,  it  must  be  added,  the  whole  difficulty  is 
 
 '  To  the  instances  given  by  Dr  Mill,  may  be  added  a  remark- 
 able one  in  the  Epistle  of  Africanus  to  Origen.  Routh's  Eel.  Sac. 
 Vol.  II.  p.  113.  Ka\  Taina  tj;  /3a<Ti\e(o<;  avToov  jevojxevuv  yv- 
 vaiKi  (SwcraVi-'t;)  'Iwaice'pi,  01/  cvv&povov  ireTroUiTO  o  BapuAwi'itoi/ 
 fiaariXevr  which  last  expression  must  refer  to  what  is  related  of 
 Jehoiachin,  Jer.  lii.  32.  G.  Syncellus  too  (in  Routh's  note,  p.  209), 
 has  Tov  vlov  'IwaKe'i/^  'Iwa^^eV-  Another  very  remarkable  instance 
 is  to  be  found  in  Epiphanius,  Adv.  Hasres.  Vol.  i.  p.  21,  and 
 which  singularly  tallies  with  the  present  error  in  St  Matthew. 
 'Iwcr('a?  {^evva)  tov  ^\e-^ov'iav,  tov  koi  SeAou^i  KaXovfxevov'  a 
 'leyoi/ias  outo?  yevva  tov  'le-j^oviav  tov  KaXov/xevov  "^edeKtav,  Kat 
 'lu}aKe\^^,  where  observe  the  triple  confusion.  Jehoiakim  is  called 
 'lexovia^.,  and  Jechoniah  is  called  'Iwak-eV,  and  father  and  son  are 
 also  both  called  'Ie;;^oi/<a?.  The  mention  of  Zedekiah  as  a  name 
 of  Jechoniah,  seems  to  refer  to  1  Cliron.  iii.  16.  So  again,  in  the 
 apocryphal  book,  1  Esdras  i.  37  and  43,  we  find  the  son  of 
 Josiah  called  'IwrkV,  Joakim ;  and  in  the  43d  verse,  it  is  said  of 
 Jehoiachin,  Ka\  eftaalXeva-ev  uvt  avTov  Iwuk'ju  o  v'lo^  avTou^ 
 where  there  is  not  the  slightest  difference  between  the  two  names. 
 Archbishop  Usher,  in  his  Chron.  Sacr.  (Works,  Vol.  xii.  p.  126), 
 remarks  also  that  both  father  and  son  were  indifferently  called 
 Joacim,  or  Joachim,  and  quotes  from  Sulpicius  Severus,  'Joachim 
 exactis  in  regno  annis  undecim,  filio  ejusdem  nominis  locum 
 fecit;'  and  from  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  who  calls  Jehoiachin, 
 TwaKeV  t're/jo?,  and  from  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  who  calls  him, 
 irdrpi  ojxwnixo^  'IwoKe'ijU,  and  from  a  IMS.  treatise  on  Easter  {Trac- 
 tatus  Paschal'u),  composed  a.d.  24.3,  where  it  is  said  that '  Joachinl 
 annis  xi  (rcgnavit)  item  Joachim  fihus  ejus  ...  diebus  centum.' 
 
§  I.]       THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.        73 
 
 not  got  over  by  merely  understanding  the  first 
 'le^^oi/i'as  to  mean  Jehoiakim,  and  the  second  to  mean 
 Jehoiachin,  because  then  Jehoiachin's  parentage 
 would  not  be  given  at  all,  and  there  would  be  a 
 fatal  gap  in  the  genealogy.  In  every  other  instance, 
 each  person  is  named  twice,  first  as  a  son,  and  then 
 as  a  father.  And  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  any 
 reason  for  an  exception  in  this  case.  It  seems  to 
 me  therefore  that  St  Matthew  must  originally  have 
 
 written,  Iwo-m?  oe  eyeuvrjcre  tov  IwaKelfi,  Kal  roi)?  doeX~ 
 (povs  avTou'  IcoaKetfx  oe  eyevvrjae  tov  Iwayelfx  eirl  rj/s 
 fX€ToiK€<Tia9  Ba/Si/XftJi/os  *  Mera  oe  Trjv  [xeToiKecriav  Ba- 
 (SuXcovos,  'looa-^el/x  eyevvrjae  tov  ^aXaOiTjX,  k.t.X.  ex- 
 actly after  the  analogy  of  the  2nd  and  3rd  verses. 
 Had  a  transcriber  by  mistake  written  a  ;)^  in  the 
 first  name  instead  of  a  k,  it  is  obvious  how  natu- 
 rally a  subsequent  copyist  or  reviser  would  have 
 
 passed    his    pen     through    'Iway^elfx.    Se    eyiwrjae    Toif 
 
 'Iwaxelfx  as  an  accidental  repetition;  and  a  MS.  with 
 such  a  mistaken  erasure  might  have  laid  the  foun- 
 dation for  the  omission  in  any  number  of  subse- 
 quent MSS.  ^  This  appears  to  be  a  far  easier  and 
 simpler  way  of  accounting  for  the  present  anomaly, 
 
 '  It  is  perhaps  worth  noticing,  that  Beza's  Cambridge  MS. 
 of  the  Gospels,  which  appears  to  have  substituted  the  names  in 
 St  Matthew's  genealogy  for  those  in  St  Luke,  between  David  and 
 Christ,  reads  tov  'le^oi/iou  tov  'IwaKCijU  too  EAtaxel/x  tov  'Iw- 
 a-e'ia.  Mill's  Greek  Testament.  And  we  have  the  express  tes- 
 timony of  Iren^us  that  the  name  of  Jehoiakim  was  in  his  copy 
 of  St  Matthew,  when  he  says,  '  Joseph  enim  Joachn  et  Jechoni^ 
 •filius  ostenditur,  quemadmodum  et  Matthseus  generationem  ejus 
 exponit.'     Contra  Hceres.  Lib.  iii.  cap.  xxi. 
 
74        THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH      [CH.  IV. 
 
 than  any  other  that  has  been  proposed.  And  if 
 this  explanation  is  correct,  it  affords  another  indi- 
 cation that  St  Matthew  did  not  compile  his  genea- 
 logy from  1  Chron.  iii.,  where  the  form  of  the 
 name  used  is  'Uxo^ia^  and  not  'Icoa-xei/m :  the  form 
 'lexoi'ia^  was  doubtless  substituted  in  St  Matthew's 
 Gospel  much  later,  to  bring  it  into  accordance  with 
 1  Chron.  iii.  However,  on  the  whole  it  may  safely 
 be  affirmed  that  there  is  a  perfect  agreement  be- 
 tween St  Matthew's  genealogy  and  those  of  the 
 Old  Testament,  as  far  as  the  second  tesseradecade 
 is  concerned;  and  the  same  having  been  shewn 
 also  as  regards  the  first  tesseradecade,  we  may  re- 
 gard the  position  as  established,  that  the  Gospel  of 
 St  Matthew  agrees  with  the  Old  Testament  genea- 
 logies from  Abraham  to  the  time  of  the  captivity. 
 
 Section  II. 
 
 THE    GENEALOGY    OF    ST   LUKE    AGREES    WITH    THE    OLD 
 TESTAMENT  GENEALOGIES  FROM  ADAM  TO  ABRAHAM. 
 
 St  Luke,  who  delights  in  exhibiting  the  grace 
 of  God  in  its  wider  extensions,  and  its  adaptation 
 to  the  Gentile  world,  traces  the  genealogy  of  Jesus 
 not  merely  to  the  founders  of  Jewish  royalty,  and 
 the  Jewish  race  respectively,  as  St  Matthew  does, 
 but  to  the  father  of  the  human  family,  who  derived 
 his  being  directly  from  God,  and  was  in  this  respect 
 a  type  of  the  second  Adam,  the  Son  of  God.  But 
 there  is  no  evidence  to  be  drawn  from  this  circum- 
 stance, that  St  Luke's  is  especially  the  genealogy 
 
§  II.]  THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.  75 
 
 of  the  Virgin,  and  that  Jesus  Christ  is  hereby 
 shewn  to  be  the  seed  of  the  woman  who  was  to 
 bruise  the  serpent's  head.  For  this  He  was,  as 
 being  the  Son  of  Mary,  whatever  her  lineage  might 
 be.  Tracing  the  descent  of  Mary  up  to  Adam  does 
 not  add  one  jot  to  the  evidence  of  the  fulfilment 
 of  that  prophecy.  And  it  may  be  added  reverently, 
 that  if  it  would,  and  if  such  additional  evidence 
 were  needful  to  the  Church,  doubtless  her  genea- 
 logy would  have  been  given  in  a  form  which  would 
 have  enabled  us  to  know  that  it  is  her  genealogy 
 which  we  possess.  But  tracing  the  genealogy  of 
 Jesus  Christ  lineally  up  to  David  through  Nathan, 
 Avas  necessary  to  shew  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise 
 to  David.  And  the  same  may  be  said  of  Abraham 
 and  Shem.  While  the  exhibition  of  Christ's  descent 
 as  the  Son  of  Man  (or  Adam)  was  well  calculated 
 to  represent  Him  as  the  Saviour  of  the  whole 
 human  race  ;  a  design,  as  above  observed,  in  exact 
 harmony  with  the  other  parts  of  St  Luke's  Gospel. 
 But  to  turn  to  the  matter  more  immediately  in 
 hand. 
 
 The  genealogy  of  St  Luke  agrees  exactly  with 
 the  genealogies  of  the  Old  Testament,  from  Adam 
 to  Abraham  with  one  exception,  viz.  the  inser- 
 tion of  Cainan  between  Sala  and  Arphaxad  (v.  35, 
 36),  in  which,  however,  St  Luke  is  in  accordance 
 with  the  present  Septuagint  Version  \  in  which  both 
 
 *  In  the  Vatican  MS.  however  the  early  chapters  of  Genesis 
 are  destroyed ;  and  thirteen  verses  of  1  Chron.  i.,  among  which 
 is  V.  18,  are  left  out. 
 
76        THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CH.  IV. 
 
 in  Gen.  x.  24,  and  inxi.  13,  and  in  1  Chron.  i.  18, 
 the  Septuagint,  according  to  all  existing  copies, 
 differs  from  the  Hebrew  in  the  insertion  of  Cainan 
 as  the  son  of  Arphaxad,  and  the  father  of  Sala, 
 while  Onkelos,  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  and  Ver- 
 sion S  the  Sjriac,  the  Arabic,  and  the  Armenian,  as 
 well  as  the  copies  of  the  Septuagint 'used  by  Theo- 
 philus,  Africanus,  Eusebius,  Epiphanius,  all  follow 
 the  Hebrew  text,  and  make  Sala  the  son  of  Ar- 
 phaxad. There  is  this  further  discrepancy  between 
 the  Hebrew  text  and  the  Septuagint,  that  whereas 
 the  Hebrew  makes  the  age  of  Arphaxad  35  when 
 he  begat  Salah,  the  Septuagint  makes  it  135  when 
 he  begat  Cainan,  and  Cainan's  130  when  he  begat 
 Salah;  and  in  like  manner  adds  100  years  each 
 to  the  ages  of  Salah,  Eber,  Peleg,  Reu,  Serug,  at 
 the  time  of  their  begetting  their  respective  sons, 
 150  to  Nahor,  besides  several  minor  differences  in 
 the  numbers. 
 
 Reversing  the  order  of  St  Luke's  list  so  as  to 
 begin  with  Adam,  for  the  sake  of  making  the  com- 
 parison easier,  the  three  subjoined  columns  give 
 St  Luke's,  the  Septuagint,  and  the  Hebrew  (repre- 
 sented by  the  authorized  English  Version)  account  of 
 our  Lord's  line  from  Adam  to  Abraham,  side  by  side. 
 
 *  The  Samaritan  Yersion  agrees  for  the  most  part  with  the 
 Hebrew  text,  as  to  the  ages  at  which  the  antediluvian  Patriarchs 
 begat  their  sons ;  but  agrees  with  the  Septuag.  (except  in  the  age 
 of  Nahor,  which  differs  from  both)  as  to  the  ages  of  the  post- 
 diluvian generations  to  Abraham,  where  they  differ  from  the 
 Hebrew;  and  yet,  as  mentioned  above,  the  Samaritan  Version 
 follows  the  Hebrew  in  the  omission  of  Cainan. 
 
§11-] 
 
 THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVIU. 
 
 77 
 
 St  Luke  iii. 
 3S— 34. 
 
 'O  Qfos 
 
 2fid 
 
 'Evcos 
 
 Ka'ivav 
 
 Md\(\ffj\ 
 
 Septuagint. 
 Gen.  V.  1—14. 
 
 AvTT)    ^    /3t^Xos    yeve- 
 
 (reas  avdpaTTcov,   j/    riy-epa 
 
 fTroiT}(rev  6  Qeos  tov  A8a[j,, 
 
 .  .  .  "E^Tjcre   8e  'ASoi/li  rpi- 
 
 aKOVTa    KOI    dioKoaia    errj, 
 
 Koi   e'yeWr/cre   Kara   t^v   l- 
 
 deav  ai/Tov.  .  .  .  Kai  eVo)- 
 
 vofiacre    to     ovofia    avrov 
 
 2t]d.     'EyevovTo  de  al  ijfie- 
 
 pai   ASa/Lt,   as  ^^i)(t(  pera 
 
 TO  yevvrjcrai  avrov  tov  Si)^, 
 
 err)  eirraKocna,  k.t.X.    Kal 
 
 iyivovro  Tvaaai  al   rjpepat 
 
 Abap.  ....  TpiaKovra    koi 
 
 evvaKocia  errj  .  .  .  "E^rjae 
 
 8e  ^Tjd  TTfvre  Ka\  StaKoaia 
 
 €TT],   Kal    eyewTjae  rov  'E- 
 
 v<i>s.     Kai  e^rjae  ^fjd  pera 
 
 to  yevvfjaai  avrov  rov  'E- 
 
 va>s,  fnra  err]  Kal  enraKo- 
 
 aia  .  .   .  Kal  eyevovro  wa- 
 
 aai  al  rjpepai  '2fi6,  8(o8€Ka 
 
 Kal  ivvaKoaia  errj  .  .  .  Kal 
 
 f^Tjcrfv   'Evais    errj    fKarov 
 
 evvevijKovra.)   Kal  iyevvrjae 
 
 TOV    "Ka'ivav.     Kal    e^rjcrev 
 
 Evcos    pera    to    yevvfj(rai 
 
 avTov    tov  Ka'ivav   irevre- 
 
 Kai8eKa  errj  koi  eirraKocrca 
 
 .  .  .  Kai    eyevovro   iraaai 
 
 al  Tjpepai.  'Evtaf,  irevre  erq 
 
 KCLi   evvaKoaria Kal 
 
 e^T](T€  Ka'ivav  e^boprjKovra 
 
 Kal  eKarov  errj,  koi  eyevvq- 
 
 <Te    TOV   MakeXerfK.       Kal 
 
 e^r](T€  Ka'ivav  pera  to  yev- 
 
 vfjcrai  avrov  rov  MaXeXerfK, 
 
 Tea-crapaKovra  Kal  ewraKO- 
 
 (Tia  err],  .  .  .  Kal  eyevovro 
 
 Tracrai    al    rjpepai    Ka'ivav 
 
 8eKa  err]  Kal  evvaKoaia,  .  . 
 
 Kal  e(r]cre  MaXeXeijX  nevre 
 
 KoX    e^TjKovra    koI    eKarov 
 
 English  Version  of  the  Hebrew 
 Text.     (ien.  v.  1—14. 
 
 This  is  the  book  of  the 
 generations  of  Adam.  In  the 
 day  that  God  created  man. 
 .  .  .  And  Adam  lived  an 
 hundred  and  thirty  years, 
 and  begat  a  son  in  his  own 
 likeness.  .  .  .  And  called  his 
 name  Seth.  And  the  days 
 of  Adam  after  he  had  be- 
 gotten Seth  were  eight 
 hundred  years.  .  .  . 
 
 And  all  the  days  that 
 Adam  lived  were  nine  hun- 
 dred arid  thirty  years.  .  . 
 
 And  Seth  lived  an  hun- 
 dred and  five  years,  and 
 begat  Enos  :  and  Seth  lived 
 after  he  begat  Enos  eight 
 hundred  and  seven  years. . . 
 And  all  the  days  of  Seth 
 were  nine  hundred  and 
 twelve  years.  .  .  .  And  E- 
 nos  lived  ninety  years,  and 
 begat  Cainan  :  And  Enos 
 lived  after  he  begat  Cai- 
 nan eight  hundred  and 
 fifteen  years.  .  . . 
 
 And  all  the  days  of  Enos 
 were  nine  hundred  and  five 
 
 years And    Cainan 
 
 lived  seventy  years,  and  be- 
 gat Mahalaleel  :  AndCainan 
 lived  after  he  begat  Maha- 
 laleel eight  hundred  and 
 forty  years.  .  .  . 
 
 And  all  the  days  of  Cai- 
 nan were  nine  hundred  and 
 ten  years.  .  .  . 
 
 And  Mahalaleel  lived 
 sixty  and   five   yeai-s,  and 
 
'8         THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CH.  IV. 
 
 St  Luke  iii. 
 38—34. 
 
 'lapeB 
 
 Septuajjint. 
 Gen.  V.  15—29. 
 
 err),  Kai  eyevvrjae  tov  id- 
 peS.  Kat  e^r^ae  MaXeXejjX 
 /Ltera  ro  yevvrjcrai,  avrov 
 TOV  'lapeS,  err)  TpiaKovra 
 Koi  enraKoaia.  .  .  Kai  eye- 
 vovTO  TTcicrai  at  ripepai  Ma- 
 XiKivfK  err]  TrevTe  Kai  ive- 
 vqKOvra  Ka\  oKraKoa-ia.  .  . 
 Ka\  e^r](T€v  'lapeS  8vo  Ka\ 
 e^i]K0VTa    err)    Ka\    iKarov, 
 
 'Ei'w;^  Kat    eyevvTjcre  tov   'Evd>)(. 
 
 Kai  e^rjo-ev  'lapeS  [lera  to 
 yfVvfjcraL  avrov  tov  Efco;^, 
 OKTaKocria  eTrj.  ,  .  Kai  eye- 
 VOVTO  TTacrat,  al  rjp.epai  'la- 
 peS  bvo  Ka\  e^rjKOVTa  Koi 
 evvoKoaia  errj.  .  .  Kai  e^rj- 
 crev  'Ei'co;^  irivTe  Koi  i^rj- 
 KOVTa  Koi  eKOTov  eTr),  Kai 
 'M.aOovaaXa  eyevvrjcre  tov  Madovaaka. 
 Evr]pe(rTT](Te  8e  'Evmx.  tw 
 Qea  p,€Ta.  to  yevvrja-ai  av- 
 Tov  TOV  yiaOovcroKa,  bia~ 
 KOCTia  er>j.  .  .  Kat  eyevovTO 
 TTOcrat  at  ijfiepai  'Ei'w;^ 
 7rej/re  Kot  e^tjKovTa  Kai 
 TptaKocrta  eTr).  . .  Kai  eCv^^ 
 MadovaaKa  inTa  err]  Ka\ 
 e^rjKOVTa    Kai     eKaTov,   Kai 
 
 AapLtx  iyevvrjae  tov  Aapex-  Kai 
 e^rjae  MadovaaXa  p,eTa  to 
 yevvtjaai  avrov  tov  Aayne;^ 
 8vo  Koi  oKTaKoaia  eTij.  .  . 
 Kai  eyevovTo  ivacrai  al 
 r]pepat  MaOovaaXa  as  f'C^- 
 aev,  evvea  koi  e^rjKOVTa 
 KOI  evvaKocria  eTtj.  .  .  Kat 
 e^T^O'e  Aa/if;^- oAcrcB  Koi  6y- 
 dorjKovra  Ka\  (Karbv  errf, 
 KoL  eyevvrjcrev  viov.  Kat 
 eTTcovopacre  to  ovopa  av- 
 Ntoe  tov   NcSe.  .  .  .    Kat    e^rjcre 
 
 I  '    Aape^   H-fTa    to    yevvrjo-ai 
 
 English  Version  of  Hebrew  Text. 
 Gen.  V.  15—30. 
 
 begat  Jarecl :  And  Maha- 
 laleel  lived  after  he  begat 
 Jared  eight  hundred  and 
 thirty  years.  .  .  . 
 
 And  all  the  days  of 
 Mahalaleel  were  eight  hun- 
 dred ninety  and  five  years. 
 
 And  Jared  lived  an  hun- 
 dred sixty  and  two  years, 
 and  he  begat  Enoch.  And 
 Jared  lived  after  he  begat 
 Enoch  eight  hundred  years. 
 ....  And  all  the  days  of 
 Jared  were  nine  hundred 
 sixty  and  two  years.  .  . 
 
 And  Enoch  lived  sixty 
 and  five  years,  and  begat 
 Methuselah : 
 
 And  Enoch  walked  with 
 God  after  he  begat  Methu- 
 selah three  hundred  years. 
 .  .  .  And  all  the  days  of 
 Enoch  were  three  hundred 
 sixty  and  five  years.  .  .  . 
 
 And  Methuselah  lived 
 an  hundred  eighty  and 
 seven  years,  and  begat  La- 
 mech :  And  Methuselah 
 lived  after  he  begat  La- 
 mech  seven  hundred  eighty 
 and  two  years.  .  .  • 
 
 And  all  the  days  of 
 Methusaleh  were  nine  hun- 
 dred sixty  and  nine  years. 
 ....  And  Lamech  lived 
 an  hundred  eighty  and  two 
 years,  and  begat  a  son  :  And 
 he  called  his  name  Noah. 
 .  .  .  And  Lamech  lived  after 
 he  begat  Noah  five  hun- 
 dred ninety  and  five  years. 
 
^"•] 
 
 THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID. 
 
 79 
 
 St  Luke  iii.  Septuagint. 
 
 38— 3-t.  Gen.  v.  30-32. 
 
 avTov  TQv  NoJe  TrevraKocna 
 
 Koi  e^t]K0VTa  Koi  irevre  err], 
 
 ....  Kai  eyivovTO  iraaai 
 
 ai  ijfiepai  Aifxex,  inraKo- 
 
 (Tia      KaX     7TevTt]KovTaTpia 
 
 err).  .  ,  Kat  rjv  Nwe  ircov 
 
 TTevTaKocTiaiv'   koi  eyeWiycre 
 
 2)Jjlt  Tpds    viovs,     TOP    SlJ/Lt,   TOV 
 
 Xa/JL,  TOV  'id^e^. 
 
 Septuag.  Gen.  xi.  10 — 17. 
 Comp.  also  Gen.  x.  21 — 25. 
 
 Kal  aSrai  at  yeveo'eis 
 ^rjft'  Kai  r'jv  2))/^  vlos  eKa- 
 Tov  erwv,  ore  eyevvrjcre  top 
 ^Ap(f)a^a8  Ap(f)a^ad,  devrepov  erovs 
 fiera  top  KaTaKKv(rp.6v. 
 Kai  €^r](Te  Sijja,  fiera  to 
 yevvfja-ai  avTov  tuv  'Ap(})a- 
 ^a8,  err]  TrevraKoaia.  .  .  . 
 Kat  i^j](T^v  'Ap(f)a^a8  eKa- 
 TOPTpiaKovTaTvivTe  err],  kol 
 
 Ka'ivav  eyevvrjae  tov  YLdivav.  Kai 
 e^rjo-eu  'Ap(f)a^a8,  peTa  to 
 yeuprja-ai  ovtov  tov  Kaivav, 
 eTTj  TeTpaKoaia,  ....  Kai 
 eC^(T€  Ka'ivav  eKUTov  Kal 
 TpiaKovTa  err],  Kal  eyevvrja-e 
 
 'SdXa  TOV  2aXa'    Kal  e^tjcre  Ka'i- 
 
 vav peTa  TO  yevvrja-ai  av- 
 Tov TOV  '2a\a,  err]  TpioKO- 
 
 (TiOy   TpiaKovra Kai 
 
 I'fjjae  ^aXa  (Karbv  Tpid- 
 KOVTa    €T7],    Kal    iyfvvr](re 
 
 "E^ep  Toj/'E/Sep.   Kat  e^vcre  2a\a 
 
 pcTo,  TO  yevvrja-ai  avTov 
 TOV  "E^ep,  TpiaKoaia  rpi- 
 OKOVTa  eTT],  .  .  Kat  eC^crev 
 E/3ep  fKaTov  TpiaKOVTa 
 Tecraapa  eTT],  Kal  eyevvrjcre 
 
 *aXeK  TOV    ^aXey.       Kal    e^rjaev 
 
 E^ep,  p(Ta  TO  yevvfja-ai 
 avTov  TOV  $aX€y,  err}  8ia- 
 
 English  Version  of  Hebrew  Text. 
 Gen.  V.  31—32. 
 
 And  all  the  days  of  La- 
 mech  were  seven  hundred 
 seventy  and  seven  years. 
 ....  And  Noah  was  five 
 hundred  years  old :  and 
 Noah  begat  Shem,  Ham, 
 and  Japheth. 
 
 English  Version  of  Heb.  Text 
 Gen.  xl.  10—17. 
 
 These  are  the  genera- 
 tions of  Shem  :  Shera  was 
 an  hundred  years  old,  and 
 begat  Arphaxad  two  years 
 after  the  flood  :  And  Shera 
 lived  after  he  begat  Ar- 
 phaxad five  hundred  years. 
 
 And  Arphaxad  lived  five 
 and  thirty  years,  and  begat 
 Sala :  And  Arphaxad  lived 
 after  he  begat  Sala  four 
 hundred  and  three   years. 
 
 And  Sala  lived  thirty 
 years,  and  begat  Eber :  And 
 Sala  lived  after  he  begat 
 Eber  four  hundred  and 
 three  years.  .  .  . 
 
 And  Eber  lived  four 
 and  thirty  years,  and  be- 
 gat Peleg:  And  Eber  lived 
 after  he  begat  Peleg,  four 
 hundred  and  thirty  years. 
 
80         THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH      [CH.  IV. 
 
 St  Luke  iii. 
 33—34. 
 
 'Payav 
 
 ^(povx. 
 
 Na;(wp 
 
 Oapa 
 
 'A^padfi, 
 
 Septuag.  Gen.  xi.  18—26. 
 Comp.  also  Gen.  x.  21 — 25. 
 
 Kocria  e^8oiiT]KOVTa,  .  .  Kal 
 
 e^T^cre  4>aXey  rpiaKovra  Ka\ 
 
 fKarov   err),    Koi    ey€vvr](Te 
 
 Tov    'PayaC.      Kal     fC'^l^^ 
 
 ^aXey    pera    to    yevvrjaai 
 
 avTov  TOV  'Vayav,  ewe  a  koi 
 
 diaKoaia  eTrj.  .  .  Kal  e^W^ 
 
 'PayaC     eKaTov   TpiaKovTa 
 
 Koi   bvo  err],  Kal  eyevvrja-e 
 
 TOV    "Zepovx-      Kai    e^rja-e 
 
 'Payav   jnera   to    yevvfjcrai, 
 
 aiiTov  TOV  ^epov^  BiaKocria 
 
 iiTTO.   €TT].  .  .  .   Kal    eXrja-e 
 
 ^epoiix    ^KaTov    TpiaKovTa 
 
 eTT)  Koi  eyevvrjcre  tov  Na- 
 
 X<^P-     Kai    e^rjae    2€povx 
 
 peTo.    TO     yevvrjcrai    avrov 
 
 TOV   Na;(top  eTrj    SiaKocria. 
 
 ,  .  .  Kal  e'C^cre  Na;^w/3  eTTj 
 
 eKGTOV     e^dopTjKOVTaevvea, 
 
 Koi   iyevvrjcre    tov   Qdppa' 
 
 Koi  eC^cre  Naxaip   pera  to 
 
 yfvvfjcrai  avrov  tov  Oappa, 
 
 err]  eKOTov  eiKoa-nrevTe.  .  . 
 
 Kal  f^rjcre   Qdppa  i^hoprj- 
 
 Kovra    eTT],    Ka\     eyevvrjae 
 
 TOV  "AjSpap,   Kal  tov   Na- 
 
 X^p>  i^o-l  TO"  'Appdv. 
 
 English  Version  of  Heb.  Text. 
 Gen.  xi.  18—26. 
 
 And  Peleg  lived  thirty 
 years,  and  begat  Reu : 
 And  Peleg  lived,  after  he 
 begat  Reu  two  hundred 
 and  nine  years.  .  .  . 
 
 And  Reu  lived  two  and 
 thirty  years,  and  begat  Se- 
 rug: 
 
 And  Reu  lived  after  he 
 begat  Serug  two  hundred 
 and  seven  years.  .  .  . 
 
 And  Serug  lived  thirty 
 years,  and  begat  Nahor : 
 And  Serug  lived  after  ho 
 begat  Nahor  two  hundred 
 years.  .  .  . 
 
 And  Nahor  lived  nine 
 and  twenty  years,  and  be- 
 gat Terah : 
 
 And  Nahor  lived  after 
 he  begat  Terah  an  hun- 
 dred and  nineteen  years. .  . 
 
 And  Terah  lived  seventy 
 years,  and  begat  Abram, 
 Nahor,  and  Haran. 
 
 From  a  comparison  of  these  three  columns,  it 
 will  be  seen  at  once  that  St  Luke's  list  from  Adam 
 to  Abraham  is  in  exact  agreement  with  the  Old 
 Testament;  but  that  in  the  case  of  Cainan,  the 
 text  is  in  accordance  with  the  present  copies  of  the 
 Septuagint  Version,  as  above  said.  And  thence 
 arise  several  questions  of  extreme  difficulty  and 
 perplexity,  which  no  one  has  ever  yet  been  able  to 
 answer  satisfactorily.  As,  first,  how  comes  Cainan 
 into  the  Septuagint  text   with   his   hundred   and 
 
§  II.]      THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.        81 
 
 thirty  years?  Did  Mosqs  place  liim  there?  And 
 if  so,  how  comes  he  not  to  be  in  the  Hebrew 
 text,  nor  in  the  Samaritan,  which  so  often  agrees 
 with  the  Septuagint,  nor  in  the  Syriac,  or  Arme- 
 nian? And,  again,  how  comes  he  into  St  Luke's 
 list  ?  Did  St  Luke  place  him  there,  or  was  he 
 afterwards  inserted  to  make  St  Luke  agree  with 
 the  Septuagint  ?  Or  if  St  Luke  placed  him  there, 
 must  we  necessarily  believe  that  we  have  therefore 
 inspired  authority  for  his  having  really  been  the 
 father  of  Sala?  Or  may  we  suppose  that  St  Luke 
 took  the  Septuagint  pedigree,  or  one  framed  in 
 accordance  with  it,  as  he  found  it,  as  sufficiently 
 accurate  for  his  purpose,  but  did  not  in  so  doing  set 
 his  seal  to  each  individual  name  in  it  as  vouched 
 for  by  the  Holy  Ghost?  And  if  St  Luke  is  deemed 
 to  have  distinctly  stamped  as  authentic  the  genera- 
 tion of  Cainau,  there  follows  the  further  most  im- 
 portant enquiry,  whether  by  so  doing  he  has  also 
 given  his  inspired  authority  to  the  Septuagint 
 chronology,  in  preference  to  that  of  the  Hebrew 
 text,  by  which  1466  years  are  added  to  the  prse- 
 Abrahamic  period,  and  of  these,  880  years  are 
 added  to  the  interval  between  the  flood  and  the 
 birth  of  Abraham.  And  then  again  arises  the 
 further  question,  to  what  extent  is  the  authority  of 
 the  Hebrew  text  shaken,  if  such  important  and  ex- 
 tensive errors  are  admitted  to  exist  in  it?  This 
 is  obviously  not  the  place  to  enter  upon  such  wide 
 and  difficult  discussions ;  I  will  only  therefore  say, 
 
 6 
 
82        THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONX'ILED  WITH      [CH.  IV. 
 
 that  no  writer  whom  I  have  seen  on  either  side  of 
 the  question  appears  to  have  explained  the  matter 
 satisfactorily,  and  that  without  some  further  know- 
 ledge than  we  at  present  possess,  it  seems  impos- 
 sible to  come  to  a  positive  conclusion  as  to  how 
 Cainan  came  into  St  Luke's  Gospel.  The  reader 
 will  however  find  in  Ch.  viii.  an  attempt  to  eluci- 
 date the  subject,  as  far  as  concerns  the  authenticity 
 of  the  second  Cainan. 
 
 Another  difficulty  occurs  with  regard  to  the  age 
 of  Terah  when  he  begat  Abraham.  We  read  in 
 Gen.  xi.  26,  32,  'And  Terah  lived   70  years,  and 
 
 begat  Abram,  Nahor,  and  Haran' 'And  the  days 
 
 of  Terah  were  205  years:  and  Terah  died  in  Haran.' 
 And  in  Acts  vii.  4:  'Then  came  Abram  out  of  the 
 land  of  the  Chaldseans,  and  dwelt  in  Charran ;  and 
 from  thence,  when  his  father  was  dead,  he  removed 
 into  this  land.'  But  again,  in  Gen.  xii.  4,  we  read, 
 '  Abram  was  75  years  old  when  he  departed  out 
 of  Haran.'  If  then  we  understand  from  Gen.  xi.  26, 
 that  Terah  was  70  years  old  at  the  birth  of 
 Abram,  here  is  an  obvious  contradiction.  For 
 70  +  75  =  145.  And  as  Abram  did  not  leave  Haran 
 till  his  father's  death,  his  father  could  not  have 
 lived  205  years.  But  the  difficulty  is  easily  got 
 over  by  supposing  that  Abram,  though  named  first 
 on  account  of  his  dignity,  was  not  the  eldest  son, 
 but  probably  the  youngest  of  the  three — born  when 
 his  father  was  130  years  old,  a  supposition  with 
 which  the  marriage  of  Nahor  with  his  elder  bro- 
 
fill.]  THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.  83 
 
 ther  Haran's  daughter,  Milcah,  and  the  apparent 
 nearness  of  age  between  Abram  and  Lot,  and  the 
 three  generations  from  Nahor  to  Rebecca  corre- 
 sponding to  only  two,  from  Abraham  to  Isaac,  are 
 in  perfect  harmony.  It  is  possible  that  this  mis- 
 take of  making  Abram  the  eldest  was  one  cause  of 
 error  and  confusion  among  the  chronologists.  Thus 
 Africanus  (Routh,  Afric.  Chron.  p.  131)  puts  the 
 entrance  into  Canaan  in  the  year  of  the  world 
 3277,  upon  the  calculation  that  Terah  was  70 
 years  old  at  thg  birth  of  Abram.  So  also  Eusebius, 
 Epiphanius,  and  others ;  and,  as  Petavius  says, 
 {Animadv.  ad  Hmr,  lv.  p.  221),  '  vetustissimi  qui- 
 que  patres.'  He  is  very  angry  with  those  who, 
 (as  Archbishop  Usher),  'tot  sseculorum  adeoque  PP. 
 omnium  consensum  repudiant.'  That  Usher,  how- 
 ever, is  right,  can  scarcely  be  doubted.  In  like 
 manner  Ephraim  is  usually  mentioned  before  Ma- 
 nasseh.  So  Shem  is  named  first  always,  though 
 Japheth  was  the  eldest,  Gen.  x.  21.  See  also 
 1  Chron.  xxvi.  10. 
 
 Section  III. 
 
 ST  LUKe's  genealogy  agrees  with   the  old  TESTAMENT 
 GENEALOGIES  FROM  ABRAHAM  TO  DAVID. 
 
 We  again  place  the  genealogies  as  contained  in 
 St  Luke's  Gospel,  in  the  Septuagint  version,  and 
 in  the  English  version  of  the  Hebrew  text,  side  by 
 side. 
 
 6—2 
 
84        THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CH.  IV. 
 
 Luke  iii.  34-31.  Gen.  xxv.  19. 
 
 'Aj9pan/Li  Avrai  al    yfveaeis     I- 
 
 craaK  rov  v'lov  'A^paafi. 
 ^AjBpaafi  iyevvrjcre  tov  'I- 
 aaaK. 
 
 1  Chron.  i.  2S,  3i. 
 IcraaK  Ylol  Se  'AjSpaap  'icraaK 
 
 Ia*:a)/3  Kai  v'loi  'icraaK  'Iokco^ 
 
 Koi  'Hcrnu. 
 
 1  Chron.  ii.  1—15. 
 
 TavTa  TO.  oi/SfxaTa  rSv 
 
 vlav     'la-parfK-       'Pov^fip, 
 
 'lovSa  Su/xewv,       Aevl,        lov8a, 
 
 I  K.r.X.     Ylol  'lov8a,   k.t.X. 
 
 ^apes  Kai   Qap,ap    rj    vvp.(j)rj  aii- 
 
 I  TOV   ereKfV  aira   tov  $a- 
 
 *E(Tpap.        pes,    k.t\.       Ylol    ^apes, 
 
 I  'E(Tpu>p.    K.T.X.      Kat  viol 
 
 *ApayLi  'Ecrpcop.  ,  .  .  'O  'if paperj^, 
 
 I  /cat    6    'Apap,   K.T.X.      Kai 
 
 A/iti'a8a/3      Apa/i  eyevvrjae  tov  \piva- 
 
 I  Sa/3,    /cat    'ApivaBajS   eyeV- 
 
 Naatro'aJi'      rijo-f    toi/     Naacrcrcoj'    ap- 
 
 i  ;^oi'ra    otKOV  'lovSa.       Kat 
 
 SaX^a>i>        Naaaadv     iyivvqcre      tov 
 
 I  2akpa>v,  Koi  ^dXpav  eyev- 
 
 Boof  rjjcre    tov   Boof,    /cat  Boo^ 
 
 eyevinjve  tov  ' Q/3 ijS,  /cat  'i2- 
 
 'Q^ijS  /317S  eyevvqae  tov  'leo-crat, 
 
 'lecra"ai         /cat   'lecrcrat    eyivvque  tov 
 
 I  irpcoTOTOKOv  avTov  tov  'E- 
 
 AaviS.  Xtd/3  .  .  .  AaviS  6  e/3So/ios. 
 
 Gen.  XXV.  19. 
 These  are  the  genera- 
 tions of  Isaac,  Abraham's 
 son:     Abraham   begat    I- 
 saac. 
 
 1  Chron.  i.  28,  34. 
 
 The  sons  of  Abraham  : 
 Isaac  and  IshmaeL 
 
 The  sons  of  Isaac :  Esau 
 and  IsraeL 
 
 1  Chron.  ii.  1—15. 
 
 These  are  the  sons  of 
 Israel ;  Reuben,  Simeon, 
 Levi,  and  Judah,  &c. 
 
 The -sons  of  Judah;  Er, 
 &c.  And  Tamar  his  daugh- 
 ter-in-law bare  him  Pharez, 
 &c.  The  sons  of  Pharez, 
 Hezron,  &c.  The  sons  also 
 of  Hezron,  .  .  .  Jerahmeel, 
 and  Ram,  &c.  And  Ram 
 begat  Amminadab,  and  Am- 
 minadab  begat  Nahshon, 
 prince  of  the  children  of 
 Judah ; 
 
 And  Nahshon  begat 
 Salma,  and  Salma  begat 
 Boaz,  and  Boaz  begat 
 Obed,  and  Obed  begat 
 Jesse,  and  Jesse  begat  his 
 first-born  Eliab,  &c.  .  .  . 
 
 David  the  seventh. 
 
 The  only  thing  we  have  to  observe  here  is, 
 that  St  Luke  appears  in  closer  accordance  with  the 
 Septuagint  than  the  Hebrew  text  of  1  Chron.  i.  34, 
 in  calling  the  son  of  Isaac  Jacob,  rather  than  Israel, 
 and  that  the  form  of  all  the  names  is  the  same  as 
 in  that  version. 
 
§  IV.]      THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.        85 
 
 Section  IV. 
 
 THE  GENEALOGY  ACCORDING  TO  ST  LUKE  FROM  DAVID 
 TO  NERI. 
 
 Aai/io,  NaOdv,  Marra^a,  Maivdv,  MeXed?/ EXiaKclju, 
 
 IwvaUf  'lwaij<pi    louoas,   "^uixewi',   Aei/'l,   MaTOctx,  'Icopei/J., 
 
 ^EXie^ep,   'I(i)at]9,*Up,   '  EX/xw^aju,  Kwcrdju,  'AoSif   MeX^t, 
 
 'Ntjp'i.  David,  Nathan,  Mattatha,  Menan,  Melea, 
 Eliakira,  Jonan,  Joseph,  Juda,  Simeon,  Levi,  Mat- 
 that,  Jorim,  Eliezer,  Jose,  Er,  Elmodam,  Cosam, 
 Addi,  Melehi,  Neri. 
 
 As  the  only  names  in  this  list  which  occur  in 
 any  other  part  of  Scripture  are  those  of  David,  and 
 his  son  Nathan,  mentioned  1  Chron.  iii.  5,  2  Sam. 
 V.  14,  we  cannot  compare  St  Luke's  list  with  any 
 other.  We  must  content  ourselves  therefore  with 
 observing  generally, 
 
 First,  that  the  number  of  generations  from 
 David  to  Neri  in  the  line  of  Nathan  corresponds 
 as  accurately  as  may  be  with  the  number  in  Solo- 
 mon's line  from  David  to  Jeconiah,  as  given  in  the 
 Old  Testament;  there  are  in  Nathan's  line,  as 
 above,  21 ;  in  Solomon's,  19,  viz.  David,  Solomon, 
 Rehoboam,  Abijah,  Asa,  Jehoshaphat,  Joram,  Aha- 
 ziah,  Joash,  Amaziah,  Uzziah,  Jotham,  Ahaz,  Heze- 
 kiah,  Manasseh,  Amon,  Josiah,  Jehoiakim,  Jeco- 
 niah. This  is  as  near  an  agreement  as  you  would 
 expect  to  find  considering  the  length  of  the  period 
 under  consideration,  viz.  about  488  years,  though 
 it  is  very  possible  that  one  or  two  names  in  St 
 
8G        THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH      [CIL  IV. 
 
 Luke  are  not  genuine \  For  it  is  remarkable 
 that  there  should  be  so  many  generations  in  so 
 short  a  time.  One  would  not  have  expected  above 
 16,  which  in  488  years  would  give  about  80  years 
 to  a  generation.  19  generations  in  488  years 
 gives  25  years  to  a  generation;  21  generations 
 gives  not  quite  23  years  to  a  generation.  The 
 circumstance  too  is  the  more  remarkable,  from  the 
 contrast  which  these  numbers  form  with  those  of 
 the  generations  between  Nahshon  and  David,  which 
 are  supposed  to  cover  about  an  equal  period  of 
 time.  For  if  we  suppose  Salmon  to  have  been 
 born  ever  so  short  a  time  before  the  entrance  into 
 Canaan,  it  is  obvious  that,  following  St  Paul's  cal- 
 culation of  450  years  for  the  Judges,  the  interval 
 from  the  birth  of  Salmon  to  the  birth  of  David 
 must  have  been  upwards  of  450  years,  and  yet  we 
 have  only  four  generations  !  Salmon,  Boaz,  Obed, 
 Jesse;  whereas  for  a  similar  period,  one  at  all 
 events  not  greatly  exceeding  it,  from  David  to 
 Jehoiachin's  manhood,  we  have  19  or  21  genera- 
 tions. That  the  genealogy  and  the  chronology  can 
 both  be  right  in  both  these  cases,  is  obviously  im- 
 possible. In  the  ixth  Chapter  of  this  book,  it  is 
 attempted  to  be  shewn,  that  as  regards  the  interval 
 between  Salmon  and  David,  it  is  the  received 
 chronology  which  is  at  fault,  and  causes  the  ap- 
 parent  deficiency  in  the   number  of  generations. 
 
 '  If  we  put  tlie  birth  of  David  at  B.C.  1086,  and  Jehoiachin's 
 attainment  of  the  age  of  30  at  B.C.  598,  which  gives  the  nine- 
 teen generations  complete,  we  have  488  years. 
 
§  IV.]      THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.        87 
 
 Perhaps  the  redundancy  of  the  generations  between 
 David  and  the  captivity  may  be  sufficiently  ac- 
 counted for  by  the  unnaturally  early  marriages  of 
 the  kings  and  princes  of  Judah. 
 
 Secondly,  we  may  repeat  the  observation  be- 
 fore hinted,  that  this  portion  of  the  genealogy 
 affords  evidence  that  St  Luke  consulted  the  more 
 private  genealogical  tables  of  the  family  of  Joseph. 
 We  have  already  seen,  at  p.  24,  the  care  taken  by 
 illustrious  Jewish  families  to  preserve  the  record  of 
 their  descent,  and  we  can  well  imagine  that  the 
 branches  of  the  house  of  David  would  not  be  indif- 
 ferent on  the  subject  ^  We  may  be  quite  sure, 
 therefore,  that  in  spite  of  their  poverty,  that  branch 
 of  the  house  of  Nathan  which  was  settled  at  Naza- 
 reth had  preserved  their  genealogy ;  and  it  is  not 
 improbable  that  it  was  also  kept  in  the  public 
 registers,  as  from  this  line,  in  case  of  failure  in 
 the  elder  branch,  the  heir  of  the  house  of  David 
 would  necessarily  be  taken.  From  some  such  do- 
 cument St  Luke  compiled  or  extracted  his  genea- 
 logy, as  is  evident  from  its  containing  these  nine- 
 teen names,  of  which  there  is  no  record  in  Scripture. 
 
 Thirdly,  as  regards  the  names  themselves,  many 
 of  them  have  strange  forms  and  obscure  etymolo- 
 gies, and  do  not  occur  elsewhere.  It  seems  highly 
 probable  that,  not  having  the  important  check  of 
 
 ^  Eusebius  relates  an  interesting  anecdote  from  Hegesippus  of 
 some  who  in  the  reign  of  Domitian  claimed  kindred  with  Christ, 
 and  whom  that  emperor  dismissed  with  contempt,  when  he  found 
 that  their  only  property  consisted  of  a  field.    JEccles.  Hist.  in.  20. 
 
88        THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CH.  IV. 
 
 being  also  found  in  Scripture,  the  forms  of  some  of 
 them,  in  the  process  of  frequent  transcription, 
 have  been  more  or  less  corrupted,  as  has  been  the 
 case  in  so  great  a  degree  with  the  names  in  Jose- 
 phus,  not  to  mention  many  even  in  the  Scriptures 
 themselves,  as  Dr  Kennicott  has  so  fully  shewn  in 
 his  Dissert,  on  1  Chron.  xi.  &c.  But  we  may  well 
 suppose  that  St  Luke  took  them  as  he  found  them, 
 and  as  they  were  known  to  his  Jewish  contempora- 
 ries, without  performing  the  part  of  a  philologer, 
 or  an  antiquary,  or  even  of  an  over-curious  herald. 
 If  they  were  substantially  true,  as  doubtless  they 
 were,  that  was  sufficient  for  the  purpose  committed 
 to  him  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
 
 Mattatha  (nnn^).  This  being  the  name  of 
 Nathan's  son,  gives  great  weight  to  the  argument 
 drawn  at  p.  3G,  from  the  circumstance  of  so  many 
 derivatives  of  p5  occurring  in  the  genealogy  of 
 Joseph,  as  Matthat,  Mattathias,  Matthew,  &c. 
 
 Menan,  Mdivav^.  Simonis  explains  this  name  as 
 '  |J^^,  molestia  magna,  a  radice  Syriaca  ]XD,  moles- 
 tia  affecit,'  which  is  scarcely  satisfactory.  The  for- 
 mation seems  to  be  analogous  to  that  of  l^^  Kdivav^ 
 and  to  presume  a  root  p^,  which  is  not  however 
 forthcoming.  Gesenius  indeed  gives  ])t2  as  an  ob- 
 solete  root,    which   he   supposes    to    have   meant 
 
 *  This  name,  and  the  following  Melea,  are  omitted  in  some 
 Latin  MSS.,  and  Dr  Barrett  (in  Adam  Clarke's  comment,  on 
 Luke  iii.)  thinks  them  spurious,  as  well  as  Mattathias  and  Maath, 
 by  which  he  would  reduce  the  number  to  seventy-two  genera- 
 tions ;  but  on  insufficient  authority,  as  it  seems  to  me. 
 
§  IV.]      THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.        89 
 
 '  speciem  prse  se  tulit,'  and  from  whence  the  common 
 word  pi^,  a  kind  or  species,  and  in  Syriac  "ii-^Lo,  a 
 family  or  tribe,  are  derived.  But  this  is  not  a 
 much  more  probable  etymology  than  the  other. 
 Perhaps  the  name  is  corrupted.  If  not  too  trivial 
 for  notice,  I  would  remark,  that  while  Mdivdv  is  very 
 similar  to  Kdlvdv,  the  name  of  his  son  MeXea,  Melea, 
 is  similar  to  that  of  Cainan's  son  Ma\eXe>}X,  Mahaleel. 
 If  the  true  form  were  JJ^,  Mdlyav  (by  a  mistake 
 of  J  for  J),  we  might  suppose  it  to  be  formed  from 
 |J-3,  'to  protect,  cover  with  a  shield,'  and  to  mean 
 'defence,  protection,'  after  the  analogy  of  i^^, 
 Merab,  from  ^^1,  which  by  the  way  is  written  in 
 Chaldee  ^1''^ :  as  we  read  in  Jonathan's  Targum 
 to  2  Sam.  xxii.  8,  '-'h);  \'^p  \n^,  'My  God  pro- 
 tects me  as  with  a  shield,''  &c.  See  too,  Ps.  iii.  4, 
 nj;3  t^,?  nJT  nm.  Or  possibly  l^'p  may  be  a 
 corruption  of  [ij^,  'a  gift,'  Matthan.  If  the  top 
 stroke  of  the  ri  were  by  accident  or  time  oblite- 
 rated, it  might  easily  be  mistaken  for  i\ 
 
 MeXeas,  Melea.  According  to  Simonis,  '  HxS^ 
 impletio  promissi  divini,'  or  '^^5/p  primitise  Deo 
 ofFerendse.'  And  he  compares  iOp\,  Imlah,  1  Kings 
 xxii.  9,  &c.  But  I  would  suggest  whether  it  may 
 not  be  kindred  rather  with  n^7,  Leah,  from  ^^$7 
 '  to  be  weary.'  Anyhow  the  name  is  isolated,  and 
 probably  corrupt. 
 
 'EXta«:ei/i,  Eliakim,  requires  no  comment,  except 
 to  notice  its  identity  with  Eliakim,  Matt.  i.  13. 
 
 '\u,vdv,  Jonan,  is  only  another  form  of  [JPlV,  John. 
 The  following  sequence,  Joseph,  Juda,  Simeon,  Levi, 
 is  very  singular,  and  at  first  sight  excites  the  sus- 
 
90        THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CH.  IV. 
 
 picion  of  some  of  the  names  at  least  being  care- 
 lessly inserted  by  a  copyist,  but  it  is  impossible  to 
 say  which,  or  indeed,  with  certainty,  whether  any 
 ought  to  be  omitted.  The  order  of  the  patriarchs 
 is  Simeon,  Levi,  Judah,  Joseph.  In  Rev.  vii.,  Juda 
 is  mentioned  before  Simeon  and  Levi,  though  not 
 immediately.  Simeon  and  Levi  are  frequently 
 mentioned  together.  Gen.  xxxiv.  25,  30 ;  xxxv.  23 ; 
 xlix.  5,  &c.  The  introduction  of  the  name  of  Levi 
 into  the  Davidic  genealogy,  here  and  at  ver.  24,  was 
 probably  owing  to  the  intermarriages  of  the  royal 
 and  Levitical  families. 
 
 It  is  also  remarkable  that  there  should  be  two 
 such  similar  sequences  as  those  which  follow  : 
 
 Jonan  Joanna 
 
 Josepli 
 
 Judah 
 1 
 
 Juda 
 1 
 
 Joseph 
 
 Simeon 
 1 
 
 Semei 
 1 
 
 Levi 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Matthat.  (29,  30) 
 
 Mattathias.  (26,  27). 
 
 MarOar,  Matthat,  from  Jl^lp,  'a  gift:'  nearly 
 the  same  as  n^n^,  Mattatha,  and  like  it  derived 
 from  p^,  Nathan. 
 
 'Iwpelfx,  Jorim.  The  form  of  this  name  seems 
 incorrect.  It  should  be  either  'Iwpan,  Joram,  as 
 Matt.  i.  8,  and  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament,  for 
 tr\V  or  Q*lin^,  being  formed  from  HTi]  and  the  per- 
 fect of  Wl,  'to  be  exalted,'  after  the  analogy  of 
 Azrikam,  Jeho-shaphat,  &c. ;  or  it  should  be  Je- 
 hoiarim  or  Joiarim,   'Iwapeln,   from   Hjn^    and  the 
 
§  IV.]      THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.        91 
 
 present  Hiphil  of  Oil,  viz.  Wy^  after  the  analogy  of 
 Jehoiakim,  Eliakim,  Jehoiarib,  &c. 
 
 'EXii^ep,  Eliezer,  Ijr'P^:^,  'the  help  of  God,'  or 
 *iny  God  is  a  help/  nearly  the  same  as  'EXed^ap, 
 Eleazar,  the  son  of  Eliud,  Matt.  i.  15. 
 
 'Iw(jtj9,  Joses.  This  is  the  same  name  as  that  of 
 his  descendant  Joses,  the  brother  of  James,  one 
 of  the  Lord's  brethren,  mentioned  Matt.  xiii.  55, 
 Mark  vi.  3,  &c.  The  etymology  is  somewhat 
 doubtful.  Simonis  considers  it  as  kindred  with 
 Josiah,  and  derived  from  an  obsolete  root  tJ^^X,  *  to 
 give  or  grant.'     Whence  also  Joash. 
 
 "Up,  Er.  ^J^.  The  same  name  as  that  of  the 
 son  of  Judah,  meaning,  according  to  Gesenius, 
 *vigil,'  'watchful,'  from  *1^^;  but  Simonis  interprets 
 '  turma,  scil.  liberorum.'  It  was  also  the  name  of  a 
 grandson  of  Judah,  1  Chron.  iv.  21. 
 
 ' EK/jLwhan,  Elmodam,  for  the  Hebrew  1*11^7^ \ 
 which  is  the  name  of  a  son  of  Joktan,  Gen.  x.  26, 
 and  is  rendered  'EX/xw^a^  in  some  copies  of  the 
 Septuagint.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Syriac  and 
 Persian  read  in  St  Luke  ' EXfxeo^a^  (Sim.  Onomast.). 
 The  etymology  is  very  obscure.  Probably  it  is  not 
 pure  Hebrew.  Simonis  derives  it  from  7X,  'not,' 
 and  *Ti)b,  the  Puhal  of  1^^,  'to  measure,'  'Im- 
 mensus.' 
 
 *  Is  it  possible  that  QTil^^K  ™^y  have  been  corrupted  into 
 DJi^p  ^J^j  and  then  corrected  to  "p  •^y;  or  vice  versa,  that 
 Dti^lp  iy  may  have  coalesced,  and  formed  QTlD^J^,  and  thence 
 DTID'?}^'  So  that  three  names  have  been  made  of  one  or 
 •of  two. 
 
02         THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CH.  IV^ 
 
 Kwadfx,  Cosam.  Another  name  of  obscure  origin 
 and  signification,  and  found  nowhere  else.  If  not 
 corrupt,  it  may  be  kindred  with  CJ'^p,  Kish,  from 
 the  root  l^)p,  '  to  catch  birds.'  It  has  a  peculiar 
 resemblance  to  the  preceding  Elmodam. 
 
 'A^Si,  Addi.  Possibly  from  the  same  root  as 
 \1H,  Addan,  and  HX,  Iddo,  Ezra  ii.  59,  viii.  17, 
 which  are  referred  by  Simonis  to  *T^^5,  which  in 
 Arabic  means  'oppressit  calamitas,'  and  indicate 
 the  birth  of  the  persons  having  such  names  at  a 
 season  of  national  calamity.  But  it  may  rather 
 be  for  nj^.,  'an  ornament,'  and  a  short  form  of 
 7Sn3;^,  Adiel,  (God  is  mp  ornament),  which  occurs 
 1  Chron.  iv.  36,  and  elsewhere.  Similar  names  are 
 ilj^,  Iddo;  i^l^H.,  Adaiah,  &c.  This  agrees  too 
 very  well  with  the  two  following  names. 
 
 MeXxJ,  Melchi.  '^ht2,  which  is  short  for  H^'sS^, 
 'the  Lord  is  my  king.'  The  same  name  recurs 
 many  generations  later  (Luke  iii.  24).  Its  close 
 connexion  with  Melchi-ram  of  1  Chron.  iii.  18,  has 
 already  been  commented  upon  at  p.  38. 
 
 ]Sir]fH,  Neri.  '^X  which  is  short  for  H^nj,  '  The 
 Lord  is  my  light.'  And  here  we  are  led  somewhat 
 to  qualify  tlie  expression  of  doubt  as  to  the  genuine- 
 ness of  the  four  patriarchal  names,  Joseph,  Juda, 
 Simeon,  Levi.  For  the  resemblance  in  the  last 
 three  names,  Addi,  Melchi,  Neri,  to  one  another, 
 as  to  their  meaning  and  formation,  and  the  ana- 
 logy of  the  consecutive  names  Elmodam,  Cosam, 
 as  well  as  the  sequence  Nathan,  Mattatha,  indicate 
 a  kind  of  fashion  prevalent  at  different  epochs  in 
 
J  v.]      THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID,        93 
 
 the  family,  and  influencing  two  or  three  genera- 
 tions. So  that  the  circumstance  of  two  generations 
 having  borne  the  names  of  the  patriarchs  Joseph 
 and  Juda,  might,  by  the  force  of  fashion  and  imi- 
 tation, have  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  names 
 Simeon  and  Levi  by  the  two  succeeding  ones.  It 
 may  be  added,  as  a  general  remark  on  this  portion 
 of  the  genealogy,  that  the  apparent  corruption  of 
 several  of  these  names  is  itself  an  evidence  of  the 
 genuineness  and  antiquity  of  the  pedigree  to  which 
 they  belong;  and  is  in  exact  harmony  with  the 
 peculiar  circumstances  of  this  portion  of  the  ge- 
 nealogy, as  of  a  more  private  document,  not  kept 
 with  the  same  care,  or  guarded  from  corruption  by 
 the  same  checks,  as  the  more  public  genealogies 
 contained  in  the  Scriptures.  Had  this  genealogy 
 been  a  fictitious  string  of  names  made  up  by  the 
 Evangelists,  or  after  their  time,  it  would  have  been 
 as  easy  to  invent  correct  names  for  this  period  as  for 
 any  other. 
 
 Section  V. 
 
 AGREEMENT  OF  THE  GOSPEL  GENEALOGIES  WITH  THOSE  OF 
 THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  FROM  THE  CAPTIVITY  TO  THE 
 CLOSE  OF  THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 
 
 We  come  now  to  that  portion  of  the  subject 
 which  has  hitherto  seemed  to  be  involved  in  the 
 most  impenetrable  obscurity.  While,  as  the  pre- 
 ceding pages  have  shewn,  the  generations  of  Jesus 
 Christ,  from  Adam  to  Jeconiah,  agree  perfectly 
 with  those  which  are  recorded  in  the  different  books 
 
94         THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CIL  IV. 
 
 of  the  Old  Testament,  and  while,  as  we  shall  see, 
 the  two  following  generations  which  embrace  Sala- 
 thiel  and  Zerubbabel  agree  also,  yet  as  regards  the 
 generations  following  Zerubbabel  till  the  close  of 
 the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  no  interpreter 
 of  Scripture,  from  the  earliest  times  down  to  the 
 present  day,  has  ever  been  able  to  identify  the  an- 
 cestors of  Christ  mentioned  by  St  Matthew  or  St 
 Luke  with  any  of  the  descendants  of  Zerubbabel,  or 
 other  members  of  the  house  of  David,  whose  names 
 are  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament.  And  yet  how 
 strange  and  almost  incredible  it  would  be,  that 
 the  Holy  Ghost  should  have  recorded  and  provi- 
 dentially preserved  the  names  of  the  house  of 
 David  down  to  the  time  when  the  sacred  canon 
 closed,  and  yet  should  have  omitted  those  very 
 names  which  it  was  most  important  to  have  pre- 
 served, the  names  of  the  ancestors  of  Messiah.  We 
 have  confessedly,  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  line 
 of  David  upwards  to  Adam,  and  downwards  to 
 Hodaiah  (1  Chron.  iii.  24),  and  we  have  the  line 
 of  Messiah  in  the  New  Testament,  corresponding 
 accurately  with  that  '  long  line  from  Adam  and 
 Abraham  down  to  Zerubbabel ;  how  perplexing 
 then  it  would  be,  and  how  contrary  to  all  pro- 
 bability, that  the  generations  following  Zerubba- 
 bel in  the  Gospel  genealogies  should  exhibit  no 
 agreement  whatever  with  the  corresponding  gene- 
 rations in  the  Old  Testament,  from  Zerubbabel  to 
 the  last-mentioned  member  of  the  house  of  David. 
 It  certainly  does  appear  incredible  that  the  writer 
 
{  v.]      THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.        95 
 
 of  1  Chron.  iii.  should  have  enumerated  so  many 
 descendants  of  the  house  of  David,  of  whom  we 
 know  nothing  but  their  names,  and  yet  should  have 
 omitted  from  his  list  of  the  '  sons  of  David '  those 
 very  persons  from  whom  that  'Son  of  David'  was 
 to  spring  who  should  reign  over  the  house  of  Jacob 
 for  ever,  and  of  whose  kingdom  there  shall  be  no 
 end.  And,  as  for  the  contrivance  of  double  names 
 for  the  same  individuals,  without  the  slightest 
 clue  to  connect  or  to  identify  them,  and  repeated 
 moreover  for  several  generations,  it  is  surely  too 
 clumsy  to  satisfy  the  most  credulous,  or  to  im- 
 pose upon  the  most  ignorant  ^  Obviously  then  the 
 matter  now  before  us  is  one  of  very  considerable 
 importance.  Not  the  slightest  help  is  to  be  ob- 
 tained from  any  preceding  writer,  ancient  or  mo- 
 dern. And  if  the  solution  now  to  be  proposed 
 should  seem  to  be  too  rash  and  bold,  and  to  involve 
 an  unjustifiable  interference  with  the  sacred  text, 
 
 '  Even  Annius  of  Viterbo  in  the  15tli  century  thought  this 
 binomial  theory  required  some  extraneous  support,  and  therefore 
 forged  an  historical  statement,  as  from  Philo,  that  the  kings  of 
 Judah  from  Joash  downwards  had  all  either  two  or  three  names. 
 'Ab  isto  Joas  atque  deinceps  in  reraemorationem  reges  semper 
 binomii  atque  trinomii  fuerunt.  Nam  iste  primus  dictus  Elyh, 
 Joas,  Simeon.  Item  Her,  Manasses;  Ezechias,  Jesus  (i.e.  Joses).' 
 By  the  same  convenient  process  he  identifies  Rhesa  and  Me- 
 shullam,  Abner  (a  name  interpolated  in  the  Hebrew  Gospel  of 
 St  Matthew)  and  Semei,  Eliakim  and  Mattathias,  Azor  and  Maat, 
 and  others  in  St  Luke's  list  with  persons  mentioned  by  Josephus 
 {Antiq.  Variar.  Volum.  xvii.  a  Jo.  Annio  declarata).  Hettin- 
 ger's escape  from  the  difficulty  is  scarcely  less  absurd.  He 
 supposes  two  different  Salathiels,  and  three  Zerubbabels!  De 
 Gen.  J.  a  Dissert.  Poster,  pp.  92,  93. 
 
96         THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH      [CH.  IV. 
 
 the  reader  is  requested  to  bear  in  mind  the  exigen- 
 cies of  the  case,  the  utter  failure  of  all  past 
 attempts  at  explanation  \  and  to  weigh  fairly  and 
 
 '  Since  tills  was  written,  I  have  had  an  opportunity,  through 
 the  kindness  of  a  friend,  of  consulting  Dr  Adam  Clarke's  com- 
 mentary on  Luke,  in  which  he  gives,  as  one  of  the  best  eluci- 
 dations that  have  been  offered  to  the  public,  a  copious  analysis  of 
 Dr  Barrett's  work,  containing,  says  Dr  Clarke,  an  '  unusual  mea- 
 sure of  general  knowledge,  correct  criticism,  and  sound  learning/ 
 With  the  help  of  a  free  use  of  conjectural  alteration  of  names, 
 and  transposition  of  whole  verses  in  1  Chron.  iii.,  Dr  Barrett 
 gives  the  following  tabular  arrangement  of  the  royal  ancestors  of 
 Christ,  to  shew  the  agreement  of  the  Evangelists  with  1  Chron., 
 in  the  names  of  the  successors  of  Salathiel. 
 
 Matt.  ch.  i. 
 
 1  Chron.  ch.  iii. 
 
 Luke,  ch.  iii. 
 
 Salathiel. 
 
 Salathiel. 
 
 Salathiel. 
 
 Zerubbabel. 
 
 Zerubbabel. 
 
 Zerubbabel. 
 
 First  generation 
 
 Rephaiah. 
 
 Rhesa. 
 
 omitted. 
 
 Another  generation 
 
 Arnan  or  Oman, 
 
 Joanna  or  Jonan. 
 
 omitted. 
 
 Abiud. 
 
 Obadiah. 
 
 Juda. 
 
 EHakim. 
 
 Shecaniah. 
 
 Joseph  or  Josech 
 
 Third  generation 
 
 Shemaiah. 
 
 Semei. 
 
 omitted. 
 
 No  corresponding 
 
 Mattathias. 
 
 generation. 
 
 Ditto. 
 
 Maath. 
 
 Fourth  generation 
 
 Neariah. 
 
 "Nagge. 
 
 omitted. 
 
 Azor. 
 
 Azrikam  and 
 
 Esli. 
 
 Elioenai. 
 
 Joanam. 
 
 Naum  or  Anum. 
 
 1 
 
 Joseph 
 
 IMary. 
 
 Whether  the  expression  in  the  text  should  be  qualified  in 
 favour  of  the  above  solution,  shall  be  left  to  the  judgment  of 
 the  reader.  But  I  may  add,  that  Dr  Barrett's  general  scheme 
 seems  to  me  to  be  entirely  wrong. 
 
^v.] 
 
 THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID. 
 
 97 
 
 impartially  the  probabilities  on  different  sides  of 
 the  question. 
 
 Let  us  first  place  the  different  accounts  side  by 
 side  as  the  text  now  stands,  in  1  Chron.iii.  17 — 24; 
 Matt.  i.  12,  13 ;  Luke  iii.  27—26. 
 
 Matt.  i.  12,  13. 
 Mfra  Se  ttjv  jjLfTotKe- 
 vlav  Ba/3uX (Ml/OS,  'le^ovlas 
 fyevvrjae  top  SaXa^tr^X* 
 ^aXadifjX  Se  eyevvrjae  rov 
 Zopo^a^iK.  Zopo^a^ek  8e 
 fyevvTjae  rov  'A^iovd.  'A- 
 /StoiS  8e  eyevvTjae  top  'E- 
 \iaKeifi.  'EXtaAcei/Li  8e 
 fyevvrfae  top  'AfoJp.  'A^cop 
 be  eyepvr](Te  top  2a8(OK' 
 SaScoK  8e  (yepprjcre  top 
 A^ftV*'  A_YfV  ^^  eyeppj](Te 
 TOP  'EXiovS. 
 
 Luke  iii.  27-26.  1  Chron.  iii.  17—24. 
 
 N/;pt  And  the  sons  of  Jeco- 
 
 I  niah ;    Assir,   Salathiel    Lis 
 
 2aXa6ir]X        son,    Malchiram    also,  and 
 
 I  Pedaiah,  and  Shenazar,  Je- 
 
 Zopo/Sti/SeX      camiali,  Hoshama,  and  Ne- 
 
 I  dabiali.        And     the    sons 
 
 'Pr](Ta  of  Pedaiah    were,    Zerub- 
 
 I  babel,   and    Shimei :     and 
 
 'iccappas        the    sons    of    Zerubbabel; 
 
 (  Meshullam,  and  Hananiah, 
 
 'louSa  and  Shelomith  their  sister: 
 
 I  and  Hashubah,  and  Ohel, 
 
 'l&)cr?)(^         and  Berechiah,  and  Hasa- 
 
 I  diah,     Jushab-hesed,    five. 
 
 Sf/iiet  And     the     sons     of     Ha- 
 
 I  naniah;    Pelatiah,  and  Je- 
 
 MaTTadias.      saiah:  the  sons  of  Rephaiah, 
 
 the  sons  of  Arnan,  the  sons 
 
 of    Obadiah,    the    sons    of 
 
 Shechaniah.     And  the  sons 
 
 of  Shechaniah  ;   Shemaiah : 
 
 and  the  sons  of  Shemaiah  ; 
 
 Hattush,    and    Igeal,    and 
 
 Bariah,  and  Neariah,  and 
 
 Shaphat,  six.    And  the  sons 
 
 of  Neariah;    Elioenai,  and 
 
 Hezekiah,     and     Azrikani, 
 
 three.      And   the   sons    of 
 
 Elioenai     were,     Hodaiah, 
 
 and  Eliashib,  and  Pelaiah, 
 
 and  Akkub,   and  Johanan, 
 
 and    Dalaiah,    and    Anani, 
 
 seven. 
 
98         THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH      [CII.  IV. 
 
 On  comparing  these  lists  it  appears, 
 First,  tliat  whereas  the  writer  of  Chronicles  and 
 St  Matthew  agree  in  calling  Salathiel  the  son  of 
 Jechonias,  St  Luke  calls  him  the  son  of  Neri.  How 
 this  is,  has  been  already  explained  at  pp.  12 — 22, 
 where  we  saw  that  both  from  the  fact  of  two  lines 
 being  given,  and  from  the  distinct  prophecy  that 
 Jechonias  should  be  childless,  it  was  certain  that 
 St  Matthew's  was  not  the  lineal  descent,  but  the 
 succession  to  the  throne.  Applying  those  observa- 
 tions to  the  verses  before  us,  we  readily  understand 
 that  Salathiel,  or  Shealtiel,  was  truly  the  son  of 
 Neri,  as  St  Luke  says,  but  that  on  the  failure  of 
 Solomon's  line  in  Jeconiah  who  died  childless, 
 according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  by  Jeremiah, 
 he  became  Jeconiah's  heir,  and  as  such  is  said  by 
 the  author  of  Chronicles  to  be  his  son,  and  by  St 
 Matthew  to  have  been  begotten  by  him.  It  seems 
 also  that  Malchiram,  Pedaiah,  Shenazar,  Jecamiah, 
 Hoshama,  and  Nedabiah,  were  brothers  of  Sala- 
 thiel, and,  perhaps  in  consequence  of  Salathiel 
 having  no  family,  were  adopted  with  him  to  be- 
 come '  the  sons  of  Jeconiah.'  From  one  of  them, 
 viz.  Pedaiah  ^  Messiah  actually  sprang.  But  who 
 was  Assir?  Many  commentators  of  note  (see 
 South's  sermon  on  the  lineal  descent  of  Christ) 
 have  held  that  it  is  not  a  proper  name  at  all,  but 
 an    epithet    or    surname    of  Jeconiah;    for  'T•S^i 
 
 '  Pedaiah,  whose  daughter  Zebudah  was  mother  to  Jehoiakim 
 (2  Kings  xxiii.  36),  may  have  been  of  the  same  family.  Zabud 
 was  a  name  in  Nathan's  house,  1  Kings  iv.  5. 
 
J  v.]  THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.  99 
 
 Assir,  in  Hebrew  signifies  a  captive ;  and  they 
 therefore  render  1  Chron.  iii.  17,  'And  the  sons  of 
 Jeconiah  the  captive :  Salathiel  his  son,  &c.'  I 
 think,  however,  that  in  that  case  it  would  have  had 
 the  article  prefixed.  And  I  therefore  incline  to 
 the  supposition  that  Assir  may  have  been  truly 
 the  son  of  Jeconiah,  and  received  the  name  from 
 the  sorrowful  circumstances  of  his  birth ;  and  that 
 he  either  died  young,  or  that  in  him  was  fulfilled 
 the  prophecy  2  Kings  xx.  18.  This  supposition  is 
 in  harmony  with  the  text  and  with  the  mention  of 
 Jehoiachin's  seed,  Jerem.  xxii.  28'.  His  not  suc- 
 ceeding to  the  honours  of  his  house  was  the  reason 
 why  iJ3  '  his  son'  was  not  added  to  his  name,  but 
 to  that  of  Salathiel  his  father's  successor. 
 
 Secondly,  it  appears  that  whereas  St  Luke  agrees 
 with  St  Matthew  in  calling  Zerubbabel  the  son  of 
 Salathiel  or  Shealtiel,  in  accordance  also  with  Ezra 
 iii.  8,  Nehem.  xii.  1,  Hagg.  i.  1,  &c.,  the  author 
 of  Chronicles  informs  us  that  Zerubbabel  was  the 
 son  of  Pedaiah,  who  was  the  brother  of  Salathiel, 
 and  that  consequently  he  was  the  nephew  of  Sala- 
 
 ^  Some  commentators,  who  are  strenuoiis  asserters  of  the  view 
 "which  makes  Salathiel  truly  the  son  of  Jeconiah,  lay  great  stress 
 upon  Josephus's  expression,  that  Jeconiah's  mother,  and  wives, 
 and  7ra?8e?,  were  carried  away  with  Jiim.  But  there  is  not  the 
 slightest  doubt  that  TraTSe?  in  that  place,  means  not  '  children,' 
 but  'servants.'  For  it  is  simply  the  Septuagint  translation  of 
 the  Hebrew  QnilV  ^^  ^  Kings  xxiv.  11,  12.  Ka\  ela-rjXde  Na- 
 f3ov^o^ovo<7op...el<;  TroXti/,  Kai  o't  TraTSe?  avTov  k.t.X.  'And  his 
 servants  did  besiege  it.'  Kai  e^fjxOev  'Ia)a^i/x,...aJTo?  Ka\  ol 
 TraTSes  avTov^  k.t.A.  ' And  Jehoiachin  went  out. ..he  and  his 
 servants,  &c.' 
 
 7—2 
 
100      THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CH.  IV. 
 
 thiel.  But  this  author  at  the  same  time  so  far 
 justifies  those  who  call  Zerubbabel  the  son  of  Sala- 
 thiel,  that,  having  prefixed  to  this  part  of  the 
 genealogy  the  title  '  the  sons  of  Jeconiah,'  which 
 he  also  specially  attributes  to  Salathiel,  he  does 
 not  assign  any  posterity  to  Salathiel,  but  continues 
 the  line  of  'the  sons  of  Jeconiah,'  through  the 
 children  of  Pedaiah,  first  through  Zerubbabel,  and 
 next,  if  the  following  explanation  is  correct,  through 
 Shimei.  We  may  conclude  therefore  with  confi- 
 dence, that  the  author  of  Chronicles  gives  us  the 
 exact  state  of  the  case,  and  that  Zerubbabel  was 
 popularly  called  the  son  of  Shealtiel,  and  spoken  of 
 as  such  by  the  above-named  sacred  writers  both  of 
 the  Old  and  New  Testament,  because  he  was  his 
 uncle's  successor  and  heir.  And  we  may  note  by 
 the  way  another  instance  of  St  Matthew's  use  of 
 the  term  '  begat'  not  implying  proper  paternity, 
 but  the  transmission  of  an  inheritance  to  a  suc- 
 cessor. 
 
 Thirdly,  passing  on  to  the  next  generation,  we 
 are  not  a  little  perplexed  to  find  that  of  seven  sons 
 attributed  to  Zerubbabel  in  Chronicles  not  one  was 
 named  either  Rhesa  or  Abiud,  or  by  any  name  the 
 least  resembling  these.  That  of  two  grandsons,  or 
 six,  if  we  understand  the  four  persons  named  in 
 V.  21,  as  heads  of  families  to  be  such,  not  one  was 
 called  by  the  name  of  Joanna,  or  Eliakim,  or  any 
 name  in  the  least  resembling  them.  That  the  one 
 named  in  the  next  generation,  Shemaiah,  is  not 
 the   least  like   Juda   or  Azor.     That  of  the   5th 
 
§   v.]      THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.       101 
 
 generation,  of  which  five  names  are  given  (v.  22), 
 not  one  had  any  name  the  least  like  Joseph  or 
 Sadoc.  That  of  the  6th  generation,  of  which  three 
 names  are  given  (v.  23),  not  one  has  the  slightest 
 resemblance  to  Semei,  or  Achim.  And  that  of  the 
 7th  generation,  of  whom  seven  are  enumerated,  not 
 one  has  a  name  bearing  the  slightest  resemblance 
 to  Mattathias  or  Eliud^ 
 
 But  this  is  not  all.     For, 
 
 Fourthly,  not  only  is  it  strange  that  we  should 
 thus  have  six  generations  after  Zerubbabel  in 
 Chronicles,  each  of  which  is  entirely  different  from 
 the  corresponding  generations  in  the  two  Evange- 
 lists, but  it  is  most  strange  that  we  should  have 
 six  generations  at  all.  Even  in  Nehem.  xii.  10,  11, 
 which  is  well  known  to  have  been  added,  probably 
 by  Jaddua  himself,  in  the  time  of  Alexander  the 
 Great,  and  which  conies  down  full  one  hundred 
 years  later  than  any  other  passage  in  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment, we  have  only  five  generations  after  Jeshua 
 the  contemporary  of  Zerubbabel.  And  to  make 
 matters  worse,  if  we  turn  to  the  Septuagint  for 
 help,  we  there  find,  instead  of  the  six  generations 
 subsequent  to  Zerubbabel  indicated  by  the  Hebrew 
 text,  no  fewer  than  ten  (or  rather,  if  we  understand 
 Jesias  to  be  the  son  of  Phalettias  or  Pelatiah,  eleven) 
 
 ^  The  only  names  in  the  list  of  Zerubbabel's  descendants, 
 •which  are  the  same  as  those  of  Christ's  ancestors  after  Zerub- 
 babel, are  Shemaiah,  which  is  tlie  same  as  Semei,  Johanan  = 
 Joannas,  and  Azrikam  which  is  like  Azor.  But  the  times  in 
 each  case  are  quite  different. 
 
102      THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CH.  IV. 
 
 generations,  caused  by  a  diiferent  reading  of  v.  21.^ 
 So  that  as  the  passage  now  stands,  this  genealogy 
 extends,  on  the  lowest  computation,  to  'so  many 
 generations  as  must  necessarily  make  it  reach  to 
 the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great,'  as  Prideaux 
 says;  and  according  to  Home  {Introduct.  Vol.  iv. 
 p.  59),  'to  the  twelfth  generation,'  from  Zerubba- 
 bel :  times,  it  is  needless  to  remark,  long  subsequent 
 to  the  closing  of  the  canon  of  Scripture,  and  which 
 no  other  passage  of  the  books  of  Chronicles  ap- 
 proaches within  one  or  two  hundred  years.  This  of 
 itself  is  surely  a  most  suspicious  circumstance ;  and 
 one,  moreover,  which  greatly  aggravates  the  diffi- 
 culty of  the  disagreement  of  the  names  of  Christ's 
 progenitors,  by  extending  it  over  so  many  genera- 
 tions. 
 
 Fifthly,  it  cannot  fail  to  strike  an  attentive 
 reader  as  also  somewhat  strange,  that  though  Shi- 
 mei  the  brother  of  Zerubbabel  is  named  at  v.  19, 
 yet  no  mention  is  made  of  any  posterity  issuing 
 from  him,  although  in  that  famous  prophecy,  Zech. 
 xii.  10 — 14,  the  family  of  Shimei  is  expressly  named, 
 and  as  to  continue  till  the  times  of  Messiah.  But 
 as  we  must  return  to  this  subject,  we  will  not  fur- 
 ther dwell  upon  it  now. 
 
 Sixthly,  another   considerable   difficulty   arises 
 
 *  l\.CLi  v'io\  'Avav'ia^  ^aXerTia,  kcu  leai'as  vlo^  avTov,  Pa0n\ 
 wfos  avTov,  'Onvd  vi'o?  avrov,  'A/SS/a  v'io<;  civtov^  SeT^ff/as  u/05 
 avTov.  '  And  the  sons  of  Ananias,  Pelatiah,  and  Jesaiah  his  son, 
 Raphal  (Rephaiah)  his  son,  Arnan  his  son,  Obadiah  his  son,  She- 
 chaniah  his  son.' 
 
§   v.]      THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.       103 
 
 from  the  mention  of  Hattush  as  the  son  of  She- 
 maiah  in  v.  22.  According  to  the  present  Hebrew 
 text  he  is  the  fifth,  or  rather,  sixth,  from  Zerubba- 
 bel ;  according  to  the  Septuagint,  the  ninth  or  tenth. 
 But  Hattush  is  mentioned  Ezra  viii.  2,  as  one  of 
 the  house  of  David  who  came  up  from  Babylon 
 with  Ezra,  B.C.  457.  Now  from  B.C.  536  to  B.C. 
 457  is  only  seventy-nine  years ;  whereas  the  sixth 
 generation  from  Zerubbabel  ought  not  to  reach 
 the  age  of  manhood  for  at  least  one  hundred  and 
 fifty  years  after  B.C.  536,  viz.  B.C.  386,  full  seventy 
 years  later ;  and  this  taking  the  lowest  computa- 
 tion of  the  number  of  generations  K 
 
 Seventhly,  when  Ave  come  to  look  at  the  text 
 of  1  Chron.  iii.  17 — 24  critically,  we  cannot  fail  to 
 be  struck  with  the  appearance  of  corruption  in  it. 
 For,  1st,  though  seven  sons  of  Zerubbabel  are  men- 
 tioned by  name,  the  number  is  said  in  v.  20  to  be 
 five.  2dly,  in  v.  21,  the  enumeration,  'the  sons 
 of  Rephaiah,  the  sons  of  Arnan,'  &c.  is  unlike  any- 
 thing else  in  the  genealogy,  and  leaves  us  quite  in 
 the  dark  as  to  the  origin  of  these  different  families, 
 from  one  of  which,  Shecaniah,  that  line  is  repre- 
 sented as  springing  which  is  continued  to  the  end 
 of  the  chapter,  the  line,  namely,  of  Shemaiah.  And 
 here  we  have  a  fresh  evidence  of  a  corrupt  text  in 
 the  very  different  reading  of  the  Septuagint,  and 
 diversities  in  other  versions  also,  as  the  Syriac  and 
 Arabic  (Dr  Mill's  Vindic.  &c.  p.  152,  note). 
 
 It  is  also  worthy  of  remark,  that  not  one  of 
 '  See  Ch.  xi. 
 
104      THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CH.  IV. 
 
 these  names  in  v.  21,  is  a  name  ever,  or  scarcely 
 ever,  met  with  in  the  house  of  David,  or  even  in. 
 the  tribe  of  Judah,  or  has  the  appearance,  like 
 Zerubbabel,  Jushab-hesed,  and  others,  of  bearing 
 special  reference  to  the  captivity  or  the  return  ^ 
 Repliaiah  is  a  name  in  the  tribe  of  Simeon,  1  Chron. 
 iv.  42 ;  in  the  tribe  of  Issachar,  vii.  2 ;  in  the  tribe 
 of  Benjamin,  ix.  43  ;  and  perhaps  also  Nehem.  iii.  9. 
 Arnan,  as  here  pointed,  occurs  nowhere  else.  Oba- 
 diah  is  the  name  of  an  Israelite,  1  Kings  xviii.  3 ; 
 of  a  man  of  Issachar,  1  Chron.  vii.  3 ;  of  a  Benjamite, 
 viii.  38,  ix.  44;  of  a  Levite,  ix.  16,  2  Chron.  xxxiv. 
 12,  Nehem.  xii.  25;  of  a  Gadite,  xii.  9;  of  a  Zebu- 
 lonite,  xxvii.  19  ;  of  a  priest,  Neh.  x.  5,  and  possi- 
 bly 2  Chron.  xvii.  7 ;  though  in  the  latter  place  he 
 may  have  been  of  Judah,  and  perhaps  of  the  royal 
 family,  in  which  case  one  might  compare  Obed  the 
 father  of  Jesse.  It  is  uncertain  to  what  tribe  should 
 be  assigned  those  mentioned  Ezr.  viii.  9,  Obad.  1. 
 Shecaniah,  or  as  it  is  sometimes  corruptly  written 
 Shebaniah,  by  a  mistake  of  ^  for  ^,  is  most  fre- 
 quently the  name  of  a  priest  or  Levite,  as  2  Chron. 
 xxxi.  15,  Nehem.  iii.  29,  x.  5  (4,  E.  V.),  xii.  3,  14; 
 though  in  Ezra  viii.  3,  5,  and  x.  2,  compared  with 
 26,  it  seems  to  be  the  name  of  some  one  not  of  the 
 tribe  of  Levi.  I  would  therefore  hazard  the  con- 
 jecture that  these  four  names  are  not  names  of 
 members  of  the  house  of  David  at  all,  but  that  they 
 
 '  "^mif  Zerubbabel,  'dispersed,  or,  sown,  i.e.  born  in  Ba- 
 bylon.'     IDlT^tt^^"'  Jushab-hesed,  'mercy  is  restored.' 
 
§  v.]      THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.       105 
 
 are  names  either  of  priests  or  Levites,  or  others, 
 whose  names  have  come  to  be  inserted  in  this  ge- 
 nealogy, from  their  being  located  in  some  part  of 
 the  inheritance  of  the  house  of  David,  and  conse- 
 quently contained,  perhaps  under  the  headship  of 
 Hananiah,  side  by  side  with  members  of  that  house, 
 in  some  topographical  census  or  register,  from 
 which  this  genealogy  was  compiled.  (Compare  the 
 register  in  1  Chron.  ii.  54,  55.)  This  conjecture 
 derives  additional  strength  not  only  from  recol- 
 lecting what  was  before  observed  concerning  the 
 geographical  character  of  Jewish  genealogies,  and 
 from  considering  the  renewed  importance  of  such 
 character  on  their  resettlement  in  the  land  of  their 
 "fathers,  but  specially  from  observing  that  of  these 
 four  names,  one,  piX  Arnan,  is  without  points 
 identical  with  p'15<  Oman,  or  Araunah,  the  Jebusite, 
 2  Chron.  iii.  1,  whose  family,  supposing  his  de- 
 scendants to  have  continued  till  this  time,  would 
 fulfil  exactly  the  condition  above  supposed,  of  re- 
 siding and  possessing  property  in  the  midst  of  the 
 property  which  the  house  of  David  possessed  in  Je- 
 rusalem. Another  also,  Rephaiah,  is  as  much  an 
 indigenous  as  a  Hebrew  name,  for  in  2  Sam.  xxi. 
 18 — 21,  we  read  of  ^^'in  ^yh]  the  sons  of  Rapha, 
 (marg.  E.  B.)  And  in  Deut.  ii.  11,  20,  we  read  of 
 the  d''XS'l  Rephaim.  And  from  Joshua  xv.  8,  we 
 learn  that  the  district,  which  was  called  the  valley 
 of  Rephaim,  lay  in  the  border  of  the  tribe  of  Judah. 
 And  this  name  was  still  extant  in  the  days  of  Da- 
 vid, 2  Sam.  V.  18,  22.     So  that  these  sons  of  Re- 
 
106      THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CH.  IV. 
 
 pliaiah  may  also  very  possibly  be  a  remnant  of  the 
 old  inhabitants  who  resided  within  the  limits  of  the 
 royal  patrimony.  Even  Obadiah  suggests  a  point 
 of  contact  with  Obed-edom  the  Gittite.  Certain  it 
 is  that  some  such  explanation  as  the  above  can 
 alone  account  for  the  unusual  way  in  which  these 
 names  are  introduced,  '  the  sons  of  Rephaiah,  the 
 sons  of  Arnan,  &c.,'  without  the  slightest  clue  as  to 
 who  Rephaiah,  Arnan,  &c.  are.  Compare  the  man- 
 ner in  which  '  the  sons  of  Kenaz'  are  introduced  in 
 the  genealogy  of  Judah  in  1  Chron.  iv.  13. 
 
 And  3dly,  in  v.  22  we  have  the  closing  words 
 of  V.  21  repeated  over  again,  '  the  sons  of  Shecha- 
 niah,'  of  itself  a  most  suspicious  circumstance.  And 
 further  the  expression  'sons'  is  followed  by  only' 
 one  name,  that  of  Shemaiah ;  and  moreover  the 
 enumeration  of  Shemaiah's  Jive  sons  is  followed  by 
 the  numeral  six,  which  last  error,  whether  it  arises 
 from  one  name  having  dropt  out,  or  from  the  nu- 
 meral being  wrong,  is  also  found  in  the  Septuagint, 
 shewing  how  early  the  text  must  have  been  cor- 
 rupted. Such  is  the  evidence  of  the  incorrect  con- 
 dition of  this  portion  of  the  text  of  Chronicles ;  a 
 book  which  all  who  have  paid  any  attention  to  the 
 subject  speak  of  as  one  of  the  most  corrupted  of  the 
 Old  Testament',  and  such  are  the  perplexing  results 
 which  arise  from  it. 
 
 '  So  Kennicott :  '  Chronicles,  which,  though  perhaps  the  most 
 corrupted  book  as  well  as  the  latest  in  the  Old  Testament,  is 
 extremely  useful,  &c.,'  Dissert,  p.  79 ;  a  work  which  supplies  many 
 demonstrations  of  the  truth  of  this  statement.     Dean  Prideaux 
 
§  v.]      THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.        107 
 
 But  if  we  suppose  that  the  words  at  the  begin- 
 uing  of  V.  22,  '  And  the  sons  of  Shechaniah,  Shema- 
 iah,'  are  spurious,  (being  either  an  accidental  repe- 
 tition of  the  words  at  the  end  of  v.  21,  or  inserted 
 intentionally  from  a  misunderstanding  of  the  pas- 
 sage,) and  strike  them  out  as  such,  all  our  diffi- 
 culties vanish  at  once.  The  22nd  verse  will  then 
 begin  '  And  the  sons  of  Shemaiah,  Hattush,'  and  we 
 shall  be  at  no  loss  to  know  who  Shemaiah  is,  for 
 we  left  Shimei  at  v.  19,  in  expectation  that  when 
 his  brother  ZerubbabeFs  posterity  were  duly  re- 
 corded, the  genealogist  would,  according  to  his 
 usual  method,  return  to  him,  and  record  the  names 
 of  his  descendants  likewise  \  Now  in  Hebrew  '''^^^ 
 Shimei,  and  iiyf2^  Shemaiah,  are  identical,  except 
 that  a  final  H  is  added  to  the  last,  probably  by  in- 
 advertence in  the  copyist,  who  might  happen  to  be 
 more  familiar  with  that  form  of  the  name-.  Just 
 as  an  English  copyist  might  chance  to  add  a  final  s 
 improperly  to  such  names  as  are  sometimes  written 
 
 also  saysj  'These  last  books,  1  and  2  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehe- 
 miah,  Esther,  Malachi,  seem  very  much  to  want  the  exactness 
 and  skill  of  Ezra,  in  their  publication  j  they  falling  far  short  of 
 the  correctness  which  is  in  other  parts  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.' 
 Conn,  of  0.  and  N.  T.  ann.  446. 
 
 ^  See  e.g.  the  genealogy  of  Isaac's  two  sons,  1  Chron.  i. 
 34—54;  ii.  1—55. 
 
 "  In  point  of  fact,  there  are  still  greater  variations  in  the 
 way  of  writing  the  names  of  Shimeah,  the  brother  and  the  son  of 
 David,  in  different  places  where  they  occur.  I  Chron.  ii.  13,  com- 
 pared with  1  Sam.  xvi.  9 ;  and  1  Chron.  iii.  5,  compared  with 
 2  Sam.  V.  14.  Shimei's  name  is  in  Zech.  xii,  13,  (Sept.)  written 
 Su/AewV.     Compare  too,  Salmah,  Salmon,  Ruth  iv.  20,  21 . 
 
108      THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH      [CH.  IV. 
 
 with  and  sometimes  without  a  final  s.  And  it  was 
 probably  the  addition  of  such  a  final  H  which  led  to 
 all  the  confusion.  For  the  next  copyist,  not  identi- 
 fying this  Shemaiah  with  that  Shimei,  was  at  a  loss 
 to  know  who  he  was,  and  naturally  guessed  that  he 
 was  the  son  of  the  person  last  named,  viz.  Shecha- 
 niah:  a  mistake  into  which  he  fell  all  the  more 
 readily  because  it  so  happened  that  there  was  in 
 the  days  of  Nehemiah,  in  one  of  the  families  of 
 priests,  a  Shemaiah  son  of  Shechaniah  (Nehem.  iii. 
 29,  X.  8) ;  accordingly  he  inserted  the  words,  *  And 
 the  sons  of  Shechaniah,  Shemaiah.'  Or  the  corrup- 
 tion may  have  arisen  thus :  a  copyist  after  having 
 written  v.  21,  and  having  got  as  far  as  '  And  the 
 sons  of  in  the  next  verse,  accidentally  looked  at 
 the  wrong  line  and  wrote  Shechaniah  over  again 
 instead  of  writing  Shemaiah,  and  then  went  on  to 
 write,  *  and  the  sons  of  Shemaiah,'  &c.,  which  left 
 the  text  as  follows  :  '  the  sons  of  Shechaniah.  And 
 the  sons  of  Shechaniah.  And  the  sons  of  Shemaiah, 
 Hattush,  &c.'  The  insertion  of  'Shemaiah'  to  make 
 sense  followed  as  a  matter  of  course.  But  whatever 
 was  the  precise  manner  in  which  the  error  arose, 
 the  result  is  certain,  that  if  we  consider  the 
 Shemaiah  of  v.  22  to  be  the  Shimei  of  v.  19, 
 we  get  rid  at  once  of  several  immense  difficulties, 
 and  all  goes  smoothly  and  orderly  in  the  gene- 
 alogy. Instead  of  six  or  eleven  generations  of 
 Zerubbabel's  descendants,  comprising  twenty-nine 
 males,  not  one  of  whom  has  ever  with  the  slightest 
 approach  to  probability  been  identified  with  any  one 
 
§  v.]      THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.        109 
 
 of  our  Saviour's  ancestors,  we  shall  be  able  to  iden- 
 tify one  of  each  generation  which  will  then  remain, 
 with  one  of  our  Lord's  ancestors  in  the  correspond- 
 ing generation  recorded  by  St  Matthew  or  St  Luke, 
 or  both. 
 
 Instead  of  a  genealogy  extending  full  one  or 
 two  hundred  years  beyond  the  close  of  the  canon  of 
 Scripture,  we  shall  have  a  genealogy  ending  exactly 
 at  the  date  of  the  close  of  the  canon,  I  mean  in  the 
 days  of  Ezra\ 
 
 Instead  of  an  unaccountable  silence,  we  shall 
 have  a  full  record  of  the  posterity  of  Shiraei. 
 
 And  instead  of  having  Hattush  born  some  forty 
 years  or  more  after  the  time  when  he  is  related  to 
 have  come  up  as  a  full-grown  and  perhaps  an  old 
 man  to  Jerusalem  with  Ezra,  we  shall  have  him 
 placed  in  a  generation  which  is  quite  consistent 
 with  the  historical  probability  of  his  having  re- 
 turned from  Babylon  with  Ezra^. 
 
 We  will  assume  then  on  all  these  accounts  that 
 the  words  at  the  beginning  of  v.  22,  'And  the  sons 
 
 ^  Zerubbabel's  return  to  Jerusalem  is  placed  at  b  c.  536.  The 
 revision  of  the  Scriptures  by  Ezra  b.c.  446.  This  interval  of 
 ninety  years  allows  exactly  of  three  generations. 
 
 ^  If  Shimei  begat  Hattush  20  years  after  Zerubbabel  his  elder 
 brother  returned  to  Jerusalem,  and  if  Hattush  was  59  years  old 
 •when  he  came  up  from  Babylon  with  Ezra,  the  79  years  from 
 B.C.  536  to  B.C.  547  are  accounted  for.  There  would  be  nothing 
 improbable  in  Hattush  being  still  more  advanced  in  years  at  his 
 return.  We  know  that  many  of  those  who  returned  with  Zerub- 
 babel were  old  enough  to  remember  the  former  temple,  and  it 
 has  been  a  common  feeling  among  the  Jews  of  later  times  to  go 
 tip  to  Jerusalem  to  die  there. 
 
110       THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH      [CII.  IV. 
 
 of  Sliechaniah,  Shemaiah,'  do  not  form  part  of  the 
 true  text,  and  that  'Shemaiah'  should  be  written 
 'Shimei;'  and  we  turn  in  the  next  place  to  the  pas- 
 sage from  the  Gospel  of  St  Luke. 
 
 If  we  count  the  generations  beginning  with 
 Zerubbabel  and  ending  with  Joseph,  the  husband 
 of  Mary,  we  shall  find  twenty  generations.  Now, 
 allowing  thirty  years  to  a  generation,  that  would 
 place  the  birth  of  Zerubbabel  at  b.  c.  600.  But, 
 as  Zerubbabel  was  evidently  not  an  old  man  at  the 
 time  of  his  return  to  Jerusalem  under  Cyrus,  b.  c. 
 536,  both  from  the  government  of  Judsea  being 
 entrusted  to  him,  from  the  short  period  of  seventy 
 years'  captivity  having  to  be  distributed  between, 
 him,  his  predecessor  Salathiel,  and  Jeconiah,  and 
 from  his  being  still  actively  discharging  his  duty  as 
 governor  till  the  sixth  year  of  Darius,  which  was 
 about  twenty  years  after  the  return,  (Ezra  vi.  15, 
 compared  with  Zech.  iv.  9),  he  was  not  in  all  pro- 
 bability born  earlier  than  B.C.  576,  which  would 
 make  him  forty  years  old  at  the  time  of  Cyrus's 
 decree,  and  very  possibly  not  for  some  years  later. 
 So  that  we  have  a  generation  too  many;  an  evil 
 which  is  aggravated,  if  the  tradition  of  Joseph  being 
 an  elderly  man  at  the  time  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  is 
 well  founded  ^    Irenseus  speaks  of  the  generations 
 
 '  So  for  example,  Epiphanius,  -who  says  that  Joseph  was 
 called  the  hushand  of  Mary,  Aid  to  fxefxvrja-TeZaQai  •KpeaftvTt]<i 
 erwi"  6^0ot]iiovTa  Tvy^^avudv  "jvXe'no  rj  eXaaa-oi,  Kut  ej^oov  v'low  eP 
 K.T.\,  {Adversus  Alogos.  p.  432,  Edit.  Petav.)  'Because  he  was 
 espoused  to  her  when  he  was  an  old  man  of  about  80,  and  had 
 
^  v.]      THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.       Ill 
 
 from  Christ  to  Adam  as  seventj-two,  omitting,  as 
 we  have  above  observed,  Cainan,  Matthat,  and  Levi, 
 (who  were  not  in  Africanus'  or  Eusebius'  copy  of  the 
 Gospel,)  and  one  more :  for  in  our  copies  of  St 
 Luke  there  are  seventy-six.  And  if  we  proceed  to 
 examine  the  names  with  a  view  of  ascertaining,  if 
 possible,  which  name  is  not  genuine,  we  are  struck 
 at  once  with  the  strangeness  of  the  very  first  name 
 we  examine,  that  viz.  of  Zerubbabel's  own  son, 
 Rhesa.  This  name  in  Hebrew  must  have  been 
 ^^^n  or  ^'^^^.  But  there  is  no  such  name  in 
 Hebrew,  the  word  being  in  fact  a  Chaldee  appel- 
 lative, signifying  a  head  or  chief.  In  the  Chaldee 
 paraphrase  or  version,  it  is  the  regular  word  cor- 
 responding to  the  Hebrew  ^^1,  for  the  head  of 
 a  house  of  fathers,  a  captain,  chief,  or  prince. 
 See  for  example  Deut.  xxix.  10,  (Onkelos),  pi''ifJ^^^ 
 *Your  captains  of  your  tribes.'  Compare  Ezra 
 iv.  3;  viii.  1;  1  Chron.  viii.  28;  Deut.  xxxiii.  5; 
 Judg.  xi.  9.  But,  which  is  still  more  remarkable, 
 this  was  the  peculiar  title  which  in  later  times  the 
 Jews  of  the  Babylonish  captivity  gave  to  their 
 chief  He  was  called  isi^T?^  £^n,  '  the  prince  or 
 chief  of  the  captivity,  (Hug's  Introd.  to  New  Test. 
 Vol.  II.  553),  and  was  the  acknowledged   head  of 
 
 six  children  by  a  former  wife.'  But  I  must  confess  that  all  these 
 traditions  seem  to  be  of  little  authority,  and  to  rest  upon  no 
 historical  basis ;  being  all  invented  to  prop  up  the  opinions,  true 
 or  false,  of  the  age  which  gave  birth  to  them.  A  later  age, 
 counting  it  quite  unworthy  of  Joseph  to  have  married  and  had 
 children  at  all,  discarded  this  tradition,  which  had  been  invented 
 doubtless  in  support  of  the  perpetual  virginity  of  Mary. 
 
112      THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CII.  IV. 
 
 the  Asiatic  dispersion.  So  also  Castell,  in  liis 
 Lexicon,  under  ^nh^,  tells  us  that  ^H^^H  l^^l 
 means,  '  Princeps  sive  Dux  exulum  Israelitarum  in 
 Babylonia  et  ubique  terrarum,  qui  causas  dijudicat.' 
 Is  it  not  then  almost  certain  that  Rhesa^  is  no  pro- 
 per name  at  all,  but  the  title  of  Zerubbabel  mistaken 
 for  one  ?  This  title  was  either  prefixed  to  Zerubba- 
 bel's  name  in  the  original  genealogy :  ^'"'^H  ^5  15C^* 
 7^|1'1T ,  '  Joanna,  the  son  of  the  chief  Zerubbabel,' 
 just  as  the  title  ni)n'  \J!l  i^m,  'Prince  of  the  chil- 
 dren of  Judah,'  is  added  after  the  name  of  Nahshon 
 in  the  genealogy  1  Chron.  ii.  10,  and  as  the  title 
 o  /3ao-iXei)s  is  added  to  the  name  of  David,  Matt.  i.  6, 
 he  being  the  first  of  his  line  who  bore  the  lower  title 
 of  Prince  ^  as  David  was  the  first  who  had  the  title 
 
 '  Having  referred  at  p.  13,  Note,  to  Bp.  Cowper's  work  on 
 the  Genealogy,  it  may  be  well  to  mention  here,  that  his  reference 
 to  Philo,  as  speaking  of  '  Rhesa  Mesciolla'  as  Governor  of  Judah, 
 is  a  sad  blunder;  the  words  in  question  being  in  the  Pseudo- 
 Philo  forged  by  Annius  of  Viterbo,  as  mentioned  above  (Note 
 to  p.  95).  Annius's  forgeries  of  works  which  he  edited  under  the 
 name  of  Manetho,  Berosus,  Philo,  &c.  made  a  great  stir  in  the 
 15th  and  16th  centuries.  See  a  good  account  of  him  in  the  Bio- 
 graphie  Universelle,  where  there  is  a  story"  of  one  Alberti,  who 
 is  said  to  have  died  of  grief  when  he  discovered  that  he  had  been 
 the  dupe  of  Annius,  whose  fables  he  had  inserted  as  genuine  in 
 his  own  '  description  of  Italy.'  I  have  seen  two  editions  of  his 
 '  Antiquities,'  one  belonging  to  the  Cambridge  University  Library, 
 printed  at  Paris  in  1512;  the  other  to  Trinity  College  Library, 
 printed  at  Antwerp  in  1552. 
 
 ^  He  is  called  in  Ezra  i.  8,  niin"'':'  {^''tt^SH  '  The  Prince  of 
 Judah.'      In  Ezra  iv.  3,  we  read    iti'X"!    'M^Wi   ^W^    723.^]^ 
 
 >  .        .  .  ••  T  T    .  -  ••:  V  T   •..  : 
 
 7i^"lji^v  niji^n  'And  Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua,  and  the  rest  of 
 
 ••   T  .    •  :  T   T 
 
 the  chief  of  the  fathers  of   Israel,  &c.' 
 
jW.] 
 
 THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID. 
 
 113 
 
 of  king ;  or  else  the  word  ^^^  or  ^^'''^  (Rhesa),  was 
 written  in  the  margin  against  Zerubbabers  name 
 by  some  christian  Jew  of  the  Babylonish  dispersion, 
 to  mark  that  Zerubbabel  held  the  office  of  chief  of 
 the  captivity  in  his  day,  and  got  from  the  margin 
 into  the  text,^  and  was  mistaken  for  a  proper  name 
 
 *  In  Mill's  edition  of  the  New  Testament,  at  Luke  iii.  are 
 given  specimens  of  the  way  in  which  the  genealogy  is  arranged 
 in  different  MSS.,  from  which  the  peculiar  facility  of  such  a  mis- 
 take as  is  suggested  in  the  text  is  apparent.  In  the  oldest  MSS. 
 the  genealogy  was  written  in  a  single  column  as  in  A.,  leaving 
 of  course  a  large  margin  on  each  side. 
 
 A. 
 
 ui'oc    Ico(7>;0 
 TOV     HXt 
 
 MaT0OT 
 
 Aei^i'' 
 
 K.T.A. 
 
 TOV   'Pfjcra   TjopofSapeX. 
 
 B. 
 
 TOV    n.\i  Tc/i7  JNIaT^aT 
 
 Atvi  MeA^t 
 
 \avva  Iwcrrjd) 
 
 MaTTadiov  A/ito? 
 
 K.T.A.  K.T.A. 
 
 But  somewhat  later,  the  double  column  as  in  B.  was  preferred, 
 probably  to  spare  the  waste  margin,  and  exhibit  the  whole  ge- 
 nealogy on  the  same  page.  Now  suppose  a  copyist  to  be  tran- 
 scribing a  MS.  of  the  form  A.  where  the  gloss  tov  'Frja-d  has  been 
 written  to  the  left  of  the  name  Zorobabel,  and  at  the  same  tiiue 
 disposing  the  names  as  in  B,  what  could  be  more  likely  than 
 that  he  should  take  in  'Pjjo-a,  and  in  his  bicolumnar  table  write 
 it  to  the  left  opposite  Zerubbabel,  as  it  is  actually  written  in  the 
 table  marked  D.  in  Mill's  note  ?  as  thus : 
 
 D. 
 
 a,   TOV    Iwarjcp 
 y.  I^IaT0a^ 
 
 K.T.A. 
 
 'Pt]a-d, 
 
 id. 
 
 (3.  TOV  Ha  I 
 Z,  Aevi 
 
 K.T.A, 
 
 K.  Zopo/3a/3eA. 
 
114      THE  GENEALOGIES  KECONCILED  WITH     [CH.  IV. 
 
 by  those  who  did  not  know  what  tJ^**^  meant  .  In- 
 deed, it  is  very  possible,  that  whenever,  and  by 
 whomsoever,  the  genealogy  was  first  put  into  Greek, 
 the  title  ^H  was  purposely  expressed  by  the  Greek 
 letters  'Prjad,  or,  as  it  is  written  in  some  MSS., 
 'Prja'ia,  just  as  the  Septuagint  translators  of  Ezra 
 ii.  63,  and  Nehem.  vii.  65,  70,  expressed  the  Per- 
 sian title  5<5ri2J^'"irin  by  aOepcracxOa.  Had  they  ren- 
 dered the  Hebrew  text  of  Nehem.  viii.  9  literally,  we 
 should  have  had  a  very  similar  case  to  that  supposed 
 in  St  Luke.      For  we  should  have  read  kuI   elire 
 
 vee/ums  aOepaaaOd  kuI  eaSpa^,  k.t.X.;  where  it  is  clear 
 
 how  very  easily  two  proper  names  might  have  been 
 made  out  of  Nehemiah  and  the  Tirshatha.  The 
 same  thing  might  easily  have  happened  with  the 
 Greek  of  Nehem.  x.   1,  kuI  cttI  twv  acppayi^ovrwv 
 
 veefxias    aprnaaaQa    vio^    w^aXia     Kal    ceoe/f/as,    k.t.X. 
 
 However,  what  was  the  precise  manner  and  time  in 
 which  SJ'n,  or  i^^H  Rhesa,  the  chief  of  the  captivity*, 
 ZerubbabeFs  title,  was  transformed  into  the  name  of 
 Zerubbabel's  supposed  son,  is  of  no  great  conse- 
 quence, and  is  perhaps  impossible  to  discover.  What 
 has  been  said  must  have  shewn  the  reader  that  it  is 
 highly  probable  that  at  some  time,  and  by  some 
 method,  the  transformation  did  take  place.  This 
 probability  will  approximate  to  a  certainty  when 
 we  go  on  to  set  the  genealogies  of  1  Chron.  iii.. 
 Matt,  i.,  and  Luke  iii.,  according  to  the  proposed 
 emendations,  side  by  side. 
 
 '  See  note  C. 
 
§y-l 
 
 THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID. 
 
 115 
 
 1  Chron.  iii. 
 
 Zeeubbabel 
 
 Shimei 
 I 
 Neariah 
 
 Meshullam  Hananiah    Shelomith  =  Elioenai 
 
 I 
 
 HODAIAH 
 
 Matt.  i. 
 ZOROBABEL 
 
 Abiud 
 
 Luke  iiu 
 ZOROBABEL 
 
 Joanna 
 I 
 
 JUDA 
 
 Here  then,  according  to  St  Luke,  we  have  for 
 Zerubbabel's  son  'looawas,  Joanna,  which  in  Hebrew 
 is  |JnV,  Jo-hanan,  'Dominus  gratiose  dedit,'  'The 
 Lord  gave  ;'  a  name  compounded  of  the  sacred  name 
 of  Jehovah,  which  usually  takes  this  form  at  the 
 beginning  of  names  (as  in  Jonathan,  Jozabad,  Jo- 
 akim,  Jozedek,  &c.),  and  ]yn,  '  he  gave  graciously.' 
 But  the  genealogy  of  1  Chron.  iii.  names  Zerubba- 
 bel's  second  son,  to  whom  alone  posterity  is  as- 
 signed, rT'iin,   Hananiah,   a  name   compounded   of 
 precisely  the  same   elements  as  Joanna,  viz.  [^n^ 
 '  Gratiose  dedit  Dominus,'  and  the  sacred  name  of 
 Jehovah,  which  at  the  end  of  names  takes  the  form 
 iah,  or  iahu,   (as  in  Azariah,  Pelatiah,  Nehemiah, 
 Jeremiah,  &c.).     So  that  the  two   names  are 
 IDENTICAL,  except  that  the  two  component  elements 
 are  placed  in  inverse  order,  as  if  in  English  we  said, 
 'The  Lord  is  gracious,'  or  'Gracious  is  the  Lord.' 
 And  when  it  is  recollected  that  Hebrew  names  were 
 significant  in  the  common  language  of  the  people, 
 that  the  words  of  which  they  were  composed  were 
 not  obsolete,  unintelligible  forms,  known  only  to 
 philologers,  but  that  their  meaning  was  fresh  and 
 living,  and  obvious  to  all,  it  will  be  clear  how  little 
 a  name  would  be  changed  by  such  a  simple  trans- 
 
116      THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CIL  IV. 
 
 position.  But  we  are  not  left  to  mere  general  rea- 
 soning on  this  head.  The  following  analogous 
 cases  are  a  conclusive  proof  that  such  transposi- 
 tions, and  other  similar  variations  in  Hebrew  names, 
 were  not  uncommon.  The  same  king  of  Juxiah  is 
 called  indifferently  riim,  Jecon-iah,  '  stabilit  Do- 
 minus,'  (Jerem.  xxiv.  1),  and  P-?'Jl^^  Jeho-iacin, 
 '  Dominus  stabilit,'  (2  Kings  xxiv.  8.)  The  father 
 of  Bathsheba  is  called  t2)l''b^,  Eli-am,  '  Dei  populus,' 
 2  Sam.  xi.  3,  but  hi^^fp)l,  Ammi-el,  *  populus  Dei,'  in 
 1  Chron.  iii.  5.  The  son  of  Jehoram  is  called  ^n^TH^, 
 Ahaz-iah,  'apprehendit  Dominus,'  2  Chron.  xxii.  1, 
 but  TriXin\  Jeho-ahaz,  '  Dominus  apprehendit,'  xxi. 
 17;  XXV.  23.1  Instead  of  h^nt^^^,  Asah-el,  'fecit 
 Deus,'  Ezra  x.  15,  some  of  Kennicott's  MSS.  read 
 nb^yS^t,  El-asah,  'Deus  fecit;'  and  instead  of 
 y^^^'pS,  Eli-shama,  'Deus  exaudivit,'  2  Kings  xxv,  25, 
 some  MSS.  read  hi^V^^\,  Ishma-el,  'exaudit  Deusl' 
 
 *  Dr  Kennicott  {Dissert.  &c.,  pp.  463,  489)  with  less  justice 
 and  force  than  usually  characterize  his  criticisms,  compares  this 
 transposition  to  the  supposed  case  of  our  finding  in  the  midst  of 
 a  history  of  Philip  and  Alexander  his  son,  that  Ander-alex  did 
 so  and  so ;  and  asks  whether  we  should  not  conclude  that  the 
 printer  or  transcriber  had  transposed  the  syllables.  But  the 
 learned  writer  must  have  forgotten  that  the  Hebrew  names  were 
 all  significant,  and  that  the  transposition  in  question  leaves  the 
 sense  in  its  full  integrity.  Whereas  such  an  inversion  as  Ander- 
 alex  makes  nonsense ;  at  the  same  time  it  may  admit  of  doubt 
 whether  the  variations  in  Hebrew  names  are  not  wholly  due  to 
 copyists  ;  the  patent  significance  in  the  names  making  it  of  course 
 much  easier  for  a  copyist  unintentionally  to  vary  the  order  of  the 
 component  parts  of  a  name. 
 
 ^  Bcnham's  Reflections  on  the  Gcncalogi/.,  &c.  p.  45. 
 
J  v.]  THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.  117 
 
 It  might  be  supposed  too,  with  some  probability, 
 that  the  Elishama  mentioned  in  2  Chron.  xvii.  8, 
 as  associated  with  Jehoram  the  priest,  is  the  same 
 person  as  Ishmael,  2  Chron.  xix.  11,  and  that  per- 
 haps in  the  former  place,  the  words  '  Zebadiah,  son 
 of,'  were  accidentally  omitted.  These  are  all  exactly 
 analogous  cases.  Instances  of  the  same  transposition 
 in  the  case  of  near  relations  are  also  not  unfrequent. 
 Thus  the  father  of  Nethaniah  was  called  }^f2^^bi<  ^ 
 Eli-shama,  'Deus  exaudivit.'  Nethaniah's  son  was 
 called  Sxj^^SJ'^,  Ishma-el,  'exaudit  Deus,'  Jer.  xli.  1* 
 The  son  of  Dfit^in^,  Jeho-shaphat,  '  Dominus  judica- 
 vit,'  was  ^n^tpS^,  Shephat-iah,  'judicavit  Dominus,' 
 2  Chron.  xxi.  2.  And  in  the  families  of  the  priests 
 we  find  y^'*in^,  Jeho-iada,  '  Dominus  cognovit,'  and 
 '^y.y.^  Jeda-iah,  'cognovit  Dominus.'  Eliada  com- 
 pared with  Jediel,  Nethaniah  compared  with  Jona- 
 than, Hoshama  with  Shemaiah,  Jozedek  with  Zede- 
 kiah,  &c.  &c.,  are  instances  of  the  same  name 
 (though  in  different  individuals)  differently  ar- 
 ranged. It  is  to  the  purpose  to  observe  further, 
 that  we  have  other  examples  in  which  the  name 
 of  the  same  individual  is  so  altered,  that  while  the 
 elements  composing  it  are  modified,  the  general 
 meaning  continues  the  same.  Thus,  one  of  David's 
 sons  is  sometimes  called  V^  v^^,  El-iada,  '  Deus  cog- 
 novit,' (1  Chron.  iii.  8),  sometimes  Vlt^V./^^  Beel-iada, 
 'Dominus  cognovit,'  1  Chron.  xiv.  8  (7,  Heb.) 
 ^^phi^,  Eliakim,  was  also  called  n''p^)n\  '  Deus'  or 
 'Jehovah  constituit,'  2  Kings  xxiii.  34.  ^^^V^, 
 Eliab,  'Deus  pater  (meus),'  1  Chron.  vi. 27,  is  called 
 
118      THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CH.  IV. 
 
 h^hi^,  Eliel,  'Deus,  Deus  meus,'  1  Chron.  vi.  34 
 (19,  Heb.)  and  ^nh^  Elihu,  'Deus  mens  ille,' 
 1  Sam.  i.  1.  Sx'^^^,  i  Sam.  ix.  1,  is  called  h^y\ 
 1  Chron.  ix.  35.  '  In  Numb.  xxvi.  30,  1T^>S  is, 
 doubtless,  only  a  clerical  error  for  ^TJ^^ii^t,  by  the 
 accidental  omission  of  the  '2,  although  it  is  so  meta- 
 morphosed in  the  English  rendering,  Jeezer,  as  to 
 be  hardly  recognized  for  Abiezer;  and  so  on. 
 Whether  these  changes  in  the  case  of  the  same 
 individual  are  accidental  variations  by  the  tran- 
 scriber, or  actually  existed  in  practice,  is  of  no 
 great  moment  for  our  present  purpose.  The  identity 
 of  l^nV,  Joanna,  with  H^^^n,  Hananiah,  is  in  either 
 case  fully  established'.  And  we  have  now  the  first 
 generation,  subsequent  to  Zerubbabel  in  St  Luke's 
 Gospel,  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  corresponding 
 generation  in  the  Old  Testament.  As  regards  St 
 Matthew,  as  it  is  certain  that  he  omits  several 
 generations  in  this  as  in  the  preceding  tessera- 
 decade,  in  order  to  keep  to  the  number  14,  we  need 
 not  be  surprised  at  his  omission  of  this  generation, 
 especially  as  we  shall  see  good  reason  for  his 
 doing  so  when  we  come  to  examine  the  next 
 generation. 
 
 Beginning  then  with  St  Luke,  we  learn  from 
 him  that  the  son  of  Joanna  or  Hananiah  was  'lovSa^ 
 or  'lov^a,  Juda,  which  in  Hebrew  would  be  ni^<T 
 
 '  Ezra  X.  28,  supplies  an  instance  in  which  it  is  probable 
 that  these  very  same  two  forms  designate  the  same  individual. 
 For  most  likely  Jehohanan  and 'Hananiah  arise  from  combining 
 different  ways  of  writing  the  same  name  in  different  MSS. 
 
§  v.]      THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.       119 
 
 We  first  meet  with  this  name  in  Gen.  xxix.  35, 
 where  Leah  upon  the  birth  of  her  fourth  son  says, 
 nJT-nx  nni«  Dj;3n,  '  Now  win  I  praise  the  Lord.' 
 And  so  she  called  his  name  H^liT,  Judah,  i.e.  praise 
 or  thanksgiving,  as  the  almost  identical  word  iTlin^ 
 (Nehem.  xi.  17)  signifies.  The  form  is  a  Chaldaism, 
 being  derived  from  the  Hiphil  of  HT,  'to  praise,' 
 (see  Rosenmiill.  ad  Gen.  xxix.  35),  of  which  the 
 common  form  is  tllV  in  the  present,  and  n*lin  in 
 the  perfect.  In  composition  with  the  Divine  name 
 we  find  several  forms  of  this  same  verb.  Thus  we 
 find  in  Ezra  ii.  40,  n^n^'"^?  Hodaviah,  '  celebratio 
 Domini,'  as  Simonis  renders  it,  where  the  name  of 
 Jehovah,  which  was  understood  in  the  name  of 
 Judah  given  by  Leah  to  her  son,  is  expressed. 
 Another  way  of  writing  the  name  is  HHin,  Hodeyah, 
 or,  as  it  is  written  in  the  Kethib,  nnin,  Hodevah, 
 Neh.  vii.  43,  and  another  nniHS  Hodijah,Neh.  x.  18. 
 In  1  Chron.  iii.  24,  this  same  name  appears  as 
 ^/T'nin,  which  in  the  English  version  is  rendered 
 Hodaiah.  In  all  these  different  forms  of  the  same 
 name,  the  meaning  is  the  same  as  that  of  H'l^/T, 
 Judah,  'the  praise  of  God.'  But  it  is  further  to  be 
 observed,  that  the  very  same  individual  who  is 
 called  by  Ezra  n''n^''^5  Hodaviah,  ch.  ii.  40,  and  by 
 Nehemiah  nnin,  is  in  Ezra  iii.  9  called  ill)il\  and 
 
 '  The  form  nmn  ^1^7  however  be  rendered,  'Praise  the 
 Lord'  (O  my  soul,  understood),  after  the  analogy  of  Ps.  ciii.  1, 
 taking  i-ji'^^  for  the  2d  pers.  imper.  f.  g.  Compare  Isai.  xii. 
 1,  4.        ■ 
 
120      THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CH.  IV. 
 
 probably  also  x.  23  :  and  that  another  individual  who 
 in  1  Chron.  ix.  7  is  called  H^nin,  Hodaviah,  is  in 
 Neh.  xi.  9  called  (Tl^H),  Judah :  and  that  a  woman 
 whose  name  is  written  HHin^,  Jehudijah,  1  Chron. 
 iv.  18,  is  in  v.  19  called  nnin.  So  that  the  identity 
 of  the  names  Hodaiah  and  Judah  is  established  by 
 the  most  conclusive  evidenced  It  should  be  ob- 
 served also  how  in  some  ways  of  writing  the  name, 
 as  nnin  and  nnin,  the  verb  assumes  a  monosylla- 
 bic form  nin,  or,  with  the  connecting  \  Hin. 
 
 Now  if  we  turn  again  to  the  royal  genealogy  of 
 David's  descendants  in  1  Chron.  iii.  we  shall  find  in 
 the  last  generation  there  recorded  (v.  24),  Hodaiah 
 the  son  of  Elioenai,  the  son  of  Neariah,  the  son 
 of  Shemaiah,  whom  we  have  already  identified  with 
 Shimei  the  brother  of  Zerubbabel.  We  shall  see 
 also  that  Zerubbabel's  male  line  seems  to  have  ter- 
 minated in  his  grandsons,  Pelatiah  and  Jesaiah,  see- 
 ing that  no  sons  of  theirs  are  mentioned.  But  in 
 V.  19,  along  side  of  MeshuUam  and  Hananiah,  men- 
 tion is  made  of  'Shelomith,  their  sister,'  the  only 
 daughter  recorded  in  the  whole  genealogy,  except 
 Tamar.  Now  no  reason  occurs  to  me  for  this 
 special  mention  of  Shelomith,  taken  in  conjunction 
 
 *  If  the  identity  of  Thaddeus  (Matt.  x.  3),  with  Jude,  Luke 
 vi.  16,  is  admitted,  we  have  a  very  remarkable  analogy  in  those 
 various  forms  of  that  apostle's  name,  with  that  attributed  to 
 Juda  and  Hodaiah.  For  9ao2a?o?,  Thaddeus,  according  to  Si- 
 monis,  is  from  the  Hebrew  s-fj;:)  (Thodai)  'laus  Domini/  from  the 
 
 T 
 
 very  same  root  HT*   to   praise,  and   corresponding  in  meaning 
 exactly  to  Hodaiah. 
 
§  v.]     THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.       121 
 
 with  the  silence  as  to  any  descendants  of  Pelatiah 
 or  Jesaiah,  so  probable  as  that  Zerubbabel's  line 
 was  continued  through  her;  a  supposition  borne  out 
 by  the  fulness  with  which  Shimei's  line  is  given, 
 and  in  remarkable  harmony  with  the  omission  by 
 St  Matthew  of  the  name  of  Hananiah,  in  order  to 
 pass  on  to  the  next  generation.  If  then  we  sup- 
 pose that  Elioenai  married  his  father's  cousin  Shelo- 
 mith,  the  daughter  of  Zerubbabel,  who  might  be 
 many  years  younger  than  her  brothers,  Meshullam 
 and  Hananiah,  and  that  the  eldest  son  of  this  mar- 
 riage, Hodaiah,  on  the  failure  of  his  uncle  Hana- 
 niah's  issue,  became  his  heir  and  successor  as 
 head  of  the  house  of  Zerubbabel,  or,  which  is  the 
 same  thing,  of  the  house  of  David,  it  is  evident  that 
 he  might,  with  propriety,  be  called  the  son  of 
 Hananiah,  just  as  Zerubbabel  was  called  the  son 
 of  his  uncle  Salathiel.  And  since  we  have  identi- 
 fied the  name  Joanna  with  Hananiah,  and  the 
 name  Juda  with  Hodaiah,  we  now  see  how  ex- 
 actly in  accordance  with  1  Chron.  iii.,  St  Luke  was 
 when  he  wrote  that  Juda  was  the  son  of  Joanna, 
 and  Joanna  was  the  son  of  Zerubbabel.  And  with 
 such  a  result,  the  previous  probability  that  Rhesa 
 is  no  proper  name,  but  a  title  of  Zerubbabel,  ap- 
 proximates, as  we  have  said,  to  a  certainty  ^ 
 
 '  It  may  be  noted,  that  the  same  result  would  follow  if 
 Hodaiah  had  merely  succeeded  Hananiah  as  head  of  the  house  of 
 David,  as  next  of  kin.  Also,  that  the  mention  in  1  Chron.  iii.  24, 
 of  Johanan  as  a  brother  of  Hodaiah,  is  an  incidental  evidence  in 
 favour  of  the  relationship  supposed  in  the  text  between  the  chil- 
 dren of  Elioenai  and  Hananiah. 
 
122      THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CII.  IV. 
 
 The  only  considerable  objection  against  this 
 scheme  that  occurs  to  me  is,  that  if  St  Luke  gives 
 the  natural  lineal  descent  throughout,  he  ought  to 
 have  given  Hodaiah's  or  Juda's  line  through  Elio- 
 enai  and  Neariah  up  to  Shimei,  instead  of  through 
 Hananiah  or  Joanna  to  Zerubbabel.  When  how- 
 ever we  reflect  that  St  Luke  used  the  pedigree 
 which  he  found,  and  that  it  is  highly  probable  that 
 the  earlier  paternal  ancestors  of  Joseph  may  have 
 preferred  tracing  their  descent  to  Zerubbabel,  who 
 was  so  famous  in  the  annals  of  their  country,  rather 
 than  to  his  less-known  brother  Shimei,  the  objec- 
 tion will  lose  its  force.  We  may  well  suppose  too 
 that  the  Providence  of  God  may  have  overruled 
 these  natural  feelings,  in  order  to  give  the  more 
 glory  to  Zerubbabel,  of  whom  He  had  said,  '  I  will 
 take  thee,  0  Zerubbabel,  my  servant,  the  son  of 
 Shealtiel,  saith  the  Lord,  and  will  make  thee  a 
 signet;  for  I  have  chosen  thee,  saith  the  Lord  of 
 hosts,'  Hagg.  ii.  23.  And,  at  all  events,  we  know 
 for  certain  that  St  Luke  calls  Zerubbabel,  the  son 
 of  Salathiel,  and  not  the  son  of  Pedaiah. 
 
 St  Matthew  tells  us  that  Zerubbabel  (or,  as  he 
 and  St  Luke  both  write  according  to  the  ortho- 
 graphy of  the  Septuagint,  Zorobabel,)  begat  Abiud. 
 It  has  already  been  remarked,  that  as  St  Matthew 
 certainly  omits  several  generations  between  Zerub- 
 babel and  Christ,  interposing  only  ten  names  to 
 correspond  with  St  Luke's  eighteen  (omitting  Rhesa), 
 we  need  not  be  surprised  that  we  cannot  identify 
 the  person  said  to  be  begotten  by  Zerubbabel  with 
 
^  v.]      THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.       123 
 
 any  of  the  sons  of  Zerubbabel  wlaose  names  are 
 recorded  in  1  Chron.  and  in  the  Gospel  of  St  Luke. 
 Nor  with  the  fact  before  us,  that  in  the  previous 
 tesseradecade  three  consecutive  kings  are  omitted, 
 would  it  have  caused  any  great  perplexity  if  neither 
 could  Abiud  be  identified  with  any  of  the  next  gene- 
 ration. At  the  same  time,  considering  of  how  great 
 importance  it  is  that  the  harmony  of  the  genealo- 
 gies in  the  New  Testament  with  those  of  the  Old 
 should  be  apparent  as  well  as  real,  it  must  be  con- 
 fessed that  it  does  appear  likely  that  the  Evangelist 
 should  have  been  directed  rather  to  omit  some 
 names  of  later  times,  than  to  pass  over  in  silence 
 both  the  generations  of  Zerubbabel's  descendants 
 preserved  in  the  inspired  books.  I  believe  that  this 
 natural  expectation  has  not  been  disappointed.  For 
 however  hopeless  it  may  be  to  identify  Abiud, 
 'AfiiovS,  with  either  Rhesa  or  MeshuUam  or  Hana- 
 niah  or  Joanna,  or  any  of  the  sons  of  Zerubbabel, 
 and  however  dissimilar  to  even  Juda  and  Hodaiah, 
 Abiud  may  appear  to  the  ears  or  eyes  of  an  English 
 reader,  I  venture  to  suggest  that  in  point  of  fact 
 Abiud  may  be  identical  with  Hodaiah  and  Juda^ 
 For  when  we  come  to  put  it  into  its  Hebrew  form 
 ^1^^^^^,  'father's  praise  or  glory,'  or  'father  of 
 glory,'  or  as  Gesenius  renders  it,  'Pater  Judseorum,' 
 (for  lin^^^X)  '  father  of  the  Jews,'  we  immediately 
 perceive  that  it  contains  one,  and  that  its  principal 
 element,  which  it  has  in  common  with  another  name 
 
 *  I  see  by  the  note  in  Dr  Mill's  Tract,  p.  178,  that  I  have  been 
 anticipated  in  tlie  comparison  of  Abiud  and  Juda. 
 
124      THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CH.  IV. 
 
 in  the  family,  Eliud,  very  similar  to,  if  not  identical 
 with,  n^  l)n,  or  ^n*  )l)n,  or  ni)n\  According  to 
 Simonis,  the  final  syllable  DH  stands  for  l)il,  'gloria,' 
 a  root  which  many  connect  with  HT,  *  to  praise,' 
 from  which,  as  we  have  seen,  rTllH^,  Judah,  is  de- 
 rived, but  which  Gesenius  connects  with  an  obsolete 
 root  ini  nahad,  'to  swell.'     Even  this,  the  most 
 
 -    T 
 
 unfavourable  combination,  would  be  quite  compa- 
 tible with  a  close  connexion  between  Judah  and 
 Abiud,  because  in  allusions  drawn  from  proper 
 names,  etymological  strictness  is  not  adhered  to,  as 
 the  names  Noah,  Cain,  (Gen.  i.  29  ;  iv.  1),  and  many 
 others,  sufficiently  prove.  But  in  point  of  fact  there 
 is  scarcely  room  for  doubt,  that  the  syllable  DH,  or 
 rather,  perhaps,  ^)il],  which  forms  the  termination 
 of  Abiud,  as  well  as  of  Ishod  ^in^**}"},  1  Chron.  vii.  18, 
 (for  so  it  is  pointed),  Ahihud  ^liTTli)},  Numb.  xxiv.  7, 
 Ammihud  l)r\'fp]l,  Num.  i.  10,  and  Eliud  niH^bx^ 
 Matt.  i.  14,  is  a  shortened  form  of  il'l')n\  We  have 
 already  seen  how  l)n  and  HiH  form  the  first  sylla- 
 ble of  the  names  Hodiah  and  Hodijah,  and  we 
 know  too  that  the  short  form  "11/T  is  used  for  the 
 land  or  people  of  Judah  in  the  books  of  Daniel 
 and  Ezra.  We  may  conclude  therefore  with  some 
 confidence,  that  in  Abiud,  the  concluding  syllable 
 1^/1  or  Dil]  is  an  abbreviation  of  ill)n\  Judah, 
 either  as  an  appellative  signifying  praise,  or  as  a 
 proper  name  signifying  the  people  of  Judah,  the 
 Jews.  If  then  the  ordinary  name  of  the  son  of 
 Hananiah  were  min^,  Judah,  or  IH^nin,  Hodaiah, 
 
§  Y.~\  THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.       125 
 
 what  so  likely  as  that  when  he  unexpectedly  be- 
 came the  heir  of  the  house  of  Zerubbabel,  and 
 of  the  throne  of  David,  his  name  should  have  been 
 modified  (as  that  of  Abram,  Hoshea  the  son  of 
 Nun,  and  others),  to  express  this  great  accession, 
 and  he  should  have  been  named  '^1^^^^^,  Abihud, 
 'his  father's  praise  or  glory,'  as  one  upon  whom 
 they  should  '  hang  all  the  glory  of  his  father's 
 house,'  (Isai.  xxi.  24,)  or  '  father  of  glory ;'  or,  if  we 
 take  the  interpretation  of  Gesenius,  which  is  adopt- 
 ed also  by  DrMill,  'father  of  Judah'?'  On  the  other 
 hand,  if  his  original  name  was  Abiud,  then  by  a  not 
 uncommon  abbreviation  of  compound  proper  names^ 
 
 '  I  think  the  right  division  of  the  name  is  as  Gesenius  di- 
 vides it  -j;irp  t^j^ ,  not  fiin  ""IIJ^  as  I  thought  at  first ;  because 
 all  the  names  in  which  there  is  a  ^  before  IJin,  as  Abihud,  Ahi- 
 hud,  Ammihud,  Elihud,  seem  to  follow  the  analogy  of  Jehudah 
 or  Judah,  in  having  the  Shurek  (Ci)  in  the  last  syllable.  AVhereas 
 those  names  which  have  no  >  have  the  Kholem  (o)  as  Ishod, 
 Hodijah,  Hodaiah.  In  Abishai  ifi^i^^J  (1  Sam.  xxvi.  6,  Sec),  the 
 same  division  seems  to  hold ;  for  the  name  is  compounded  of  ^j^ 
 
 T 
 
 and  tj^"t  Jesse,  'Jesse  is  my  father;'  Abishai  being  Jesse's 
 grandson  by  his  mother  Zeruiah.  Compare  Abner,  '  Ner  is  my 
 father.'  So  also  iiH^lh?  D'3S^  VW^2ii  Abijah,  Abijam, 
 Abishua,  &c.  As  regards  the  designation  liiryHi^  Abiud,  con- 
 sidered as  meaning,  'father  of  Judah,'  compare  what  is  said 
 of  Eliakim,  Isai.  xxii.  21,     jy^b")    lyhml"^    2WVb    2i^b    iTni 
 
 .....  T         :  -.       :  T  :  tt  : 
 
 ni^n^  '  He  shall  be  a  father  to  the  inliabitants  of  Jerusalem,  and 
 
 T        : 
 
 to  the  house  of  Judah.' 
 
 ^  Examples  of  such  abbreviations,  by  omitting  one  element  of 
 a  compound  name,  are  the  following.  tjobs  Palti,  for  ^iSjt^Sc) 
 Paltiel,  1  Sam.  xxv.  44,  compared  with  2  Sam.  iii.  15.  t^J^ 
 Abi,  2  Kings  xviii.  2,  for  pT'li^  Abijah,  2  Chron.  xxix.  1. 
 n"'31D  Coniah,  Jer.  xxii.  24,  for  n^'^O''  Jeconiah,  1  Chron.  iii.  1 0". 
 
126      THE  GENEALOGIES  RECONCILED  WITH     [CH.  IV. 
 
 (see  Glassius,  Philolog.  Sac.  Lib.  iv.  3.  Ob.  3), 
 he  might  have  been  called  more  familiarly  H'll/Tj 
 or  with  a  different  modification  again  ('TH^n,  Ho- 
 daiah^  It  is  perhaps  worthy  of  remark,  that  both 
 in  the  case  of  Hananiah  and  Hodaiah,  St  Luke 
 seems  to  adopt  the  more  Greek  form  of  the  name 
 'iboavva^,  John,  and  'lovla^,  Jude,  while  St  Matthew 
 has  a  thoroughly  Hebrew  form  !A/3toj)^,  Abiud. 
 Thus  then  it  appears  that  St  Matthew  passing  over 
 the  generation  next  to  Zerubbabel,  proceeds  to  the 
 third  generation,  viz.  to  Zerubbabel's  grandson  by 
 his  daughter  Shelomith,  whom  he  naturally  prefers 
 to  speak  of  as  begotten  by  Zerubbabel,  to  making 
 him  to  be  begotten  by  Hananiah.  And  on  com- 
 paring the  three  names  by  which  the  ancestor  of 
 Messiah,  in  the  third  generation  from  Zerubbabel, 
 is  described  by  the  three  sacred  writers,  we  find 
 instead  of  a  hopeless  discrepancy,  a  very  remark- 
 able agreement,  Hod-aiah  IH^nin,  Abi-ud  1^n''!l5<^ 
 Juda  n^T^ini^     And  here,  with  the  age  of  Ezra  and 
 
 *iy^jy  Jemini  (marg.  E.  V.),  1  Sam.  ix.  1,  for  '"^''i^'''^^,  a  Benja- 
 mite ;  to  which  may  be  added,  Achim  for  Jehoiachln,  Azor  for 
 Azariah,  and  many  more. 
 
 *  Or  the  Yariation  in  the  way  of  writing  the  name  may  be 
 entirely  owing  to  transcribers  adding  or  omitting  the  syllable 
 "2^',  01";  ii^  the  case  of  n^nin^  omitting  accidentally  the  first  i  of 
 
 T  T  :  T 
 
 ni'in'''  ^'^^  i\\GTi.  ni^rr  being  an  unknown  form,  it  might  be  al- 
 tered to  ("T'mn-  It  is  well  known  that  the  letters  n^  1>  "•  are 
 more  liable  to  mistake  than  any  others. 
 
 ^  I  have  not  thought  it  necessary  to  enter  into  any  argu- 
 ment to  prove  that  the  Salathiel  and  Zerubbabel  of  the  author 
 of  Chronicles,  of  the  gospel  of  St  Matthew,  and  of  the  gospel 
 of  St  Luke,  are  the  same  individuals,  though  the  opposite  view 
 
§  v.]     THAT  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  DAVID.        127 
 
 the  completion  of  the  canon  of  Scripture,  closes 
 the  Old  Testament  list  of  the  sons  of  David,  and 
 consequently,  our  task  of  comparing  with  that  list 
 the  ancestors  of  Christ  recorded  by  the  Evangelists, 
 and  shewing,  as  we  trust  has  been  done,  the  perfect 
 harmony  between  them :  a  harmony,  it  may  be 
 added,  the  solidity  of  whose  foundations  as  laid 
 deep  in  truth,  is  only  the  more  apparent,  from  their 
 having  been  for  a  time  bedded  under  the  obscurity 
 of  corruptions  laid  over  them  by  the  lapse  of  ages, 
 but,  when  these  corruptions  are  cleared  away,  being 
 still  found  to  subsist  in  all  their  original  integrity. 
 
 has  the  sanction  of  some  great  names.  The  occurrence  of  two 
 such  names  (both  aira^  Xeyo/Asva)  at  exactly  the  same  period, 
 and  in  the  same  genealogical  sequence,  in  the  genealogy  of  the 
 same  person,  is  to  my  mind  conclusive ;  and  any  scheme  which 
 requires  us  to  consider  two  distinct  Zerubbabels,  sons  of  Sala- 
 thiel,  must  by  that  circumstance  fall  to  the  ground.  It  may 
 however  be  well  just  to  note  that  the  identification  of  a  third 
 and  fourth  generation  makes  assurance  on  this  point  trebly  and 
 quadruply  sure.     See  above,  note  p.  95. 
 
CHAPTER  V. 
 
 Harmony  of  the  Genealogies  of  St  Matthew  and 
 St  Luke  for  the  times  subsequent  to  the  dosing 
 of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament. 
 
 "IT7E  have  seen  in  the  preceding  chapters  how 
 ^  ^  the  two  Gospel  genealogies,  after  running  in 
 one  line  from  Abraham  to  David,  separate  after 
 David,  the  one  being  continued  through  Solomon, 
 the  other  through  David's  other  son  Nathan.  We 
 have  seen  also  how  these  genealogies,  in  consequence 
 of  the  failure  of  the  line  of  Solomon  in  Jehoiachin, 
 meet  again  in  Salathiel  of  the  house  of  Nathan,  who 
 became,  on  the  above-named  failure,  the  heir  also  of 
 the  line  of  Solomon.  We  have  seen  further  how 
 these  genealogies  run  in  one  line  again  from  Sala- 
 thiel to  the  person  who  is  called  Hodaiah,  Judah, 
 or  Abiud,  viz.  for  four  generations.  But  if  we 
 compare  the  two  Gospels  together,  we  shall  find 
 that  after  the  above-named  grandson  of  Zerubbabel 
 the  genealogies  again  diverge.  For  while  St  Mat- 
 thew gives  Eliakim,  Azor,  Sadoc,  Achim,  Eliud, 
 Eleazar,  as  the  successive  chiefs  of  the  house  of 
 David,  between  Abiud  and  Matthan,  St  Luke,  after 
 Juda,  gives  Joseph,  Semei,  Mattathias,  Maath, 
 Nagge,  Esli,  Naum,  Amos,  Mattathias,  Joseph, 
 Janna,  Melchi,  Levi,  as  the  successive  predecessors 
 of  Matthat,  who,  like  the  Matthan  of  St  Matthew, 
 is  the  third  generation  above  Joseph  the  husband 
 
CH.  v.]       HARMONY  OF  THE  GENEALOGIES,  &C.        1  29 
 
 of  Mary.     A  comparison  of  these  names  will  shew 
 at  once  that  they  are  all  different,  and  that  no  two 
 in  the  several  lists  have  anything  in  common.     It 
 is  obvious  therefore  to  conclude,  that  from  Abiud 
 or  Juda  downwards  the  lines  diverge  again,  and 
 that  St  Matthew  gives  us  the  elder  branch  of  the 
 house  of  Abiud,  whose  eldest  son  probably  Eliakim 
 was  (for  we  cannot   speak    positively,   having  no 
 clue  to  guide  us  as  to  where  Matthew  omits  one  or 
 more  generations),  while  St  Luke  traces  a  younger 
 branch  through  a  younger  son  of  Abiud  or  Judah, 
 as  it  should  seem,   named   Joseph,   who  was   the 
 lineal  progenitor  of  Matthat.     But  after  thus  re- 
 maining distinct  for  13  generations,   the   two  ge- 
 nealogies meet  again  in  the  person  of  Matthan  or 
 Matthat,  the  son  of  Levi,  who,  on  the  failure  of 
 Eliakim's  line  in  Eleazar,  became  Abiud's  heir,  and 
 head  of  the  house  of  David.    For  this  is  the  natural 
 conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  finding  names  all  but 
 identical  in  the  third  generation  above  Joseph  in 
 the   two   Gospels :  just    as   the   same    thing   was 
 brought  about  by  the  same  cause  in  the  case  of 
 Salathiel.     And  that  the  two  names  may  be  con- 
 sidered as  indicating  the  same  person  is  assumed, 
 not  merely  from  their  close  resemblance  in  sound, 
 and  identity  of  position,  and  their  common  etymo- 
 logy, (one  being  the  masculine  noun  p^  Matthan 
 a  gift,  the  other  the  very  same  noun  with  a  femi- 
 nine termination,  ri^JH^ ,  contracted  Di^t^  Matthat), 
 but  also  from  their  being  absolutely  the  same  in 
 many  MSS.,  and  as  quoted  by  some  of  the  fathers. 
 
 9 
 
130  HAEMONY  OF  THE  GENEALOGIES  [CH. 
 
 Thus  Epiphanius  {Adversus  Hwres.  lt.  tSv  avorjrwu, 
 
 Vol.  I.   Edit.  Petav.  p.  433)   has   i/ios    rod  'Iwa->70,  rod 
 
 'H\i,  Tov  MarOav.  And  Gregory  Naziaiizen,  in  the 
 line  quoted  by  Dr  Mill,  (p.  189),  has  MeXyl  Kal 
 Aev\  Kal  MarOdu.  'HXet,  'lwai](p.  And  a  few  lines 
 before,  in  the  paraphrase  of  Luke  iii.  29,  he  has 
 MarOdv  again.  Dr  Mill  also,  (pp.  191,  192),  seems 
 to  consider  them  identical,  and  tells  us  that  Luther 
 and  Junius  do  so  too.  This  Matthan  then,  or  Mat- 
 that,  the  son  of  Levi  and  heir  of  Eleazar,  had  two 
 sons,  Jacob  and  Heli,  of  whom  Jacob  was  the  elder, 
 and,  consequently,  his  successor.  Jacob  I  suppose 
 to  have  had  no  son,  but  to  have  been  the  father 
 of  the  Virgin  Mary :  Heli,  the  father  of  Joseph. 
 Joseph,  according  to  universal  Jewish  custom,  took 
 Mary  his  cousin  to  wife,  and  was  thus  on  every  ac- 
 count Jacob's  successor  and  heir.  Hence  St  Matthew 
 says,  'Jacob  begat  Joseph,  the  husband  of  Mary,' 
 and  St  Luke,  that  Joseph  was  '  the  son  of  Eli.' 
 Thus  all  is  clear.  And  all  that  we  have  to  do 
 further  in  respect  of  these  lists  is,  to  see  whether 
 the  number  of  generations  corresponds  to  the  time 
 to  be  covered  by  them,  and  whether  there  is  any- 
 thing in  the  names  themselves  which  has  an  air  of 
 truth  or  of  fiction  about  it. 
 
 As  regards  the  number  of  generations,  it  is 
 needless  to  repeat  the  remark,  that  St  Matthew 
 omits  so  many  as  is  necessary  in  order  to  reduce 
 the  number  to  fourteen  from  Jechonias  to  Christ, 
 in  accordance  with  the  two  preceding  periods.  And 
 as  regards  the  number  in  St  Luke,  we  have  already 
 
v.]  OF  ST  MATTHEW  AND  ST  LUKE.  131 
 
 seen  (p.  110)  that  nineteen  generations,  from  Zerub- 
 babel  to  Christ  inclusive,  which  is  the  number 
 found  in  St  Luke,  when  Rhesa  is  discarded,  is  just 
 the  number  we  should  expect,  reckoning  thirty 
 years  to  a  generation.  We  may  proceed  then  in 
 our  enquiries  about  the  names  themselves,  merely 
 premising  that  the  opinion  was  broached  so  early 
 as  before  the  time  of  Africanus,  that  the  names  in 
 the  genealogy  were  fictitious  S  and  only  designed 
 to  signify  the  union  of  the  kingly  and  priestly 
 offices  in  the  person  of  Christ,  by  attributing  to 
 him  some  ancestors  whose  name  shews  them  to  be 
 of  the  house  of  Aaron,  and  some  whose  name  is 
 characteristic  of  the  house  of  David.  And  that  in 
 our  own  days  there  is  still  a  school  of  whose  opi- 
 nions Strauss  may  be  taken  as  an  exponent,  who 
 hold  'that  the  genealogies  bear  evident  marks  of 
 not  being  historical,  but  purely  mythical.'  (See 
 Dr  Mill's  Vindication  of  our  Lord's  Genealogies, 
 p.  101).  So  that  internal  proofs  of  the  verity  and 
 historical  accuracy  of  the  Genealogies  drawn  from 
 the  names  themselves  are  not  irrelevant,  or  with- 
 out value. 
 
 We  noticed  previously  at  p.  36,  sqq.,  how  the 
 names  both  in  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke  bear  out 
 the  hypothesis  that  St  Matthew  gives  the  succes- 
 sion to  the  throne,  and  St  Luke  the  strict  genea- 
 logy of  Joseph ;  inasmuch  as  both  lists  have  internal 
 evidence  of  their  containing  the  names  of  persons 
 
 *  See  African.  Epist.  ad  Arist- ;  Routh's  Reliq.  Sac.  Vol.  ir. 
 pp.  115,  116. 
 
 9—2 
 
132  HARMONY  OF  THE  GENEALOGIES  [CH. 
 
 descended  from  Nathan,  in  the  portion  subsequent 
 to  Salathiel,  while  St  Luke's  list  has  internal  evi- 
 dence also  of  the  whole  line  from  Nathan  down- 
 wards being  that  of  Joseplis  ancestors.  And  this 
 of  course  is  also  an  important  evidence  of  the 
 historical  truth  of  the  genealogies  themselves.  Pur- 
 suing the  same  mode  of  reasoning  in  regard  to  the 
 names  now  before  us,  and,  beginning  with  St  Mat- 
 thew, we  notice  that 
 
 'A/3toi)^',  Abiud,  as  above  explained,  is  connected 
 by  the  etymology  of  his  name  as  well  as  by  blood 
 with  'Jou'^as,  of  the  house  of  Nathan,  mentioned 
 Luke  iii.  30,  as  also  with  the  patriarch  Judah, 
 the  father  of  his  tribe.  The  mention  of  Jude,  '\ov- 
 ^as,  as  one  of  the  Lord's  brethren  (Matt.  xiii.  55), 
 and  consequently  a  descendant  of  Abiud  or  Juda, 
 of  the  former  Juda  (Luke  iii.  30),  and  of  the  pa- 
 triarch, is  also  to  be  noted.  ©a^^aTo?,  Thaddeus, 
 which  from  a  comparison  of  Matt.  x.  3,  4,  with 
 Luke  vi.  15,  is  seen  to  designate  Jude,  is  also 
 etymologically  connected  with  Abiud,  being  formed 
 from  n^in,  '  praise,'  a  verbal  from  /Tl^,  '  to  praise,' 
 and  n\  'Jehovah,'  (see  p.  119,  note).  His  other 
 name  Lebbseus  would  seem  to  connect  him  with 
 his  paternal  ancestor  Levi,  the  son  of  Melchi. 
 With  the  form  Abiud  compare  also  Eliud,  'EXioi)^, 
 of  vv.  14,  15,    containing    the  same   root  1T\  or 
 
 'EXtaKel/u,  Eliakim.  ^''P^?^,  '  God  will  set  up.' 
 His  name  connects  him  not  only  with  Jehoiakim, 
 otherwise  called  Eliakim  (2  Kings  xxiii.  34),  but 
 
v.]  OF  ST  MATTHEW  AND  ST  LUKE.  133 
 
 also  with  Eliakim  of  the  house  of  Nathan,  Luke 
 iii.  30. 
 
 'A^o)p,  Azor.  'lilj^,  'help.'  Eliezer,  his  ancestor 
 of  the  house  of  Nathan,  Luke  iii.  29,  and  Eleazar, 
 his  descendant  in  ver.  15,  have  the  same  root  in 
 composition  with  the  name  of  God.  H^'llS^.,  Aza- 
 riah  was  a  very  common  name  among  the  priests. 
 Compare  also  DJ^'^'ITJ^,  Azrikam,  'My  help  has  arisen/ 
 a  grandson  of  Shimei,  1  Chron.  iii,  23. 
 
 'Za^wK,  Sadoc.  p^'^'^,  'righteous.'  King  Zede- 
 kiah's  name  is  compounded  of  p*!^,  '  righteousness,' 
 and  /T, '  Jehovah.'  But  as  Zedekiah  does  not  belong 
 to  this  genealogy,  and  is  not  the  one  of  Solomon's 
 line  with  whom  they  would  have  been  anxious 
 to  claim  kindred,  it  is  perhaps  more  probable  that 
 this  name  arises  from  the  affinity  of  the  house 
 of  David  with  the  families  of  the  priests,  cemented 
 by  frequent  marriages,  from  the  days  when  Aaron 
 married  Elisheba,  the  sister  of  Naashon,  to  the  time 
 when  Jehosheba,  the  daughter  of  king  Joram, 
 married  Jehoiada  the  high-priest.  Zadoc  was  a  fre- 
 quent name  among  the  priests,  e.g.  the  high-priest 
 in  the  days  of  David  and  Solomon,  Jeho-zadak, 
 1  Chron.  vi.  14  (v.  40,  Ileb.),  and  others. 
 
 'AxeiiJi,  Achim.  ]^y,  'He  (viz.  God)  will  esta- 
 blish : '  a  short  form  of  Jehoiachin. 
 
 'EXioCS,  Eliud.  ni,T^X,  'The  God  of  praise  or  of 
 Judah.'     See  above,  Abiud. 
 
 '  EXea^ap,  Eleazar.  ^]V  r^?  '  God  has  holpen.' 
 See  above,  Azor. 
 
134  HARMONY  OF  THE  GENEALOGIES  [CH. 
 
 Maredu,  Matthan.  ]t^f^,  'a  gift.'  This  name 
 connects  the  bearer,  as  before  observed,  with  Na- 
 than the  son  of  David,  (Luke  iii.  31),  and  with 
 those  numerous  descendants  of  Nathan,  this  Mat- 
 than's  ancestors,  bearing  similar  names,  viz.  Matta- 
 tha,  Matthat,  and  the  two  Mattathiases  (Luke  iii.  31, 
 29,  26,  25),  and  identifies  him  with  the  Matthat  of 
 Luke  iii.  24.  He  seems  to  have  been  lineally  de- 
 scended from  Joseph,  the  son  of  Judah,  of  Luke  iii. 
 26,  but  to  have  become  the  heir  of  the  elder  branch 
 of  the  house  of  Abiud  on  the  failure  of  Eleazar's 
 issue.  If  Eleazar  had  a  daughter,  doubtless  Mat- 
 than married  her. 
 
 'IaKcoj3,  Jacob.  y^p]t..^  '  He  supplants.'  The  only 
 observation  to  be  made  here  is  to  draw  attention 
 again  (see  p.  58)  to  the  coincidence  between  the 
 name  of  Jacob,  the  virgin's  father,  and  the  names 
 of  the  two  Jameses  or  Jacobs,  the  one  the  son  of 
 Cleopas  or  Alphseus,  by  Mary  the  Virgin's  sister, 
 the  other  the  son  of  Zebedee,  by  Salome,  said  to 
 be  another  sister  of  Mary,  and  consequently  both 
 grandsons  of  Jacob.  Perhaps  the  tradition  of  the 
 name  of  the  Virgin's  father  being  Joachim,  if  it  has 
 any  force  at  all,  may  have  arisen  partly  from  a  cor- 
 ruption of  Jacob,  which  in  Italian  is  Jacomo^  It 
 is  well  known  too  how  in  the  East,  m  and  b  are 
 frequently  interchanged,  and  the  difference  in  their 
 pronunciation  is  hardly  discernible.  (See  Gesen. 
 Thes.  Ling.  Heh\  i.) 
 
 '  For  another  explanation  of  the  tradition,  see  above,  p.  58, 
 note. 
 
v.]  OF  ST  MATTHEW  AND  ST  LUKE.  135 
 
 'Iwaijcf),  Joseph.  ^DV,  '  He  (viz.  God)  will  add.' 
 We  have  already  observed  upon  the  very  important 
 evidence  to  be  derived  from  the  fact  of  no  fewer 
 than  three  of  the  line  of  Nathan,  previous  to 
 Joseph  the  husband  of  Mary,  having  borne  this 
 name,  as  to  Joseph's  lineal  descent  being  to  be 
 found  in  Luke's  and  not  in  Matthew's  genealogy. 
 The  circumstance  is  all  the  more  striking  from  the 
 contrast  afforded  by  St  Matthew's  genealogy,  in 
 which  the  name  of  Joseph  does  not  occur  once  till 
 we  come  to  the  husband  of  Mary. 
 
 Turning  next  to  the  gospel  of  St  Luke,  the  first 
 name  is  that  of 
 
 'loocTr](p,  Joseph,  concerning  which  no  more  need 
 be  said.    His  son  was 
 
 Se/iet,  Semei.  yp^,  which  is  usually  ren- 
 dered Shimei,  '  Hearing  (viz.  of  prayer)  by  God ; ' 
 the  name  of  Zerubbabel's  brother,  mentioned 
 1  Chron.  iii.  19,  (and  as  I  suppose,  22),  marking 
 the  descent  of  this  person  from  him.  Another 
 ancestor  had  borne  the  very  similar  name  of 
 'Eu/uewu,  Luke  iii.  30,  for  the  Hebrew  Ji^^^,  which 
 is  otherwise  rendered  Simon.  This  was  the  name 
 borne  by  one  of  the  Lord's  brethren,  '  and  his  bre- 
 thren, James,  and  Joses,  and  Simon,  and  Judas,' 
 Matt.  xiii.  55.  For  other  names  in  the  family  of 
 David  in  which  the  root  ^^^  is  found,  the  reader 
 is  referred  to  Ch.  vi. 
 
 MarraOia^,  Mattathias.  n^ri^l^,  '  the  gift  of  the 
 Lord.'    See  above,  Matthan, 
 
136  HARMONY  OF  THE  GENEALOGIES  [CH. 
 
 Mad9,  Maath.  Of  very  obscure  derivation  ^ 
 Simonis  thinks  it  is  the  same  as  iT\f2,  in  the  Septuag. 
 Mad9,  English  version  Mahath,  1  Chron.  vi.  20, 
 (35,  Sept.  and  Eng.Ver.)  the  name  of  one  of  Samuel's 
 ancestors,  and  of  a  Levite  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah, 
 2  Chron.  xxix.  12,  which  he  derives  from  rinh^ 
 'abripuit.'  Fiirst  considers  tT\^  as  a  contraction 
 for  fT^np,  'purchase-money,  price,'  iq.  THD  and 
 kindred  with  ^-D^. 
 
 'Nayyal,  Nagge.  n^j,  'brightness.'  The  name 
 of  one  of  David's  sons,  mentioned  1  Chron.  iii.  7, 
 and  expressed  Nayai  in  the  Septuagint.  It  is  writ- 
 ten with  one  7  in  some  MSS.  in  St  Luke^ 
 
 'EffXJ,  Esli.  Another  name  of  doubtful  origin, 
 but  probably  answering  to  the  Hebrew  1^v^^^, 
 'Eo-eX/a,  Sept.,  Azaliah,  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  8,  2  Kings 
 xxii.  3.  The  simpler  form  7^5<,  1  Chron.  viii.  39, 
 &c.,  is  in  the  Sept.  'Eo-^^'X.  The  meaning  of  the  root 
 is  'to  separate,'  'place  on  one  side.' 
 
 'biaovfi,  Naum.  D^nJ,  'pitiful,  consolatory.'  The 
 same  name  as  that  of  the  prophet  Nahum. 
 
 'Afxws,  Amos,  This  may  be  in  Hebrew  either 
 Di^^^,  'Amos,'  the  same  name  as  that  of  the  pro- 
 phet, of  somewhat  doubtful  meaning.      The  root 
 
 *  It  is  omitted  in  the  Vulgate,  and  some  of  the  Antehiero- 
 nymian  Versions.     Dr  Adam  Clarke's  comment,  on  Luke  iii. 
 
 *  Kennicott  (Hist,  of  Heb.  Text,  pp.  400,  401)  throws  doubt 
 upon  this  name  Nogah,  because  it  is  not  found  in  the  parallel 
 passage  2  Sam.  v.  15,  where  we  read  Nepheg  instead  (rather  Eli- 
 shua).  The  occurrence  of  Nagge  as  one  of  our  Lord's  ancestors 
 would  rather  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  Nogah  is  the  genuine, 
 and  Nepheg,  if  either,  the  corrupted  name. 
 
v.]  OF  ST  MATTHEW  AND  ST  LUKE.  137 
 
 Dpy^,  of  common  use,  and  found  in  the  names 
 Amasa,  Amasiah,  &c.,  means  'to  load;'  and  the 
 Jewish  commentators  explain  DittJ^^,  'heavy  or  im- 
 peded in  speech.'  But  Gesenius  suspects  it  to  be 
 of  Egyptian  origin,  like  Amasis.  Or  it  may  be  for 
 the  Hebrew  ]*i^X,  which  is  also  rendered  'Afxw^  by 
 the  Septuag.  Isai.  i.  1,  &c.,  from  |'^^{, '  to  be  strong,' 
 from  whence  also  is  formed  the  name  Amaziah. 
 The  juxtaposition  with  Naum  makes  the  former 
 etymology  the  more  probable,  upon  the  principle 
 alluded  to,  p.  93 ;  otherwise  one  would  have  pre- 
 ferred the  latter,  from  Amaziah  being  a  name  in 
 the  royal  house  of  David. 
 
 MaTTa9ia<s.    'Iwatjcf).     See  above. 
 
 'lavvd,   Janna.      Probably    a   corrupt  form   of 
 
 'Iwavvas. 
 
 MeXx'-  The  same  name  as  that  of  the  father 
 of  Neri,  ver.  28.  See  pp.  92  and  38.  In  Africa- 
 nus's  scheme,  which  is  adopted  by  Eusebius  and 
 Jerome,  this  Melchi  appears  as  the  father  of  Heli, 
 the  intermediate  Levi  and  Matthat  being  omitted. 
 And  Irenseus,  as  before  observed  (p.  110),  seems  to 
 have  followed  the  same  arrangement. 
 
 Aevi,  MarOaT.  These  two  names  occur  before 
 in  the  same  order,  ver.  29.  Their  recurrence  here 
 is  a  strong  evidence  that  this  part  of  the  line  is 
 in  the  same  male  descent  as  that  in  ver.  29,  and, 
 consequently,  that  Salathiel  was  the  son,  and  not 
 the  son-in-law  of  Neri,  as  Yardley  imagines.  Their 
 authority,  however,  is  perhaps  a  little  shaken  by 
 the  apparent  omission  of  them  above  mentioned  in 
 
138  HARMONY  OF  THE  GENEALOGIES  [CH. 
 
 the  copies  of  some  of  the  early  fathers.  All  the 
 MSS.  however  agree  in  retaining  them,  and  so  do 
 the  later  fathers  of  the  4th  century.  This  Matthat 
 we  have  supposed  to  be  the  same  as  the  Matthan 
 of  St  Matthew,  (who  equally  with  him  appears  as 
 the  grandfather  of  Joseph),  and  to  have  passed 
 into  the  elder  line  on  the  failure  of  male  issue  to 
 Eleazar,  strengthening  his  succession  by  marriage 
 with  Eleazar's  daughter.  Jacob  and  Heli,  conse- 
 quently, were  not,  as  in  Africanus's  scheme,  merely 
 uterine  brothers,  but  own  brothers :  the  former 
 and  elder  the  father  of  Mary,  the  latter  the  father 
 of  Joseph.     See  p.  130. 
 
 'HXi,  Heli.  This  name  is  written  exactly  the 
 same  as  the  rendering  of  vj^ ,  Eli,  the  high-priest, 
 in  the  Vatican  edition  of  the  Septuagint.  In  the 
 Alexandrian,  Eli  is  expressed  'UXel,  and  so  is  the 
 name  of  Joseph's  father  by  Gregory  Nazianzen,  de 
 Gen.  Christi.  Simonis  explains  it  Alumnus,  from 
 7lJ^,  *  to  give  milk,'  but  Gesenius  connects  it  rather 
 with  TwV^-,  '  to  ascend,'  in  the  sense  of  '  high,  the 
 highest.'  Some  have  endeavoured  to  explain  it  as 
 short  for  Eliakim,  that  so  they  might  identify  it 
 with  Joakim,  the  traditional  father  of  the  Virgin  ^ 
 But  this  is  not  supported  by  any  analogy.  And 
 names  derived  from  /5<,  'God,'  are  usually  express- 
 
 *  So  Annius  of  Viterbo  makes  Philo  say :  '  Synonyma  sunt 
 Syris  et  Egyptiis  Elyh,  Eliakin,  Joakin/  fol.  97-  And  again  in 
 his  own  person  he  affirms  that  Mathan  '  genuit  Joakin,  qui  et 
 Elyh,  patrera  naturalem  quidem  Maria?,  et  legalem  Joseph,' 
 fol.  CI. 
 
v.]  OF  ST  MATTHEW  AND  ST  LUKE.  139 
 
 ed  without  the  aspirate  in  Greek,  though  there 
 are  exceptions,  e.g.  'EXKavd,  1  Sam.  i.  1,  &c.  But 
 in  the  very  same  verse  ^^1^v^5  is  rendered  'HXtoJ. 
 If  Heli  is  from  vi^,  and  is  short  for  anything,  it  is 
 more  probably  for  Elijah,  or  Elihu,  or  Eliab,  or 
 some  similarly  compounded  name.  For  in  names 
 where  the  name  of  God  is  compounded  with  a 
 verb,  or  other  word  which  takes  the  lead  in  the 
 sense  of  the  name,  the  common  abbreviation  is  to 
 understand  the  Divine  name,  as  in  Melchi,  Neri, 
 Achim,  &c. 
 
 'iwatjcp,  Joseph.    See  p.  134. 
 
 Upon  a  general  review  then  of  all  those  names 
 of  the  ancestors  of  Christ  recorded  by  the  Evan- 
 gelists, but  not  found  in  the  genealogies  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  we  find,  with  some  exceptions,  partly 
 perhaps  attributable  to  corruption  of  the  genuine 
 names,  and  partly  to  those  incidental  and  soon- 
 forgotten  circumstances  which  occasionally  influ- 
 ence parents  to  give  particular  names  to  their  chil- 
 dren, that  there  is  a  most  remarkable  accordance 
 in  these  names  with  one  another,  with  those  names 
 of  the  house  of  David  which  are  preserved  in  the 
 Old  Testament,  and  with  those  names  of  our  Lord's 
 kinsmen  or  brethren  which  are  incidentally  men- 
 tioned in  the  Gospels.  This  accordance  is  of  a  kind 
 which  could  hardly  have  been  designed ;  but  is  in 
 exact  agreement  with  the  customs  and  feelings  of 
 the  Jews,  and  betrays  the  evident  care  and  pride 
 with  which,  through  many  a  dark  and  dreary  cen- 
 
1 40  HARMONY  OF  THE  GENEALOGIES,  &C.    [CH.  V. 
 
 tury,  the  descendants  of  David  and  his  royal  house 
 treasured  up  the  memory  of  their  illustrious  ances- 
 try, and  fed  upon  the  hope  of  Messiah  which  was  to 
 come,  and  was  to  be  of  the  house  and  lineage  of 
 David.  And  we  are  thus  enabled,  through  the 
 good  Providence  of  God,  to  re-echo  the  pious  sen- 
 timent of  Africanus,  with  regard  to  the  genealo- 
 gies, TO  fxevToi  evayyeXiou  Travrco^  aXrjOeuei'  '  At  any 
 rate  the  Gospel  tells  truth,'  not  only  upon  the 
 ground  of  a  general  faith  in  the  Word  of  God, 
 but  upon  the  ground  of  a  rational  conviction,  based 
 upon  internal  evidence  of  a  most  conclusive  kind. 
 With  the  view  of  completing  this  argument,  and 
 exhibiting  its  force  and  truth  in  as  distinct  a 
 manner  as  possible,  the  reader  will  find  in  the 
 following  chapter  the  principal  names  of  the  house 
 of  David,  arranged  under  the  Hebrew  roots  which 
 connect  them,  and  a  few,  out  of  very  many  which 
 might  have  been  added,  selected  from  other  fami- 
 lies, shewing  that  the  practice  of  giving  names 
 either  identical  or  etymologically  connected  to  dif- 
 ferent members  of  the  same  family  in  different  ages, 
 prevailed  generally  among  the  Jews. 
 
CHAPTER  VI. 
 
 Classification  of  Names  in  the  House  of  David 
 under  their  common  Roots. 
 
 73  OSENMULLER  observes,  in  a  note  on  Joshua 
 -*-*'  xiv.  6,  '  Solebant  in  familiis  majorura  nomina 
 ssepius  repeti.'  '  It  was  the  custom  in  Jewish  fami- 
 lies for  ancestral  names  to  be  often  repeated,  gene- 
 ration after  generation.'  And  we  have  distinct 
 evidence  of  the  existence  of  such  a  custom  down 
 to  the  times  of  Christ,  in  the  wonder  expressed 
 at  the  name  of  John  being  given  to  the  son  of 
 Zacharias,  Luke  i.  59 — 63 :  '  And  it  came  to  pass, 
 that  on  the  eighth  day  they  came  to  circumcise  the 
 child;  and  they  called  him  Zacharias,  after  the 
 name  of  his  father.  And  his  mother  answered  and 
 said,  Not  so;  but  he  shall  be  called  John.  And 
 they  said  unto  her.  There  is  none  of  thy  kindred 
 which  is  called  by  this  name.  And  they  made 
 signs  to  his  father,  how  he  would  have  him  called. 
 And  he  asked  for  a  writing-table,  and  wrote,  saying, 
 His  name  is  John.  And  they  marvelled  all.'  But, 
 on  examining  the  names  of  Jewish  families,  it  ap- 
 pears that  not  only  does  the  identical  name  of  an 
 ancestor  often  reappear  in  his  descendants,  but  that 
 members  of  the  same  family  loved  to  vary  such 
 names  by  various  forms  of  the  same  root,  or  by  a 
 variety   of  compositions,    or  transposition,  of  the 
 
142      CLASSIFICATION  OF  NAMES  IN  THE  HOUSE     [CH. 
 
 same  elements,  or  even  by  the  substitution  of  words 
 of  similar  sense.  Thus  in  one  family,  the  name 
 of  whose  founder  meant  He  gam,  we  find,  among 
 his  descendants  or  kinsmen,  names  signifying  Gift, 
 The  Lord's  Gift,  God  gave,  The  Lord  gave,  A  thing 
 given,  &c.  In  another  we  find  three  consecutive 
 generations  called  Good-is-God,  Goodness,  Good- 
 is-the-Lord.  In  another,  different  modifications  of 
 'to  hear'  appearing  at  different  times  through  a 
 long  course  of  years.  The  following  examples  are 
 designed  to  prove  these  assertions,  by  shewing  the 
 prevalence  of  these  customs  in  the  house  of  David 
 in  particular,  and  also  in  other  families. 
 And,  first,  in  the  house  of  David. 
 
 Derivatives  of  S^$  or  ''^i;?,  'a  father' 
 
 n;;i«,  Abijah,  'My  Father  is  the  Lord,'  1  Chron. 
 iii.  10. 
 ^'^J''p^{,  Abinadab,  'My  Father  is  willing  or  libe- 
 ral,' 1  Chron.  ii.  13. 
 '^'"1^,  Abishai,  '(Whose)  Father  is  Jesse,'  lb.  16. 
 h^^'^^,^,  Abigail,  '(Her)  Father's  joy,'  lb. 
 dW::^^,  Absalom,  '  Father's  peace,'  or  '  Father  of 
 peace,'  lb.  iii.  2. 
 '^!™^.  Abihail,  'Father  of  strength,'  da.  of  Eliab, 
 
 2  Chron.  xi.  18. 
 ^^^^^^^,  Abiud,  'Father  of  Judah,   or  of  praise,' 
 Matth.  i.  13.     Cf  1  Chron.  viii.  3. 
 
VI.]       OF  DAVID  UNDER  THEIR  COMMON  ROOTS.       143 
 
 i.SV,  Joab,  'The  Lord  is  (my)  Father/  lb.  ii.  16. 
 
 :i^%,  Eliab,  'My  God  is  (my)  Father,'  lb.  13. 
 
 htg^^H,  Abital,  'Father  of  dew,'  i.e.  'refreshment, 
 solace,'  lb.  iii.  3. 
 
 ^^7^,  Chileab,  perhaps  'Father's  armour,'  (for 
 ^$?  Y-?)»  2  Sam.  iii.  3  ;  if  not  a  corruption 
 for  y?^,  'Caleb,'  who  might  be  a  son  of 
 Abigail  by  her  first  husband  Nabal,  who 
 was  of  the  house  of  Caleb,  1  Sam.  xxv.  3, 
 and  inserted  here  by  mistake  instead  of 
 Daniel,  who  is  found  in  the  corresponding 
 passage,  1  Chron.  iii.  1. 
 
 Derivatixes  of  7K  or  h^,  '  God.' 
 
 :l^5*^^^,  Eliab,  'My  God  is  a  Father,'  1  Chron.  ii.  13. 
 ^VJ^^,  Eliam,  'God's  people,'  2  Sam.  xi.  3. 
 Vpb^,  Elishua, '  God's  help  or  salvation,'  lb.  v.  15. 
 
 Vf^^h^.,  Elishama,  'God  has  heard,'  lb.  16,  Jer. 
 xli.  1. 
 PtSn*,  Eliada,  '  God  knows,'  1  Chron.  iii.  8. 
 bSl^'ps*,  Eliphelet,  'God  is  a  refuge,'  lb.  6. 
 
 ^y}?^,  Eliakim,  'God  will  set  up,'  2 Kings  xxiii. 34, 
 
 Matt.  i.  13,  Luke  iii.  30. 
 ^^5;V7^,  Elioenai,  '  God  the  Lord  is  mine  eyes,'  or, 
 
 'mine  eyes  (are  toward)  God  the  Lord,' 
 
 1  Chron.  iii.  23. 
 
 ^^^^?^>  Eliashib,  '  God  will  bring  back  (from  cap- 
 tivity),' lb.  24. 
 
144      CLASSIFICATION  OF  NAMES  IN  THE  HOUSE    [CH. 
 
 Dnhi},  Eliud,  'God  of  Judah,'  or,  'praise  of  God,' 
 
 Matt.  i.  15. 
 l):^^,  Eliezer,  'God's  help,'  Luke  iii.  29. 
 "iTJjSx,  Eleazar,  'God  is  a  helper,'  Matt.  i.  15. 
 
 'HXeJ,  ^'pjf,  Heli,  'God,'  (the  latter  part  of  the  name 
 being  apocopated  for  shortness,)  may  per- 
 haps be  added,  Luke  iii.  23. 
 
 '^hf^htji,  Elimelech,  'My  God  is  a  king,'  Ruth  i.  2, 3. 
 7^^^^'^,  Daniel,  'God  is  Judge,'  1  Chron.  iii.  1,  and 
 Dan.  i.  3,  6\ 
 
 h^}ff2^\,  Ishmael,  'God  heareth,'  Jer.  xli.  1,  6,  and 
 probably  2  Chron.  xix.  11,  where  it  is  to  be 
 noted  that  Zebadiah,  the  son  of  the  Ish- 
 mael, the  ruler  of  the  house  of  Judah  in 
 Jehoshaphat's  reign,  has  a  name  synony- 
 mous with  Nethaniah,  the  father  of  the 
 Ishmael  in  Zedekiah's  reign,  of  the  seed- 
 royal.  And  that  Nethaniah's  father's 
 name,  Elishama,  is  also  the  same  name 
 (only  with  the  elements  transposed)  as 
 that  of  Ishmael,  Zebadiah's  father. 
 
 S«^bSx£J^,  Shealtiel,  '  I  have  asked  God,'  1  Chron. 
 iii.  17,  Matt.  i.  12,  Luke  iii.  27. 
 
 '  That  Daniel  and  the  three  children  were  of  the  house  of 
 David  was  also  the  tradition  of  the  Jews.  Thus  in  the  Targiim 
 of  Jonathan,  Ruth  iii.  15,  it  is  said  that  it  was  revealed  to  Boaz 
 that  there  should  spring  from  Ruth  the  six  just  ones  of  the 
 world.      i^n^WD    i^^hn^    Nlhnm   ^N^^iI   in.      'David,  and 
 
 T     •■.  T  :   -  _         •  :   -   :         ■•    •   t:        -t^_ 
 
 Daniel,  and  his  companions,  and  Messiah  the  King.' 
 
YI.]      OF  DAVID  UNDER  THEIR  COMMON  ROOTS.       145 
 
 ^^^^V..,  Asahel,  'God  has  done  it,'  1  Chron.  ii.  16. 
 S«;in;),  Nethaneel,  '  God  gave,'  lb.  14. 
 
 Derivatives  of  'T^T,  '  io  give.'     Compare  [riJ. 
 
 *'^^T,  Zabdi,  '  a  gift.'  The  son  of  Zerah,  the  son 
 
 of  Judah,  Josh.  vii.  1. 
 1)^1,  Zabud, '  given.'    A  son  of  Nathan,  1  Kings 
 iv.  5. 
 n*^^^T,  Zebudah,  '  given.'    Daughter  of  Pedaiah, 
 and  mother  of  Jehoiakim,  2  Kings  xxiii.36, 
 probably  of  the  house  of  Nathan. 
 mnr,  Zebadiah,  '  The  Lord  gave.'      (1)  Son   of 
 Ishmael.      Ruler  of  the  house  of  Judah, 
 2  Chron.  xix.  11.      See   above   h^V^^4^\. 
 (2)  A  son  of  Asahel,  the  son  of  Zeruiah, 
 1  Chron.  xxvii.  7. 
 Ze/3e^aTo?,  Zebedee,  ni3T.    The  father  of  James  and 
 John,  husband  of  Salome  (Matt.  iv.  21). 
 
 J)erivatives  of  [JH,  '  to  he  gracious^  or,  '  to  give 
 graciously.'' 
 
 TV'^)T\,  Hananiah,  '  gracious  is  the  Lord,'  (Dan. 
 i.  6.)  See  note,  p.  144.  The  son  of  Ze- 
 rubbabel,  1  Chron.  iii.  19. 
 
 [ihV,  'IwaiTos,  Joanna,  'The  Lord  is  gracious,' 
 Luke  iii.  27.  The  same  person  as  the 
 Hananiah  of  1  Chron.  iii.  19.  A  son  of 
 king  Josiah,  1  Chron.  iii.  15.     A  son  of 
 
 10 
 
146       CLASSIFICATION  OF  NAMES  IN  THE  HOUSE    [CII. 
 
 Elioenai,  1  Chron.  iii.  24.  'Iwdwr]?,  John, 
 the  son  of  Zebedee,  if  his  mother  was 
 sister  to  the  Virgin.  See  p.  58.  'Iwmu, 
 Luke  iii.  30.  'lawa,  Janna,  Luke  iii.  24, 
 where  the  form  is  varied  as  Jeshua  com- 
 pared with  Jehoshua,  and  Joshua,  Thad- 
 deus  compared  with  Mniri,  'Afxfxdv  for 
 Jitej^,  Tafxep  for  ^pj  (vid.  Simon,  sub  voce 
 
 'lovSa^),    and    Nayal    or     Nayyal   for  W, 
 
 Nogah. 
 
 Derivatives  of  HT,  '  to  2^i'(^'ise.'' 
 
 r\lT\\  Judah, '  Praise.'  The  name  of  the  Patri- 
 arch,  1  Chron.  ii.  3,  called  'lov^a^,  Matt.  i.  3, 
 'loJ^a,  Luke  iii.  33. 
 
 'lov^a  or  'JoJ^a9  (if  the  former  is  the  genitive), 
 the  son  of  Joseph,  Luke  iii.  80. 
 
 'lov^a  (or  'lov^a^),  the  son  of  'iwavvas,  Luke  iii.  27, 
 called  Hodaiah,  1  Chron.  iii.  24,  and  'AjStoi)^, 
 Matt.  i.  13. 
 'Joy^as,  Judas,  the  Lord's  brother.  Matt.  xiii.  55, 
 Jude  ver.  1. 
 Ga^^aTos,  Thaddeus,  which  appears  from  Matt.x.  3,4, 
 compared  with  Luke  vi.  15,  (see  above,  p. 
 132),  to  be  another  designation  of  Jude. 
 This  in  Hebrew  would  be  /T'niri  or 
 nnin,  compounded  of  H^IM,  'praise,'  and 
 n\  'Jehovah,'  corresponding  therefore 
 exactly  to  Hodaiah.     Simonis,  in  a  note 
 
VI.]      OF  DAVID  UNDER  THEIR  COMMON  ROOTS.       147 
 
 p.   80,  observes,  that  the  interchange  of 
 Thaddeus  and  Jude  is  exactly  analogous 
 
 to  that  of  ni)r\n  and  ny\r\\ 
 
 ^n^nin,  Hodaiah, '  the  praise  of  the  Lord,'  1  Chron. 
 iii.  24.  Same  as  'lov^a,  Luke  iii.  27. 
 •  'Af^iovl  Abiud,  n^n^:;^^,  'Father  of  praise,'  or  'of 
 Judah,'  or,  'my  Father  is  praise,'  i.e.  'glo- 
 rious,' or,  '  my  Father  is  Judah,'  Matt.  i. 
 13. 
 
 'EXiov^,  Eliud,  n^nhi^,  'God  of  praise,'  or  'of 
 Judah,'  or,  'My  God  is  praise,'  i.e.  'glo- 
 rious,' or,  '  Praise  of  God,'  Matt.  i.  14. 
 
 T)/1''?3^,  Ammihud,  '  people  of  praise,'  or  '  of  Ju- 
 dah,' or,  'the  people's  praise,'  or,  'Judah 
 is  my  people ; '  the  name  of  a  member 
 of  the  family  of  Pharez  of  the  tribe  of 
 Judah,  1  Chron.  ix.  4. 
 
 Derivatives  of  Hin^,  '  Jehovah,  the  Lord' 
 
 The  names  compounded  with  V  or  in^  at  the 
 beginning,  or  with  H^  at  the  end,  are  so  numerous 
 in  Hebrew,  that  they  cannot  be  considered  as 
 marking  distinctively  any  family  connexion.  We 
 must  look  rather  to  the  verb  with  which  the  Divine 
 name  is  compounded  for  that  purpose.  It  will  be 
 sufficient  therefore  just  to  enumerate  some  of  the 
 names  in  the  family  of  David,  of  which  the  name  of 
 Jehovah  forms  a  part.  The  exjDlanation  of  the 
 most  important  of  them  is  given  under  the  several 
 roots  which  form  the  other  component  part.     They 
 
 10—2 
 
148       CLASSIFICATION  OF  NAMES  IN  THE  HOUSE    [CH. 
 
 are  as  follows :  Jehoshaphat,  Jelioiakim,  Jehoiachin, 
 Joanna,  and  probably  Jonan,  Joses,  Hoshama,  (for 
 Jehoshama),  Jelioram,  Abijah  or  Abia,  Azariah, 
 Hodaiah,  Hananiah,  Pelatiah,  Shemaiah,  Sheplia- 
 tiah,  Mattathias,  Nethaniah,  Jesaiah,  Jecamiah,  Ne- 
 dabiah,  Hezekiah,  Josiah,  Zedekiah,  Jeconiah,  Bere- 
 chiah,  Hasadiah,  Jesaiah,  Bariah,  Neariah,  &e. 
 
 Derivatives  of  y^^,  ' to  save' 
 
 nyt:^\,  Jesaiah,  'The  Lord  saveth,'  1  Chron.  iii.  21. 
 'lojatis,  Jose.       )^p)\   'He   (the  Lord)  will  save,' 
 
 (Future      Hiphil),     or     contracted     for 
 
 j;^ini/T ,  '  Jehovah  saveth.'    Compare  Ho- 
 
 shea,  'Qar]€,  Luke  iii.  29. 
 'Icoa^?,  Joses,  id.  the  brother  of  James,  Matt.  xiii. 
 
 55,  &c. 
 'Irjcyovs,  Jesus.    J^JSJ^.^,  '  salvation.' 
 
 Derivatives  of  1[7^, ''  a  King.' 
 
 MeXx'\  Melchi.  ':hl2  for  n*^^^,  Malchijah, 
 1  Chron.  ix.  12,  '  The  Lord  is  King.'  (1) 
 The  son  of  Addi,  and  grandfather  of  Sala- 
 thiel  and  his  brethren,  Luke  iii.  28.  (2) 
 The  son  of  Jannas,  Luke  iii.  24. 
 
 d'V.S?^,  Malchiram,  'an  exalted  King,'  or,  'my 
 King  is  on  high,'  1  Chron.  iii.  18.  Brother 
 of  Salathiel,  and  therefore  grandson  of 
 Melchi.     This  name  is  a  most  imoortant 
 
VI.]       OF  DAVID  UNDER  TliElR  COMMON  ROOTS.       149 
 
 link  to  connect  the  list  of  Jeconias'  suc- 
 cessors in  1  Chron.  iii.,  with   St  Luke's 
 list  of  the  ancestors  of  Salathiel. 
 •^I^^^^i^,  Elimelech, '  my  God  is  King,'  Ruth  i.  2,  &c. 
 
 Derivatives  of  !3'lJ,  *  to  give  liberaUi/.'' 
 
 yy^,  Nadab,  '  He  hath  given  freely.'     Son  of 
 
 Aaron,    and    grandson    of   Amminadab, 
 
 Exod.  vi.  23.     Also  a  son  of  Onam,  Je- 
 
 rahmeers  grandson,  1  Chron.  ii.  28. 
 
 !nT^i^,  Abinadab.     See  under  2^^.    Son  of  Jesse, 
 
 T  T      •   -;  T  ' 
 
 1  Sam.  xvi.  8. 
 i'TiV,  Jonadab,  '  The  Lord  hath  given  liberally.' 
 Son  of  Shimeah,  2  Sam.  xiii.  3. 
 i1i''^J^,  Amminadab,  'My  people  is  willing ;'   or, 
 as  Gesenius,  'unus  ex  familia  principis.' 
 Father  of  Nahshon,  Ruth  iv.  20,  Matt.  i.  4, 
 Luke  iii.  33. 
 n^^*T^,  Nedabiah,  'The  Lord  hath  given  liberally,' 
 1  Chron.  iii.  18. 
 
 Derivatives  of  \r\X  '  to  giveP 
 
 ]T\X  Nathan,  'He  gave.'     The  son  of  David, 
 1  Chron.  iii.  5,  Luke  iii.  31. 
 7KM,  Nethaneel,   'God   gave.'      A  brother   of 
 David,  1  Chron.  ii.  14. 
 \T\y\\  Jonathan,    '  The    Lord    gave.'       David's 
 
 uncle,  1  Chron.  xxvii.  32. 
 ^\^T})^  Nethaniah,  '  The  Lord  gave.'     Of  the  seed 
 royal,  2  Kings  xxv.  23. 
 
150      CLASSIFICATION  OF  NAMES  IN  THE  HOUSE    [CIT. 
 
 ,TJJn^,  Mattaiiiah,  'The  gift   of  God.'    2  Kings 
 
 xxiv.  17.    A  son  of  Josiah. 
 |^li7^^,  Elnathan,  the  father  of  Jehoiachin's  mo- 
 ther, 2  Kings  xxiv.  8,  may  have  been  of 
 the  family  of  Nathan.     See  note,  p.  98. 
 
 Marra^a, Mattatha.     nnnD,  'a  gift;     The  son  of 
 Nathan,  Luke  iii.  31. 
 
 MarOaT,  Matthat.  ^P\^,  '  a  gift.'  Descendant  of 
 Nathan  in  the  eleventh  generation,  Luke 
 iii.  29  ;    another,  lb.  24. 
 
 Marraeim,  Mattathias.  T\'lT\T\'fp,  '  Gift  of  the  Lord.' 
 A  descendant  of  Nathan  in  the  twenty- 
 seventh  generation,  Luke  iii.  26 ;  another 
 in  the  thirty-third  generation,  Luke  iii.  25. 
 MaTOav,  Matthan.  [Jj^,  'a  gift.'  The  father  of 
 Jacob,  Matt.  i.  15,  and  the  same  as  Mat- 
 that,  Luke  iii.  24. 
 
 The  fact  that  two  of  these  Matthats  were  sons 
 of  Levi,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  St  Matthew  is 
 by  St  Mark  (ii.  14),  and  by  St  Luke  (v.  27),  called 
 Levi,  suggests  the  conjecture'  that  St  Matthew  may 
 also  have  been  of  our  Lord's  kindred,  more  or  less 
 near,  and  shows  also  a  jDoint  of  contact  between 
 the  names  Matthew  and  Levi.  This  opinion  is 
 further  strengthened  by  his  being  called  by  St 
 Mark,  *the  son  of  Alphaeus.'  For  Alphseus  is 
 thought  to  be  the  same  name  as  Cleophas,  being 
 both  formed  from  the  Hebrew  "'^711,  the  guttural 
 being  dropped  in  the  one,  and  expressed  by  c  in 
 the    other;    and   Cleophas,   we   know    from  John 
 
YI.]       OF  DAVID  UNDER  THEIR  COMMON  ROOTS.       151 
 
 xix.  25,  to  have  been  nearly  connected  with  the 
 Holy  Family.  And  again,  it  is  remarkable,  that  in 
 St  Matthew's  own  list  of  the  Apostles,  he  (Matthew) 
 is  placed  by  the  side  of  James,  the  son  of  Alphseus, 
 and  Lebbceus,  whose  surname  was  Thaddseus,  (other- 
 wise called  Jude,  the  brother  of  James).  Now, 
 Lebbseus  is  probably  formed  from  Levi,  the  v  being 
 changed  into  a  h,  as  in  Greek  David  is  often  ex- 
 pressed Aaj3t5,  indeed  always  in  the  New  Testament. 
 It  seems  clear  from  the  above  circumstances,  that 
 Matthew  and  James  were  both  related  to  Alphseus, 
 that  Matthew  and  Jude  were  both  related  to  Levi, 
 and  consequently,  that  Matthew  was  nearly  con- 
 nected with  James  and  Jude,  and  therefore,  proba- 
 bly, with  the  Lord  also,  whose  brothers  James  and 
 Jude  were.  And  if  so,  his  name,  as  was  his  lineage, 
 was  derived  from  Nathan,  and  his  patronymic  Levi, 
 from  one  of  the  Levies  mentioned  by  St  Luke,  ch. 
 iii.  24,  29,  doubtless  the  former. 
 
 Derivatives  of  1TJJ,  Ho  lielp^ 
 
 '"^n^^.*  Azariah,  nhe  Lord  has  helped.'  (1)  The 
 king,  1  Chron.  iii.  12,  otherwise  called 
 Uzziah,  Isai.  i.  1,  &c.,  or  Ozias,  Matt.  i.  9. 
 (2)  Daniel's  companion,  called  Abednego, 
 Dan.  i.  6.  See  note,  p.  144.  (3)  A  son  of 
 Jehoshaphat,  2  Chron.  xxi.  2.^  (4)  A  son 
 of  Nathan,  1  Kings  iv.  5. 
 
 1    An  earlier  instance   of  this  name   in  the  tribe  of  Judah 
 may  be  found  1  Chron.  ii.  8.     It  seems  to  mark,  in  conjunction 
 
152      CLASSIFICATION  OF  NAMES  IN  THE  HOUSE    [CII. 
 
 l^lT*^^^'  Azrikam,  'My  help  has  arisen.'     Son  of 
 Neariah,  1  Chron.  iii.  23. 
 'At[(op,  Azor.     *li?J^,  'help.'      Short  for  Azariah, 
 Matt.  i.  14.     Grandson  of  Abiud. 
 'EXed^ap,  Eleazar.      ^]J(?^,  '  God  has  helped.'     Son 
 of  Eliud,  Matt.  i.  15.     From  this  name  is 
 formed  Lazarus. 
 'EXte^e/?,  Eliezer.      l^'S^,    'My   God   is  a    help.' 
 See  Exod.  xviii.  4.      The  son   of  Jorim, 
 Luke  iii.  29. 
 
 Derivatives  of  ty?^,  'to  escape,'  and  'to  liberate.'' 
 
 iTdSs,  Pelatiah,  '  The  Lord  hath  liberated.'    The 
 son  of  Hananiah,  1  Chron.  iii.  21. 
 dSs^^K*,  Eliphelet,  'My  God  is  a  refuge.'     One  of 
 David's  sons,  1  Chron.  iii.  6. 
 Pelatiah,  the  father   of  Benaiah,   'one   of  the 
 princes  of  the  people,'  mentioned  Ezek.  xi.  1,  13, 
 may  possibly  have  been  of  the  seed  royal. 
 
 Derivatives  of  u7^,  ' to  he  well  and iwosperous^ 
 
 iib^^,  Solomon,    'peace,'   'peaceable,'  1  Chron. 
 iii.  5. 
 D?^,  Shallum,  perhaps,  'one  at  peace;'  accord- 
 
 witli  Eleazar,  the  connexion  of  the  royal  house  with  the  priestly, 
 dating  from  the  marriage  of  Aaron  with  Elisheba.  It  should  be 
 added,  that  the  real  name  of  the  king,  the  son  of  Amaziah,  was 
 Uzziah,  and  not  Azariah,  which  is  a  mere  error  of  the  copyist. 
 See  Kennicott,  Dissert,  p.  478  sqq. 
 
VI.]        OF  DAVID  UNDER  THEIR  COJLMON  ROOTS.       153 
 
 ing  to  Simonis,  'retribution,  reward,' 
 Jer.  xxii.  11,  1  Chron.  iii.  15. 
 n'6h^,  Sheloraith,  'peaceable,'  fern,  of  MbW. 
 (1)  Son  (or  daughter)  of  Maachah,  and 
 grand-daughter  of  Absalom,  2  Chron.  xi. 
 20.  (2)  Daughter  of  Zerubbabel,  and 
 sister  of  Meshullam,  (1  Chron.  iii.  19). 
 
 U9ii^t2,  Meshullam,  '  Devoted  to  God,'  (see  Gesen. 
 sub  u9^.)  The  son  of  Zerubbabel,  1 
 Chron.  iii.  19. 
 SlaXajV*?,  Salome,  (a  fem.  form,  probably  correspond- 
 ing to  n^p7^',)  Mark  xv.  40,  xvi.  1,  must 
 be  added,  if  Salome  was  a  near  kinswoman 
 of  the  Virgin  Mary.  Epiphanius  makes 
 her  the  daughter  of  Joseph,  Anchor,  lx. 
 
 i<X37^,  ilu^iy,  or  f\tj?t^,  as  it  is  variously  written, 
 SaXjuwi',  Salmon,  1  Chron.  iii,  11,  Ruth  iv, 
 20,  21,  as  at  present  pointed  belongs  to 
 another  root.  But  it  is  not  improbable 
 that  in  reality  they  belong  to  Ub^. 
 dW^^,  Absalom, '  Father  of  peace,'  1  Chron.  iii.  2. 
 
 Derivatives  of  J^^^,  ' to  hear' 
 
 r\'^pp,  Shimea,  '  hearing,'  viz.  of  prayer.  (1)  A 
 son  of  Jesse,  2  Sam.  xiii.  3.  He  is  called 
 ^'^p^,  1  Chron.  ii.  13,  and  nW,  1  Sam. 
 xvi.  9.  (2)  A  son  of  David,  1  Chron.  iii.  5. 
 His  name  is  otherwise  written  J^l^^, 
 Shammuah,  2  Sam.  v.  14. 
 "•J^p^,  Shimei,  'Jiearing,'  1  Chron.  iii.  19,  Zech. 
 xii.  13.     Brother  of  Zerubbabel. 
 
154      CLASSIFICATION  OF  NAMES  IN  THE  HOUSE    [CH, 
 
 n^V.^l^,  Shemaiah,  '  The  Lord  hatli  heard,'  or  the 
 n  may  be  merely  paragogic,  lb.  22.    Same 
 as  the  preceding. 
 V^^in,  Hoshama,    for   J/^^IH^    'The   Lord  hath 
 heard.'     Uncle  of  Zerubbabel,  lb.  18. 
 h^V^^\^  Ishmael,    'God    will   hear.'      (1)    Father 
 of  Zebadiah  the   ruler   of  the  house  of 
 Judah  in  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat.     2 
 Chron.    xix.    11.      (2)  One   of   the    seed 
 royal  who  smote  Gedaliah,  Jer.  xli.  1. 
 V^^^Sx,  Elishama,    'My   God    hath    heard.'      (1) 
 Grandfather  of  the  preceding,  lb.    (2)  Son 
 of  David,  1  Chroh.  iii.  9. 
 'S^vfiewu,  [iyp^,   Simeon,   Luke  iii.  30,   Zech.   xii. 
 13. 
 'Z€^le'i,  ypp,  Semei,  Luke  iii.  26. 
 ^ifxwu,  f\V^^,  Simon.      One  of  the  Lord's  bre- 
 thren, Matt.  xiii.  55. 
 
 Derivatives  of  tiS^. 
 
 n;pS^,  Shephatiah,  'The  Lord  is  judge.'     (1)  A 
 son  of  David,  1  Chron.  iii.  3.     (2)  A  son 
 of  Jehoshaphat,  2  Chron.  xxi.  2. 
 LDS^,  Shaphat,   'He  judges,'  viz.  the  Lord.     A 
 son  of  Shemaiah  or  Shimei,  1  Chron.  iii.  22. 
 tDS^'in^  Jehoshaphat,  'The  Lord  is  judge,'  lb.  10. 
 To  the   above  may  be  added  nnn*  Jedidiah, 
 'beloved  of  the  Lord,'  2  Sam.  xii.  25,  compared 
 with  l)/l  David,  '  beloved.' 
 
 With  regard  to  other  families,  a  few  examples 
 
VI.]       OF  DAVID  UNDER  THEIR  COMMON  ROOTS.       155 
 
 out  of  many  more,  which  might  be  brought  forward, 
 must  suffice  to  show  the  prevalence  of  the  practice, 
 both  of  repeating  the  same  name  in  a  family,  and 
 variously  modifying  the  roots  of  which  such  names 
 are  composed. 
 
 In  the  line  of  the  High-Priests,  (1  Sam.  xiv.  3, 
 1  Chron.  vi.  3 — 15),  Phinehas  occurs  twice,  Amariah 
 twice,  Azariah  thrice,  or  rather  five  times ^  Jehoi- 
 ada  twice,  Ahitub  thrice,  and  Zadoc  twice,  besides 
 Jeho-zadak :  see,  however,  ch.  x.  In  1  Sam.  xiv.  3, 
 we  find  Ahi-ah,  the  son  of  Ahi-tub,  and  1  Sam. 
 xxii.  20,  Ahi-melech,  the  son  of  Ahi-tub.  Ahi-o, 
 son  of  Abinadab,  2  Sam.  vi.  3,  was  probably  related 
 to  the  same  family,  as  he  was  doubtless  a  Priest 
 or  a  Levite,  from  the  office  here  assigned  to  him 
 in  connexion  with  the  ark,  and  Amminadab  was 
 also  a  family  name  of  Levi.  See  above,  under 
 yi'^,  and  1  Chron.  vi.  22.  It  is  also  remarkable, 
 that  whereas  we  find  Uzzah  joined  with  Ahio,  as  a 
 son  of  Amminadab  (2  Sam.  vi.  3),  we  read  in 
 1  Chron.  xv.  10,  where  the  Levites  are  enumerated 
 who  took  part  in  removing  the  ark, '  Of  the  sons  of 
 Uzziel,  Amminadab.'  It  may  be  noticed  by  the  way 
 that  the  person  called  Ahio  in  2  Sam.  vi.  3,  seems 
 to  be  called  Jehiah,  1  Chron.  xv.  24.  The  name  of 
 Ahi-maaz,  the  son  of  Zadok  (1  Chron.  vi.  9)  con- 
 tains also  the  same  root  *^^{,  Ahi,  '  a  brother.' 
 
 In  the  line  of  Heman  the  singer  (1  Chron.  vi. 
 
 ^  The  frequent  recurrence  of  n''"1li^  Azariah,  is  especially  re- 
 markably in  connexion  with  "if^bj^  Ele-azar,  who  was  the  liead 
 of  their  line.     See  the  table  of  High  Priests  below,  ch.  x. 
 
156      CLASSIFICATION  OF  NAMES  IN  THE  HOUSE    [CII. 
 
 33 — 38),  Elkanali  occurs  twice,  (as  the  text  now 
 stands  three  times,  but  it  is  shown  to  be  corrupt, 
 and  is  amended  below,  ch.  ix.),  between  him  and 
 his  ancestor  Izhar.  In  the  parallel  line  of  Ahi- 
 moth,  between  him  and  Izhar,  Elkanah  and  Assir 
 are  each  found  twice,  1  Chron.  vi.  22 — 25. 
 
 In  1  Chron.  iv.  15,  we  have  Kenaz  grandson  of 
 Caleb.  But  from  Judges  i.  13  we  learn  that  Kenaz 
 was  the  name  of  Caleb's  ancestor. 
 
 In  1  Chron.  iv.  6  we  find  Hepher,  the  son  of 
 Ashur.  But  Hepher  was  also  the  name  of  a  son  of 
 Gilead,  Numb,  xxvii.  1.  Now  Ashur's  mother  was 
 sister  to  Gilead,  1  Chron.  ii.  21,  24;  Ashur,  there- 
 fore, was  cousin-german  to  Hepher,  and  called  his 
 own  son,  Hepher,  after  him. 
 
 In  the  genealogy  of  Saul,  1  Chron.  ix.  35,  &c., 
 we  have  two  Kishes,  uncle  and  nephew.  We  have 
 also  Baal  /J/jn,  '  a  lord,'  or  '  Baal,'  a  brother  to  the 
 elder  Kish,  and  his  name  repeated  in  composition  in 
 the  descendants  of  his  brother  Kish,  in  the  third  and 
 fourth  generation  :  viz.  Esh-baal,  the  son  of  Saul, 
 and  Merib-baal,  the  son  of  Jonathan,  otherwise 
 called  by  a  name  of  similar  meaning,  Mephibo- 
 slieth,  which  was  also  the  name  of  a  son  of  Saul 
 2  Sam.  xxi.  8.  Conip.  1  Chron.  viii.  33,  34.  We 
 find  also  Beal-iah  among  Saul's  brethren,  of  the 
 tribe  of  Benjamin,  Avho  came  to  David  in  Ziklag, 
 1  Chron.  xii.  5.  Compare,  possibly,  '^b'2,  Bela,  son 
 of  Benjamin. 
 
 In  1  Chron.  iv.  24 — 26,  we  have  the  following 
 names;    Simeon,  Mishma,  Shimei,  recurring  in  the 
 
VI.]       OF  DAVID  UNDER  THEIR  COMMON  ROOTS.        157 
 
 course  of  nine  generations,  all  containing  the  root 
 5;^^,  'to  hear.' 
 
 In  Judg.  X.  1,  we  have,  'Tola  the  son  of  Puah^ 
 the  son  of  Dodo,  a  man  of  Issachar.'  But  in  1  Chron. 
 vii.  1, '  The  sons  of  Issachar  were  Tola,  and  Puah, 
 &c.' 
 
 And  lastly,  in  the  apocryphal  book  of  Tobit,  we 
 have  Tobias,  n*^iD,  '  the  goodness  of  the  Lord,'  the 
 son  of  Tobit,  fT'^ID,  'goodness,'  the  son  of  Tobi-el, 
 75^litD,  '  goodness  of  God.' 
 
 It  would  be  easy  greatly  to  increase  this  list, 
 and  to  draw  from  the  neighbouring  nations  also 
 proofs  of  such  hereditary  names,  as  for  example, 
 from  the  Syrian  royal  family  of  Ben-hadads,  and 
 the  Abimelechs  of  Gerar.  But  enough  has  pro- 
 bably been  said  to  convince  every  reader  that  the 
 recurrence  of  similar  or  identical  names  in  the 
 genealogy  of  our  Lord  is  not  accidental,  or  impro- 
 per, but  on  the  contrary,  is  a  strong  internal  evi- 
 dence of  the  historical  truth  and  general  accuracy 
 of  the  genealogies,  and  affords  also  a  new  and  re- 
 markable confirmation  of  the  scheme  which  has 
 been  propounded  in  these  pages. 
 
 One  other  example,  however,  shall  be  given  for 
 the  purpose  of  illustrating  the  argument  at  pp.  39, 40, 
 drawn  from  the  supposed  resemblance  to  names  of 
 the  line  of  Solomon,  of  those  borne  by  the  ancestors 
 of  Christ  between  Abiud  and  Matthan :  though 
 that  is,  perhaps,  the  part  of  the  argument  upon 
 which  least  stress  can  be  laid.  When  Jehu  the  son 
 of  Nimshi  came  into  possession   of  the  tlirone  of 
 
158      CLASSIFICATION  OF  NAMES  IN  THE  HOUSE    [CH. 
 
 Israel,  he  took  care  to  give  his  son  a  name  proper 
 to  the  royal  house  of  Ahab,  at  the  same  time  that 
 it  resembled  his  own.  He  called  him  Jeho-ahaz, 
 a  name  which,  in  the  form  Ahaziah,  belonged  also 
 to  the  kings  of  Judah.  His  son  again  was  called 
 Joash,  and  the  son  of  Joash  w^as  named  after  the 
 founder  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  Jeroboam.  So 
 that  the  house  of  Jehu  during  the  four  generations 
 that  it  possessed  the  kingdom,  seems  to  have  borne 
 names  marking  their  succession  to  the  royal  in- 
 heritance, rather  than  names  proper  to  their  own 
 ancestral  line.  Just  as  we  have  supposed  that  por- 
 tion of  Nathan's  line,  which  were  in  the  direct 
 succession  to  the  throne  of  Solomon,  to  have  borne 
 names  more  peculiar  to  the  line  of  Solomon  than 
 to  their  own^ 
 
 Before  we  conclude  this  chapter,  we  will  notice 
 that  the  psalms  and  hymns  interspersed  in  the 
 writings  of  the  Prophets,  seem  to  have  been  one 
 favourite  source  from  which  the  pious  Jews  took 
 the  materials  for  the  names  of  their  children  :  an 
 observation  which  will  lead  us  to  the  conclusion 
 that  the  middle  *  (yod),  in  many  proper  names,  of 
 wdiicli  the  name  of  God  is  the  last  element,  is  the 
 pronoun  of  the  first  person  suffixed.  The  eleventh 
 and  twelfth  chapters  of  Isaiah,  which  contain  so 
 beautiful  an  account  of  the  reflourishing  of  the  stem 
 of  Jesse,  and  of  the  growth  of  the  Branch  from  his 
 
 ^  It  may  be  noted,  that  Eliakim  and  Eleazar  (and  conse- 
 quently Azor  also)  are  names  common  to  both  lines,  and  may 
 have  been  selected  on  that  very  account.     Compare  Jeho-ahaz. 
 
VI.]      OF  DAVID  UNDER  THEIR  COMMON  ROOTS.       159 
 
 roots,  and  the  song  which  shall  then  be  sung  in  the 
 land  of  Judah,  has  a  surprising  number  of  words  in 
 it,  which  form  portions  of  the  names  of  members  of 
 the  house  of  David.  Thus,  (xi.  4),  U'hl_  pl^JS  D3^ 
 contains  the  roots  of  Jehoshaphat,  Shephatiah,  Ze- 
 dekiah,  Sadoc,  &c.,  and  in  v.  5,  the  recurrence  of 
 p'l^  followed  by  liTJf,  *a  girdle,'  suggests  the  en- 
 quiry whether  Azor,  the  father  of  Sadoc,  may  not 
 rather  be  derived  from  *liTi»{,  '  a  girdle,'  than  from 
 
 IT^^,  'to  help.'    In  xi.  11,  'hlii  tjW IT    mt^ 
 
 we  have  the  root  of  Joseph.  Ch.  xii.  1,  ^J^H^n, 
 'thou  comfortest  me,'  gives  us  the  root  of  Naum, 
 Luke  iii.  25.  Ch.  xii.  2,  'n^Jlt^]  hi<,  'God  is  my 
 Salvation,'  has  the  root  of  Jesaiah,  and  of  the  name 
 of  Jesus.     In  the  same  verse,  H''     W ,  '  the  Lord  is 
 
 T  •       T 
 
 my  strength,'  is  the  name  Uzziah.  Ch.  xii.  4, 
 mh  n)n,  'Praise  the  Lord,'  and  xii.  1,  nin^  "fp)^, 
 '  0  Lord,  I  will  praise  thee,'  gives  us  the  origin  of 
 Hodijah  and  Judah.  In  2  Sam.  xxii.  28,  we  read, 
 r]T\\  nj  nm,  '  Thou  art  my  lamp,  0  Lord.'  Hence 
 Neri,  and  the  fuller  form  Neriah,  And  in  like 
 manner  ihe  names  Zuri-shaddai,  Uriah,  Melchiah, 
 &c.,  are  expressions  either  actually  found  in  psalms, 
 or  suitable  for  such  compositions.  And  this  ob- 
 servation convinces  me  that  the  right  rendering 
 of  such  names  as  Abijah,  Malchijah,  Urijah,  Eliel, 
 Elijah,  &c.,  is,  '  The  Lord  is  my  Father,'  '  The  Lord 
 is  my  King,'  '  the  Lord  is  my  light,'  '  God  is  my 
 God,'  '  The  Lord  is  my  God,'  &c. 
 
CHAPTER  VII. 
 
 Further  evidence  that  the  Shimei  of  Zech.  xii.  13 
 is  the  person  mentioned  in  1  Chron.  iii.  19. 
 
 ALLUSION  was  made  at  page  102  to  the  famous 
 prophecy  of  Zechariah,  chap,  xii.,  wherein  at 
 ver.  13,  special  mention  is  made  of  the  family  of 
 Shimei,  as  not  only  existing  at  the  time  of  the  pro- 
 phet Zechariah,  but  as  to  continue  to  exist  till  the 
 times  of  Messiah.  And  it  was  there  argued  that 
 this  specific  mention  of  the  family  of  Shimei  makes 
 it  improbable  that  the  author  or  compiler  of  the 
 book  of  Chronicles  should,  in  giving  the  genealogy 
 of  the  remnant  of  the  house  of  David,  pass  over  in 
 utter  silence  the  posterity  of  Shimei,  as  according 
 to  the  present  text  of  1  Chron.  iii.  22  he  does. 
 And  an  argument  was  drawn  thence  in  support  of 
 the  emendation  proposed,  by  which  Shemaiah  is 
 identified  with  Shimei,  and  the  theory  of  the  iden- 
 tity of  Hodaiah  and  Juda  made  possible.  A  h\Y 
 further  remarks  are  now  offered  with  a  view  of 
 proving  that  the  Shimei  of  Zech.  xii.  13  is  the  bro- 
 ther of  Zerubbabel,  and  that  there  was  a  peculiar 
 propriety  in  the  specification  of  the  different 
 branches  of  the  house  of  David. 
 
 The  prophecy  of  Zechariah  is  as  follows.  '  And 
 I  will  pour  upon  the  house  of  David,  and  upon  the 
 inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the  spirit  of  grace  and  of 
 
VII.]    FURTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  IDENTITY,  &C.    IGl 
 
 supplications ;  and  they  shall  look  upon  me  whom 
 they  have  pierced,  and  they  shall  mourn  for  him,  as 
 one  mourneth  for  his  only  son,  and  shall  be  in  bit- 
 terness for  him,  as  one  that  is  in  bitterness  for  his 
 first-born.  In  that  day  there  shall  be  a  great 
 mourning  in  Jerusalem,  as  the  mourning  of  Hadad- 
 rimmon  in  the  valley  of  Megiddo.  And  the  land 
 shall  mourn,  every  family  apart ;  the  family  of  the 
 house  of  David  apart,  and  their  wives  apart;  the 
 family  of  the  house  of  Nathan  apart,  and  their 
 wives  apart ;  the  family  of  the  house  of  Levi  apart, 
 and  their  wives  apart ;  the  family  of  Shimei  apart, 
 and  their  wives  apart ;  all  the  families  that  remain, 
 every  family  apart,  and  their  wives  apart.'  Here 
 then  we  see  that  this  great  mourning  was  to  be  the 
 result  of  the  outpouring  of  the  spirit  of  grace  and 
 of  supplications  upon  the  house  of  David,  and  upon 
 the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem :  as  also  in  the  7th 
 and  8th  verses  special  mention  is  made  of  the  house 
 of  David,  and  of  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem. 
 When  therefore  we  read  the  specification  of  the 
 mourners,  and  find  that  we  have  'all  the  families 
 that  remain'  in  ver.  14,  to  correspond  to  'the  in- 
 habitants of  Jerusalem ;'  and  that  to  correspond  to 
 'the  house  of  David,'  we  have  four  families  men- 
 tioned by  name,  '  the  family  of  the  house  of  David, 
 the  family  of  the  house  of  Nathan,  the  family  of  the 
 house  of  Levi,  and  the  family  of  Shimei ;'  it  is 
 natural  to  conclude,  unless  we  have  any  special  rea- 
 son to  the  contrary,  that  these  are  different  parts 
 of  what  was  before  described  in  general  as   'the 
 
 11 
 
162  FURTHER  EVIDENCE  [CPi: 
 
 house  of  David.'  And  this  first  impression  is  cer- 
 tainly not  weakened  when  we  go  on  to  observe  that 
 of  the  four  families  so  specified,  the  first  is  avow- 
 edly of  the  house  of  David,  that  eldest  branch  of  it 
 who  by  right  of  primogeniture  and  inheritance  was 
 called  '  the  family  of  the  house  of  David ;'  that  the 
 second  family  represents  an  illustrious  scion  of  Da- 
 vid's house,  being  descended  from  one  of  his  sons, 
 Nathan,  of  whom  we  learn  from  the  Gospel  that  he 
 was  the  ancestor  of  Christ,  and  therefore  necessa- 
 rily had  'a  family'  in  the  days  of  Zechariah;  and 
 that  the  fourth  family  bears  the  name  of  one,  viz. 
 Shimei,  of  whom  we  learn  from  1  Chron.  iii.,  that 
 he  was  brother  of  Zerubbabel,  the  head  of  the  house 
 of  David  in  the  Prophet's  time.  Indeed,  had  these 
 three  come  together  consecutively,  few  would,  I 
 think,  have  doubted  to  ascribe  them  all  to  the  chiefs 
 of  the  house  of  David  whose  names  they  bear.  But 
 some  difficulty  arises  from  the  interposition  of  '  the 
 family  of  the  house  of  Levi'  between  Nathan  and 
 Shimei.  This  circumstance  has  influenced  some 
 commentators  to  give  a  different  explanation  of 
 Shimei.  Thus  Rosenmiiller  seems  to  prefer  Je- 
 rome's explanation,  who  identifies  Shimei  with  the 
 tribe  of  Simeon,  (according  to  the  Septuagint  ver- 
 sion, where  we  read  (pvXr)  rod  ^vfxewv),  and  tells  us, 
 that  from  that  tribe  the  greatest  number  of  doctors 
 and  masters  had  arisen — and  that  therefore  as  under 
 the  name  of  David  was  included  the  royal  tribe  of 
 Judah,  under  Nathan  the  order  of  Prophets,  and 
 under  Levi  the  priestly  order,  so  by  Semei  is  to  be 
 
VII.]  OF  THE  IDENTITY  OF  SHIMEI.  163 
 
 understood  the  order  of  Doctors,  or  Rabbis ;  as 
 Tertullian  {Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  iii.  cap.  18)  inter- 
 prets the  prophecy  of  Jacob  concerning  Simeon  and 
 Levi,  in  Gen.  xlix.  6,  as  applying  to  '  scribas  et 
 Pharisseos,'  'ex  illis  enim  deducitur  census  eorum.' 
 See  also  to  the  same  effect,  and  indeed  in  the  very 
 same  words,  Advers.  Judceos^  ch.  x.  And  this,  Ro- 
 senmliUer  tells  us,  was  the  common  opinion  of  the 
 Jews.  Some  however  think  'the  family  of  Shimei' 
 are  a  branch  of  the  Levites,  (referring  to  Exodus 
 vi.  17,)  viz.  the  Shimites,  mentioned  Num.  iii.  21, 
 as  descended  from  Shimei,  ver.  18,  to  which  opinion 
 Dr  Mill  seems  rather  inclined.  Without,  however, 
 denying  that  the  order  in  which  Shimei  is  named  is 
 a  difficulty,  I  would  suggest  that  a  reason  for  it 
 may  possibly  be  found  in  the  probable  circumstance, 
 that  when  Zechariah  wrote  this  prophecy  Shimei  had 
 not  returned  from  Babylon.  No  mention  is  made  of 
 Shimei  either  in  the  book  of  Ezra  or  Nehemiah;  but 
 we  are  told  by  Ezra,  that  Hattush,  whom  we  believe 
 to  be  the  son  of  Shimei,  returned  from  Babylon 
 with  Ezra,  (Ezraviii.  2,)  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes. 
 This  makes  it  probable  that  his  father  Shimei 
 did  not  return,  and  at  the  same  time  accounts  for 
 his  insertion  in  the  genealogy  by  Ezra  himself  in 
 1  Chron.  iii.  But  if  Shimei  was  not  at  Jerusalem 
 at  the  time  Zechariah  delivered  his  prophecy,  it 
 may  be  conjectured  that  the  prophet,  meaning  to 
 specify  the  two  families  of  David  and  Levi,  for  rea- 
 sons which  we  shall  presently  consider,  in  the  first 
 instance  named  those  branches  of  the  Davidic  House 
 
 11—2 
 
1G4  FURTHER  EVIDENCE  [CH. 
 
 which  were  flourishing  at  Jerusalem,  the  reigning 
 branch,  viz.,  of  which  Zerubbabel  was  the  head, 
 and  the  family  of  the  house  of  Nathan,  of  which 
 perhaps  the  brothers  of  Pedaiah  (1  Chron.  iii.  18) 
 and  their  heirs  became  the  heads  after  the  accession 
 of  Salathiel  and  Zerubbabel  to  the  inheritance  of 
 Solomon.  He  then  named  the  house  of  Levi,  both 
 as  connected  by  frequent  alliances  with  the  house 
 of  David,  and  because  of  the  priesthood  being  vested 
 in  them.  But  a  supplemental  suggestion  of  the 
 Holy  Spirit  recalled  to  his  mind  another  branch  of 
 the  House  of  David  which  he  had  forgotten,  but 
 which  God  had  not  forgotten,  the  seed  viz.  of  Shi- 
 mei,  Zerubbabel's  brother,  who  at  the  time  was 
 living  at  Babylon ;  and  therefore  he  added  the 
 words,  'and  the  family  of  Shimei.'  Nor  should  we 
 omit  to  observe  with  Mr  Whiston,  (who  however 
 made  a  very  different  and  injudicious  use  of  the 
 observation,)  the  different  form  of  expression,  '  the 
 family  of  Shimei,'  instead  of  'the  family  of  the 
 house  of  Shimei,'  as  indicating  that  Shimei  (unlike 
 David,  Nathan,  and  Levi)  was  still  alive,  and  so 
 strongly  favouring  the  supposition  that  Zerubbabel's 
 brother  is  here  meant  ^     It  should  be  added,  that 
 
 '  The  force  of  tliis  remark  however  is  much  weakened  by  the 
 fact,  tliat  the  expression  is  not  y!2W  HH^WD^  ^"t  t^Dtfi^il  "D, 
 which  is  equivalent  to . '»^ptii-j-^>2 5  or  'the  Shimites,'  as  the 
 identical  Hebrew  expression  is  rendered.  Numb.  iii.  23.  (Comp. 
 "•IjTT  ^-  20).  Indeed  I  must  acknowledge  that  the  occurrence 
 of  these  very  words,  '»3;pt£rn  "D  ?  of  Numb.  iii.  23,  where  we 
 know  they  mean  the  Levitical  family  of  the  Shimites,  is  a  strong 
 circumstance  in  ftxvour  of  their  meaning  the  same  family  in  Zech. 
 xii.  13. 
 
VII.]  OF  TIJE  IDENTITY  OF  SHIMEI.  1C5 
 
 some  Jewish  commentators  mentioned  and  approved 
 by  Jarclii  (vid.  Rosenmlill.  ad  Zeeh.  xii.  12,  13) 
 consider  the  family  of  Shimei  to  be  a  branch  of 
 the  family  of  David :  referring  however  to  Sham- 
 muah  or  Shimeah  (2  Sam.  v.  14).  So  that  on  the 
 whole  the  probabilities  seem  to  preponderate  in 
 favour  of  Shimei  being  Zerubbabel's  brother.  And 
 if  the  hypothesis  which  identifies  Shemaiah  with 
 him,  and  makes  him  the  lineal  ancestor  of  Christ, 
 is  true,  there  is  an  obvious  reason  for  his  being- 
 mentioned  by  name  in  the  prophecy  of  Zechariah. 
 But  there  is  another  consideration  of  no  small 
 weight,  which  leads  to  the  conviction  that  the 
 families  mentioned  by  name  are  only  those  of 
 the  house  of  David  and  of  the  house  of  Levi, 
 to  which  the  earnest  attention  of  the  reader  is 
 invited.  When  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  at  the  very 
 commencement  of  the  captivity,  was  commissioned 
 to  comfort  the  children  of  Israel  with  gracious  pro- 
 mises of  good  things  to  come,  the  words  put  into 
 his  mouth  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  a  prophecy  con- 
 taining many  striking  points  of  resemblance  with 
 that  of  Zechariah  xii.  xiii.  xiv.,  were  as  follows  : 
 'Thus  saith  the  Lord,  David  shall  never  want  a 
 man  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of  the  house  of  Israel ; 
 neither  shall  the  priests  the  Levites  want  a  man 
 before  me  to  offer  burnt-offerings,  and  to  kindle 
 meat-offerings,  and  to  do  sacrifice  continually.  And 
 the  word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  Jeremiah,  saying. 
 Thus  saith  the  Lord ;  If  ye  can  break  my  covenant 
 of  the  day,  and  my  covenant  of  the  night,  and  that 
 there  should  not  be  day  and  night  in  their  season ; 
 
1C6  FURTHER  EVIDENCE  [CH. 
 
 then  may  also  my  covenant  be  broken  with  David 
 my  servant,  that  he  should  not  have  a  son  to  reign 
 upon  his  throne;  and  with  the  Levites  the  priests, 
 my  ministers.  As  the  host  of  Heaven  cannot  be 
 numbered,  neither  the  sand  of  the  sea  measured: 
 so  will  I  multiply  the  seed  of  David  my  servant, 
 and  the  Levites  that  minister  unto  me.'  Jerera. 
 xxxiii.  17 — 22.  See  also  verses  23 — 26.  It  was 
 therefore  to  be  expected  that  in  the  prophecy  of 
 Zechariah,  delivered  after  the  return  from  the  Ba- 
 bylonish captivity,  to  encourage  the  feeble  rem- 
 nant, and  to  lead  their  hopes  forward  to  the 
 glorious  times  of  Messiah,  if  any  particular  stress 
 was  laid  upon  the  return  of  any  families  by  name, 
 and  upon  the  continued  succession  of  any  families 
 till  the  coming  of  Christ,  it  would  be  those  two 
 families,  to  whom  by  name  the  promise  had  been 
 made  beforehand  that  they  should  not  fail,  which 
 would  be  specified.  And  as,  moreover,  at  the 
 moment  when  the  seed  of  David  seemed  almost 
 extinct,  it  had  been  specially  promised  that  God 
 would  multiply  his  seed  exceedingly,  there  seems 
 to  be  a  peculiar  propriety  in  mentioning  the 
 several  branches  of  his  house  which  were  at  that 
 time  flourishing,  and  which  were  to  continue  till 
 the  coming  of  Christ.  So  that  this  prophecy  of 
 Jeremiah  seems  to  make  it  most  highly  probable 
 that  the  four  families  named  belong  either  to  David 
 or  to  Levi.  But  as  we  know  of  no  reason  what- 
 ever why  the  family  of  the  Shimites  should  be 
 singled  out  from  all  the  other  Levitical  families, 
 but  can  assign  most  valid  reasons  why  Shimei,  Ze- 
 
VII.]  OF  THE  IDENTITY  OF  SIIIMEI.  167 
 
 rubbabel's  brother,  should  be  mentioned,  we  may 
 conclude,  with  some  confidence,  that  'the  family 
 of  Shimei '  does  mean  the  family  of  the  son  of 
 Pedaiah,  of  the  lineage  of  David.  And  if  this  is 
 so,  then  great  additional  probability  is  given  to  the 
 proposed  emendation  of  1  Chron,  iii.  22,  because 
 we  then  know  for  certain  that  Shimei  had  a  family, 
 and  it  is  doubly  unlikely  that  the  compiler  of 
 1  Chron.  should  have  omitted  all  mention  of  it. 
 It  may  be  added,  that  the  mention  of  Semei  by 
 St  Luke  as  the  grandson  of  Juda,  entirely  harmo- 
 nizes with  this  view.  And,  moreover,  that  on  the 
 above  supposition  we  have  proof  from  the  New 
 Testament  that  Shimei's  family  did,  according  to  the 
 prophecy  of  Zechariah,  continue  down  to  the  very 
 time  of  Jesus  Christ,  seeing  He  Himself  sprang 
 from  it,  and  other  members  of  the  same  family, 
 both  men  and  women,  were  His  faithful  disciples 
 and  followers,  actual  witnesses  of  His  crucifixion, 
 actual  mourners  at  that  awful  scene,  Luke  xxiii. 
 48,  49.  So  that,  understood  in  the  manner  pro- 
 posed, these  two  passages,  1  Chron.  iii.  and  Zechar. 
 xii.  do  mutually  shed  light  upon  each  other,  as 
 well  as  upon  other  passages  of  Scripture.  It  must 
 however  be  remembered,  that  the  question  as  to 
 the  propriety  of  understanding  the  Shemaiah  of 
 1  Chron.  iii.  21,  to  be  the  Shimei  of  v.  19,  is  after 
 all  but  partially  affected  by  the  decision  of  the 
 question,  whether  the  Shimei  of  Zechariah  xii.  is 
 the  brother  of  Zerubbabel,  or  the  head  of  the 
 Levitical  house  of  the  Shimites. 
 
CHAPTER  VIII. 
 
 On  the  Second  Cainan. 
 
 TT7E  now  return  to  a  somewhat  more  detailed 
 *  *  consideration  of  the  perplexed  question  of 
 the  second  Cainan,  than  we  were  willing  to  enter 
 upon  in  our  former  chapter,  for  fear  of  inter- 
 rupting too  much  the  course  of  our  argument.  The 
 main  facts,  as  regards  the  genuineness  of  this 
 second  Cainan,  as  one  of  our  Lord's  ancestors,  and 
 his  right  to  a  place  either  in  the  Gospel  of  St 
 Luke  (iii.  36),  or  in  the  genealogical  lists  of  the 
 Old  Testament,  are  as  follows.  We  will  give  first 
 those  statements  which  have  been  or  may  be  urged 
 in  favour  of  his  genuineness,  and  then  those  which 
 are  adverse  to  it. 
 
 As  regards  then  the  Gospel  of  St  Luke, 
 (1)  All  the  MSS.  and  printed  editions  of  St 
 Luke's  Gospel  do  contain  the  second  Cainan,  ex- 
 cept the  Cambridge  MS.  presented  by  Beza  to 
 that  University,  and  the  editions  printed  from  it. 
 The  authority  of  Beza's  MS.  as  an  evidence  of  the 
 existence  of  various  readings  in  regard  to  Cainan, 
 is,  notwithstanding  its  great  antiquity,  somewhat 
 impaired,  and  some  think  entirely  destroyed,  by 
 the  liberties  taken  by  that  copyist  with  the  text, 
 as  well  in  other  passages,  as  especially  in  this  very 
 chapter,  where  he  arbitrarily  substitutes  twenty 
 names  from  St  Matthew's  Gospel,  for  between 
 thirty  and  forty  properly  belonging  to  St  Luke's. 
 
ClI.  VIII.]  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  1G9 
 
 (2)  All  the  old  versions  of  the  Gospel  of  St 
 Luke,  the  Italic,  the  Coptic,  the  Syriac,  the  Per- 
 sian, the  Arabic,  the  iEthiopic,  the  Gothic,  and  the 
 Vulgate,  do  agree  with  our  present  copies,  and  do 
 insert  the  second  Cainan. 
 
 (3)  The  Fathers,  from  the  end  of  the  fourth  cen- 
 tury and  downwards,  as  Epiphanius,  Gregory  Na- 
 zianzen,  Jerome,  Augustine,  &c.  did  all  find  him 
 in  their  copies,  and  make  mention  of  him  expressly, 
 or  by  implication  K 
 
 As  regards  the  Old  Testament, 
 
 (4)  All  existing  MSS.  and  editions  of  the  Sep- 
 tuagint  version,  as  the  Complutensian,  the  Aldine, 
 and  the  Alexandrian,  and  the  Vatican  edition,  do 
 make  Cainan  the  son  of  Arphaxad  in  Gen.  x.  24, 
 and  xi.  12;  and  all,  except  the  Vatican  MS.  and 
 edition,  which  omit  the  whole  passage,  in  1  Chron. 
 i.  18,  likewise.  It  must  however  be  noted,  that 
 the  Vatican  MS.,  most  unfortunately,  is  deficient  in 
 
 ^  There  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  no  positive  evidence  that 
 Epiphanius  found  Cainan  in  the  New  Testament.  The  genea- 
 logy of  our  Lord,  given  in  the  Anchorate  (lix.),  is  evidently 
 taken  from  the  Old  Testament,  as  far  as  the  pra?-Abrahamic 
 generations  are  concerned,  and  not  from  St  Luke.  The  testimony 
 of  Epiphanius  in  respect  to  the  Septuagint  is  fully  considered 
 at  p.  179  seqq.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  in  his  44th  Oration,  where 
 he  is  commenting  on  the  mystery  of  the  number  7,  remarks  on 
 the  77  generations  in  St  Luke's  Gospel,  from  the  old  Adam  to 
 the  new  Adam,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  And  in  like  manner, 
 Jerome  (Epist.  ad  Damas.),  says,  '  Ah  Adam  usque  ad  Christum 
 generationes  77''  Augustine  says,  more  accurately  than  either  of 
 them,  '  Et  ipse  Christus  a  quo  incipit  numeratio,  et  Deus  ad  quern 
 pervenit,  connumerantur,  et  fit  numerus  septuaginta  septem.'  De 
 Consens.  Evang.  Lib.  ii.  ch.  4.  The  testimony  of  these  fathers 
 as  regards  the  Septuagint  is  examined  below. 
 
170  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  [CH. 
 
 the  first  forty-six  chapters  of  Genesis ;  and  that  it, 
 in  common  with  the  Alexandrian  and  other  MSS., 
 makes  Sala  the  son  of  Arphaxad  (omitting  Cainan) 
 in  1  Chron.  i.  24. 
 
 (5)  The  Septuagint  version,  as  given  in  Ori- 
 gen's  Hexaxila^  did,  if  we  may  credit  the  explicit 
 testimony  of  Procopius  Gazseus,  who  wrote  soon 
 after  a.D.  500,  contain  the   second  Cainan  ^ 
 
 (6)  The  canonical  Latin  version  of  the  Sep- 
 tuagint, used  by  Augustine  and  the  African  Church, 
 did  certainly  contain  him. 
 
 (7)  Demetrius,  the  historian,  who  lived  under 
 the  Ptolemies,  about  B.C.  170,  in  a  fragment  quoted 
 by  Alexander  Polyhistor,  who  wrote  about  b.  c.  86, 
 in  a  passage  preserved  to  us  by  Eusebius,  {Prcep. 
 Eisang.  Lib.  ix.  cap.  21),  follows  exactly  the  Sep- 
 tuagint chronology,  reckoning  with  the  Seventy 
 3624  years  from  Adam — and  1360  years  from  the 
 Flood,  or  rather,  from  the  birth  of  Shem  ^ — to  Ja- 
 cob's going  down  into  Egypt:  to  make  up  which 
 the  130  years  of  Cainan  must  needs  be  reckoned. 
 From  whence  it  should  appear  that  Cainan  was  in 
 the  Septuagint  within  one  hundred  years  of  that 
 translation  being  made. 
 
 (8)  Many  of  the  Fathers  quote  from  the  copies 
 of  the  Septuagint  used  by  them,  as  containing 
 Cainan,  as,  an  anonymous  author,  said  to  be  con- 
 
 ^  This  statement  is  refuted  below,  p.  197,  3,s  is  also  that 
 concerning  Demetrius,  p.  196". 
 
 ^  Africanus,  and  after  him,  Georgius  Syncellus,  make  the 
 same  mistake  about  these  two  years.  See  the  note  to  African! 
 Chronic,  rx.  p.  130,  in  Routh's  Rel'iq.  8acr. 
 
VIII.]  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  171 
 
 temporary  with  Origen  and  Africanus,  quoted  by 
 Labbe,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Epiphanius  \  Augustine, 
 and  many  in  later  times. 
 
 Such  are  the  most  important  facts  and  state- 
 ments as  given  by  Walton,  Yardley,  Jackson,  Dr 
 Mill,  and  others,  from  which  the  authenticity  of 
 the  second  Cainan  has  been  argued. 
 
 But,  on  the  other  hand,  beginning  with  the  Old 
 Testament, 
 
 (1)  The  Hebrew  MSS.  and  editions  which  form 
 the  authoritative  text  of  Scripture,  do  not  con- 
 tain, nor  ever  did  contain,  Cainan,  either  in  the 
 tenth  and  eleventh  chapters  of  Genesis,  or  in 
 1  Chron.  i. 
 
 (2)  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  which  repre- 
 sents the  state  of  the  Hebrew  text  prior  to  the 
 captivity,  and  which  in  many  important  points 
 agrees  with  the  Septuagint,  when  the  Septuagint 
 disagrees  with  the  Hebrew,  does  not  acknowledge 
 Cainan. 
 
 (3)  Onkelos,  in  his  Chaldee  Targum,  which  is 
 thought  to  have  been  made  or  compiled  from  older 
 versions,  about  the  time  of  our  Saviour,  does  not 
 acknowledge  Cainan. 
 
 (4)  The  Syriac  version  made  from  the  Hebrew, 
 very  early,  as  is  thought,  in  the  Christian  sera,  does 
 not  acknowledge  Cainan,  neither   do  the  Arabic, 
 
 '  The  testimony  of  Epiphanius  and  Gregory  Nazianzen  is 
 examined  at  p.  179,  190.  I  have  not  had  an  opportunity  of  exa- 
 mining further  the  alleged  anonymous  author.  Mill,  in  his  Greek 
 Testament,  barely  asserts  the  fact. 
 
172  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  [CH. 
 
 nor  the  Vulgate,  nor  any  version  made  from  the 
 Hebrew. 
 
 (5)  But,  further,  there  are  very  strong  grounds 
 for  asserting  that  the  intrusion  of  Cainan  into  the 
 Septuagint  version  is  of  comparatively  modern  date. 
 
 For, 
 
 i.  In  the  Vatican  MS.  of  the  Septuagint,  Cai- 
 nan is  omitted  in  the  first  chapter  of  1  Chronicles 
 altogether,  where  the  genealogy  of  Shem  is  given 
 thus  in  ver.  24 :  *  Arphaxad,  Sala,  Heber,  Phaleg, 
 &c.'  From  the  17th  to  the  24th  verse  are  omitted. 
 Hence  it  is  obvious  to  conclude,  that  neither  did  it 
 contain  Cainan  in  Genesis,  the  first  forty-six  chap- 
 ters of  which  are  unhappily  wanting  ^  And  since 
 this  MS.  is  thought  to  have  been  written  before  the 
 time  of  St  Jerome,  (Walton  sProleg.  §ix.),  it  affords 
 most  important  evidence  that  the  older  and  genuine 
 MSS.  of  the  Septuagint  did  not  contain  Cainan. 
 
 ii.  The  Armenian  version  of  the  Old  Testament, 
 which  was  made  from  the  Septuagint,  in  the  fourth 
 century,  has  no  Cainan  in  Genesis  x.  or  xi.,  or  in 
 1  Chron.  i.  24,  though  they  express  him  in  1  Chron. 
 i.  18.    (Dr  Mill,  on  The  Geneal  p.  146). 
 
 iii.  It  is  certain  that  Josephus  knew  nothing 
 of  Cainan.  For  not  only  does  he  never  mention 
 him,  but  in  his  Jewish  Antiquities,  Lib.  i.  cap.  vi.  4, 
 where  he  gives  a  detailed  account  of  the  posterity 
 
 *  The  force  of  this  argument  is,  it  must  be  acknowledged, 
 somewhat  weakened  by  the  singular  fact,  that  even  the  Alexan- 
 drian and  other  MSS.  omit  Cainan  in  1  Chron.  i.  24.  Still  the 
 broad  fact  remains,  that  Cainan  has  no  place  in  the  posterity  of 
 Shem,  as  given  in  the  Vatican  copy  of  1  Chron.  i. 
 
VIII.]  ON  THE  SECOND  CAIN  AN.  173 
 
 of  Shem,   he    says   expressly,    'Aprpa^dSou    Se    ttoI^ 
 
 y'lverai  2aX>j?,   too   Se   ''EjSepo^,   k.t.X.      '  And   the  SOll 
 
 of  Arphaxad  was  Sala,'  &c.  And  again  in  Sect.  5 
 of  the  same  chapter,  he  says  of  Heber,  yevi^rjOeh 
 
 avTo<i  viro  2a\oy  TpiaKocTTov  6T09  e^oi/ro?  Kai  CKaTocr- 
 Tov'  ov  ApCpa^dor]^  ereKvtoae  Kara  TrcfXTTTOv  kuI  rpia- 
 KOCTTOV   TYj^    rjXiKias  6T09  7rp6<s  TO£S  e/caroV,  where  it  is 
 
 most  observable  that  at  the  same  time  that  Jose- 
 phus  uses  the  Septuagint  number  of  years,  and  the 
 same  forms  of  the  names,  (only  adding  Greek  ter- 
 minations to  gratify  the  ear  of  his  Greek  readers '), 
 he  yet  omits  Cainan,  and  makes  Sala  to  be  begotten 
 of  Arphaxad,  in  the  most  clear  and  distinct  lan- 
 guage. Moreover,  he  both  himself  makes  Abraham 
 the  tenth  generation  after  Noah,  and  quotes  Bero- 
 sus  and  Eupolemus  as  doing  so  likewise :  a  calcula- 
 tion which  necessarily  excludes  Cainan  ^  Whence 
 it  results,  certai7ily,  that  the  version  of  the  Septua- 
 gint which  Josephus  used  did  not  contain  Cainan, 
 neither  that  from  whence  Eupolemus  derived  his 
 information,  and  that  he  was  not  in  the  Scriptures 
 which  Berosus  had  access  to. 
 
 iv.     Philo,  who  habitually  follows  the  Septua- 
 
 '  Thus  Nwe  becomes  Nw'eo?,  but  not  Nwa^^o?,  or  any  other 
 form  which  a  direct  translation  from  the  Hebrew  might  give  it. 
 'Idcjieff  becomes  'Idcpedo^,  not  'laVero?,  &c.  ^u\eK  becomes  Oa- 
 A6K0?,  not  rTeAeyoc,^  or  IlaAjjyo?.  'Appdu  is  'Apduti<;,  not  Xa/>- 
 ftavr]^,  Sec, 
 
 ^  Jackson's  reasoning  on  this  subject  (C/tron.  Antiq.  Yol.  i. 
 PP-  76,  77),  is  a  marvellous  specimen  of  unfairness  and,  conse- 
 quently, of  feebleness  of  argument.  He  thinks  it  '  very  evident 
 that  the  second  Cainan  was  originally  in  the  Hebrew  text,  and 
 the  Septuagint  version  derived  from  it.'     Vol.  i.  p.  'iS). 
 
174  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  [CH. 
 
 gint,  was  equally  ignorant  of  the  second  Cainan. 
 (Bochart,  Phaleg.  Lib.  ii.  xiii.). 
 
 V.  Tlieophilus,  chosen  Bishop  of  Antioch  a.  d. 
 168,  in  his  third  book  ad  Autolycum,  gives  a  con- 
 tinuous chronology  from  Adam  to  the  reign  of 
 Marcus  Aurelius.  (See  Ceillier).  In  this  he  closely 
 follows  the  Septuagint  as  to  the  number  of  years. 
 '  Hanc  genealogiam  ita  referens,'  says  Bochart,  '  ut 
 in  numero  annorum  Grsecos  aperte  sequatur  kuto. 
 iroha  {Phaleg.  ii.  xiii.).  Yet,  as  Archbishop  Usher 
 says,  he  leaves  out  Cainan,  and  makes  Arphaxad 
 the  father  of  Sala.     His  words  are  'Apcpa^ah  eVe'/c- 
 
 Vboae  2aXa  wv  ercou  p\e . 
 
 vi.  Julius  Africanus,  the  cotemporary  of  Origen, 
 who  always  follows  the  Septuagint,  and  does  not 
 apjDcar  to  have  ever  seen  a  Hebrew  Bible  S  who  at 
 all  events  quotes  from  the  Septuagint  in  the  very 
 passage  under  consideration,  referring  to  different 
 copies  of  it,  (as  for  instance,  when  he  cites  Gen. 
 vi.  2 :  ayyeXoi  rod  ovpavov,  which  is  the  reading  of 
 the  Vatican  edition  nearly,  and  then  adds,  ev  evlois 
 
 a.vTiypa<poi's  evpov  '   oi   vloi  rod  Qeou,   Routll,  Mel.  SaC. 
 
 II.  p.  127),  and  using  its  very  words,  as  in  the  case 
 
 of   Enoch  :    evapecmjcra^    tw    Qew ....  ovk    eupicrK€To' 
 
 {ibid.) — Africanus,  I  say,  omits  Cainan.    He  writes, 
 
 *  He  appears  however  to  have  had  somq  knowledge  of  He- 
 brew, more  or  less,  from  his  arguing  against  the  authenticity  of 
 the  history  of  Susanna,  on  the  ground  that  the  play  upon  the 
 words  irptvo^  and  ^pt(Ta<;,  (tj(^ivo<!  and  a-^ia-ai,  prove  the  Greek 
 origin  of  the  story.  For  says  he,  'Ei/  ,u6i/  'E\X»7i/£ko??  (puavaii  to. 
 TuiavTa    ofxoipwveiv  ffvixfomvei  ...  ev   Ce   t>j    JLf3pa.'i6i   tw   iravTi   8(e- 
 
 a-Tt]K€i/.     Epist.  ad  Orig.     Routh's  ^c%. /S'acr.  ii.  p.  112. 
 
VIII.]  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  175 
 
 Apcba^ao     ce    yevofxeuos     erwv     p\e     yevva     tov    2aXa' 
 
 K.T.X.  'Arphaxad  being  135  years  old  begat  Sala.' 
 {Ibid.  p.  130).  And,  accordingly,  in  the  whole  sum 
 of  years,  viz.  1015,  from  the  Flood  to  the  entrance 
 of  Abraham  into  the  promised  land,  which  is 
 agreed  on  all  hands  to  be  215  years  before  the 
 descent  of  Jacob  into  Egypt,  he  falls  short  of  the 
 present  Septuagint  computation,  and  that  of  Deme- 
 trius above  referred  to  (p.  170),  by  exactly  130 
 years,  the  years  viz.  assigned  to  Cainan :  a  deci- 
 sive proof  that  the  copies  of  the  Septuagint  used  by 
 Africanus  at  the  opening  of  the  third  century  did 
 not  contain  the  second  Cainan,  and  an  indication  of 
 no  little  weight  that  the  alleged  testimony  of  Proco- 
 pius  Gazseus  as  to  Cainan  being  obelized  in  Origen's 
 Heajapla,  is  not  to  be  believed.  In  like  manner, 
 summing  up  the  generations  from  Adam  to  the 
 close  of  the  book    of  Genesis,  and   the   death    of' 
 
 Joseph,  he  says,  diro  'Addfx.  to'lvw  eirl  T^i/  reXevrrju 
 IcoarjCp   KUi    Tijace    t^9   (i'lpXov,   yeveal   /uLtju  /cy     eTrj   ce 
 
 p/(p^y,  '  twenty-three  generations,  and  3563  years, 
 elapsed  from  Adam  to  the  death  of  Joseph.'  IMcL 
 p.  155.  For  the  testimony  of  Irenseus  and  Cle- 
 ment of  Alexandria,  the  reader  is  referred  to  p.  193, 
 and  for  that  of  Origen  to  p.  198  e. 
 
 vii.  Eusebius  also  is  most  distinct  and  clear 
 in  his  evidence  that  Cainan  was  not  in  the  copies 
 of  the  Septuagint  seen  and  used  by  him,  and 
 all  doubt  on  this  point  is  now  removed  by  the 
 valuable  discovery  of  his  Canones  Chronici,  in  the 
 Armenian  language,  of  which  a  Latin  translation, 
 
176  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  [CH. 
 
 with  the  Greek  fragments  preserved  by  Georgius 
 Syncellus  and  others,  was  published  at  Milan,  a.d. 
 1818.  In  p.  51  of  that  work,  Eusebius  gives  a 
 detailed  account  of  the  descendants  of  Noah.  And, 
 when  he  comes  to  Arphaxad  he  says,  '  Arphaxadis 
 autem  filius  fuit  Sala:  hujus  Heberus,'  &c.  And, 
 '  Hebero  successit  sexto  loco  Abrahamus  . . .  decima 
 post  diluvium  generatione^'  And  at  p.  53  he 
 says,  that  from  the  Deluge  to  the  time  of  Abraham 
 the  Samaritan  Bible  agrees  exactly  with  the  Septu- 
 agint,  '  (ita  ut)  inde  (a  diluvio  scil.)  usque  ad  tem- 
 pora  Abrahami  consentientem  habeat  traditionem.' 
 And  then,  having  briefly  explained  the  origin  of  the 
 version  of  the  Septuagint,  (qui  apud  nos  fertur 
 textus  septuaginta  virorum),  he  proceeds  thus : 
 '  Nunc  vero  accurate  perscribam  singulorum  tex- 
 
 '  These  words  are  printed  in  Italics,  because  they  distinctly 
 shew  that  Eusebius  reckoned  Abraham  as  the  tenth  from  Shem 
 both  inclusive;  and  hence,  convince  us,  if  we  could  need  con- 
 viction, that  Berosus  also,  and  Josephus,  who  quotes  him  as 
 placing  Abraham,  piera  tov  KUTaKXva-fjiov  SeKOTj/  yeveu,  reckoned 
 in  the  same  manner,  and  consequently,  knew  nothing  of  Cainan. 
 The  same  observation  applies  to  the  testimony  of  Eupolemus, 
 cited  by  Polyhistor  in  Euseb.  Prcepar.  JEvang.  ix.  xvii.,  that 
 Abraham  was  born  at  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  in  the  tenth  generation 
 from  the  Flood,  as  is  evidently  meant.  The  reasoning  of  Jackson, 
 Vol.  I.  pp.  76,  77j  and  of  Yardley,  pp.  125 — 127,  is  consequently 
 as  false,  as,  in  my  humble  judgment,  it  is  absurd.  As  regards 
 Yardley's  observations  on  Epiphanius,  at  p.  109,  and  in  the 
 notes,  I  would  remark,  that  Epiphanius,  as  we  now  read  him, 
 follows  two  computations,  one  which  includes  Cainan,  and  one 
 which  excludes  him ;  and  is,  consequently,  inconsistent  with  him- 
 self. Africanus  also  reckons  Abraham  as  the  tenth  generation 
 from  'the  Flood  and  Noah,'  (p.  131);  a  point  on  which  there  is 
 a  wonderful  unanimity. 
 
VIII.]  ox  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  177 
 
 tuum  sententiam,  ut  quivis  facile  differentiam  intel- 
 ligere  qiieat  singulariim  historiarum  diversis  cori' 
 jecturis{f)  (rather  intei'pretationibus,  in  Greek  pro- 
 bably avfxfiXtja-eai)  utentium ;'  and  accordingly  he 
 goes  on  to  give  in  detail  the  genealogies  from 
 Adam  to  Noah,  with  the  chronology,  1.  from  the 
 Septuagint;  2.  from  the  Jewish  Hebrew  Scrip- 
 tures; 3.  from  the  Samaritan  Hebrew  copy;  and 
 comments  upon  the  difference,  which  he  ascribes  to 
 a  wilful  alteration  of  the  text  by  the  Jews — who 
 were  anxious  to  encourage  early  marriages. 
 
 He  then  proceeds  with  the  same  method  for  the 
 times  from  Noah  to  Abraham,  as  follows  : 
 
 SECUNDUM   SEPTUAGINTA   VIRORUM 
 INTERPRETATIONEM. 
 
 I.       Semus,  . .  .  genuit  Arphaxadem,  &c. 
 
 n.  Arphaxades  annos  natus  cxxxv  genuit  Sa- 
 1am,  vixitque  adhuc  annis  cccciii  usque  ad 
 IX  annum  Ragavi. 
 
 HI.      Sala  .  .  .  genuit  Heberum,  &c. 
 
 SECUNDUM    HEBRAICUM    JUD^ORUM 
 EXEMPLAR. 
 
 I.       Semus  .  .  .  genuit  Arphaxadem,  &c. 
 
 n.  Arphaxades  annos  natus  xxxv  genuit  Sa- 
 1am,  vixitque  adhuc  annis  cccciii  usque 
 ad  xxxxviii  annum  Isaaci. 
 
 in.      Sala  . .  .  genuit  Heberum,  &c. 
 
 12 
 
178  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  [CH. 
 
 SECUNDUM   HEBRAICUM    SAMARITANORUM 
 EXEMPLAR. 
 
 I.  Semus,  &c. 
 
 II.  Arpliaxades  annos  natus  cxxxv  genuit  Sa- 
 
 lam,  vixitque  adhuc  annis  (cv  cod.  Arme- 
 niacus)  ccciii  usque  ad  xxxix  annum 
 Phaleci. 
 
 III.      Sala  .  .  .  genuit  Heberum,  &c. 
 
 After  this,  having  pointed  out  several  reasons 
 for  rejecting  the  Jewish-Hebrew  chronology,  and 
 declared  his  belief  that  there  was  a  manifest  cor- 
 ruption of  the  Hebrew  text,  but  that  the  Septua- 
 gint  version  had  been  made  from  more  ancient 
 Hebrew  copies  into  which  that  corruption  had  not 
 crept,  for  which  reason,  as  well  as  because  the 
 universal  Church  of  Christ  used  the  Septuagint 
 alone,  following  herein  the  example  of  Christ  and 
 his  Apostles,  he  based  his  own  chronology  upon  the 
 Septuagint  version,  he  thus  sums  up :  '  Itaque  se- 
 cundum LXX  interpretes  ab  Adamo  ad  diluvium 
 anni  numerantur  mmccxlii.  A  diliivio  ad  primura 
 annum  Abrahami  anni  dccccxlii,  quorum  summa 
 
 anni  mmmclxxxiv Et  annos  lxxv  natus  exiit 
 
 Abraham  e  Charan.'  Therefore  the  sum  of  the  years 
 in  the  Septuagint  from  Noah  to  Abraham's  departure 
 into  Canaan  was  in  Eusebius'  time,  1017,  and  to 
 the  descent  of  Jacob  into  Egypt  (adding  215  years) 
 1232  years,  which  exactly  agrees  with  the  com- 
 putation of  Africanus  (allowing  for  the  mistake  of 
 
VIII.]  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  170 
 
 two  years)  above  given,  and  proves,  to  demonstra- 
 tion, that  Cainan  was  not  in  any  copy  of  the  Septu- 
 agint  that  Eusebius  was  acquainted  withK  To  sup- 
 pose as  Yardley  after  Georgius  Syncellus  insinuates 
 (p.  106),  that  Eusebius  dealt  dishonestly  with  the 
 Septuagint  version  in  this  respect,  suppressing  the 
 name  of  Cainan  which  he  found  there,  and  pretend- 
 ing that  it  was  not  there,,  must,  when  we  recollect 
 that  the  Septuagint  was  the  authorized  version  of 
 the  Scriptures  in  the  whole  Church  in  Eusebius' 
 time  2,  and  in  the  hands  of  every  one  who  read  the 
 Scriptures  at  all,  appear  too  absurd  to  give  a  second 
 thought  to  it. 
 
 8.  The  testimony  of  Epiphanius  also  is  most 
 full  and  unequivocal  in  that  part  of  his  work  which 
 is  directed  against  the  heresy  of  the  Melchisedec- 
 ians,  Oper.  i.  472,  3.  He  is  arguing  against  the 
 conceit  of  the  Samaritans  that  Melchisedec  was 
 Shem,  and  proves  the  impossibility  of  it  by  shew- 
 ing that  Shem  only  lived  500  years  after  he  begat 
 Arphaxad,  the  second  year  after  the  flood,  whereas 
 
 *  It  is  worthy  of  observation,  that  immediately  the  Armenian 
 codex  fails  us,  and  we  are  obliged  to  read  Eusebius  through  the 
 medium  of  the  Latin  translation,  Ave  find  Cainan  interpolated. 
 See  Euseb.  Chron.  Can.  p.  239,  and  the  Monitum  prefixed  to  the 
 Liber  Posterior. 
 
 2  Every  body  knows  what  a  storm  Jerome's  translation  from 
 the  Hebrew  made  half  a  century  later,  because  it  was  thought  to 
 be  casting  a  slur  upon  the  existing  Greek  version  of  the  Septua- 
 gint. Even  St  Augustine  was  not  free  from  such  prejudice,  and 
 argued  to  prove  the  inspiration  of  the  seventy  interpreters,  as 
 Ireuceus  {Cont.  Hoeres.  Lib.  iii.  cap.  xxi.)  had  done  before  him. 
 De  Doct.  Christ.  Lib.  ii.  xv.    De  Civit.  Dei,  xviii.  43. 
 
 12 2 
 
ISO  ON  THE  SECOND  CAIN  AN.  [CH. 
 
 from  the  time  of  Shem's  begetting  Arphaxad,  to  the 
 time  when  Melchisedee  met  Abraham,  1030  years 
 had  elapsed,  as  he  shews  by  enumerating  one  by 
 one  the  generations  from  Shem  to  Abraham,  in 
 which  he  follows  the  Septuagint  computation  of 
 years,  (except  in  the  case  of  Nachor,  where  he  has 
 79  for  179),  and  uses  the  very  words  of  the  Septua- 
 gint translation,  e.g.,  2>)iU.,.jo'^  erwu  eyewrjde  Tov'Ap- 
 (pa^do,  €v  T(p  cevTepw  erei  /xerd  tov  KaraKXva^ov'  Kat 
 'e^r]<7€  /aerd  raura  <p'  err},  ws  (pr]criv  tj  Oeia  ypacprj,  Kai 
 eyevvrjcrev  v'lov'i  koI  OvyaTcpas,  Koi   aireQave'  compared 
 
 with  the  Septuagint  version  of  Gen.  xi.  10,  11^ 
 
 *  pe  is  a  mere  clerical  error,  occasioned  by  the  first  letter  of 
 the  following  e'rwi/,  though^  strange  to  say,  it  is  repeated  in  the 
 Latin  version  of  Petavius,  and  in  both  the  Greek  and  Latin  a 
 few  lines  below  in  the  sum  of  Shem's  life,  but  above  correctly, 
 2>7yU   06  6KaTij(TTa>   eret   k.t.  \. 
 
 ^  The  computations  of  Epiphanius  are  as  follows : 
 
 In  his  second  book  against  Heresies,   Tom.  i.  vi.  (pp.  472, 
 
 473),  he  reckons. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Of  Abraham's  life  to  his  meeting  with  Melchisedee     90 
 
 Of  Terah's  life  before  he  begat  Abraham  70 
 
 Of  Nahor's  before  Terah - 79 
 
 Of  Serug's  before  Nahor 130 
 
 Of  Rheu's  before  Serug  132 
 
 Of  Phaleg's  before  Rheu 130 
 
 Of  Ileber's  before  Phaleg   134 
 
 Of  Selah's  before  Heber 130 
 
 Of  Arphaxad's  before  Selah  135 
 
 1030 
 
 In  the  preface  to  the  same  work  (p.  9),  he  says  that  when 
 Abraham  was  99  years  old,  it  was  tlie  year  of  the  world  3431. 
 But  according  to  Epiphanius,  the  flood  took  place  in  the  year 
 
VIII.]  ON  THE  SECOND  CAIN  AN.  181 
 
 But  he  omits  all  mention   of  Cainan.     He  says, 
 
 Ap(pat,CLO  oe  pXe   erwv  wi^,  eyevurjae  tov  ^aXa,  Kai  yeyove 
 
 ^aV  err].  '  Arphaxad  being  135  years  old  begat 
 Sala,  and  the  whole  time  (from  the  meeting  of 
 Abraham  and  Melchisedec)  was  1030  years.'  He 
 also  twice  (p.  473)  speaks  of  the  generations  from 
 Shem  to  Abraham  as  being  ten.  It  is  obvious  to 
 remark  further  that  he  must  have  been  quoting 
 from  the  Septuagint,  and  in  ignorance  too  of  the  He- 
 brew text,  because  his  whole  argument  falls  to  the 
 ground  according  to  the  numbers  in  the  Hebrew 
 text.  It  is  equally  clear  that  the  omission  of  Cai- 
 nan, had  he  known  of  his  existence,  could  not  have 
 taken  place,  because  it  was  for  the  advantage  of  his 
 argument  to  make  the  interval  from  the  flood  to 
 Abraham  as  long  as  possible,  not  to  cut  it  short. 
 He  does  indeed  allude  to  other  copies  and  other 
 computations,  but  according  to  them  the  time  was 
 shorter,  625  years,  not  longer ;  and  therefore  they 
 did  certainly  not  contain  Cainan.  I  conceive  it  to 
 be  absolutely  impossible  that  when  Epiphanius 
 wrote  this  passage  he  could  have  been  aware  of 
 any  edition  of  the  Septuagint,  containing  the  second 
 Cainan.  In  like  manner  when  at  the  end  of  his 
 work  against  Heresies,  in  the  Exposit.  Fid.  Catliol. 
 
 of  the  world  2262.  If  therefore  we  sixbtract  2262  from  3431,  it 
 gives  us  the  interval  from  the  flood  to  the  circumcision  of  Abra- 
 ham, viz.  1169  years,  or  to  the  meeting  of  Abraham  with  Mel- 
 chisedec of  1160  years,  which  is  130  years  longer  than  the  other 
 calculation.  Surely  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  Epiphanius 
 is  the  author  of  both  these  statements. 
 
182  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  [CH. 
 
 (Opera,  Edit.  Petav.  i.  p.  1081)  he  wrote   yeveai... 
 
 airo   Aoafx  eto?  tou  Naie  ccKa,  Kal  utto  tov  Neve  a-^pi  tou 
 
 'AlBpadfi  aXXai  ^cku'.  it  appears  to  me  to  be  alto- 
 gether impossible  to  imderstand  him  otherwise  than 
 as  making  Abraham  the  twentieth,  and  so  excluding 
 Cainan.  And  when  he  goes  on  to  reckon  with 
 St  Matthew  fourteen  generations  from  Abraham  to 
 David,  and  fourteen  from  David  to  the  captivity, 
 and  fourteen  from  the  captivity  to  Christ,  and  add- 
 ing these  sums  together  makes  sixty-two  genera- 
 tions in  all,  he  must  either  have  forgotten  that  by 
 this  means  he  reckoned  Abraham  twice  over,  or 
 must  have  done  so  intentionally  to  increase  the 
 resemblance  of  the  number  to  the  seventy-two  in- 
 terpreters. 
 
 But  how  then  are  we  to  account  for  the  ac- 
 knowledgement of  Cainan  by  the  same  Epiphanius 
 in  his  Preface  to  this  very  work  against  Heresies 
 (p.  5,  Vol.  I.),  and  in  the  Anchorate\  pp.  62  and 
 118  ?  As  regards  the  first  passage,  from  the  Preface 
 to  the  book  against  Heresies,  if  it  had  been  ever 
 carefully  examined,  it  could  scarcely  have  been 
 quoted  twice.  For  it  directly  contradicts  itself, 
 although  the  words  irape^  tov  Sj}/*  have  been  inter- 
 polated to  cover  the  contradiction.  The  whole  pas- 
 sage is  as  follows ;  after  giving  a  brief  account  of 
 
 '  The  Anchorate  was  written  before  his  work  against  Heresies 
 (Ceillier).  Bochart  quotes  another  passage  from  Epiphanius,  viz. 
 De  Ponderibus  et  Mensuris,  §  22,  in  which  he  makes  Jacob  the 
 22nd  from  Adam,  which  of  course  excludes  Cainan.  {Phal.  ir. 
 xiii.) 
 
VIII.]  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  l83 
 
 the  antediluvian  patriarchs,  and  of  Noah  and  the 
 flood,  and  the  planting  of  a  vineyard  by  Noah,  he 
 
 proceeds:  yivovrai  oe  Toi^  avTou  7ra7atv...7raiSe^  Kal 
 'jra'iowv  7raice9  ew9  Tre/xTTTj^s  761^609 ^  erwu  e^aKoaicov 
 'irevTrjKOVTa  evvea,  rrape^  tou  ^rj/u.  kut  aKokovQiav  Se 
 Tou  Xoyov,  e^eifXL  t)ju  yeveaXoy'iav  tov  ivos  v'lou.  E»;^ 
 To'ivuv  yevva  rov  'Ap(pa^dS,  'Ap(pa^a.S  rou  K;;i;a,  Krjvd 
 TOU   'EaXa,   '2a\a  tou  "Eftep  evXajSrj  Kal  deoaejirj,  "EjBep 
 
 TOV  (l?aX€K.  Now  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  observe 
 that  this  passage  carries  its  own  condemnation 
 upon  the  face  of  it.  The  fifth  generation  carries  us 
 from  Shem  to  Peleg,  which  is  the  next  epoch 
 treated  of  by  our  author  as  the  time  of  the  disper- 
 sion, without  Cainan :  Shem,  Arphaxad,  Salah,  Eber, 
 Peleg.  Nothing  can  be  clearer  or  more  certain. 
 He  had  already  numbered  ten  generations  (in  this 
 same  Sect,  iv.)  to  the  end  of  the  flood  {outco  irap- 
 
 riXOe    SsKCLTri    yeuea    St     ctwu,    fi<j^(^\  '  SO   closed    the 
 
 tenth  generation,  and  the  2262nd  year).  The  five 
 generations  after  the  flood  must  begin  with  Shem, 
 and  cannot  begin  with  any  one  else,  and  in  point 
 of  fact  are  so  begun  by  Epiphanius  in  the  very  words 
 before  us.     Besides,  the  grammatical  construction 
 
 ^  Compare  the  passage  in  Eusebius'  Chronicon,  where  after 
 giving  the  five  generations,  i.  Shem,  11.  Arphaxad,  iii.  Sala, 
 IV.  Heber,  v.  Phalec,  he  adds,  'Illius  cetate  terra  divisa  est... 
 turn  ex  una  lingua  plurimi  sermones  propagati  sunt,  et  suum 
 cuique  genti  idioma  tributum'  (p.  61).  By  comparing  also  the 
 remarks  at  p.  62,  under  Abraham,  '  Is  est  Judaece  gentis  proge- 
 nitor,' with  Epiphanius's  remark  at  Abraham's  circumcision,  Kal 
 o  'lou^io-juo?  apx*!"  e\dfxf3avev  (p.  9),  and  many  other  places,  it 
 seems  clear  that  Epiphanius  followed  Eusebius. 
 
184  O^  THE  SECOND  CAIN  AN-  [CH. 
 
 of  this  particular  phrase  also  necessarily  makes  the 
 '  sons  of  Noah'  the  first  generation.  The  only  pos- 
 sible grammatical  doubt  would  be  whether  Noah 
 himself  was  not  the  first  of  the  five.  But  the  gram- 
 matical doubt  is  decided  by  the  sense,  just  as  in  the 
 second  of  St  Matthew's  tesseradecades,  the  head  of 
 the  series  is  necessarily  excluded  because  he  had 
 been  reckoned  as  the  last  of  the  preceding.  But  if 
 there  were  the  slightest  ambiguity  in  the  phrase 
 (which  there  is  not)  it  Avould  be  removed  by  the 
 recurrence  of  the  expression  in  the  next  Section, 
 where  taking  up  the  thread  which  he  had  dropped 
 in  order  to  describe  the  state  of  religion  in  the 
 world  during  the  five  generations,  he  says,  TrefxTrrr] 
 
 TOLVVv   yeveq.    fxera   tov  KaraKXvcTfxoi',   k.t.X.      '  So  then 
 
 in  the  fifth  generation  after  the  flood,  when  the  race 
 of  mankind  had  multiplied  from  the  three  sons  of 
 Noah  in  successive  generations,  there  went  forth 
 seventy-two  heads  of  nations,  or  leaders.'  The 
 conclusion  is  inevitable  that  Shem  was  the  first 
 generation,  and  as  Peleg,  in  whose  days  the  earth 
 was  divided,  is  as  certainly  the  fifth,  it  follows  as  by 
 a  mathematical  demonstration  that  Epiphanius, 
 when  he  wrote  this  passage,  knew  nothing  of  Cai- 
 nan.  But  a  corollary  to  this  proposition  is  that  the 
 text  of  Epiphanius  has  been  tampered  with,  by  the 
 insertion  of  Cainan,  by  the  intrusion  of  the  words 
 Trape^  rod  2?)(U,  to  endcavour  to  remove  the  contra- 
 diction; by  the  alteration  of  the  numbers  (at  the 
 end  of  Sect.  iv.  and  vi.  and  beginning  of  Sect,  viii.) 
 so  as  to  include  the  130  years  of  Cainan  in  direct 
 
VIII.]  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  185 
 
 contradiction  to  Epiphanius's  own  calculation  at 
 p.  473 ;  by  making  Terah  the  twentieth  instead  of 
 the  nineteenth  generation  (Sect,  vi.),  and  Abra- 
 ham the  twenty-first  instead  of  the  twentieth,  &c.^ 
 Perhaps,  too,  the  whole  genealogy  at  the  end  of 
 Sect.  IV.,  beginning  2?)^  to'ivw,  and  ending  with 
 ^okeK  is  interpolated,  as  it  is  hardly  consistent  with 
 
 the  expression  KaT  aKoKovOlav  tov  \6you  e^eifii  Trjv 
 yevedXoyiau  too  ecos  vlov.      The  following  2>/V  sllOuld 
 
 be  taken  with  v'lou.  Fortunately  this  alteration  of  the 
 text  was  not  carried  through  the  whole  work,  and 
 was  done  clumsily,  especially  in  the  insertion  of  the 
 words  Trape^  rov  'Etj/m  out  of  their  proper  order  in- 
 stead of  altering  Treixirr^  to  cKTri ;  otherwise  Epipha- 
 nius's valuable  testimony  to  the  absence  of  Cainan 
 from  the  LXX.  in  his  day  would  have  been  partially 
 lost  to  us.  And  lest  it  should  seem  an  unwarrant- 
 able liberty  with  the  text  to  assume  that  it  has  been 
 so  corrupted,  it  may  be  well  again  to  remind  the 
 reader  that  there  is  at  present  a  direct  contradiction 
 
 ^  It  must  be  remembered  that  making  Terah  the  20th,  and 
 Abraham  the  21st  generation,  is  inconsistent  not  only  with  the 
 later  passage  where  Cainan  is  omitted,  but  with  the  passage 
 before  us  which  makes  Peleg  the  5th  generation  from  the  flood. 
 Peleg  being  the  5th,  Terah  is  the  19th,  and  Abraham  the  20th. 
 It  should  also  be  observed  that  the  number  of  years  from  the 
 flood,  659,  with  which  the  5th  generation  is  said  to  close  in  the 
 text  as  it  stands,  necessarily  makes  Peleg  the  5th,  that  being  the 
 sum  of  the  years  (including  Cainan)  from  the  flood  till  Peleg 
 begat  Rheu.  Without  Cainan  it  is  529.  Again,  in  the  Brevis. 
 Cath.  Fid.  Expos.,  at  the  end  of  his  work  against  Heresies,  he 
 says  distinctly,  aivo  'ABajU  ew?  tov  Nwe  leKa  (yereai)  kcli  dtro 
 Toij  N(o6  ew5   TOV  'Aftpadfx  aWai  ceKci,   (p.  1081). 
 
186  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.         [CH. 
 
 between  the  different  parts  of  this  one  work  of  our 
 author.  He  cannot  have  intended  to  say  both  that 
 Cainan  was  the  son  of  Arphaxad,  and  that  Sala 
 was ;  both  that  from  the  flood  to  Abraham's  nine- 
 tieth year  when  he  met  Melchisedec  was  1030 
 years  (p.  472),  and  also  that  from  the  flood  to  the 
 circumcision  of  Abraham  in  his  ninety-ninth  year 
 was  1169  years  (p.  9),  both  that  Abraham  was  the 
 twentieth  generation  (p.  1081),  and  also  that  he 
 was  the  twenty-first.  The  numbers  must  have 
 been  falsified  in  one  case  or  the  other,  and  it  is  a 
 question  of  internal  probability  which  are  the  true 
 and  which  are  the  false  readings.  And  if  there  are 
 strong  marks  of  interpolation  in  one  set  of  calcula- 
 tions and  none  in  the  other,  it  is  a  mere  matter  of 
 common  sense  to  trust  to  conjectural  emendation 
 to  reconcile  the  author  with  himself  and  with  the 
 "writers  whose  works  he  follows,  as  Africanus  and 
 Eusebius,  which  last  he  follows  most  closely.  As 
 regards  the  passages  from  the  Anclioratus,  the 
 same  reasoning  applies.  Nothing  is  more  probable 
 than  that  the  name  of  Cainan  should  be  added  to 
 the  series,  after  the  time  when  it  was  universally 
 found  in  the  Septuagint,  just  as  we  have  seen  was 
 done  with  the  Latin  version  of  Eusebius's  Chronicon. 
 And  there  is  nothing  in  the  context  that  would  be 
 affected  either  by  the  presence  or  absence  of  the 
 name.  It  is,  moreover,  worthy  of  observation  that 
 in  this  passage  from  the  Aiichoratus  the  name  is 
 written  K/m,  which  is  the  rendering  of  some  copies 
 of  the  Septuagint,  whereas  in  the  Preface  to  the  book 
 
VIII.]  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  187 
 
 against  Heresies  it  is  written  Ktjva.  This  looks  as  if 
 the  name  had  been  added  to  Epiphanius's  works  in 
 these  two  places  by  different  persons  who  used  dif- 
 ferent copies  of  the  Septuagint.  Had  Epiphanius 
 inserted  it  himself,  he  would  have  spelt  the  name 
 in  the  same  way  as  he  found  it  spelt  in  his  own 
 Greek  Bible,  and  as  he  himself  spells  the  name  of  the 
 true  Cainan  the  son  of  Enos,  Kdivav,  according  to 
 the  spelling  of  the  Vatican  edition,  both  for  the 
 first  and  second  Cainan ;  at  p.  62  of  the  Anchorate 
 it  is  written  KatVaV. 
 
 However,  if  any  one  thinks  that  the  foregoing 
 arguments  are  not  sufficient  to  prove  that  Cainan 
 has  been  interpolated  in  the  copies  of  Epiphanius, 
 the  most  that  can  be  said  is,  that  either  when 
 Epiphanius  wrote  those  passages  in  which  Cainan 
 is  acknowledged,  he  had  seen  and  thought  fit  to 
 follow  certain  copies  of  the  Septuagint  contain- 
 ing that  name,  of  which  he  had  previously  been 
 ignorant,  or  that,  having  in  the  first  instance  trust- 
 ed to  certain  copies  which  contained  Cainan,  he 
 afterwards  found  reason  to  believe  them  spurious, 
 and  followed  others  which  he  thought  more  cor- 
 rect. If  Epiphanius  did  really  see  any  copies  con- 
 taining Cainan,  it  is  not  improbable  that  they  may 
 have  been  those  African  Codices,  which  we  learn 
 from  St  Augustine  certainly  did  contain  that  name. 
 My  own  belief,  however,  is,  that  Epiphanius  did  not 
 insert  Cainan  in  his  writings,  because  he  had  never 
 heard  of  him,  but  that  his  transcribers  or  editors 
 
188  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  [CH. 
 
 did  so,  after  the  authority  of  those  Codices  began  to 
 prevail  in  which  Cainan  is  mentioned. 
 
 9.  As  regards  St  Jerome,  who  may  be  looked 
 upon  as  the  greatest  authority  among  all  the  fathers 
 on  such  matters,  it  seems  certain  that  he  did  not 
 find  Cainan  in  his  Septuagint.  For  (as  Bochart 
 observes)  in  his  Quwstiones  Hehraicw  on  Genesis, 
 where  he  carefully  notes  every  difference,  or  other 
 remarkable  circumstance  in  the  Septuagint,  or  any 
 of  the  other  Greek  versions  as  compared  with  the 
 Hebrew  text,  (see  Jerome's  Preface  to  the  Ques- 
 tions^), he  simply  sets  down,  'Arphaxad  genuit  Sela, 
 et  Sela  genuit  Heber,'  and  makes  no  observations 
 whatever  as  to  any  different  reading  in  the  Septua- 
 gint,— a  conclusive  proof  that  he  did  not  read 
 Cainan  in  his  Septuagint  or  in  his  Vulgate;  and, 
 if  he  had  the  Septuagint  of  Origen's  Hexapla  in 
 his  recollection,  as  is  probable,  from  his  having 
 translated  it  into  Latin,  a  proof  also  that  the 
 alleged  testimony  of  Procopius  Gazseus  as  to  Cai- 
 nan being  obelized  in  Origen,  is  not  to  be  believed. 
 As  to  the  Latin  translation  of  Eusebius's  Chro- 
 nicon,  though  it  is  true  we  find-  Cainan  in  it 
 now,  yet  we  may  be  sure  that  Jerome  did  not 
 place  him  there,  because  now  we  have  the  certain 
 
 *  Jerome's  words  arc,  '  Ex  quo  facilius  emendatio  cognosca- 
 tur,  ipsa  primiim  ut  apud  nos  sunt  (i.  e.  in  the  Old  Vulgate) 
 testimonia  proponemus,  et  ex  coUatione  eorum  qua  sequuntur, 
 quid  in  illis,  aut  mimcSy  aut  plus,  aut  aliter  sit,  indicabimus,' 
 Oper.  Tom.  ii.  p.  506. 
 
VIII.]  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN,  189 
 
 knowledge  that  he  was  not  in  the  original  of 
 Eusebius,  and  Jerome  was  not  the  man  to  falsify 
 his  author.  But  besides  this,  the  version  is  not 
 consistent  with  itself  For  (1)  we  read,  (p.  8  of 
 Scaliger's  edition),  'Nationes  Sem.  Arphaxat  ge- 
 nuit  Sala.  Sala  autem  genuit  Eber,'  &c.  And 
 (2)  a  few  lines  afterwards,  p.  9,  '  Arphaxat  genuit 
 Cainan.  Et  vixit  Arphaxat  postquam  genuit  Cai- 
 nan  annos  ccccxxx...et  mortuus  est.'  But  then 
 follows  (not  Cainan  genuit  Sala,  but)  '  Sala  quum 
 esset  annos  cxxx  genuit  Eber.'  So  that  the  passage 
 loses  all  its  force  as  evidence  for  Cainan.  Arch- 
 bishop Usher,  quoted  by  Yardley  (p.  100),  calls  this 
 Latin  version  'putidum  ilium  excerptorum  barba- 
 rolatinorum  libellum.'  And  the  editors  of  the 
 Armenian  Codex  observe,  'Jamdiu  est  quum  hoc 
 Lihri  exordium  propter  elocutionis  barbariem,  mul- 
 tasque  absurditates  .  .  .  neque  Eusebium  neque  D. 
 Hieronymum  habere  auctorem  videtur.'  Note  to 
 p.  231.  But  as  regards  St  Luke's  Gospel,  the 
 case  is  different.  Jerome  says  distinctly  in  his 
 Epistle  to  Pope  Damasus,  'Ab  Adam  usque  ad 
 Christum  generationes  septuaginta  septem,'  which 
 although  incorrect,  and  very  likely  therefore  copied 
 from  some  other  writer,  yet  certainly  shews  that 
 St  Luke's  Gospel  then  contained  the  same  names 
 that  it  does  now,  including  Cainan,  a  conclusion 
 which  Jerome's  Latin  version  of  St  Luke,  in  which 
 Cainan  is  found,  fully  confirms.  And  hence  we 
 have  a  very  remarkable  confirmation  of  the  opinion 
 to  which  the  other  evidence  leads,  that  Cainan  was 
 
190  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  [CII. 
 
 in  St  Luke's  Gospel  before  he  got  into  the  Sep- 
 tuagint.  For  the  facts  of  the  case  go  distinctly 
 to  this,  that  he  was  in  St  Luke  as  read  by  Jerome, 
 but  was  not  in  the  Septuagint. 
 
 There  is  no  positive  evidence  that  Gregory 
 Nazianzen  found  Cainan  in  his  copies  of  the 
 Septuagint ;  the  statement  in  the  44th  Orat.,  that 
 Abraham  is  the  21st  generation,  may  have  been 
 derived  from  the  genealogy  in  St  Luke,  to  which 
 he  immediately  after  refers. 
 
 As  regards  St  Augustine,  it  is  fully  admitted 
 that  his  testimony  is  clear  and  distinct,  and  re- 
 peated, that  he  found  Cainan  both  in  St  Luke's 
 Gospel  and  in  his  version  of  the  LXX,  Because, 
 though  he  does  not  name  him,  yet  he  says  with  the 
 utmost  accuracy,  that  reckoning  both  Christ  himself, 
 and  God  from  whom  His  genealogy  is  derived,  there 
 are  seventy-seven  generations,  and  adds  a  good  deal 
 about  the  number  seventy-seven  in  connexion  with 
 our  Lord's  baptism,  and  the  remission  of  sin,  which 
 he  connects  with  our  Lord's  saying  to  Peter,  that 
 we  ought  to  forgive  our  brother  not  only  seven 
 times  but  seventy  times  seven,  together  with  many 
 more  fanciful  speculations  about  7  x  11,  &c.  &c. 
 {Quwst.  Evangel.  Lib.  ii.  Oper.  Tom.  iii.  Part.  2,  p. 
 181.)  He  also  mentions  at  the  same  page,  Qusest.  v., 
 that  from  our  Lord  to  David  are  forty-three  gener- 
 ations :  and  (Qusest.  in  Deut.  xlvi.  Tom.  iii.  Part.  1, 
 p.  427),  that  Zerubbabel  was  the  twentieth  from 
 Joseph.  So  that  there  cannot  be  a  doubt  but  that 
 in  Augustine's  copy  Cainan  was  in  St  Luke's  genea- 
 
Vlir.]  ON  THE  SECOND  CAIN  AN.  191 
 
 logy.  His  testimony,  as  to  the  version  of  the  Old 
 Testament  he  used,  is  no  less  explicit. 
 
 In  his  Qucestiones  in  Genesim,  (Qusest.  xxiii.) 
 he  quotes  Gen.  xi.  12,  seq.  thus,  'Et  erat  Arphaxad 
 annorum  centum-triginta-quinque,  cum  genuit  Chai- 
 nan,  et  vixit  Arphaxad  postquam  genuit  Chainan 
 "  annos  quadringentos  "  vel  sicut  in  Grsecis  inveni- 
 mus  "  annos  trecentos".' 
 
 In  the  next  question  he  speaks  of  Heber  as  the 
 fifth  from  Shem,  a  statement  which  is  repeated  in 
 the  xvith  Book  de  Civitate  Dei,  cap.  xi.  2,  where 
 he  is  also  called  the  sixth  from  Noah.  In  the  xth 
 chapter  of  the  same  book,  the  generations  of  Shem 
 are  also  given,  and  Cainan  is  amongst  them.  These 
 testimonies  are  so  explicit  as  to  leave  no  manner 
 of  doubt  that  the  Latin  translation  of  the  Septua- 
 gintS  which  was  the  version  in  which  Augustine 
 read  the  Scriptures,  and  which  was  commonly 
 called  the  Vulgate,  and  which  are  called  by  him- 
 self, Scripturse  Canonicae  {Prooem.  in  Qucest.  in 
 Heptateuch.)  and  Interpretatiousitata^  {De  Consens. 
 Evangel.  Lib.  ii.  cap.  QQ),  had  Cainan  in  £ren.  x. 
 It  becomes  therefore  an  interesting  and  important 
 
 ^  '  Ex  hac  Septuaginta  interpretatione  etiam  in  Latinam  Iln- 
 gnam  interpretatum  est^,  quod  Ecclesice  Latinse  tenent.'  De  Civ. 
 Dei,  Lib.  xviii.  cap.  xliii. 
 
 ^  '  Codices  ecclesiastic!  interpretationis  iisitatce.'  This  is  iden- 
 tified, in  the  Pra?fatio  to  Tom.  in.  of  Augustine's  works  in  the 
 Benedictine  Edition,  with  the  Yetus  and  Vulgata  of  Jerome. 
 But  though  probably  in  the  main  the  same,  there  were  doubtless 
 some  variations.  It  is  there,  as  well  as  by  Walton  {Proleg.  x.),  by 
 Home,  and  Hug,  &c.,  supposed  to  be  the  one  spoken  of  as  Itala 
 by  Augustine  {De  Doct.  Christ,  ii.  xv.),  and  cceteris  prceferenda. 
 
192  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  [CH. 
 
 enquiry,  from  what  Greek  Codices,  and  at  what 
 time  was  this  version  used  by  the  African  Church  in 
 Augustine's  time  made.  Unfortunately  it  is  impos- 
 sible accurately  to  answer  these  questions.  But 
 Hug's  opinion  that  the  Latin  versions  (for  there 
 were  very  many)  were  made  towards  the  end  of  the 
 second  and  beginning  of  the  third  century  cannot 
 be  far  wrong ;  and  that,  he  observes,  was  the  time 
 when  the  Greek  version  of  the  seventy  was  at  its 
 very  worst  state.  It  is  obvious  too  that  in  Africa, 
 where  Greek  was  not  understood  at  all,  there  would 
 be  less  means  than  anywhere  of  securing  a  pure 
 text.  And  not  only  so,  but  from  the  multiplication 
 of  the  Latin  versions  (tot  enim  sunt  Latina  exem- 
 plaria  quot  codices,  Jerome  to  Pope  Damasus,  Free- 
 fat.  in  quat.  Evangel.)  the  text  of  the  Latin  ver- 
 sion was  continually  fluctuating,  for  want  of  one  of 
 sufficient  authority.  So  that  on  all  these  accounts 
 it  is  impossible  to  assign  any  definite  date  to  the 
 particular  codices  used  by  St  Augustine  in  the  fifth 
 century,  or  to  the  introduction  of  the  second 
 Cainan»into  them.  All  that  is  certainly  proved  is 
 that  some  time  in  the  fourth  century  Caiuan  was 
 in  both  Latin  and  Greek  codices  of  the  Septuagint 
 in  Africa.  Whether  or  no  he  was  in  the  original 
 Latin  version  which  Eichhorn  supposed  was  made 
 in  Africa,  we  know  not ;  or  whether  his  introduc- 
 tion was  one  of  those  emendations  which  St  Augus- 
 tine, unfortunately,  thought  a  merit  in  versions 
 imported  from  Italy  or  elsewhere,  we  know  not. 
 But  coupling  Jerome's  ignorance  of  Cainan  in  his 
 
A^III.]  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  '  193 
 
 Septuagint  "with  the  fact  that  he  was  established 
 in  Augustine's  Latin  version  of  the  Septuagint,  it 
 should  seem  to  follow  that  Cainan  was  first  intro- 
 duced into  the  Septuagint  version  in  Africa,  perhaps 
 to  make  it  agree  with  St  Luke's  genealogy,  into 
 which  it  had  previously  crept ;  and  it  is  not  impro- 
 bable that  the  great  authority  of  Augustine  (all 
 uncritical  as  he  was,  and  destitute  of  linguistic 
 science)  may  have  contributed  to  obtain  his  inser- 
 tion in  the  copies  of  the  Western  Church. 
 To  turn  next  to  the  Gospel  of  St  Luke  : 
 
 (1)  Beza's  very  ancient  MS.  of  the  New  Tes- 
 tament does  not  contain  the  name  of  Cainan,  but 
 makes  Sala  the  son  of  Arphaxad. 
 
 (2)  Irenasus  only  counted  72  generations  in 
 the  Gospel  of  St  Luke,  beginning  with  Adam,  and 
 ending  with  Christ.  His  words  are  '  Lucas  genea- 
 logiam  quse  est  a  generatione  Domini  nostri  usque 
 ad  Adam,  septuaginta  duas  generationes  habere  os- 
 tendit.'  Contr.  Hceres.  Lib.  iii.  cap.  xxii.  (xxxii. 
 Edit.  Grabe).  Now  the  actual  number  of  genera- 
 tions in  St  Luke's  Gospel,  beginning  with  Adam 
 and  ending  with  Christ,  is  IQ.  But  we  know  from 
 Africanus  and  Eusebius,  that  some  copies  in  their 
 time  omitted  Matthat  and  Levi,  making  Melchi  the 
 father  of  Heli.  If  then  they  were  omitted  in  Ire- 
 nseus's  copy,  and  Rhesa  also,  there  would  be  ex- 
 actly 72  remaining,  without  Cainan. 
 
 It  is  further  important  to  observe,  that  Ire- 
 naeus  connects  this  number  72  with  the  number  of 
 nations  and  languages,  at  the  dispersion,  which  is 
 
 13 
 
194  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  [CH. 
 
 a  favourite  idea  with  the  early  fathers,  (see  Boc- 
 hart,  Phaleg.  i.  28),  and  proves  that  Cainan  was 
 not  in  their  copies  of  the  Septuagint ;  because  as 
 the  Septuagint  is  now  read  with  Cainan,  there  are 
 73  heads  of  nations,  Elisha  as  well  as  Cainan  being 
 added  to  the  Hebrew  list.  Thus  too  Clemens  Alex- 
 andrinus  says  very  distinctly  :  ^alvovrai  le  elvai  KaTo. 
 
 Tov  aXt]9fj  Xoyov  .  .  .  SidXeKTOi  ovo  Kal  e^6oiJ.r}KOVTa,  ws  a'l 
 t'lfxerepai  irapa^L^oaai  ypacpai    (Strom.  I.  ap.  Yardlei/y 
 
 p.  97).  So  too  Epiphanius,  Adv.  Hwr.  i.  5.  It 
 seems  to  follow  that  in  Irenseus's  time  Cainan  was 
 neither  in  St  Luke,  nor  in  the  Septuagint,  nor  in 
 the  latter  as  read  by  Clement. 
 
 (8)  It  may  be  added,  with  the  view  of  neu- 
 tralizing the  evidence  derived  from  the  unanimity 
 of  the  versions  of  St  Luke,  that  if  Cainan  got  into 
 the  text  in  the  third  century,  this  unanimity  might 
 well  happen.  For  as  regards  at  least  the  Latin 
 versions,  such  continued  variations  were  made  in 
 them,  that  before  the  end  of  the  fourth  century, 
 says  Bishop  Marsh,  'the  alterations,  either  designed 
 or  accidental,  made  by  transcribers  of  the  Latin 
 Bible,  were  become  as  numerous  as  the  alterations 
 in  the  Greek  Bible,  before  it  was  corrected  by 
 Origen,'  (Home's  Introd.  Vol.  ii.  p.  70.)  Again,  as 
 regards  the  Gothic  of  Ulfilas,  it  was  not  made  till 
 towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  and  is 
 thought  to  have  been  altered  somewhat  later  by 
 the  Goths  in  Italy,  to  bring  it  into  closer  harmony 
 with  the  Italic  versions,  (see  Proleg.  to  Ulfil.  BiU, 
 Goth.  XVIII.  20).     The  difficulty  is  greater  in  the 
 
VIII.]  ON  THE  SECOND  CAIN  AN.  195 
 
 case  of  the  Syriae,  if  the  Peschito  version  has  the 
 antiquity  usually  assigned  to  it,  and  if  it  has  come 
 down  to  us  unaltered.  But  from  the  intercourse 
 maintained  by  learned  men  in  the  Church  with 
 one  another,  it  is  likely  that  an  error  such  as  that 
 of  inserting  Cainan,  would  be  propagated  from  one 
 Church  to  another,  and  that,  on  the  supposition 
 that  the  omission  was  accidental,  the  name  would 
 be  inserted  in  such  versions  as  did  not  contain 
 him.  This  appears  to  me  less  improbable  than 
 that  St  Luke  should  have  inserted  a  name  in  the 
 genealogy  of  our  Lord,  which  was  not  either  in  the 
 Hebrew  or  Septuagint  copies  of  the  Bible,  and  did 
 not  really  belong  to  one  of  the  ancestors  of  Christ. 
 On  a  review  and  comparison  of  these  conflicting 
 statements,  with  a  view  of  forming  a  judgment 
 borne  out  by  the  evidence,  and  really  springing 
 from  it,  it  is  important  to  notice,  that  as  regards 
 the  existence  of  Cainan  in  the  old  copies  of  the 
 Septuagint, — those  which  were  in  use  for  the 
 first  three,  or  nearly  four  centuries,  after  the 
 Christian  sera, — the  evidence  against  his  existence 
 is  to  the  utmost  possible  degree,  clear,  full,  and  posi- 
 tive, and  not  liable  to  any  mistake  or  perversion. 
 On  the  contrary,  the  evidence  for  his  existence,  till 
 v^e  come  to  St  Augustine,  is  inferential,  obscure,  or 
 open  to  the  suspicion  of  falsification.  Thus,  for 
 example,  that  the  Vatican  MS.  omits  him,  is  certain. 
 That  Josephus  did  not  know  him,  is  certain.  That 
 Berosus,  Eupolemus,  and  Polyhistor  did  not  reckon 
 him,  is  certain.      That  he  was  not  in  the  Septua- 
 
 13—2 
 
19(5  ON  THE  SECOND  CALXAN.  [CH. 
 
 gint  of  Theopliilus  in  the  second  century,  or  of 
 Africanus  in  the  third,  or  of  Eusebius  in  the  fourth, 
 is  certain,  as  certain  as  the  nature  of  the  case 
 makes  it  possible  to  be  :  that  Jerome  does  not 
 mention  him,  though  he  comments  upon  the  very 
 verse  where  he  is  now  found,  and  though  the  ex- 
 press object  of  that  particular  commentary  was  to 
 compare  the  Latin  Septuagint^  with  the  other  ver- 
 sions and  with  the  Hebrew  text,  that  he  might  mark 
 down,  '  quid  in  illis  aut  minus,  aut  plus,  aut  aliter 
 sit,'  (Praefat.  in  Lib.  Heb.  Qusest.)  is  certain ;  and 
 there  seems  no  possible  escape  from  the  cogency 
 of  such  evidence  as  to  his  non-existence. 
 
 But  on  the  other  hand,  the  strongest  testimony 
 for  his  existence  in  the  older  copies  of  the  Septua- 
 gint,  which  is  the  passage  from  Demetrius,  is  ex- 
 ceedingly open  to  suspicion  of  corruption,  both 
 from  the  facility  with  which  such  corruption  might 
 have  been  effected,  and  from  the  strong  motive  to  do 
 so,  when  the  received  text  of  the  Septuagint  had  come 
 to  acknowledge  Cainan,  and  with  him  the  length- 
 ened chronology ;  and  also  from  the  consideration 
 that  it  is  highly  improbable  that  a  professed  chro- 
 nologist  like  Eusebius,  should  have  quoted  a  state- 
 ment from  such  an  ancient  writer,  differing  so 
 materially  from  his  own  chronology,  without  making 
 the  slightest  remark  about  it.     It  is  impossible  to 
 
 ^  '  Ut  apud  nos  sunt  testlmonia,'  i.  e.  '  the  texts  as  they  are 
 found  in  the  Version  used  in  our  Churches/  wliich  was  the  old 
 Yulgate,  or  Latin  Septuagint.  So  a  few  lines  afterwards,  '  nostri 
 codices.' 
 
VII  I.  ]  ON  THE  SECOND  CAIN  AN.  197 
 
 imagine,  that  Eusebius  would  really  have  silently 
 copied  his  statement,  as  in  confirmation  of  his 
 own  history,  if  Demetrius  had  actually  added  130 
 years  to  what  Eusebius  considered  the  Bible  chro- 
 nology. Whereas,  nothing  is  more  likely  than 
 that  a  transcriber  or  editor,  finding  Demetrius's 
 figures  falling  short  of  the  received  computation 
 by  130  years,  should  just  have  changed  ^yvi^' 
 (3494)  into  ^yx"^'  (3624),  and  aa\'  (1230)  into  ar^' 
 (1360),  thinking,  perhaps,  that  he  was  only  cor- 
 recting a  clerical  errors 
 
 *  We  have  already  seen  how  Cainan  was  foi?ted  into  the 
 Latin  Version  of  Eusebius's  Chronicon,  so  that  before  the  dis- 
 covery of  the  Armenian  Codex,  Jackson  was  able  to  say  '  Cainan 
 was  in  the  copy  of  the  LXX.  of  Africanus,  as  appears  from  the 
 Chronicon  of  Eusebius,  where  he  exjDressly  names  him,  and  reck- 
 ons from  the  flood  to  the  birth  of  Abraham  1072  years.'  Chro- 
 nolog.  Ant'iq.  Vol.  i.  p.  78.  The  falsification  of  Epiphanius  has 
 been  also  adverted  to.  Another  remarkable  instance  is  given  by 
 Jackson  himself,  p.  79.  He  tells  us  that  in  Isaac  Vossius's  copy 
 of  Theophilus,  for  1036  years  from  the  flood  to  the  birth  of  Isaac, 
 which  is  the  reading  of  all  the  other  MSS.,  and  which  '  the  sum 
 of  his  chronology  necessarily  supposes'  to  be  his  true  reckoning, 
 as  Jackson  very  unwillingly  confesses,  was  substituted  1150  years, 
 thus  introducing  the  same  contradiction  into  Theophilus,  which 
 we  have  seen  in  Epij^hanius.  Had  this  been  the  only  MS.  of 
 Theophilus  preserved,  or  the  one  from  which  others  had  been 
 copied,  there  would  have  been  the  same  necessity  for  conjectural 
 emendation  in  his  case  as  in  the  others  before  us.  Another  ex- 
 ample may  be  given  in  Ferrarius'  Latin  Version  of  Origen's  Com- 
 mentary on  Job.  viii.  39,  where  he  changes  Origen's  200  years, 
 given  to  Enoch  after  the  birth  of  Methuselah,  into  300  i/ears,  to 
 bring  it  into  agreement  with  the  Vulgate.  It  may  be  added,  and 
 to  my  mind  the  argument  is  of  immense  weight,  that  it  is  incon- 
 ceivable that,  if  Demetrius  really  found  Cainan  in  the  Septuagint, 
 Berosus,  Eupolemus,  Polyhistor,  and  Josephus,  should  not  have 
 known  of  him  too,  which  they  certainly  did  not. 
 
198  ON  THE  SECOND  CAIN  AN.  [CH. 
 
 It  should  also  be  observed,  that  even  suppo- 
 sing the  present  numbers  in  Demetrius  to  be  cor- 
 rect, they  are  very  far  from  proving  that  Cainan 
 was  in  the  copies  of  the  Septuagint  which  he  con- 
 sulted. Because,  it  is  possible  that  these  130  years 
 may  have  been  otherwise  accounted  for  in  Deme- 
 trius's  system,  and,  considering  the  innumerable 
 variations  in  the  numbers  of  years  assigned  to  the 
 patriarchs  in  different  codices,  not  only  possible, 
 but  very  likely.  Nay,  Cainan  himself  might  have 
 been  invented  to  supply  the  deficiency  of  130  years 
 observed  to  exist  in  the  Bible  chronology,  with  the 
 number  of  years  assigned  to  the  patriarchs  in  our 
 copies,  as  compared  with  the  chronology  of  Deme- 
 trius and  those  who  reckoned  with  him.  And, 
 indeed,  this  would  be  the  most  logical  view  of  the 
 matter ;  seeing,  that  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Cainan  does 
 not  appear  by  name  before  the  end  of  the  fourth 
 century,  whereas  this  computation  of  Demetrius, 
 if  it  were  really  his,  existed  270  years  before 
 Christ. 
 
 Again,  the  testimony  of  Procopius  Gazseus,  con- 
 cerning Cainan's  being  obelized  in  Origen's  Hexapla^ 
 is  not  only  open  to  suspicion  on  the  score  of  its 
 vagueness,  and  from  the  fact  of  Procopius  having 
 lived  after  Cainan  was  universally  in  the  text  of 
 the  Septuagint  S  and  after  the  fashion  of  obelizing 
 
 '  Procopius,  according  to  Ceillier,  flourished  from  about  a.d. 
 520  to  A.D.  546.  In  the  Prolegom.  to  the  T)lv.  Bihliotli.  of 
 Jerome,  it  is. said,  'De  a?tate  Procopii  Gazoei  non  una  est  erudi- 
 torum  sententia.'     And  a  work  of  Joh.  Curterius  is  referred  to, 
 
VIII  ]  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  199 
 
 and  asteriscizing  the  versions  of  Scripture,  after 
 the  manner  of  Origen^  was  become  very  general; 
 but  is  as  good  as  positively  contradicted  by  the 
 silence  of  Jerome,  spoken  of  at  pp.  188, 194,  as  well 
 as  by  the  evident  ignorance  of  Africanus  and  Euse- 
 bius  as  to  his  existence,  which  could  not  have  been 
 the  case  had  he  been  in  the  Hexapla.  And  when 
 we  add  to  these  considerations,  that  Origen  himself 
 says  positively,  and  without  any  qualification,  of 
 Abraham,  that  he  was  the  twentieth  from  Adam, 
 
 Afjpaafi  e'iKO(TTO£  yeyeuvrjTac  airo  tov  TrpcoTOTrXdaTou' 
 ceKa   yap    yeveai    airo    Aca/x    eiri.    JNwe,    Kai    cgku    airo 
 
 NftJG  enl  'Afipaufji;  Comment,  in  Joann.  Tom.  xx. 
 where,  it  is  to  be  observed,  Origen  had  the  Sep- 
 tuagint  Version  before  him,  and  quotes  from  it 
 tjXTTiaev  eTTiKaXelaOai  k.t.X.  and  'Ei/o)^  evapecrrrjae  tm 
 Qeid...eTri  ^laKoaia'  not,  annis  trecentis,  as  in  the 
 Vulgate  from  the  Hebrew — and  as,  by  the  way,  is 
 
 in  which  it  is  attempted  to  prove  that  Procopius  flourished  under 
 Theodosius  I.     But  the  later  date  is  that  usually  received. 
 
 '  This  fashion  adopted,  if  not  invented  by  Origen,  w^as  fol- 
 lowed also  by  Jerome  who,  in  the  preface  to  his  Latin  transla- 
 tion of  the  LXX,  version  of  the  books  of  Solomon,  describes 
 himself  as  '  vel  antepositis  lineis  -^  superflua  quasque  design  ans 
 vel  stellis  ;]<  titulo  prsenotatis,  ea  quae  minus  habebantur  inter- 
 serens.  Oper.  (Ed.  Bened.)  Vol.  i.  p.  1419.  St  Augustine  too, 
 says,  '  In  Codicibus  Graecis,  qui  a  diligentioribus  conscripti  sunt, 
 qusedam  obeliscos  habent,  et  significant  ea  qua  in  Hebra^o  non 
 inveniuntur,  et  in  Septuaginta  inveniuntur;  qua^dam  astcriscos 
 quibus  ea  significantur  qute  habent  Hebr^i,  nee  habent  Septua- 
 ginta.' QucBst.  in  Gen.  155.  Nor  was  the  fashion  confined  to 
 the  Greek  codices ;  for  Augustine  adds,  (De  Civ.  Dei.  xviir.  cap. 
 xliii.)  '  Et  multi  codices  has  notas  habentes  usquequaque  difiusi 
 sunt  ct  Latini.' 
 
200  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  [CH. 
 
 substituted  in  the  Latin  Version  of  Origen's  Com- 
 mentary by  Ferrarius :  and  again  elra  al  ^eVa  a-rro 
 
 Tov    Nwe    eTTi    Tov    AjSpaa/iL   yeveal    icaTaXrjyovaai    eiri 
 
 Tov  'Af^paafx '  Comment,  in  Matt.  Tom,  xv.,  and  also 
 reckons  Jacob  as  the  twenty-second  from  Adam 
 (4th  Homil.  on  Numb.) ;  I  do  not  think  it  is  too 
 much  to  say  that  Procopius's  testimony  is  de- 
 molished \ 
 
 And  as  regards  the  Gospel  of  St  Luke,  though 
 the  evidence  of  the  MSS.  and  versions  is  admitted  to 
 be  very  formidable,  yet  it  does  not  seem  of  sufficient 
 weight  to  counterbalance  the  extreme  improbabi- 
 lity of  St  Luke  having  inserted  a  name  in  our 
 Lord's  genealogy,  which  was  not  found  either  in 
 the  Hebrew  or  Septuagint  copies  of  the  Bible. 
 Beza's  very  ancient  MS.  and  Irenseus's  testimony 
 come  in  very  opportunely  to  strengthen  the  con- 
 viction, founded  upon  probability,  that  Cainan  has 
 no  right  to  a  place  in  the  genealogy ;  and  the  re- 
 flection that  a  long  list  of  proper  names  constitutes 
 the  passage,  where,  of  all  others,  the  addition  or 
 the  loss  of  a  word  or  two  might  most  easily   be 
 
 *  While  these  sheets  have  been  passing  through  the  press,  I 
 have  consulted  the  original  of  Procopius,  and  find  my  remarks 
 fully  borne  out ;  indeed  much  beyond  my  expectation.  There  is 
 not  the  remotest  allusion  in  Procopius  to  Origen  or  the  Ilexapla. 
 He  merely  says,  '  Ilebraica  Veritas  habet  Salam  genitum  esse  ab 
 Arphaxad.  Queg  deinde  in  medio  ponuntur  obelisco  signata  vi- 
 suntur.'  Comment,  in  Genes,  xi.  While  on  the  subject  of  Pro- 
 copius I  may  add,  with  reference  to  p.  83,  that  he  alludes  to  the 
 difficulty  about  Terah's  age,  and  solves  it  exactly  as  Usher  did, 
 by  considering  Abraham  as  not  the  eldest,  but  named  first  on 
 account  of  his  patriarchal  dignity. 
 
VIII.]  ON  THE  SECOND  CAIN  AN.  201 
 
 effected,  and  with  the  greatest  facility  be  generally 
 propagated,  goes  far  to  mitigate  our  wonder  that 
 such  an  error  should  have  crept  into  all  the  exist- 
 ing copies  of  the  Scriptures. 
 
 Lastly,  we  must  not  forget,  what  has  been  ob- 
 served by  Bochart,  Iluetius  upon  Origen's  Comment, 
 on  St.  Joh.  Tom.  xx.,  and  others,  that  besides  the 
 external  evidence,  there  are  two  or  three  circum- 
 stances which  on  the  score  of  internal  probability 
 make  the  second  Cainan  very  suspicious.  The  first 
 Cainan  was  the  fourth  from  Adam :  he  is  the  fourth 
 from  Noah.  The  number  of  years  ascribed  to  the 
 second  Cainan  before  he  begat  Salah,  is  precisely 
 the  same  as  the  number  ascribed  to  Arphaxad 
 before  he  begat  Cainan.  The  addition  of  this  one 
 name  made  Abraham  the  twenty-first  generation 
 (3x7  or  3  hebdomads,  corresponding  to  the  three 
 double  hebdomads  of  St  Matthew),  and  also  made 
 up  the  seventy-seven  generations,  from  which  Au- 
 gustine extracted  such  wonders ;  all  these  circum- 
 stances are  sufficient  of  themselves  to  throw  doubt 
 upon  the  authenticity  of  Cainan. 
 
 On  the  whole,  then,  it  seems  certain,  that  for  the 
 first  three,  or  nearly  four,  centuries,  after  Christ, 
 the  Septuagint  version  agreed  with  the  Hebrew  in 
 omitting  Cainan.  But  towards  the  close  of  the 
 fourth  century,  either  for  some  chronological  pur- 
 pose, or  for  the  sake  of  obtaining  some  mystical 
 number,  or  because  the  name  had  been  introduced 
 into  the  list  of  our  Lord's  ancestors  in  St  Luke's 
 Gospel  by  accident  or  design,  and  it  was  thought 
 
202  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  [CH. 
 
 necessary  to  bring  the  Septuagint  genealogies  into 
 harmony  with  it,  for  some  one  or  more  of  these 
 reasons,  or  for  some  other  of  which  we  are  igno- 
 rant, the  name  of  Cainan  was  introduced  into  the 
 Septuagint :  at  first,  probably,  into  some  codex  of 
 note  and  authority,  and  thence  into  all  subsequent 
 copies.  How  the  name  got  into  St  Luke  it  is 
 perhaps  impossible  to  discover.  It  may  have  been 
 a  mere  accident  arising  from  the  method  of  writing 
 the  genealogy  in  double  columns,  either  with  the 
 names  consecutively  in  the  same  column,  or  with 
 the  consecutive  names  opposite  to  one  another,  the 
 adoption  of  which  two  methods  led,  as  Mill  tells  us, 
 to  infinite  confusion,  (see  Mill's  N.  T.,  note  on 
 Luke  iii.)  Or  it  may  have  been  added  on  some 
 conjectural  ground,  to  make  up  the  famous  number 
 seventy-seven,  which  is,  in  point  of  fact,  the  con- 
 nexion in  which  we  have  the  earliest  evidence  of 
 its  existence.  But  that  it  was  not  always  in  St 
 Luke's  list  we  may  be  pretty  sure,  both  from  the 
 testimony  of  Irenseus,  and  from  the  improbability 
 of  St  Luke's  introducing  a  name  into  his  genealogy 
 which  was  not  either  in  the  Hebrew  or  Greek 
 Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  well  as  from 
 the  evidence  of  Beza's  very  ancient  MS.  For  in 
 spite  of  all  the  arguments  used  to  disparage  that 
 MS.,  it  is  an  invaluable  evidence  of  the  non-existence 
 of  Cainan  in  the  older  copies.  For  we  know  of  no 
 conceivable  motive  which  should  have  induced  a 
 copyist  of  that  age  to  leave  out  the  name  if  it  had 
 been  there  :  while  the  motive  for  its  insertion  into 
 
VIII.]  ON  THE  SECOND  CAINAN.  203 
 
 all  the  more  modern  MSS.,  from  which  our  present 
 text  is  derived,  is  manifest,  viz.  to  bring  St  Luke 
 into  harmony  with  the  received  text  of  the  Septua- 
 gint,  which  was,  what  we  may  call,  the  Authorised 
 Version  through  Christendom,  till  the  Vulgate 
 partially  superseded  it.  And  thus  much  must 
 suffice  on  this  complicated  question.  We  conclude 
 that,  at  all  events,  Cainan  has  no  right  to  a  place 
 among  the  ancestors  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
CHAPTER  IX. 
 
 On  the  discordance  hetween  the  Genealogy  from 
 Salmon  to  David,  and  the  received  chronology 
 of  the  corresponding  period. 
 
 TT  is  impossible  to  overrate  the  value  of  authentic 
 -^  genealogies  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  the 
 chronology  of  the  periods  of  time  corresponding 
 with  them ;  and  it  is  apparent  that  one  purpose  of 
 God  in  causing  so  many  and  such  continuous  gene- 
 alogies to  be  inserted  in  the  Scriptures,  is  to  supply 
 His  Church  with  the  materials  of  such  historical 
 accuracy  as  is  necessary  to  give  consistency  to  the 
 Scripture  narrative,  with  which  Scripture  doctrine 
 is  so  intimately  interwoven.  But  then  it  is  also 
 clear  that  for  genealogies  to  subserve  this  import- 
 ant purpose,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  they 
 should  be  considered  as  subject  to  some  certain 
 law,  as  in  reality  the  generations  in  nature  are, 
 of  which  genealogies  contain  the  record.  When  we 
 have  ascertained  what  is  the  average  length  of 
 human  life,  and  the  average  time  of  life  at  which, 
 in  any  given  age  of  the  world,  men  have  children, 
 we  then  make  our  calculations  accordingly,  and  are 
 certain  that  any  given  number  of  generations  covers 
 about  such  or  such  a  period  of  time ;  or  again,  that 
 in  any  given  period  of  time  there  will  have  been  in 
 any  family,  that  may  be  under  consideration,  about 
 such  or  such  a  number  of  generations.     To  say.  It 
 
IX.]       DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY,  &C.     205 
 
 is  possible  that  a  man  may  generate  at  the  age  of 
 100  years,  and  what  is  possible  in  one  case  is  pos- 
 sible in  ten  cases,  and  therefore  in  one  instance  ten 
 generations  may  cover  1000  years :  And  it  is  also 
 possible  that  a  man  may  generate  at  the  age  of 
 twelve  years,  and  this  may  happen  ten  times  con- 
 secutively, and  therefore  in  another  case  ten  gene- 
 rations may  cover  only  120  years,  would  be  to  say 
 what  is  ridiculous  and  false' ;  and  every  approxi- 
 mation to  such  a  mode  of  reasoning  must  be  dis- 
 carded in  theology  as  well  as  every  other  branch  of 
 history  or  science,  if  we  would  not  throw  an  air  of 
 ridicule  and  falsehood  over  it.  Not  only,  however, 
 on  general  principles  are  we  quite  certain  that  the 
 genealogical  lists  in  Scripture,  w^hen  not  corrupted, 
 are  safe  guides  to  chronology,  but  we  find,  in  point 
 
 ^  The  following  passage  from  Dr  Brett's  Chronological  Essay ^ 
 is  a  specimen  of  the  kind  of  reasoning  here  condemned.  'Another 
 objection  against  lengthening  this  period  ...  is  the  long  life  which 
 niust  then  be  attributed  to  three  men  in  succession,  Boaz,  Obed, 
 and  Jesse,  who  must  each  of  them  beget  a  son  when  he  was  150 
 years  old  or  more,  if  we  compute  the  years  of  the  Judges  as  I 
 have  done.  But  whoever  will  look  into  the  abridgement  of  the 
 Philosophical  Transactions,  Vol.  iii.  pp.  306,  307,  and  see  the 
 account  there  given  of  Thomas  Parr,  who  died  1635,  in  the 
 153rd  year  of  his  age,  and  might  have  lived  much  longer  if  he 
 had  not  been  brought  to  court  and  high  fed,  will  not  see  any 
 reason  to  think  it  incredible  that  there  might  be  three  men  suc- 
 ceeding one  another  who  might  live  to  a  greater  age,  and  who 
 m,ight  also  get  children  at  that  age.  So  that  there  is  no  occasion 
 to  shorten  this  period  on  that  account.'  pp.  31,  32.  Even  Boc- 
 hart's  letter  to  Carbonellus  {Opera,  Yol.  i.  p.  911),  in  which  he 
 attempts  to  remove  the  difficulty  as  to  the  age  of  Ahaz  when 
 Ilezekiah  was  born,  displays  more  erudition  than  of  the  spirit  of 
 sound  criticism. 
 
206  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [ciI. 
 
 of  fact,  that  they  do  tally  most  accurately  in  general 
 with  the  periods  of  time  subtended  by  them,  and 
 also  with  one  another  when  there  are  two  or  more 
 genealogies  for  the  same  period  of  time ;  and  hence 
 we  are  all  the  more  sure,  when  any  strange  and 
 glaring  discordance  occurs  between  the  number  of 
 links  in  a  genealogical  series,  and  the  number  of 
 years  over  which  the  chain  extends,  that  there  is 
 some  defect  either  in  the  genealogy  or  in  the  chrono- 
 logy; and  it  is  the  business  of  the  critic  to  endeavour 
 to  find  out  where  the  defect  is,  and  by  removing 
 it  to  restore  the  harmony  between  the  genealogy 
 and  the  chronology.  Now  such  is  the  case  before 
 us.  Our  genealogy  in  Ruth  iv.  18 — 22,  which  is 
 repeated  by  both  the  Evangelists,  tells  us  that  be- 
 tween Nahshon  the  Prince  of  Judah  at  the  time  of 
 the  Exodus,  and  David,  there  intervened  four  gene- 
 rations, Salmon,  Boaz,  Obed,  Jesse.  Our  chrono- 
 logy tells  us  that  from  the  entrance  into  Canaan 
 to  the  birth  of  David  was  486  years  ^ ;  or,  at  the 
 very  lowest  computation,  405  years.  Therefore  we 
 have  to  allow  100  or  120  or  more  years  to  a 
 generation:  and  this  at  a  time  when  human  life 
 was  about  the  same  length  that  it  is  now.  But 
 upon  the  principles  above  stated  this  is  morally 
 impossible,  and  we  therefore  conclude  certainly 
 that  either  the  genealogies  are  defective,  or  that 
 the  chronology  is  at  fault. 
 
 '  So  Dr  Brett.  According  to  Dr  Hales,  from  the  birth  of 
 Salmon  to  the  birth  of  Solomon,  was  559  years,  112  years  to  a 
 generation.     Vol.  iii.  p.  45. 
 
IX.]       AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       207 
 
 The  former  method  of  reconciling  the  discord- 
 ance is  adopted  bj  Dr  Mill,  in  which  he  had  been 
 preceded  by  Jackson,  Dr  Hales,  Kennicott,  and 
 others.  He  supposes  some  names  of  ancestors,  not 
 remarkable  for  anything,  to  have  been  lost  between 
 Salmon  and  Boaz ;  and  it  has  already  been  re- 
 marked in  the  note  to  p.  66,  that  Dr  Kennicott 
 thinks  that  the  variation  in  the  name  of  Salma 
 indicates  such  an  omission,  Salma  and  Salmon 
 being  really  two  different  persons.  The  objec- 
 tions to  this  mode  of  reconciling  the  discordance 
 are, 
 
 1 .  That  the  expression  in  St  Matthew's  Gospel, 
 '  Salmon  begat  Booz  of  Rachab,'  seems  necessarily 
 to  signify  that  Salmon  and  Rachab  were  the  father 
 and  mother  of  Boaz,  as  the  following  clause  of  v.  5 
 does  that  Boaz  and  Ruth  were  the  father  and  mo- 
 ther of  Obed,  which  we  know  they  were.  % 
 
 2.  That  to  cover  a  space  of  400  or  500  years, 
 we  require  the  addition,  not  of  one  or  two  links 
 to  the  genealogy^  but  9,  10,  or  11;  and  it  is  incon- 
 ceivable that  so  many  names  of  ancestors  of  the 
 house  of  David  should  have  been  lost. 
 
 3.  That  we  have  stronger  evidence  for  the 
 completeness  of  this  genealogy  than  for  any  other 
 in  Scripture,  inasmuch  as  this  particular  portion  of 
 it  is  given  no  fewer  than  four  times  in  the  Bible, 
 namely,  in  the  book  of  Ruth,  (a  genealogy  which 
 
 *  Dr  Hales  would  add  four  between  Obed  and  Jesse,  Yol.  in. 
 p.  46. 
 
208 
 
 DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY 
 
 [CH. 
 
 was  apparently  compiled  in  the  reign  of  David),  in 
 1  Chron.  ii.  9 — 15,  in  Matt.  i.  3 — 6,  and  in  Luke 
 iii.  81—33'. 
 
 4.  That  the  other  parts  of  the  same  genealogy 
 correspond  to  the  periods  intended  to  be  covered 
 by  them  respectively,  and  to  the  genealogies  of 
 other  families  for  the  same  period.  For  example, 
 from  Judah  to  Nahshon  inclusive,  are  six  genera- 
 tions; so  also  from  Judah  to  Uri  the  father  of 
 Bezaleel  are  six  generations;  and  from  Judah  to 
 Achan  are  also  six  generations ;  while  from  Judah 
 to  Jair  are  only  five,  which  is  accounted  for  by 
 Hezron  having  married  the  daughter  of  Machir 
 when  he  was  60  years  old ;  but  again,  from  Judah 
 to  Caleb  are  also  six  generations  ^.  Now  from  the 
 birth  of  Judah  to  the  Exodus,  in  round  numbers, 
 was  280  years,  (supposing  Judah  to  have  been  65 
 when  Jacob  went  down  to  Egypt,  215  +  65  =  280), 
 
 '  In  the  reign  of  David's  grandson  Rehoboam,  we  have  notice 
 of  a  work  on  genealogies  by  Iddo  the  Seer.    2  Chron.  xii.  15. 
 ''  From  1  Chron.  ii.,  and  Josh.  rii.  From  Num.  xxvii.  1. 
 
 1  Judah 
 
 1  Joseph 
 
 2  Pharez 
 
 I 
 
 3  Hezron 
 
 2  Zerah     2  Manasseh 
 
 I  I 
 
 3  Zimri      3  Machir 
 
 4  Ram 
 
 4  Caleb 
 
 4  Segub  4  Zabdi     4  Gilead       . 
 
 I  I.I 
 
 5  Jair.  5  Carmi     5  Hepher 
 
 6  Nahshon.      6  Uri    6  Caleb  6  Achan.   6  Zelophehad 
 
 I  I 
 
 7  Bezaleel.  7  Daughters. 
 
 5  Amminadab  5  Hur 
 
 I  I 
 
IX.]       AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       209 
 
 which  gives  about  46  years  to  a  generation,  a 
 number  which  agrees  very  well  with  the  still  pro- 
 tracted length  of  human  life  in  those  days.  The 
 same  remark  applies,  with  more  or  less  exactness, 
 to  the  generations  from  David  to  the  captivity,  and 
 to  those  again  from  the  captivity  to  the  birth  of 
 Christ.  It  is  therefore  natural  to  expect  that  a 
 genealogy  so  perfect  in  its  other  parts  is  equally  so 
 in  this  part. 
 
 5.  But  the  most  conclusive  objection  of  all 
 against  the  notion  that  a  number  of  names  are 
 lost  between  Salmon  and  David  sufficient  to  fill  up 
 the  gap,  is  that  there  are  several  other  genealo- 
 gies in  Scripture  purporting  to  fill  up  the  inter- 
 val of  time  between  the  Exodus  and  David,  or 
 between  the  Patriarchs  and  David,  and  that  they 
 all  correspond  within  three  or  four  generations  with 
 that  of  David  :  and  that  this  excess  of  three  or  four 
 
 From  1  Chron.  vi.  1- 
 
 -4. 
 
 1  Levi 
 1 
 
 1 
 2  Kohath 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 3  Amram 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 3  Izhar 
 
 4  Aaron 
 1 
 
 1 
 4  Moses 
 
 4  Korah 
 
 1 
 
 5  Eleazar 
 
 1 
 
 6  Phinehas. 
 
 From  Korah  being  only  the  fourth  generation  from  Levi,  he 
 must  have'been  contemporary  with  Aaron  and  Moses,  whose  first 
 cousin  he  was. 
 
 14 
 
210 
 
 DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY 
 
 [cn. 
 
 generations  beyond  those  in  David's  genealogy  is 
 only  what  was  to  be  expected,  when  we  reflect  that 
 in  the  line  of  David  it  so  happens,  that  Judah  him- 
 self when  he  begat  Pharez,  Boaz  when  he  begat 
 Obed,  and  Jesse  when  he  begat  David,  were  all  far 
 advanced  in  years,  a  circumstance  which  of  course 
 diminishes,  by  at  least  three,  the  generations  be- 
 tween Judah  and  David.  The  following  genealo- 
 gies are  in  proof  of  the  above  assertion : 
 
 David's  Geneal. 
 1  Chr.  ii. 
 
 High  Priests. 
 1  Chr.  vi. 
 
 Henian,  1  Chron.  vi.  33,        Ahimoth. 
 
 1  Judah 
 1 
 
 1  Levi 
 1 
 
 1  Levi 
 1 
 
 2  Pharez 
 1 
 
 2  Kohath 
 1 
 
 2  Kohath 
 1 
 
 3  Hezron 
 1 
 
 3  Amram 
 1 
 
 3  Amminadab  or  Izhar 
 1 
 
 4  Ram 
 
 1 
 
 4  Aaron 
 
 1 
 
 4  Korah 
 1 
 
 5  Amminadab   5  Eleazar 
 1                          t 
 
 5  Assir 
 1 
 
 1 
 6  Nalishon 
 
 6  Phinehas 
 
 7  Abishua 
 
 1 
 
 6  Elkanah 
 
 1 
 
 7  Salmon 
 1 
 
 7  Zophai(orZuph)  7  Ebiasaph 
 
 8  Boaz 
 1 
 
 8  Bukki 
 1 
 
 1                                  1 
 
 8  Nahath(orToah)8  Assir 
 1                                1 
 
 9  Obed 
 1 
 
 9  Uzzi 
 
 1 
 
 9  EHab  (or  Eliel)     9  Tahath 
 1                                 1 
 
 10  Jesse 
 I 
 
 10  Zerahiah 
 1 
 
 1                                 1 
 10  Jeroham           10  Uriel 
 1                                  1 
 
 11  David. 
 
 11  Meraioth 
 1 
 
 11  Elkanah            11  Uzziah 
 1                                  1 
 
 1 
 
 12  Amariah 
 
 1 
 
 12  Samuel              12  Shaul 
 1                                  1 
 
 13  Ahitub 
 [ 
 
 13  Joel                  13  Elkanah 
 1                                 1 
 
 14  Zadok. 
 
 1                                 1 
 14  Heman.            14  Amasai 
 
 15  Ahimoth. 
 
IX.] 
 
 AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES. 
 
 211 
 
 Geneal.  of  Asaph,  Geneal.  of  Ethan, 
 
 1  Chron.  vi.  39.  1  Chron.  \i.  44. 
 
 1  Levi  1  Levi 
 
 I  I      . 
 
 2  Gersliom  2  Merari 
 
 I  I 
 
 3  Libni  (omitted  in  ver.  4.S)  3  Mushi 
 
 I  I 
 
 4  Jahath  4  Mahli 
 
 5  Shimei^  5  Shamer 
 (.5)     6  Zimmali                                         6  Bani 
 
 (6)  7  Ethan  7  Amzi 
 
 I  I 
 
 (7)  8  Adaiah  8  Hilkiah 
 
 I  I     . 
 
 (8)  9  Zerah  9  Amaziali 
 
 I  I 
 
 (9)  10  Ethni  10  Hashabiah 
 
 I  I 
 
 (10)  11  Malchiah  11  Malluch 
 
 I  I 
 
 (11)  12  Baaseiah  12  Abdi 
 
 i  I 
 
 (12)  13  Michael  13  Kishi 
 
 I  I 
 
 (13)  14  Shimea  14  Ethan. 
 
 (14)  15  Berachiah 
 
 I 
 
 (15)  16  Asaph. 
 
 Again,  if  we  take  the  other  line  of  the  High 
 Priests,  as  far  back  as  it  goes,  namely  to  Eli,  and 
 complete  the  chain  from  Eli  to  Ithamar  by  links 
 taken  out  of  the  chain  of  Samuel's  genealogy,  con- 
 sidering Samuel's  grandfather  as  Eli's  contemporary, 
 
 ^  Shiraei  seems  to  be  inserted  here  by  mistake,  probably  to 
 make  good  the  number  15,  when  the  scribe  found  he  had  left  out 
 Libni.  For  in  ver.  20  (E.  V.),  we  find,  Zimmah  the  son  of  Ja- 
 hath. But  in  ver.  30,  Shimei  the  son  of  Libni  the  son  of  Mahli, 
 the  son  of  Merari.     So  that  the  true  number  is  15. 
 
 14—3 
 
212 
 
 DISCORDxiNCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY 
 
 [CII. 
 
 and  Ithamar  as  contemporary  with  Korali's   son, 
 we  shall  have  the  following  result : 
 
 1  Levi 
 
 I 
 
 2  Kohath 
 
 I 
 
 3  Am  ram 
 
 I 
 
 4  Aaron 
 
 5  Ithamar 
 
 6     
 
 7    
 
 8    
 
 9    
 
 5  Assir  son  of  Korah 
 
 I 
 
 6  Elkanah 
 
 I 
 
 7  Zuph 
 I 
 
 8  Toah  or  Nahath 
 
 I 
 
 9  Eliel  or  Eliab  or  EHhu 
 
 I 
 10  Jeroliam,  Samuel's  grandfather 
 
 Elkanah 
 
 I 
 Samuel 
 
 10  Eli 
 
 11  Phinehas 
 
 I 
 
 12  Ahitub 
 
 !  ..  I 
 
 13  Ahimelech  or  Ahiiah        Joel 
 
 I  I 
 
 14  Abiathar.  Heman. 
 
 The  genealogy  of  Saul  is  scarcely  complete 
 enough  to  enable  us  to  give  it  with  much  confi- 
 dence. But  a  near  approximation  to  it  may  pro- 
 bably be  obtained  by  putting  together  the  different 
 fragments  in  1  Chron.  vii.,  ix.,  and  1  Sam.  ix.,  with 
 one  additional  name  from  1  Sam.  x.  21. 
 
 In  1  Chron.  ix.  35 — 39,  we  have,  Jehiel,  Ner, 
 Kish,  Saul,  Jonathan. 
 
 In  1  Chron.  vii.  6 — 8,  Benjamin,  Becher,  Abiah. 
 
 In  1  Sam.  ix.  1,  we  read,  'Kish,  the  son  of 
 Abiel,  the  son  of  Zeror,  the  son  of  Bechorath,  the 
 
IX.]        AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       213 
 
 son  of  Aphiah,  a  Benjamite,'  or  son  of  Benjamin. 
 And  in  1  Sam.  x.  21,  we  find  that  Saul  belonged 
 to  the  family  of  Matri,  which  implies  that  one  of 
 his  ancestors  was  named  Meter,  or  Matri ^,  unless 
 the  strange  name  ^liOtt  is  a  scribe's  error  for  ^*1^i, 
 '  a  Bichrite,'  as  in  Numb.  xxvi.  35. 
 
 Supposing  then  Becher,  1^3,  of  1  Chron.  vii.  6 
 and  Gen.  xlvi.  21  to  be  the  same  as  nii^S,  Becho- 
 rath,  of  1  Sam.  ix ;  and  Abiah,  n*3X,  of  1  Chron. 
 vii.  8,  the  son  of  Becher,  to  be  the  same  as  n^35< , 
 Aphiah,  of  1  Sam.  ix.  1,  and  Aphiah  to  be  accident- 
 ally transposed  with  Bechorath;  supposing  also 
 Abiel,  /5^i;'*?^?,  of  1  Sam.  ix.  1  to  be  the  same  as 
 7X1J^^  (Cethib),  as  a  comparison  of  1  Sam.  xiv.  51, 
 with  1  Chron.  ix.  35  proves  it  to  be,  suppositions 
 borne  out  by  similar  variations  in  other  names,  we 
 shall  have  the  following  genealogy : 
 
 (1)  Benjamin. 
 
 (6)  Ner. 
 
 (2)  Becher  or  Bechorath. 
 
 (7)  Kish. 
 
 (3)  Ahiah  or  Aphiah. 
 
 (8)  Saul. 
 
 (4)  Zeror. 
 
 (9)  Jonathan, 
 
 (5)  Abiel  or  Jehiel. 
 
 If  Meter  is  a  real  name,  he  would  make  a  tenth, 
 and  if  Bechorath  is  a  different  person  from  Becher, 
 and  his  grandson,  as  according  to  the  present  text 
 he  must  be,  then  Jonathan  would  be  the  eleventh 
 from  Benjamin,  Jacob's  youngest  son,  'the  son  of 
 
 1  There  is  a  confirmation  of  Matri,  in  the  Hatred,  inJDD  of 
 1  Chron.  i.  50.  This  is  the  more  remarkable  from  the  occurrence 
 in  the  same  line  of  Shaul  (ver.  48),  Baal-hanan  (ver.  50),  com- 
 pared with  Baal,  Eshbaal,  Meribbaal,  1  Chron.  ix.  30 — 34,  and 
 Bela  (ver.  43)  compared  with  1  Chron.  vii.  0.     See  above,  p.  156. 
 
214  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. . 
 
 his  old  age,'  to  apply  to  him  the  expression  used 
 of  his  elder  brother  Joseph,  which  is  exactly  the 
 same  number  of  generations  as  in  David's  line. 
 On  this  latter  supposition,  Jonathan's  genealogy 
 would  stand  thus : 
 
 (1)  Benjamin.  (7)  Abiel  or  Jehiel. 
 
 (2)  Becher.  (8)  Ner. 
 
 .  (3)  Abiah  or  Apliiali.  (9)  Kish. 
 
 (4)  Bechorath.  (10)  Saul. 
 
 (5)  Meter.  (11)  Jonathan. 
 
 (6)  Zeror. 
 
 where  the  place  of  Meter  is  of  course  quite  un- 
 certain. 
 
 Here  then  are  seven  genealogies,  each  of  which 
 begins  with  one  of  the  twelve  patriarchs,  and  ends 
 with  a  contemporary  of  David,  and  the  result  is 
 that  four  of  them  contain  fourteen  generations,  and 
 two  fifteen,  and  one  eleven,  to  correspond  with  the 
 eleven  in  David's  line.  And,  as  we  have  seen,  that 
 from  Obed  and  David  being  both  born  in  the  old 
 age  of  their  father,  as  well  as  Pharez  in  the  old 
 age  of  Judah,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  David's 
 genealogy  would  exhibit  full  three  generations 
 fewer  than  others,  it  is  evident  that  there  is  suffi- 
 cient agreement  between  these  genealogies  to  con- 
 vince us  that  we  cannot  have  recourse  to  the  idea 
 of  a  deficiency  in  David's  genealogy,  in  order  to 
 reconcile  the  great  discordance  of  the  genealogy 
 with  the  chronology  ^ 
 
 *  With  regard  to  the  genealof^y  of  Heman  and  Ahimoth 
 above  given  from  1  Chron.  vi.,   it  must  be  observed  that  the 
 
IX.]       AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.        215 
 
 We  are  necessarily  led,  therefore,  to  consider 
 whether  the  chronology  may  not  be  at  fault,  and 
 
 actual  text  is  exceedingly  confused  and  corrupted,  but  that  the 
 correction  of  it  is  so  simple  that  it  is  oifered  with  the  utmost 
 reliance  on  its  soundness.  The  facts  are  these.  The  genealogy 
 of  Ahiraoth  proceeds  quite  regularly  down  to  Shaul,  from  v.  22 
 to  V.  24.  There  is  a  great  disturbance  in  v.  25 ;  still  the  three 
 names  Elkanah,  Amasai,  and  Ahimoth,  are  preserved  in  it,  though 
 the  text  is,  so  to  speak,  in  ruins.  It  ought  to  be,  '  Elkanah  his 
 son,  Amasai  his  son,  Ahimoth  his  son.'  And  that  it  ought,  is  not 
 a  mere  conjecture,  but  is  proved  by  vv.  35, 36  of  this  very  chapter, 
 where  the  same  genealogy  is  repeated  in  an  inverse  order,  and 
 where  we  read,  '  the  son  of  IMahath,  the  son  of  Amasai,  the  son 
 of  Elkanah;'  where  Mahath  is  the  same  person  as  Ahimoth 
 (perhaps  inserted  by  mistake  for  Ahimoth,  from  the  circumstance 
 of  there  being  a  Mahath  son  of  Amasai  a  Kohathite,  in  the  days 
 of  Hezekiah,  2  Chron.  xxix.  1 2).  But  the  corruption  does  not 
 end  here ;  v.  26  is  confused,  v.  27  omits  *  Samuel  his  son,'  and 
 V.  28  (13  Heb.)  has  the  singular  but  palpable  error  which  has 
 been  so  often  exposed,  e.  g.  by  Joseph  Mede,  Calmet,  Kennicott, 
 and  the  Rev.  J.  Jebb,  Lit.  Transl.  of  Psalms,  p.  214,  viz.  of 
 leaving  out  the  name  of  Joel,  Samuel's  eldest  son,  and  turning 
 the  word  •>j;^i  vashni,  which  means,  '  and  the  second,'  as  e.  g. 
 1  Chron.  ii.  13,  into  a  proper  name,  Yashni,  and  prefixing  a  ^  to 
 the  following  n^Hi^  Abiah.      The  right  rendering  of  v.  28  is, 
 
 T  *  -: 
 
 'And  the  sons  of  Samuel,  Joel  his  first-born,  and  Abiah  the 
 second'  (or,  his  second),  according  to  1  Sam.  viii.  2.  From  all 
 which  it  results  that  the  restoration  of  the  passage  before  us  is 
 as  follows:  'And  the  sons  of  Elkanah,  Zophai  his  son,  Nahath 
 his  son,  Eliab  his  son,  Jeroham  his  son,  Elkanah  his  son,  Samuel 
 his  son.  And  the  sons  of  Samuel,  the  first-born  Joel,  and  the 
 second  Abiah.'  But  who  is  the  Elkanah  at  the  head  of  this  list? 
 (v.  26.)  TVe  might  have  guessed,  but  there  is  no  need  to  do  so, 
 as  we  are  told  that  he  is  the  father  of  Zophai,  or  Zuph  (v.  35, 
 1  Sam,  i.  1) ;  from  whom  Ramathaim-Zophim  took  its  name,  and 
 who  was  therefore  most  likely  the  first  settler  there,  and  consequent- 
 ly of  an  age  to  be  the  grandson  of  Korah ;  the  same  therefore  wlio 
 in  V.  23  appears  as  the  son  of  Assir;  and  it  appears  that  this 
 Elkanah  had  two  sons,  Ebiasaph  and  Zophai.     From  the  former 
 
216  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [ciI. 
 
 whether  a  much  shorter  period  than  400,  500,  or 
 600  years  did  not  elapse  between  Joshua  and  David. 
 
 descended  Ahimotli,  from  the  latter  Samuel  and  Heman.  And 
 the  genealogist  having  disposed  of  his  descendants  through  Ebi- 
 asaph  in  vv.  23 — 25,  returns  to  him  in  v.  26,  and  traces  his  line 
 through  Zophai  or  Zuph  down  to  the  sons  of  Samuel.  But  how 
 does  this  agree  with  vv.  33 — 38  ?  where,  between  Elkanah  and 
 Assir,  we  have  no  fewer  than  seven  generations  interposed.  Not 
 at  all,  for  that  passage  is  undoubtedly  corrupt,  and  quite  incon- 
 sistent with  vv.  22,  23,  where  we  are  told  that  Elkanah  is  the 
 son  of  Assir,  whereas  here  no  Elkanah  occurs  for  five  generations 
 after  Assir.  Obviously  too,  the  Elkanah  of  v.  26  cannot  be  the 
 Elkanah  of  v.  25,  for  the  Elkanah  of  v.  25  is  the  father  of 
 Amasai,  and  the  Elkanah  of  v.  26  is  the  father  of  Zophai :  but 
 according  to  vv.  35,  36  the  father  of  Amasai  is  a  different  person 
 from  the  father  of  Zuph  or  Zophai,  viz.  his  great  grandfather.  So 
 that  even  supposing  this  latter  passage  not  to  be  corrupt,  still 
 the  Elkanah  of  v.  26  can  be  no  other  than  the  son  of  Assir  the 
 only  other  Elkanah  previously  mentioned.  But  the  correction  is 
 very  obvious  and  simple.  The  fact  is,  that  the  two  collateral 
 lines  springing  from  Elkanah  the  son  of  Assir  have  got  mixed, 
 and  thrown  into  one  long  line ;  a  confusion  which  the  recurrence 
 of  the  names  Elkanah  and  Assir  has  greatly  facilitated.  Ebiasaph 
 has  also  been  interpolated  in  v.  37  between  Korah  and  Assir, 
 from  mistaking  this  Assir  for  his  great  grandson  in  the  line  of 
 Ahimoth,  whose  father's  name  was  Ebiasaph ;  and  fancying  that 
 Elkanah  the  father  of  Zuph  was  a  son  of  Mahath,  because  men- 
 tioned next  after  Mahath  (or  Ahimoth)  in  v.  28.  But  the  con- 
 fusion and  the  remedy  will  appear  more  clearly  by  setting  down 
 the  genealogy  as  it  now  stands,  only  printing  in  Italics  the  inter- 
 polated names,  and  placing  by  their  side  the  genealogy  to  which 
 they  really  belong. 
 
 1  Chron.  vi.  22—25.  1  Chron.  vi.  33—38.  1  Chron.  y\.  26—28. 
 
 1  Levi 
 
 2  Kohath  2  Kohath 
 
 I     .  I 
 
 3  Amminadab  3  Izhar  or  Amminddab 
 
 J  I 
 
 4  Korah  4  Korah 
 
IX.] 
 
 AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES. 
 
 217 
 
 The  foundation  of  the  various  chronological  schemes 
 for  this  period  of  Jewish  history  are  the  following 
 
 5  Assir 
 
 I 
 
 6  Elkanah,  1st 
 
 I 
 
 7  Ebiasaph 
 
 8  Assir,  2nd 
 
 I 
 
 9  Tahath 
 
 I 
 
 10  Uriel 
 
 I. 
 
 11  Uzziah 
 
 I 
 
 12  Shaul 
 
 I 
 
 13  Elkanah,  2nd 
 
 I 
 
 14  Amasai 
 
 I 
 
 15  Ahimoth 
 
 Ehiasaph 
 5  Assir,  1st 
 
 Tahath 
 Zephamah 
 
 Azariah 
 
 I 
 Joel 
 
 I 
 Elkanah 
 
 I 
 Ainasai 
 
 I 
 Mahath 
 
 I 
 
 6  Elkanah,  1st 
 
 7  ZuDh 
 
 8  Toah 
 
 I 
 
 9  Ellel 
 
 I 
 
 10  Jeroham 
 
 I 
 
 11  Elkanah 
 
 I 
 
 12  Shcmuel 
 
 I 
 
 13  Joel 
 
 6  Elkanah,  1st 
 
 I 
 
 7  Zophai 
 
 I 
 
 8  Nahath 
 
 9  Eliab 
 
 I 
 
 10  Jeroham 
 
 I 
 
 11  Elkanah 
 
 I 
 
 12  Samuel 
 
 I 
 
 13  his  first-born. 
 
 14  Hem  an. 
 Now  I  submit  to  my  readers,  that  it  is  beyond  a  doubt  that 
 
218  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 data.    First  the  different  specifications  of  the  times 
 of  war  and  peace,  of  foreign  dominion  and  domestic 
 
 the  seven  names  printed  in  Italics  have  been  inserted  from  the 
 copyist  mistaking  the  Assir  the  son  of  Korah,  who  precedes 
 them,  for  Assir  the  son  of  Ebiasaph ;  a  mistake  M^iich  also  led 
 to  the  interpolation  of  Ebiasai^h.  But  if  these  name  are  struck 
 out,  \ve  have  the  line  of  Heman  with  one  or  two  slight  variations 
 of  spelling,  exactly  as  in  vv.  26 — 28.  The  seven  names  also 
 correspond,  with  similar  variations,  to  the  seven  names  of  the 
 collateral  line  of  Mahath  as  contained  in  vv.  23 — 25.  This  cor- 
 rection restores  perfect  harmony  to  the  two  parts  of  this  chapter, 
 and  shews  us  that  the  number  of  generations  in  these  Levitical 
 families  corresponded  with  the  number  in  the  family  of  the  High 
 Priest,  instead  of  being  half  as  long  again.  Before  concluding 
 this  long  note,  I  must  remind  the  reader  that  this  emendation  is 
 not  an  arbitrary  proceeding  merely  to  favour  our  hypothesis,  but 
 that  there  is  an  irreconcilable  contradiction  in  the  difl'erent  parts 
 of  the  chapter  as  it  now  stands.  The  sequence  Amminadab, 
 Korah,  Assir,  Elkanah,  Ebiasaph,  Assir,  Tahath  (22 — 26),  does 
 not  accord  wnth  the  sequence  Izhar,  Korah,  Ebiasaph,  Assir, 
 Tahath  (38—37).  The  Elkanah  father  of  Zophai  in  v.  26  must, 
 as  we  have  seen,  be  the  son  of  Assir  (23,  22),  but  the  father  of 
 Zophai  or  Zuph  in  v.  35,  is  the  son  of  Mahath,  and  the  corrup- 
 tion of  V.  25  is  corrected  by  v.  35.  The  corruption  of  v.  38  is 
 also  manifest.  Whether  or  no  we  have  got  to  the  bottom  of 
 these  corruptions  is  another  question.  The  verse  in  Exodus  vi. 
 24,  which  is  out  of  its  proper  place,  seems  to  have  been  added 
 at  some  later  time.  If  so,  perhaps  Assir,  Elkanah,  and  Abiasaph 
 were  not  Korah's  actual  sons,  but  heads  of  different  families 
 among  his  descendants.  If  they  were  his  sons,  and  so  bro- 
 thers, it  is  impossible  not  to  suspect  some  corruption,  when 
 we  find  the  same  three  names  1  Chron.  vi.  22,  23  appearing 
 as  father,  son,  and  grandson.  The  identity  of  some  of  the 
 names  with  those  of  Kohathites  in  Hezekiah's  reign  is  also  very 
 singular. 
 
 P.  S.  I  had  not  seen  Dr  Hales'  remarks  on  the  genealogy  of 
 Christ,  or  his  comparison  of  the  genealogies  of  Asaph,  Ethan, 
 Heman,  and  Zadoc  with  that  of  David,  when  this  note  and  the 
 text  were  written.    I  am  glad  to  see  that  he  too  reduces  Heman's 
 
IX.]       AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.        219 
 
 government,  scattered  through  the  books  of  Joshua, 
 Judges,  and  Samuel. 
 
 Secondly,  three  specific  dates  given,  the  one  in 
 
 genealogy  to  fifteen  generations,  by  retrenching  '  some  manifest 
 interpolations/  though  he  does  not  include  Ebiasaph  amongst 
 them.  But  it  appears  to  me  astonishing,  that  a  writer  who  sees 
 the  importance  of  having  the  number  of  generations  in  proportion 
 to  the  period  of  time,  and  who  has  laid  down  (Vol.  i.  p.  80) 
 33  years  as  the  mean  length  of  a  generation,  should  be  satisfied 
 with  a  result  which  for  a  particular  500  years,  gives  an  average 
 of  02  years  (Vol.  iir.  p.  45)  to  a  generation,  and  that  not  in 
 one  case  where  the  generations  might  happen  to  be  particularly 
 long,  but  in  every  case  he  has  the  opportunity  of  examining.  In 
 point  of  fact,  too,  15  is  not  the  number  of  generations  in  most 
 cases.  But,  as  we  have  seen,  out  of  8  genealogies  4  contain  14, 
 2  contain  15,  and  2  only  11,  which  makes  13^^  the  average 
 number  of  generations,  or  adding  3  to  Abraham  inclusive,  16|, 
 and  taking  Dr  Hales'  period  of  1105  years,  from  the  birth  of 
 Abraham  to  the  birth  of  Solomon,  makes  an  average  of  no  less 
 than  67  years  to  a  generation. 
 
 I  cannot  resist  adding,  as  an  illustration  of  what  was  said 
 above,  of  the  mixing  of  two  collateral  lines,  the  following  extract 
 from  an  able  paper  read  before  the  Philological  Society  by  the 
 Rev.  J.  W.  Blakesley,  and  published  in  Vol.  vi.  No.  128,  of 
 their  Transactions,  which  I  have  just  met  with.  '  The  pedigree 
 Xerxes  gives  of  himself  runs  as  follows:  (1)  Achajmenes,  (2) 
 Teispes,  (3)  Cambyses,  (4)  Cyrus,  (5)  Teispes,  (6)  Ariaramnes, 
 (7)  Arsames,  (8)  Hystaspes,  (9)  Darius,  (10)  Xerxes,  which  it 
 will  be  seen  becomes  identical  with  tlie  authentic  genealogy  of 
 the  Behistun  inscription,  if  the  second,  third,  and  fourth  terms 
 of  the  series  be  taken  away. . . .  But  what  if  Herodotus . . .  had  put 
 two  separate  genealogies  (belonging  to  the  two  branches  of  the 
 same  family)  one  after  another,  instead  of  side  hy  side  ?  What 
 if  the  pedigree  of  Cyrus  ran  (1)  Achemenes,  (2)  Teispes,  (3) 
 Cambyses,  (4)  Cyrus,  and  that  of  Darius  in  exact  accordance 
 with  the  Behistun  inscription^  starting  from  the  common  ances- 
 tor, (1)  Teispes,  (2)  Ariaramnes,  (3)  Arsames,  (4)  Hystaspes, 
 (5)  Darius.'     See  note  D,  at  the  end  of  this  Volume. 
 
220  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [cil. 
 
 Judg.  xi.  26,  the  other  1  Kings  vi.  1,  and  the  third 
 by  St  Paul  in  Acts  xiii.  20. 
 
 We  must  give  a  brief  consideration  to  each  of 
 these  sources  of  chronology,  with  a  view  of  seeing 
 whether  they  are  decisive  of  the  point  at  issue ;  and 
 if  they  are  not,  we  will  then  advert  to  various 
 internal  evidences  in  the  books  of  Judges  and 
 Samuel,  which  seem  to  prove  that  the  interval  in 
 question  is  much  shorter  than  is  usually  sup- 
 posed. 
 
 1 .  The  periods  of  years  specified  in  the  books 
 of  Judges  and  Samuel  are  as  follows.  The  list  is 
 borrowed  from  Rosenmiiller's  prooemium  to  the 
 commentary  on  Judges.  The  servitude  under 
 Chushan-Rishathaim,  8  years,  (Judg.iii.8).  The  rest 
 under  Othniel,  40  years,  (iii.  11).  The  servitude  un- 
 der Eglon,  18  years,  (iii.  14).  The  rest  under  Ehud, 
 80  years,  (iii.  30),  in  which  is  included  the  judge- 
 ship of  Shamgar,  ver.  31.  The  servitude  under 
 Jabin,  20  years,  (iv.  3).  The  rest  under  Barak, 
 40  years,  (v.  31).  The  servitude  under  Midian, 
 7  years,  (vi.  1).  The  rest  under  Gideon,  40  years, 
 (viii.  28).  Judgeship  of  Abimelech,  3  years,  (ix. 
 22).  Of  Tola,  23  years,  (x.  2).  Of  Jair,  22  years, 
 (x.  3).  The  servitude  under  Ammon,  18  years, 
 (x.  8).  Judgeship  of  Jephthah,  6  years,  (xii.  7).  Of 
 Ibzan,  7  years,  (xii.  9).  Of  Elon,  10  years,  (xii.  11). 
 Of  Abdon,  8  years,  (xii.  14),  Servitude  under  the 
 Philistines,  40  years,  (xiii.  1).  Judgeship  of  Sam- 
 son, 20  years,  (xv.  20,  xvi.  31),  making  a  total  of 
 410  vears,  which  added  to  the  40  years  of  Eli's 
 
IX.]       AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.        221 
 
 judgeship,  made  up  the  450  years  which  St  Paul 
 assigns  to  the  Judges  'until  Samuel  the  prophet,' 
 as  we  shall  presently  see.  But  it  is  evident  at  first 
 sight,  that  the  addition  of  these  several  numbers  of 
 years,  cannot  give  us  an  accurate  account  of  the 
 whole  time,  because  there  is  no  mention  of  months, 
 because  the  periods  are  given  in  round  numbers, 
 as  80,  40,  20,  10 ;  and  because  many  of  the  periods 
 are,  or  may  be,  synchronical  or  collateral,  not  suc- 
 cessive, as  for  instance,  the  judgeship  of  Samson 
 seems  to  have  fallen  within  the  40  years  of  Philis- 
 tine oppression;  and  part  of  the  land  may  often 
 have  been  at  rest,  while  others  were  oppressed. 
 And  the  dominion  of  the  different  judges  was 
 evidently  limited  to  certain  tribes,  and  did  not 
 extend  over  all  Israel. 
 
 But  again,  there  are  several  circumstances  the 
 due  consideration  of  which  must  tend  yet  further 
 to  contract  the  calculation  of  the  number  of  years 
 so  arrived  at.  As  first,  with  regard  to  the  judgeship 
 of  Othniel.  It  appears  at  first  sight  as  if  the 
 servitude  under  Chushan-Rishathaim  of  8  years, 
 and  the  subsequent  rest  of  40  years  under  Othniel, 
 were  subsequent  to  the  death  of  Joshua,  and  of 
 the  elders  that  outlived  him.  And  if  so,  we  cannot 
 possibly  put  Othniel's  death  at  less  than  60  years 
 after  the  death  of  Joshua,  allowing  12  years  for  the 
 death  of  'that  generation^'  (Judg.  ii.  10),  and  the 
 
 *  Africanus  allows  thirty  years  for  the  elders  after  Joshua. 
 Rel.  Sacr.  Vol.  ii.  p.  166. 
 
222  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 subsequent  apostasy  of  Israel  (11 — 18),  and  48 
 years  for  the  servitude  and  the  rest.  But  when  we 
 recollect  that  Othniel  was  Caleb's  brother,  that 
 Caleb  was  the  contemporary  of  Joshua,  and  that 
 Joshua  was  privileged  to  live  to  the  great  age  of 
 110  years  (Josh.  xxiv.  29),  it  seems  scarcely  cre- 
 dible that  Othniel  should  have  outlived  Joshua 
 60  or  even  30  years.  Therefore  we  must  either 
 suppose  that  Othniers  judgeship  fell  in  whole  or  in 
 part  within  the  life-time  of  Joshua,  or  that  instead 
 of  40  years  we  should  read  4,  or  14,  or  20  '.  Ken- 
 nicott  has  fully  shewn  how  frequent  in  the  Maso- 
 retic  text  are  the  mistakes  in  numerals,  caused  by 
 the  custom  of  expressing  numerals  by  letters,  some 
 of  which,  from  their  close  resemblance,  are  easily 
 mistaken  one  for  the  other-.  To  this  cause  he 
 assigns  the  incredible  number  of  50,070  Bethshem- 
 ites  said  to  have  been  smitten  for  looking  into  the 
 ark  (1  Sam.  vi.  19),  {Discourse  on  1  Sam.  vi.  19 ; 
 
 '  For  the  confusion  between  forty  and  twenty,  see  below, 
 p.  223. 
 
 *  In  his  second  Dissertation,  p.  513^  Kennicott  adverts  to 
 another  method  of  expressing  numerals,  viz,  by  short  perpendi- 
 cular strokes  for  the  units,  another  mark  for  Jive,  and  then 
 similar  perpendicular  strokes  for  the  hundreds.  He  thinks  tliat 
 the  mistakes  in  the  numerals  may  have  arisen,  many  from  this 
 method  of  notation,  some  from  the  words  written  at  length,  and 
 some  as  above  mentioned  from  the  letters  used  as  numerals. 
 Great  additional  light  has  been  thrown  upon  this  subject  by  the 
 very  curious  and  interesting  discovery  by  Mr  Layard  of  some 
 bowls  among  the  ruins  of  Babylon,  wuth  inscriptions  written  in 
 the  ancient  Hebrew  character.  In  these  the  same  character 
 represents  -),  T,  and  often  V;  I?  TO  cannot  be  distinguished 
 from  each  other,  nor  can  n?  H'  ^i^^  D- 
 
IX.]       AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.        223 
 
 also  Dissert,  p.  532,  and  Hist,  of  Heb.  Text,  208, 
 357)  and  reduces  it  to  70.  Hence  also  he  reduces 
 the  40,000  stalls  for  Solomon's  horses,  1  King's 
 iv.  26,  to  4000,  as  in  2  Chron.  ix.  25,  and  the 
 400,000, 500,000  and  800,000  men  of  2  Chron.  xiii. 
 3,  17,  to  40,000,  50,000,  and  80,000  respectively, 
 as  Josephus  originally  read  them  {Dissert,  p.  532), 
 and  corrects  the  40  years  (2  Sam.  xv.  7),  to  what 
 is  manifestly  the  right  number,  4  years,  {Hist,  of 
 Heh.  Text,  p.  357).  Hence  also  he  reconciles  the 
 discordance  between  2  Kings  xxiv.  8,  and  2  Chron. 
 xxxvi.  9,  in  the  former  of  which  places  Jehoiachin 
 is  said  to  have  been  18  years  old  at  his  accession, 
 in  the  latter  8 ;  and  many  other  similar  discord- 
 ances. In  either  case,  there  would  be  a  deduction 
 from  the  sum  of  the  years  made  up  by  the  addition 
 of  the  judgeships  including  Joshua's.  In  like  manner 
 the  80  years'  rest  after  Ehud's  deliverance,  may 
 possibly  turn  out  to  be  only  20  years,  ^  =  20  having 
 been  mistaken  for  ^  =  80  :  or  eighteen,  this  number 
 having  perhaps  been  written  ^  H^bSi^.  In  other  in- 
 stances 40  may  be  an  error  for  20  \  '2  being 
 easily  mistaken  for  ^,  as  in  the  case  of  Ahaziah, 
 2  Chron.  xxii.  2,  who  is  there  said  to  have  been 
 42  years  old ;  whereas  it  appears  from  2  Kings 
 viii.  26,  as  well  as  from  the  necessity  of  the  case, 
 (for  otherwise,  as  Kennicott  says,  he  must  have 
 been  born  before  his  own  father),  that  he  was  only 
 
 *  There  is  a  very  frequent  variation  in  the  MSS.  between  the 
 numbers  20  and  40.  This  and  similar  errors  of  tens  may  arise 
 from  the  method  of  notation  adverted  to  in  the  note  to  p.  222. 
 
224  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [cil. 
 
 22  years  old  at  his  accession,  {Hist,  of  Heb.  Text., 
 p.  356).  And  how  much  more  probable  shorter 
 durations  of  rest  under  any  judge,  or  captivity 
 under  any  particular  people,  must  be  deemed  in 
 such  unsettled  times,  than  such  long  periods  as  40 
 and  80  years,  it  is  almost  needless  to  observe. 
 I  may  take  this  opportunity  of  adding  the  remark, 
 which  I  do  not  think  any  one  who  has  attended 
 to  the  subject  will  be  disposed  to  controvert,  that 
 except  in  cases  where  particular  numbers  are  pro- 
 tected from  corruption  by  something  in  the  con- 
 text, they  are  of  far  less  value  in  determining  the 
 true  chronology,  than  many  less  definite  but  more 
 trustworthy  indications  of  time.  It  is  so  easy  to 
 alter  a  number,  often  expressed  by  a  single  letter 
 or  a  single  stroke,  either  from  carelessness,  or  to 
 suit  the  views  and  opinions  of  later  times,  that  such 
 figures,  when  unsupported  by  internal  evidence, 
 can  rarely  be  relied  upon,  much  less  when  all  in- 
 ternal evidence  is  in  flat  contradiction  to  them. 
 And,  therefore,  when  we  consider  this  uncertainty 
 in  all  the  numbers  of  years  respectively  assigned 
 to  the  individual  judges,  and  the  alternate  periods 
 of  war  and  rest,  the  improbability  of  many  of  them 
 considered  with  reference  to  the  then  state  of  the 
 Israelitish  nation,  and  the  difficulty  of  determining 
 which  of  the  periods  synchronize,  and  which  follow 
 in  succession,  it  must,  I  think,  be  admitted  that 
 the  specifications  of  the  number  of  years  of  rest  or 
 of  servitude  is  a  very  unsafe  guide  to  the  true 
 chronology  of  the  period,  and  is  of  little  weight 
 
IX.]       AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       225 
 
 against  contradictory  evidence ;  for  instance,  the 
 evidence  of  the  genealogies.  And  yet,  it  is  most 
 important  to  observe,  the  summing  up  of  these 
 different  items  is  really  the  only  ground  upon  which 
 ancient  writers,  such  as  Theophilus,  Africanus,  and 
 with  certain  modifications,  Eusebius,  among  Chris- 
 tians, and  Josephus  and  the  whole  school  of  Jewish 
 chronologists,  (whose  calculation  St  Paul  seems  to 
 have  adopted),  framed  their  chronological  system. 
 So  that  if  we  can  shew  this  foundation  to  be  un- 
 sound, we  shall  have  not  the  slightest  scruple  in 
 rejecting  all  that  other  writers  have  built  upon  it. 
 
 We  have  seen  above  that  the  addition  of  the 
 various  terms  of  years  given  in  the  book  of  Judges, 
 added  to  the  40  years  of  Eli's  judgeship  (1  Sam. 
 iv.  18),  make  450  years  from  the  commencement 
 of  the  servitude  under  Chushan-Rishathaim,  which 
 cannot  well  have  commenced  less  than  10  or  12 
 years  from  the  death  of  Joshua.  And  if  we  add 
 these  supposed  10  years,  and  also  27  years  of 
 Joshua's  life  from  the  death  of  Moses  till  his  own 
 death,  and  if,  moreover,  we  assume  30  years  of 
 Samuel's  judgeship  subsequent  to  Eli's  death,  to 
 have  elapsed  before  Saul  was  made  king  (see  1  Sara, 
 vii.  2  and  viii.),  and  add  the  10  years  of  Saul's 
 reign  which  a  comparison  of  2  Sam.  v.  4  with  Acts 
 xiii.  21  requires,  we  shall  have  the  whole  period, 
 from  the  entrance  into  the  promised  land  to  the 
 birth  of  David,  no  less  than  527  years.  And  if 
 we  further  add  the  40  years'  sojourn  in  the  wilder- 
 ness, and  the  30  last  years  of  Saul's  reign,  and  the 
 
 15 
 
226  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 40  years  of  David's  reign,  and  the  first  three  years 
 of  Solomon's  reign,  we  shall  have  the  sum  total  of 
 years  from  the  Exodus  to  the  fourth  of  Solomon 
 640  years.  But  in  1  Kings  vi.  1,  we  read  that  the 
 fourth  year  of  Solomon's  reign  was  the  480th  year 
 from  the  Exodus,  or,  according  to  the  Septuagint,  the 
 440th  year ;  a  calculation  absolutely  irreconcilable 
 with  that  which  is  based  upon  the  addition  of  the 
 several  numbers,  and  with  that  of  the  Jews  referred 
 to  by  St  Paul  in  the  xiiith  of  the  Acts.  So  that 
 even  if  we  were  disposed  to  reject  the  trustworthy 
 evidence  of  the  genealogies,  and  general  proba- 
 bility, and  pin  our  faith  upon  the  definite  numbers, 
 we  should  find  it  impossible  to  do  so,  because  those 
 numbers  do  not  agree  with  each  other.  Again, 
 therefore,  I  conclude  that  the  specified  periods  in 
 Judges  and  Samuel  are  no  safe  guide  to  the  true 
 chronology. 
 
 I  have  already  adverted  to  the  improbability  of 
 Othniel's  life  having  been  protracted  so  long  after 
 the  death  of  Joshua,  and  the  no  less  improbable 
 length  of  some  of  the  periods  of  80,  40,  and  20 
 years.  There  are  one  or  two  other  circumstances 
 in  the  books  of  Joshua  and  Judges  which  seem  also 
 to  indicate  that  considerable  confusion  has  been 
 permitted  to  creep  -into  the  order  of  the  sacred  his- 
 tory. For  first  we  are  distinctly  told  in  the  book 
 of  Joshua,  that  'Joshua  took  the  whole  land  ac- 
 cording to  all  that  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses ;  and 
 Joshua  gave  it  for  an  inheritance  unto  Israel  ac- 
 cording to  their  division  by  their  tribes.     And  the 
 
IX.]        AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       227 
 
 land  rested  from  war.'  (xi.  23.)  And  in  chapters 
 xiv.  XV.  xvi.  xvii.  xviii.  xix.  xx.  xxi.  we  have  a 
 particular  account  of  the  division  of  the  land  on  the 
 west  of  Jordan  among  the  nine  tribes  and  the  half 
 tribe  by  Joshua  and  Eleazar,  as  in  the  xiiith  chapter 
 is  contained  a  recapitulation  of  the  division  of  the 
 land  on  the  east  of  Jordan  by  Moses.  And  among 
 other  transactions  is  recorded  how  the  children  of 
 Judah  had  the  ^rst  lot,  and  how  in  particular  Caleb, 
 the  son  of  Jephunneh,  the  Kenezite,  had  his  por- 
 tion in  the  tribe  of  Judah  :  how  he  drave  out  the 
 Anakims :  how  Othniel  his  brother  took  Kirjath- 
 Sepher:  and  how  the  land  had  rest  from  war 
 (xiv.  15) :  and  in  ch.  xix.  1,  we  read  how  the  second 
 lot  came  forth  to  Simeon.  And  then  in  chapter 
 xxii.  we  read  of  the  return  of  the  two  tribes  and 
 the  half  tribe  to  their  own  inheritance  east  of  Jor- 
 dan, because  the  Lord  had  now  given  rest  to  their 
 brethren  (v.  4),  and  the  children  of  Israel  had  now 
 inherited  every  man  his  inheritance  (Num.  xxxii.  18): 
 and  further,  chapter  xxiii.  1,  speaks  of  a  long  pe- 
 riod of  rest  as  preceding  the  death  of  Joshua,  during 
 which,  as  appears  from  xxiv.  18,  the  tribes  were  in 
 possession  of  the  promised  land.  And  yet,  to  our 
 infinite  astonishment,  the  book  of  Judges  opens  by 
 telling  us  that,  'after  the  death  of  Joshua V  the 
 
 '  It  has  occurred  to  me  to  conjecture,  that  originally  the 
 sacred  writer  must  have  written  in  Judg.  i.  1,  'after  the  death  of 
 Moses ;'  and  that  the  hook  of  Judges  is  a  continuation  of  Deu- 
 teronomy, not  of  Joshua ;  containing  in  the  opening  chapters  a 
 brief  history  of  the  settlement  under  Joshua,  parallel  to  that 
 contained  in  the  book  of  Joshua.     Afterwards,  when  the  book  of 
 
 15—2 
 
228  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [_CH. 
 
 children  of  Israel  asked  the  Lord  who  should  go  up 
 first  against  the  Canaanites,  and  that  the  answer 
 was,  that  Judah  should  go  first,  and  Simeon  with 
 him,  and  that  accordingly  Judah  did  go,  and  that 
 they  slew  Sheshai,  Ahiman,  and  Talmai,  at  Kirjath- 
 Arba,  and  that  Caleb  had  Hebron,  and  that  Othniel 
 had  Kirjath-Sepher.  And  so  on  with  regard  to  the 
 other  tribes.  And  yet  in  ch.  ii.  6 — 9,  we  find  Jo- 
 shua still  alive. 
 
 Another  extraordinary  circumstance  is  that  in 
 Joshua  xi.  we  have  a  particular  account  of  Ja- 
 bin,  king  of  Hazor,  making  a  grand  gathering  of 
 the  kings  of  Madon,  of  Shimron,  of  Achshaph,  and 
 other  kings  in  the  plains  of  Chinneroth  and  else- 
 where— and  collecting  a  vast  army  with  horses  and 
 chariots  very  many  to  fight  against  Israel,  and  en- 
 camping at  the  waters  of  Merom,  in  the  tribe 
 namely  of  Naj)htali.  And  we  read  that  Joshua 
 came  upon  them  suddenly,  smote  them,  chased  them 
 unto  great  Zidon,  burnt  their  chariots  with  fire,  (a 
 circumstance  which  seems  to  have  given  the  name 
 to  Misrephoth-Maim  ^)  and  then  turning  back  to 
 
 Joshua  was  inserted  between  it  and  Deuteronomy,  and  so  it 
 came  after  the  account  of  Joshua's  death  in  Josh.  xxiv.  29,  some 
 scribe  altered  it  to  '  after  the  death  of  Joshua.'  AVhat  is  men- 
 tioned, Judg.  i.  1,  of  their  'asking  the  Lord,'  seems  to  have  taken 
 place  when  they  came  to  Joshua  to  Gilgal.  See  Josh.  xiv.  6  seqq. 
 ^  '  Burnings  by  the  water.'  Many  learned  explanations  of 
 this  name  have  been  attempted — salt-woi-lcs,  glass-manufactories, 
 warm  baths,  &c.;  the  one  here  proposed  seems  to  be  perfectly 
 simple,  and  in  exact  accordance  with  the  practice  of  the  Israel- 
 ites in  naming  places  after  any  great  victory  or  even  calamity. 
 Compare  Gilgal,  Ilormah,  Kibroth-hattaavah,  the  Valley  of 
 Berachah,  &c. 
 
IX.]  AND  CIIUONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.  229 
 
 Ilazor,  which  was  the  head  of  all  those  kingdoms, 
 burnt  it  with  fire,  smote  the  king  thereof  with  the 
 sword,  and  utterly  destroyed  all  that  breathed. 
 And  accordingly  in  the  list  that  follows  in  ch.  xii. 
 7,  sqq.  of  the  kings  whom  Joshua  destroyed,  and 
 whose  land  he  gave  for  a  possession  to  the  tribes  of 
 Israel,  we  find  the  king  of  Hazor,  and  his  allies  or 
 subject-kings,  the  king  of  Madon,  the  king  of  Shim- 
 ron,  the  king  of  Achsaph,  the  king  of  Taanach,  the 
 king  of  Megiddo,  and  the  king  of  Kedesh,  (i.  e.  Ke- 
 desh-Naphtali,)  the  king  of  nations  of  Gilgal,  or 
 Goim  of  Galilee,  and  several  others  from  the  same 
 neighbourhood. 
 
 But  in  the  ivth  chapter  of  Judges,  about  150 
 years  afterwards,  according  to  the  dates  given,  we 
 read  that  the  Lord  sold  the  Israelites  into  the  hand 
 of  Jabin,  the  king  of  Canaan,  who  reigned  in  Ha- 
 zor, the  captain  of  whose  host  dwelt  among  these 
 same  nations,  or  Goim :  we  have  the  same  extra- 
 ordinary number  of  chariots,  the  burning  of  which 
 was  sufficient  on  the  former  occasion  to  give  a  name 
 to  the  place,  we  have  the  multitude  of  his  army 
 and  of  his  chariots  (v.  7)  spoken  of  in  nearly  the 
 same  v/ords  as  in  Joshua  xi.  4 :  we  have  the  very 
 same  places  mentioned,  as,  besides  Hazor,  Kedesh, 
 Taanach,  and  Megiddo.  And,  which  is  very  remark- 
 able, though  we  have  no  mention  of  the  allied  kings 
 in  the  direct  narrative,  yet  in  Deborah's  song  we 
 have  a  distinct  allusion  to  them,  (v.  19) :  'The  kings 
 came  and  fought :  then  fought  the  kings  of  Canaan 
 in  Taanach  by  the  waters  of  Megiddo.'     Moreover,* 
 
230  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 the  attack  made  by  the  Israelites  in  both  cases  was 
 by  the  direct  command  of  God,  with  a  promise  of 
 victory ;  the  victory  in  each  case  was  decisive,  and 
 was  followed  by  a  long  period  of  rest.  Strange 
 coincidences  these  !  and  surely  sufficient  to  awaken 
 a  suspicion  that  the  surface  of  the  narrative  is  dis- 
 ordered. 
 
 Another  remarkable  circumstance  is,  that  the 
 dominion  of  the  Moabites  under  Eglon^  who  united 
 also  the  Ammonites  and  Amalekites  under  his  com- 
 mand, should  have  lasted  over  Israel  just  eighteen 
 years,  and  been  terminated  by  the  Benjamites  and 
 Ephraimites,  as  related  Judg.  iii.  14 — 30.  And 
 that  in  chap,  x.,  which  ought  to  be  carefully  com- 
 pared with  chap,  iii.,  we  should  read  again,  that  for 
 eighteen  years  the  children  of  Ammon  vexed  and 
 oppressed  the  children  of  Israel,  all  the  children  of 
 Israel  that  were  on  the  other  side  Jordan,  in  close 
 alliance  with  the  Moabites,  as  it  should  seem  from 
 Judg.  xi.  13,  and  one  might  almost  guess  actually 
 under  the  king  of  Moab,  from  ver.  24,  25 ;  and, 
 moreover,   that   upon   the    invasion    extending  to 
 
 '  It  is  curious  too,  that  vhy^  Eglon,  called  'OSoX\aV  in  the 
 Septuagint,  Josh,  x.  3,  &c.,  should  be  the  name  of  one  of  the 
 cities  whose  king  Joshua  destroyed  (x.  34),  and  also  the  name  of 
 the  king  of  Moab.  Also  that  in  the  same  chapter,  Debir  appears 
 as  the  name  of  the  king  of  Eglon  in  v.  3,  but  as  the  name  of  a 
 city  in  close  connexion  with  Eglon  in  vv.  34 — 39.  Also  tliat 
 the  destruction  of  Eglon  the  city,  in  ch.  x.,  is  followed  all  but 
 immediately  (only  the  destruction  of  Debir  intervening)  by  the 
 victory  over  Jabin  in  ch.  xi.,  just  as  the  destruction  of  Eglon 
 the  king  in  Judges  iii.  is  followed  in  ch.  iv.  by  Barak's  victory 
 over  Jabin.  ■ 
 
IX.]       AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       231 
 
 Benjamin  and  EpJiraim,  (ch.  x.  9),  the  Israelites 
 at  length  threw  off  the  yoke.  Another  point  of 
 coincidence,  perhaps,  being  that  in  both  cases  the 
 Philistines  took  part  against  Israel.  Compare 
 Jiidg.  iii.  31  with  x.  7.  Who  can  help  suspecting 
 that  these  two  accounts  relate  to  one  and  the  same 
 aggression  of  the  combined  nations  of  Ammonites 
 and  Moabites;  and  that  the  slight  differences 
 which  may  be  observed  in  the  two  accounts,  arise 
 from  the  former  being  the  West-Israel  account  of 
 what  chiefly  concerned  them  in  the  war,  while  the 
 latter  is  the  East-Israel  or  Gileadite  account  of 
 that  part  of  the  war  in  which  the  Gileadites  un- 
 der Jephthah  were  engaged?  If  the  feat  of  the 
 Ephraimites  described  at  the  close  of  Judg.  iii. 
 had  just  been  performed,  and  they  were  still  under 
 arms,  it  would  account  for  their  taking  umbrage  at 
 Jephthah  monopolizing  the  glory  of  defeating  the 
 Moabites  and  Ammonites  who  were  on  his  side  of 
 the  river. 
 
 Nor,  again,  is  this  suspicion  of  Jephthah's  victory 
 over  the  Ammonites  having  occurred  about  the  same 
 time  as  Ehud's  ^ victory  over  Eglon  diminished  by 
 the  fact,  that  Jephthah  is  expressly  declared  to  be 
 the  son  of  Gilead ;  a  circumstance  which  makes  it 
 very  proper  to  find  him  engaged  in  some  of  the 
 earliest  wars  after  the  death  of  Joshua,  but  very 
 improper  to  find  him  mixed  up  with  events  which 
 happened  nearly  300  years  after.  But  on  this 
 subject  see  more  at  p.  242,  sqq. 
 
 There   is  also  an  extraordinary  similarity  be- 
 
232  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 tween  the  circumstances  of  the  expulsion  of  the 
 Moabites,  as  related  at  the  close  of  ch.  iii.,  and 
 that  of  the  Midianites  in  ch.  vii.,  and  further  be- 
 tween the  conduct  of  the  Ephraimites  towards 
 Gideon,  related  in  ch.  viii.,  and  their  conduct  to- 
 -wards  Jephthah,  related  in  ch.  xii.  For  in  ch.  iii. 
 27 — 29,  we  find  Ehud  the  Benjamite  summoning 
 the  Ephraimites,  who,  rushing  down  to  the  fords  of 
 Jordan,  occupied  them,  so  as  to  cut  off  the  escape 
 of  the  Moabites,  of  whom  they  slew  10,000  men: 
 '  So  Moab  was  subdued  that  day  under  the  hand  of 
 Israel ;  and  the  land  had  rest  eighty  years.'  And  in 
 ch.  vii.,  Gideon  the  Manassite,  *sent  messengers 
 throughout  all  mount  Ephraim,  saying,  Come  down 
 against  the  Midianites,  and  take  before  them  the 
 waters  unto  Bethbarah  and  Jordan.  Then  all  the 
 men  of  Ephraim  gathered  themselves  together,  and 
 took  the  waters  unto  Bethbarah  and  Jordan.  And 
 they  slew  Oreb  and  Zeeb,'  &c. ;  and  it  is  added,  that 
 in  this  whole  war  against  the  children  of  the  East, 
 (Midianites,  Amalekites,  and  children  of  the  East, 
 vi.  3,  Moabites,  Ammonites,  and  Amalekites,  iii.  13,) 
 there  fell  120,000  men  that  drew  -sword,  viii.  10: 
 '  Thus  was  Midian  subdued  before  the  children  of 
 Israel,  so  that  they  lifted  up  their  heads  no  more ; 
 and  the  country  was  in  quietness  forty  years  in  the 
 days  of  Gideon.'  So  too  during  the  government 
 of  the  three  judges  mentioned  as  succeeding  Jeph- 
 thah, whose  united  judgeships  covered  twenty-three 
 years,  no  mention  is  made  of  any  foreign  foe.  But 
 a   singular   point   of  contact    with   the  preceding 
 
IX.]       AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       233 
 
 events  breaks  out  in  the  information  given,  that 
 Abdon  was  buried  in  the  land  of  Ephraim  in  the 
 mount  of  the  Amalekites,  obviously  so  called  from 
 a  great  slaughter  of  the  Amalekites  in  the  Midian- 
 itish  or  Moabitish  wars.  And  in  exact  accordance 
 with  the  information  given,  ch.  viii.  10,  we  hear  no 
 more  of  the  Midianites  or  Moabites. 
 
 As  regards  the  conduct  of  the  Ephraimites  to 
 Gideon,  we  read,  in  ch.  viii.  1,  that  after  their  ex- 
 ploit at  the  Jordan,  they  chid  sharply  with  Gideon, 
 saying,  '  Why  hast  thou  served  us  thus,  that  thou 
 calledst  us  not  when  thou  wentest  to  fight  with 
 the  Midianites?'  and  in  ch.  xii.  1,  that  after  the 
 defeat  of  the  Ammonites  by  Jephthah,  'the  men 
 of  Ephraim  gathered  themselves  together,  and 
 went  northward,  and  said  unto  Jephthah,  Where- 
 fore passedst  thou  over  to  fight  against  the 
 children  of  Ammon,  and  didst  not  call  us  to  go 
 with  thee?' 
 
 What  prevents  us  then  from  considering  these 
 three  accounts  to  relate  to  the  same  time,  and  to  be 
 the  history  of  a  combined  movement  of  the  Israel- 
 ites under  three  great  chiefs,  Ehud,  Gideon,  and 
 Jephthah,  by  which  they  emancipated  themselves 
 from  the  dominion  of  the  Moabites,  Ammonites, 
 and  Midianites,  (who  for  some  years  had  oppressed 
 and  occupied  their  land,)  and  enjoyed  a  long  terra 
 of  peace  through  all  their  coasts. 
 
 Another  no  less  extraordinary  coincidence  is, 
 that  whereas  we  read  in  the  book  of  Numbers,  ch. 
 xxxii.  41,  and  in  Deut.  iii.  14,  of  Jair  the  son  of 
 
234  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY         [CH. 
 
 Manasseh,  i.e.  as  we  saw  in  our  third  Chapter, 
 Sect.  II.,  the  grandson  of  Gilead's  sister,  having 
 possession  of  twenty-seven  cities  of  Gilead,  which 
 he  called  Havoth-Jair,  we  read  again  in  Judg.  x.  3, 
 of  Jair  the  Gileadite,  who  had  thirty  cities  in  the 
 land  of  Gilead,  which  he  called  Havoth-Jair,  but 
 who,  according  to  the  actual  order  of  the  narrative, 
 lived  some  250   or  more  years  after  the  other. 
 
 And  if  to  these  things  we  add,  that  by  universal 
 consent  the  last  five  chapters  of  the  book  of  Judges 
 record  events  which  must  have  happened  consider- 
 ably within  one  hundred  years  of  the  death  of 
 Joshua,  inasmuch  as  Jonathan,  the  priest  of  the 
 tribe  of  Dan,  was  the  grandson  of  Moses,  (Judg. 
 xviii.  30)  ^  and  Phinehas,  the  son  of  Eleazar,  was 
 still  alive,  Judg.  xx.  28,  and  that  the  book  of  Ruth, 
 which  is  in  fact  a  continuation  of  the  book  of 
 Judges,  relates  the  history  of  Boaz,  the  son  of 
 Salmon,  we  shall  have  our  suspicions  concerning 
 the  shortness  of  the  time  occupied  by  the  Events 
 recorded  in  Judges  strongly  confirmed,  and  shall 
 probably  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  sura  of 
 all  the  various  periods  of  war  and  peace,  of  inde- 
 pendence and  servitude,  mentioned  in  the  book  of 
 
 *  All  tbe  best  MSS.  read  nii^D  "ot  n:!^^/!^-  -A-nd  in  the 
 best  printed  editions,  e.  g.  D'Allemand's  edition  of  Van  der 
 Hooght,  Jonathan's  father  is  called  ntL^^D"]3,'  ^^^  ^  "o^e  is 
 added,  n"*"l^n"3i  i- ©•  the  ^  or  n  is  suspended,  written  above  the 
 line,  but  not  fairly  admitted  into  the  text,  where  unquestionably 
 it  has  no  right  to  a  place.  It  is  a  pity  that  our  English  version 
 should  read  Manasseh  instead  of  Moses,  and  without  even  a 
 marginal  explanation. 
 
IX.]       AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       235 
 
 Judges,  is  as  far  as  possible  from  being  the  true 
 sum  of  the  years  occupied  by  the  events  in  ques- 
 tion. 
 
 There  is  one  more  argument  which  we  must 
 not  pass  over,  by  which  the  preceding  view  may  be 
 supported.  By  the  terrible  civil  war,  related  Judg. 
 XX.  and  xxi.,  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  was  almost 
 entirely  exterminated.  They  were  reduced  from 
 26,700  men  of  war  to  600,  and  of  course  it  must 
 have  been  a  long  time  before  they  recovered  from 
 such  a  calamity.  But  at  the  time  of  the  Moabitish 
 dominion  of  Eglon,  which  we  have  identified  with 
 that  from  which  Jephthah  delivered  the  eastern 
 Israelites,  Benjamin  seems  to  have  been  flourishing. 
 For  Ehud,  the  judge  of  Israel,  was  himself  a  Ben- 
 jamite,  and  it  should  seem,  one  of  those  left- 
 handed  warriors  for  which  Benjamin  was  famous 
 before  the  civil  war,  (comp.  Judg.  iii.  15,  and  xx. 
 16),  and  had  doubtless  a  large  body  of  Benjamites 
 as  his  followers.  Again,  in  the  war  against  Sisera, 
 Benjamin  played  a  conspicuous  part.  For  they  are 
 mentioned  in  Deborah's  song  among  the  very  fore- 
 most, 'Out  of  Ephraim  was  there  a  root  of  them 
 against  Amalek ;  after  thee,  Benjamin,  among  thy 
 people,'  (Judg.  v.  14).  We  may  conclude,  there- 
 fore, that  the  slaughter  of  the  Benjamites  had  not 
 taken  place  before  the  war  with  Sisera.  But  if  we 
 reckon  the  years  preceding  Barak's  victory,  we 
 shall  find  (say)  27  years  of  Joshua's  life,  (say)  10 
 years  for  the  elders  who  succeeded  him,  8  years  of 
 Mesopotamian  servitude,  40  years  rest  under  0th- 
 
23 G  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 niel,  18  years  servitude  under  Eglon,  80  years  rest 
 under  Ehud,  and  20  years  servitude  under  Jabin, 
 in  all  203  years  from  the  death  of  Moses.  But 
 Phinehas,  son  of  Eleazar,  was  alive  when  the 
 slaughter  of  the  Benjamites  took  place.  Therefore 
 203  years  could  not  have  elapsed  from  the  death  of 
 Moses  to  the  war  against  Jabin. 
 
 It  may  be  added,  that  the  long  rest  after  Ehud's 
 deliverance,  whatever  its  precise  duration  may  have 
 been,  is  perhaps  the  most  likely  time  to  which  we 
 can  ascribe  this  civil  war,  when  the  Benjamites 
 were  at  the  height  of  their  power,  and  waxed 
 insolent  and  proud :  when  too  there  were  no  fo- 
 reign enemies  harassing  them  either  on  the  west  or 
 east  of  Jordan,  as  the  expedition  against  Jabesh- 
 Gilead  proves.  And  hence  the  probability  is  in- 
 creased, that  Barak's  victory  preceded,  and  did  not 
 follow,  Ehud's  judgeship. 
 
 Lastly,  let  it  be  noted  in  general,  as  was  before 
 hinted,  that  the  history  itself  naturally  suggests  to 
 us,  that  many  of  the  events  may  have  synchronized 
 instead  of  being  successive,  inasmuch  as  at  one 
 time  it  speaks  of  one  portion  of  the  tribes  without 
 mentioning  the  others,  and  at  others,  again  nar- 
 rates things  which  happened  in  those  tribes  of 
 which  before  it  was  silent,  and  again,  represents 
 the  authority  of  some  of  the  judges  as  manifestly 
 limited  to  certain  tribes.  Thus,  for  example,  in  the 
 enumeration  of  the  tribes  which  took  part  in  the 
 war  against  Jabin  (Judg.  v.),  there  is  not  the 
 slightest  allusion  to  the  powerful  tribe  of  Jiidah : 
 
IX.]        AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       237 
 
 and  at  the  same  time  we  are  told  that  Reuben,  and 
 Gilead,  and  Dan,  and  Asher,  took  no  part  in  the 
 war.  There  is  a  like  entire  silence  concerning 
 Judah  in  the  detailed  history  of  Gideon's  war 
 against  the  Midianites,  Judg.  vi.  vii.  viii.,  and  it 
 is  equally  manifest  that  the  tribes  east  of  Jordan 
 did  not  acknowledge  Gideon's  authority,  if  we  may 
 judge  from  the  conduct  of  the  men  of  Succoth  and 
 Penuel.  Indeed,  there  is  no  allusion  whatever  to 
 Judah  from  the  time  of  Othniel  to  the  Ammonitish 
 invasion,  Judg.  x.  9 ;  except  inasmuch  as  it  is 
 probable  that  Judah  may  have  suffered  from  the 
 Philistines  in  the  days  of  Shamgar.  So  with  re- 
 gard to  the  oppression  of  the  Philistines  in  the 
 time  of  Samson,  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  book  of 
 Judges  that  it  was  more  than  a  border  war,  or  that 
 any  other  tribes  besides  those  adjoining  the  Philis- 
 tines were  concerned  in  it,  or  that  Samson's  autho- 
 rity extended  beyond  the  tribe  of  Dan,  or  those 
 whom  he  defended  from  the  Philistine  dominion. 
 In  short,  Israel  appears  to  have  been  broken  up 
 into  three  communities  during  the  age  of  the 
 judges :  Judah,  Ephraim  and  the  northern  tribes, 
 and  the  trans-Jordanic  tribes;  and  it  was  only  in 
 times  of  great  common  danger,  or  in  affairs  of 
 common  national  concern,  that  they  seemed  to 
 have  acted  together  as  one  people.  From  all  which 
 it  results,  that  if  we  string  together  the  different 
 accounts  of  the  different  parts  of  Israel  which  are 
 given  us  in  that  miscellaneous  collection  of  ancient 
 records  called  the  book  of  Judges,  and  treat  them 
 
238  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 as  connected  and  successive  history,  we  shall  fall 
 into  as  great  a  chronological  error,  as  if  we  treated 
 in  the  same  manner  the  histories  of  Mercia,  Kent, 
 Essex,  Wessex,  and  Northumberland,  before  Eng- 
 land became  one  kingdom. 
 
 So  that  on  the  whole,  whatever  uncertainty 
 may  still  hang  over  the  exact  chronological  ar- 
 rangement of  the  affairs  of  Israel  between  Joshua 
 and  Eli,  it  is  hoped  that  enough  has  been  said  to 
 shew  that  there  are  no  sufficient  grounds,  as  far  as 
 the  specified  times  of  war  and  rest  go,  on  which  to 
 overthrow  the  evidence  drawn  from  the  genealo- 
 gies ;  but  on  the  contrary,  that  there  is  a  great 
 deal  in  the  histories  themselves  very  favourable  to 
 the  shorter  period  indicated  by  the  genealogies. 
 We  proceed,  therefore,  in  the  next  place,  to  the 
 consideration  of  the  three  specific  dates  given  in 
 Judg.  xi.  26,  1  Kings  vi.  1,  and  Acts  xiii.  20. 
 
 In  Judg.  xi.  12 — 27,  Jephthah^  remonstrates 
 with  the  king  of  the  children  of  Amnion  who  had 
 invaded  Israel,  and  demanded  the  restoration  of  the 
 land  between  Arnon  and  Jabbok :  and  he  tells  him 
 that  Israel  took  that  land  not  from  the  Ammonites 
 or  Moabites,  but  from  the  Amoritos.  And  he  for- 
 tifies his  argument  by  saying  in  vv.  25,  26,  '  And 
 now  art  thou  any  thing  better  than  Balak  the  son 
 of  Zippor,  king  of  Moab  ?  did  he  ever  strive  against 
 Israel,  or  did  he  ever  fight  against  them,  while 
 Israel  abode  in  Heshbon  and  her  towns,  and  in 
 
 ^  For  the  age  of  Jephthah,  see  also  note,  p.  259. 
 
IX.]        AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       239 
 
 Aroer  and  her  towns,  and  in  all  the  cities  that  be 
 along  by  the  coasts  of  Arnon,  three  hundred  years? 
 why  therefore  did  ye  not  recover  them  within  that 
 time  ? '  Now  the  first  observation  which  I  would 
 make  here  is,  that  ^^^"^^  HJ^^  ^^^^  ^^*  mean  *  within 
 that  time,'  but  'at  that  time';'  and  that  the  time 
 meant  is  necessarily  the  time  'when  Israel  abode  in 
 Heshbon,'  &c.,  and  when  '  Balak  the  son  of  Zippor 
 did  not  strive  against  Israel,'  to  get  the  land  back 
 from  them.  And  the  next  observation  is,  that  the 
 expression  'while  Israel  abode  in  Heshbon  and  her 
 towns,  and  in  Aroer  and  her  towns,  and  in  all 
 the  cities  that  be  along  by  the  coasts  of  Arnon,' 
 manifestly  describes  the  time,  and  only  the  time, 
 that  the  whole  Israelitish  nation  abode  in  the 
 countries  conquered  from  the  Amorites  on  the 
 east  of  Jordan^.  And  again,  that  the  appeal  in 
 these  two  verses  (25,  26)  is  simply  and  07ily  to 
 the  precedent  of  Balak,  'Balak  laid  no  claim 
 to  the  land  all  the  time  that  Israel  dwelt  in  it, 
 why  should  you  ? '  The  next  point  then  to  which 
 to  attend  is,  what  can  be  meant  by  '  three  hundred 
 years  ? '  Because,  quite  irrespective  of  any  chrono- 
 logical difficulty,  the  words  are  out  of  place,  and  if 
 we  have  rightly  explained  the  context,  are  destitute 
 of  meaning ;  and  any  how  are  not  in  accordance 
 with  Hebrew  grammar,  which  requires  that  in  such 
 
 ^  Compare  1  Kings  xiv.  1 ;  Numb.  xxii.  4  ;  Isai.  xviii.  7 ; 
 Jer.  L.  4,  20;  Deut.  i.  9,  16,  18;  iii.  21,  23,  &c.  &c. :  in  all 
 which  places  i<}''nn  PiVI  nieans  '  at  that  time.'  I  am  not  aware 
 of  a  single  passage  where  it  means  '  within  that  time.' 
 
 ^  There  is  a  manifest  reference  to  Numb.  xxi.  24 — 26. 
 
240  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 a  construction,  where  the  time  is  measured  down 
 to  the  time  of  the  speaker,  as  that  during  which 
 something  has  been  doing,  HT  should  precede  the 
 numeral,  'these  300  years ^Z  The  solution  is  ex- 
 ceedingly simple,  n^^,  '  years,'  is  the  mere  error  of 
 a  copyist,  who  wrote  the  word  after  the  numeral 
 800,  from  a  most  natural  association  of  ideas,  and 
 perhaps  also  from  a  considerable  resemblance  in 
 the  words,  the  letters  of  which  might  be  partly 
 effaced  in  the  MS.  he  was  copying.  But  the  ori- 
 ginal text  had  ^'V.  or  d^^,  'cities,'  '300  citiesV 
 'Did  Balak  ever  strive  against  Israel,  or  did  he 
 ever  fight  against  them,  when  Israel  dwelt  in 
 Ileshbon  and  her  towns,  and  in  Aroer  and  her 
 towns,  and  in  all  the  cities  that  be  along  by  the 
 coasts  of  Arnon,  three  hundred  cities?  why  there- 
 fore did  ye  not  recover  them  at  that  time  ? '  which 
 is  exactly  in  accordance  with  Hebrew  idiom,  and  in 
 accordance  with  the  great  wealth  and  populousness 
 of  the  district.     We  learn  from  Deut.  ii.  and  iii. 
 
 '  As  e.  g.  Deut.  ii.  7,  r\y^  D'^Vlli^  H?  '  i^i<^s<^  forty  years 
 the  Lord  thy  God  hath  been  with  thee,'  and  viii.  4,  '  neither  did 
 thy  foot  swell  these  forty  years,'  pjiti'  D''yi~)5>?  ■  PTT .  So  Ih.  v.  2. 
 So  again,  Zech.  vii.  3,  '  Should  I  weep  in  the  seventh  month, 
 separating  myself,  as  I  have  done  these  so  many  years  ? '  ^\ 
 Q>3jif  n!22-  Compare  also  Gen.  xxvii.  36,  Qij^yS  n?  iJt<^^<^  two 
 times,   and  Numb.  xxii.  28,   Qt'^J")  WJVJ  HI    these  tliree  times. 
 
 .  .  '     T    ;  T  V 
 
 Gen.  xxxi.  38,  n^ti^  D''"1*Ji^y  nf  ^^^^^^  twtenty  years.  See  too  v.  41. 
 
 T  T  •    :    V 
 
 D'^n^ti^  nt  t^'-'^^^  two  years,  Gen.  xlv,  6. 
 
 ^  The  error  is  very  ancient,  being  in  all  the  copies  of  the 
 Septuag.,  and  so  quoted  by  Euscbius  in  his  Canons.  Tin  is 
 obviously  very  like  n^ti^,  and  so  is  D"»"i^,  either  of  which  might 
 be  used. 
 
IX.]       AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       241 
 
 how  very  numerous  the  cities  were,  (ii.  34 — 36). 
 Let  alone  all  the  cities  walled  and  unwalled  in  the 
 kingdom  of  Sihon,  there  were  sixty  fortified  towns 
 in  the  kingdom  of  Og,  '  with  high  walls,  gates,  and 
 bars,  besides  unwalled  towns  a  great  many,'  HSl'l 
 li<^\  And  as  this  territory  was  given  to  the  half- 
 tribe  of  Manasseh,  while  the  territory  of  Sihon  was 
 the  portion  of  two  whole  tribes,  Reuben  and  Gad, 
 it  cannot  be  deemed  an  extravagant  assertion  to 
 say  that  there  were  in  all  300  cities.  Indeed,  it 
 follows  by  a  simple  rule  of  multiplication,  that  if 
 half  a  tribe  had  sixty  cities,  two  tribes  and  a  half 
 ought  to  have  5x60  =  300.  I  conclude  then,  with 
 no  little  confidence,  that  we  ought  to  read  '  300 
 cities/  and  that,  as  far  as  this  passage  is  concerned, 
 there  is  no  difficulty  in  the  way  of  an  amended 
 chronology. 
 
 But  not  only  does  the  discovery  of  this  error  in 
 Judges  xi.  26,  remove  the  effect  of  the  testimony 
 of  this  particular  passage  as  regards  the  length  of 
 time,  but  it  sheds  a  flood  of  light  upon  what  we 
 have  suspected  on  wholly  different  grounds  as  to 
 the  disturbance  of  the  order  of  the  narrative  in  the 
 book  of  Judges,  and  as  to  the  alteration  of  the 
 
 '  'And  we  took  all  his  cities  at  tliat  time,  there  was  not  a 
 city  which  we  took  not  from  them,  threescore  cities,  all  the  region 
 of  Argob,  the  kingdom  of  Og  in  Bashan.'  Deut.  iii.  4.  So 
 again,  in  1  Kings  iv.  13,  speaking  of  the  son  of  Geber,  it  is  said, 
 '  to  him  also  pertained  the  region  of  Argob,  which  is  in  Bashan, 
 threescore  great  cities  with  walls  and  brasen  bars.'  The  nnmber 
 of  cities  is  mentioned  a  third  time,  1  Chron.  ii.  23,  'even  three- 
 score cities.' 
 
 16 
 
242  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 numerals.  For  when  once  the  reading  H^^,  years, 
 got  established  in  the  text  of  Judges  xi.  26,  and  it 
 came  to  be  a  received  opinion  that  Jephthah  lived 
 800  years  after  Moses,  it  is  obvious  how  likely  it  is 
 that  a  change  in  the  arrangement  and  order  of  the 
 parts  of  the  book  would  follow,  in  order  to  make 
 the  order  harmonize  with  the  supposed  date.  And 
 if  the  older  MSS.  still  preserved  traces  of  the  origin 
 of  the  book  of  Judges  as  composed  of  several  de- 
 tached histories,  this  change  would  be  the  more 
 easily  effected,  as  consisting  simply  in  placing  one 
 sheet  of  parchment  before  instead  of  after  another. 
 The  book  of  Jephthah,  therefore,  instead  of  coming 
 immediately  after  the  history  of  Othniel,  parallel 
 with  the  history  of  Ehud  and  Gideon,  which  I  con- 
 ceive to  be  its  proper  place,  was  removed  to  that 
 which  it  now  occupies,  because  it  was  thought  that 
 the  events  in  the  intervening  chapters  would  bring 
 down  the  date  to  about  300  years.  And  a  length- 
 ening of  some  of  the  numerals  most  probably  also 
 took  place  to  effect  this.  The  reason  for  not 
 placing  it  after  the  book  of  Samson  is  obvious,  viz. 
 that  the  history  of  Samson's  judgeship  was  known 
 to  be  closely  connected,  and  in  part  contemporane- 
 ous, with  the  judgeship  of  Eli  and  the  events  related 
 in  the  earlier  part  of  1  Samuel. 
 
 But  before  we  quit  this  passage,  we  must  advert 
 more  particularly  to  a  statement  contained  in  the 
 same  chapter,  which  has  already  been  alluded  to; 
 a  statement  which  ought  alone  to  have  been  a  con- 
 vincing proof   that    *300   years'    was   a    corrupt 
 
IX.]        AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       243 
 
 reading,  but  which,  taken  in  conjunction  with  what 
 has  been  now  advanced,  can  scarcely  fail  to  be 
 deemed  so. 
 
 We  are  told  in  ver.  1  of  the  xith  chapter  of 
 Judges,  in  the  plainest  and  most  distinct  language, 
 that  Jephthah  was  the  son  of  Gilead,  and  of  that 
 very  Gilead  from  whom  the  whole  family  were 
 named  Gileadites  :  for  so  much  surely  the  occur- 
 rence of  Gilead  and  Gileadite  in  the  same  verse 
 must  import.  And  not  only  so,  but  the  second 
 verse  tells  us  that  Gilead's  sons  by  his  wife  thrust 
 out  Jephthah  from  any  share  in  the  inheritance, 
 because  he  was  the  son  of  a  strange  woman  ^.  Now 
 if  we  turn  to  1  Chron.  vii.  14,  we  there  find  a  pas- 
 sage which,  though  in  a  sad  state  of  confusion,  so 
 much  so  as  to  be  in  parts  quite  unintelligible,  yet 
 seems  to  give  us  the  important  information  that 
 Gilead  had  as  a  concubine  an  Aramitess.  For  the 
 literal  translation  of  ver.  14  is:  'The  sons  of  Ma- 
 nasseh...Ashriel...whom  his  concubine  the  Aram- 
 itess bare.'  And  as  we  know  from  Num.  xxvi.  31, 
 that  Asriel  was  the  son  of  Gilead,  and  as  it  is  highly 
 improbable  that  Machir,  'the  first-born  of  Manasses,' 
 whose  children  were  brought  up  in  Egypt  upon 
 Joseph's  knees,  should  have  been  the  son  of  a  con- 
 cubine, and  she  an  Aramitess,  it  is  natural  to  con- 
 clude that  the  fragment  of  a  sentence  before  us 
 
 '  Very  probably  too,  if  this  happened  at  the  time  of  the 
 invasion  of  Chushan-Rishathaim  king  of  Aram.,  the  fact  of 
 Jephthah  being  the  son  of  an  Aramitish  woman  may  have  made 
 him  particularly  obnoxious  to  his  brethren. 
 
 16—2 
 
244  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [cil. 
 
 tells  US  that  the  Aramitess  was  Gilead's  concubine'; 
 a  conclusion  in  which  we  are  greatly  confirmed  by 
 reading  in  ver.  17,  as  the  summing  up  of  the  pre- 
 ceding verses,  '  These  were  the  sons  of  Gilead,  the 
 son  of  Machir,  the  son  of  Manasseh.'  I  conceive 
 therefore  that  Jephthah  was  the  son  of  this  Arami- 
 tess, born  to  Gilead  in  his  old  age  in  the  wilder- 
 ness, and  possibly  about  17  years  old  at  the  time 
 of  the  entrance  into  Canaan.  When  he  laid  claim 
 to  a  share  of  the  land  of  Gilead  on  the  return  of 
 his  brethren  from  the  wars  of  Canaan  some  20  years 
 after  (he  having  remained  in  Gilead  with  the 
 women  and  children  under  age  to  go  to  war),  his 
 brethren  reproached  him  with  his  base  and  foreign 
 birth,  and  expelled  him  from  their  land.  Or  more 
 probably,  the  younger  Gileadites,  who  had  remained 
 behind  with  him  when  the  men  of  war  went  over 
 Jordan  with  Joshua,  when  they  grew  up  to  man's 
 estate  drove  him  away.  In  the  mean  time  the  Am- 
 monitish  and  Moabitish  dominion,  favoured  by  the 
 absence  of  the  men  of  war^  on  the  west  of  Jordan, 
 sprung  up  and  lasted  18  years.     It  was  checked  on 
 
 '  I  do  not  suppose  that  Asriel  was  a  son  of  the  Aramitess. 
 But  this  verse  once  contained  the  names  of  the  sons  of  Gilead,  of 
 whom  Asriel  was  one,  and  added  the  fact,  that  he  had  another 
 son  by  the  Aramitess,  viz.  Jephthah.  But  this  was  left  out, 
 perhaps  because  of  the  300  years. 
 
 2  This  is,  of  course,  on  the  hypothesis  of  the  IMesopotamian 
 servitude,  and  the  Moabitish  dominion  on  the  east  of  Jordan 
 having  taken  place  in  Joshua's  life-time;  but  it  is  not  necessary 
 to  suppose  this.  The  short  term  of  Jephthah's  judgeship  is 
 compatible  v,-ith  his  having  been  advanced  in  life  when  chosen 
 judge. 
 
IX.]        AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       245 
 
 the  west  of  Jordan  by  the  agency  of  Ehud,  and  the 
 rising  of  the  Benjamites  and  Ephraimites,  and  by 
 the  victories  of  the  Manassites  under  the  leadership 
 of  Gideon.  At  the  same  time  the  Gileadites,  recal- 
 ling Jephthah  from  his  banishment  with  his  trained 
 band  of  followers,  and  placing  all  their  forces  under 
 his  command,  fell  upon  the  Ammonites,  the  constant 
 allies  of  the  Moabites  and  Midianites,  and  smote 
 them  with  a  very  great  slaughter.  And  this,  as 
 before  observed,  will  help  us  to  account  for  the 
 conduct  of  the  Ephraimites  related  in  chap.  xii. 
 For,  as  we  learn  from  ch.  iii,  27,  seqq.  (see  also 
 vii.  24),  it  w^as  the  Ephraimites  who  at  Ehud's 
 bidding  had  made  such  a  slaughter  of  the  Moabites 
 at  the  fords  of  Jordan.  And  therefore  being  per- 
 haps still  under  arms,  and  having  just  displayed 
 so  much  valour,  they  might  think  it  a  great  slight 
 that  they  were  not  invited  to  take  part  in  the 
 completion  of  the  war  against  the  Ammonites, 
 Compare  viii.  1. 
 
 It  has  already  been  observed,  likewise,  that  the 
 somewhat  different  aspect  of  the  two  accounts  in 
 Judges  iii.  and  Judges  x.  xi.,  arises  merely  from  the 
 former  being  the  West-Israel  account,  and  the  latter 
 the  East-Israel  account.  And  the  same  observation 
 applies  equally  to  the  history  of  Gideon,  if  that  war 
 was  contemporaneous  with  those  of  Ehud  and  Jeph- 
 thah. But  the  marks  of  identity  of  time  and  cir- 
 cumstance, and  of  the  narratives  relating  to  the 
 same  general  movement  of  the  combined  nations  of 
 
246  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 Moab  and  Ammon  and  Midian,  can  scarcely  be  mis- 
 taken ^ 
 
 There  is,  however,  a  considerable  difficulty  in 
 the  way  of  the  explanation  just  offered:  I  mean 
 with  regard  to  the  age  of  Gilead,  and  the  possibility 
 of  Jephthah  being  his  son.  Gilead,  according  to 
 the  genealogies,  was  only  the  third  generation  from 
 Manasseh,  and  the  fourth  from  Joseph.     Zelophe- 
 
 *  If  we  merely  suppose  the  story  of  Ehud  from  Judg.  iii. 
 12 — 30  to  be  out  of  its  place,  and  put  Judg.  iii.  31  immediately 
 after  Judg.  iii.  11,  and  leave  out  the  words,  'when  Ehud  was 
 dead '  in  Judg.  iv.  1  as  a  gloss,  all  will  be  clear.  Othniel's  rest 
 and  Barak's  rest  would  then  synchronize,  the  one  in  the  south 
 and  the  other  in  the  north  of  Israel.  And  the  three  accounts  of 
 the  Moabitish  dominion  on  the  west,  centre,  and  east  of  Israel, 
 which  was  thrown  off  by  Ehud,  Gideon,  and  Jephthah  respec- 
 tively, will  then  come  together,  except  the  continuation  of  Gideon's 
 history  till  the  judgeship  of  Tola,  which  is  natural.  We  must 
 however  suppose  ch.  x.  3  not  to  be  a  continuation  of  what  pre- 
 cedes, but  to  be  the  commencement  of  a  separate  book,  and  the 
 word  V'^ni^  ^ot  to  refer  to  Tola,  but  to  some  one  who  had  been 
 mentioned  before  in  the  book  of  which  this  was  originally  a  part, 
 perhaps  Joshua  himself,  or  the  former  chief  of  the  Gileadites,  or 
 else  V~ini^  must  be  expunged.  It  may  be  worth  noticing  that 
 it  is  very  like  "T»^}'>  Jair  in  its  letters.  The  supposition  that  the 
 history  of  Ehud  is  misplaced  is  favoured  by  observing  that  in 
 Judg.  iii.  31,  ^"»~)^^^  'after  him,'  is  removed  a  long  way  from 
 the  name  to  which  it  is  supposed  to  refer,  that  of  Ehud,  last 
 named  in  v.  26.  If  v.  31  followed  v.  1 1  immediately,  this  awk- 
 wardness would  be  removed.  Moreover,  the  words  at  the  end 
 of  V.  31  of  ch.  iii.,  "pSI-ij^t-nNJ  ^^^^"Dil  )!WV}  '^^d  he  also 
 delivered  Israel,'  seem  to-  refer  to  the  words  in  v.  9,  Q^^^VI 
 '  and  he  delivered  them,  even  Othniel,  &c.',  and  to  be  immediately/ 
 connected  with  them.  It  would  be  more  proper  therefore  that 
 they  should  not  be  severed  by  an  interruption  of  nineteen  verses. 
 
IX.]       AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.        247 
 
 had,  who  died  in  the  wilderness,  was  the  fifth  from 
 Manasseh,  being  Gilead's  grandson;  his  daughters 
 the  sixth.     Jair  was  grandson  to  Gilead,  and  fifth 
 from  Manasseh.    Salmon  was  seventh  from  Judah; 
 Phinehas  sixth  from  Levi;  Joshua  apparently  seventh 
 from  Ephraim.     See  1  Chron.  vii.  23 — 27,  and  note 
 (D,)  at  the  end  of  the  Volume.    And  though  Korah 
 was  only  the  fourth  from  Levi,  as  were  also  Moses 
 and  Aaron,  and  though  the  fourth  generation  was 
 that  of  which  it  was  foretold  to  Abraham,  'In  the 
 fourth  generation   they   shall   come   hither  again' 
 (Gen.  XV.  16),  still  it  seems  scarcely  probable  that 
 Gilead  should  have  had  a  son  so  young  as  Jephthah 
 must  have  been  at  the  entrance  into  Canaan,  espe- 
 cially when  we  recollect  that  Gilead's  great-grand- 
 daughters were  then  grown  up.    Or  if  we  distribute 
 the  215  years  which  elapsed  from  the  coming  down 
 of  Jacob  into  Egypt,  we  shall  still  find  some  dif- 
 ficulty.    Manasseh,  we  know  from  Gen.  xlviii.  5, 
 was  born  before  Jacob  came  into  Egypt,  and  could 
 not  have  been  less  than  five  years  old  at  that  time. 
 Compare   Gen.  xli.   50   with   xlv.   11.      We   have 
 therefore  to  add  five  years  to  the  215,  which  makes 
 220  years  to  be  distributed  between  Manasseh,  Ma- 
 chir,   and  Gilead,   or  rather,  if  we  add  23  or  20 
 years  of  the  sojourn  in  the  wilderness,  where  we 
 have  supposed  the  birth  of  Jephthah  to  have  taken 
 place,  240  years,  or  just  80  years  to  a  generation. 
 Now  though  when  due  allowance  is  made  for  the 
 then   existing    longevity   of    man   this    cannot   be 
 deemed  impossible,  yet  it  must  be  acknowledged  to 
 
243  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 be  improbable.  The  only  suggestion  I  can  offer  to 
 meet  this  difficulty  is,  that  possibly  the  phrase,  '  Gi- 
 lead  begat  Jephthah,'  may  import  that  Gilead  was 
 his  grandfather.  The  one  intervening  generation 
 had  not  obliterated  the  stain  of  his  base  Gentile 
 birth,  and  Gilead's  legitimate  descendants,  the  chil- 
 dren of  his  wife,  took  the  earliest  opportunity  of 
 casting  him  out  and  disinheriting  him.  He  might 
 too  be  his  grandson  by  a  daughter,  and  so  have 
 been  known  only  as  the  son  of  Gilead.  However, 
 whether  Jephthah  were  Gilead's  son  or  his  grand- 
 son, he  was  not  permitted  to  have  a  share  in  the 
 land  of  Gilead  with  the  Gileadite  families  when  it 
 was  divided  among  them ;  and  whichever  he  was, 
 he  could  not  have  lived  300  years  after  the  Exodus, 
 but  was  probably  born  before  the  death  of  Moses. 
 
 It  is  a  singular  confirmation  of  this  view  of 
 Jephthah  being  the  son  or  grandson  of  Gilead,  that 
 his  immediate  predecessor  in  the  judgeship  of  Gi- 
 lead was  Jair  the  Gileadite,  the  grandson  viz.  of 
 Gilead's  sister,  who  acquired  possession  of  23  cities 
 in  the  land  of  Gilead,  or,  as  we  read  in  Judges  x.  4, 
 30  cities,  which  he  called  Havoth-Jair^  For  surely 
 it  would  be  a  coincidence  quite  beyond  the  regions 
 of  probability,  that  there  should  be  two  consecutive 
 judges  of  the  tribe  of  Manasseh,  both  Gileadites, 
 both  distinguished  by  illustrious  names — the  one, 
 Jair,  his  own  name,  the  other  as  the  son  of  Gilead, 
 the  head  of  the  family — the  one,  Jair,  further  dis- 
 tinguished as  the  possessor  of  27  or  30  cities  which 
 '  See  pp.  233,  234. 
 
IX.]        AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.        249 
 
 were  called  by  his  name,  the  other  marked  as  the 
 son  of  him  who  had  a  foreign  concubine — and  yet 
 that  they  should  turn  out  after  all  to  be  quite  dif- 
 ferent people  from  what  their  names  and  the  pecu- 
 liar circumstances  of  their  story  indicate, — Jair 
 being-  another  Jair  nowhere  else  mentioned,  who 
 yet  equally  with  the  former  one  gave  his  name  to 
 Havoth-Jair — and  Gilead,  the  father  of  Jephthah 
 the  Gileadite,  another  Gilead  nowhere  else  heard 
 of,  but  who  equally  with  his  namesake  had  a 
 foreign  concubine.  Surely  this  is  beyond  measure 
 improbable — more  improbable,  I  venture  to  say, 
 than  that  a  few  leaves  should  have  got  transposed 
 in  the  course  of  three  thousand  years,  and  the  order 
 of  the  narrative,  through  this  or  other  circumstances, 
 disturbed. 
 
 Other  objections  may  doubtless  also  be  brought 
 against  this  view.  It  is  not  pretended  to  be  denied 
 that  there  is  conflicting  evidence.  There  is  also  a 
 peculiar  difficulty  in  dealing  with  the  Scriptures  in 
 such  matters,  from  our  ignorance  of  the  precise 
 limits  of  inspiration,  and  of  the  degree  of  control 
 exercised  by  the  Holy  Spirit  over  the  writers,  com- 
 pilers, and  editors  of  the  sacred  books,  in  such 
 matters  as  history,  science,  and  the  like.  Nor  is  it 
 the  purpose  of  this  chapter  to  consider  all  the  objec- 
 tions, or  even  to  propose  a  definite  chronological 
 arrangement  for  the  events  of  the  book  of  Judges. 
 All  that  is  intended  to  be  here  done  is,  to  shew  that 
 there  is  so  much  uncertainty  in  the  order  and  dates 
 of  the  historical  narrative  in  the  form  in  which  it 
 
250  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 has  come  down  to  us,  that  it  is  not  safe  to  build  a 
 chronological  scheme  upon  that  order  and  those 
 dates  alone,  especially  where  such  scheme  is  in 
 opposition  and  contradiction  to  the  internal  evi- 
 dence ;  and  to  throw  out  for  consideration  one  or 
 two  suggestions  of  2^ossible  modes  of  bringing  the 
 chronology,  as  deduced  from  the  order  and  the  dates, 
 into  harmony  with  that  deduced  from  the  internal 
 evidence.  If,  after  all,  much  uncertainty  and  diffi- 
 culty shall  be  found  to  remain,  the  writer  at  least 
 feels  that  such  difficulties,  though  they  may  be 
 stumbling-blocks  to  the  proud  and  self-sufficient, 
 turn  out  rather  for  the  strengthening  of  faith  and 
 increase  of  humility  in  the  faithful  disciples  of 
 Christ:  and  that  all  such  will  not  be  less  deeply 
 grateful  to  Almighty  God  for  the  large  mass  of  cer- 
 tain truth  presented  to  them  in  the  Bible,  because 
 it  has  pleased  Him  to  mingle  it  with  some  matters 
 which  are  open  to  doubt,  and  which  baffle  the 
 efforts  of  human  ino-enuitv  to  unravel  and  to  ex- 
 plain  them.  It  is  not,  surely,  for  man  to  say  in  what 
 form  the  revelation  of  God's  will  ought  to  have 
 been  delivered  to  us,  or  to  quarrel  with  the  parti- 
 cular form  in  which  we  have  received  it.  But 
 rather  to  bow  with  meek  simplicity  before  the  Al- 
 mighty Wisdom  of  God,  and  be  sure  that  He  has 
 ordered  it  in  a  way  far  better  for  His  Church  than 
 any  which  man  could  have  devised. 
 
 The  next  specific  date  is  that  given  in  1  Kings 
 vi.  1, '  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  four  hundred  and 
 eightieth  year   after  the   children  of  Israel  were 
 
IX.]       AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.        251 
 
 come  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  the  fourth  year  of 
 Solomon's  reign  over  Israel,  in  the  month  Zif, 
 which  is  the  second  month,  that  he  began  to  build 
 the  house  of  the  Lord.'  Now,  if  we  could  be  quite 
 sure  that  we  have  here  the  original  numbers,  this 
 passage  would  no  doubt  be  of  very  great  weight. 
 For  there  is  every  appearance  of  an  authentic 
 date  having  been  carefully  put  down  by  the  author. 
 But,  ^rs^,  here  applies  with  full  force  the  remark 
 above  made  about  numerals.  Secondly^  a  variation 
 in  the  Septuagint,  which  read  440'  years,  gives 
 evidence  of  various  readings,  and  most  likely  of 
 the  numbers  having  been  tampered  with  to  suit 
 some  scheme  of  chronology.  And  tlmxlly,  the 
 number  480  seems  to  have  been  deduced  from  the 
 mistake  about  the  300  years  in  Judg.  xi.  26.  It 
 is  obvious,  that  when  once  the  300  years  supposed 
 to  have  elapsed  from  the  entrance  into  Canaan  to 
 the  time  of  Jephthah  had  got  firm  footing  in  the 
 text  of  Judges,  any  shorter  number  of  years  ascribed 
 to  the  whole  period  from  the  Exodus  to  the  founda- 
 tion of  the  temple,  must  have  seemed  erroneous. 
 And  it  was  not  unnatural  to  try  and  restore  (as  was 
 thought)  the  true  number,  by  computing  the  dif- 
 ferent terms  of  years  mentioned  from  Jephthah 
 to  Solomon^. 
 
 '  Eusebius  notices  these  two  readings  as  existing  in  his  day. 
 Chron.  Can.  Lib.  i.  27-  There  is  also  in  the  Vatican  edition 
 a  considerable  disturbance  of  the  order  of  the  verses :  what  in  the 
 Hebrew  is  found  ch.  v.  17?  18,  being  transposed^  and  placed  after 
 vi.  1,  with  an  addition  of  several  words. 
 
 ^  It  appears  that,  in  point  of  fact,  this  is  exactly  what  was 
 
252  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CII. 
 
 Now,  if  we  suppose  that  the  original  number  in 
 1  Kings  vi.  1,  was  240  in  some  copies  and  280  in 
 others,  the  most  likely  alteration,  in  order  to  bring 
 that  number  into  agreement  with  Judg.  xi.  26,  (after 
 the  reading,  '300  cities,'  was  firmly  established 
 there),  would  be  to  alter  it  to  440  or  480.  And  it 
 might  have  been  calculated  that  this  sum  was  made 
 up  as  under: 
 
 Years. 
 From  the   entrance   into   Canaan   to  Jephtliah's)   oak 
 
 judgeship  j 
 
 Judgeship  of  Jephthah 6 
 
 Ihzan    7 
 
 Elon 10 
 
 Abdon 8 
 
 Servitude  under  Philistines,  (according  to  reading) 
 
 in  Euseb.  in  his  Canones  Chronic'i) j 
 
 Judgeship  of  EH,  under  which,  and  the  preceding^ 
 servitude,  the  20  years  of  Samson  might  be>     40 
 
 included    ) 
 
 Samuel  and  Saul  together,  as  Eusebius  reckons! 
 
 them j 
 
 Reign  of  David 40 
 
 Four  years  of  Solomon's  reign 4 
 
 480 
 
 Those  who  read  440  years  probably  considered 
 that  the  300  years  was  a  round  number,  and  that 
 only  265  actually  had  elapsed.  Both  seem  to 
 have  reckoned  from  the  entrance  into  Canaan, 
 rather  than  from  the  departure  from  Egypt.  Such 
 is  a  possible,  and,  perhaps,  probable  account  of  the 
 
 done  by  the  chronologists.      For  Eusebius  refers  to  these  300 
 years  as  establishing  his  system.     Chron.  Can.  p.  76. 
 
IX.]        AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       253 
 
 number  480.^  But  whether  it  is  a  true  account  or 
 not,  this  is  certain :  that  if  once  it  is  granted  that 
 300  years,  in  Judg.  xi.  is  a  mistake  for  300  cities, 
 it  is  obvious  how  likely  it  was  that  such  an  error 
 should  lead  to  the  alteration  of  other  dates  incon- 
 sistent with  that  number.  It  may  further  be  re- 
 marked, that  the  number  480  is  not  really  consis- 
 tent with  a  summing  up  of  all  the  terms  of  years  in 
 the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  and  Samuel,  nor  with 
 the  calculation  given  by  St  Paul  in  Acts  xiii.,  which 
 seems  to  be  made  from  such  a  summing  up :  a 
 number  rather  exceeding  600  would  be  necessary, 
 though  some  commentators  propose  to  read  580 
 instead  of  480.^     Again,  therefore,  the  conclusion 
 
 ^  Jaclison  {Chron.  Antiq.  Yol.  i.  pp.  147  seqq.  and  164)  con- 
 siders the  number  to  be  altogether  an  interpolation,  and  takes 
 some  pains  to  prove  this  from  the  different  computations  of  the 
 most  ancient  writers,  and  from  Josephus,  who,  he  says,  found  no 
 number  in  his  Hebrew  copy  of  the  book  of  Kings,  but  calculates 
 the  time  from  the  Exodus  to  the  building  of  the  temple  592 
 years;  which,  Jackson  says,  is  agreeable  to  the  calculation  of 
 Demetrius  the  historian,  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Philopator.  But 
 a  probable  reason  for  Josephus  not  referring  to  the  number  in 
 1  Kings,  is  that  he  found  it  quite  impracticable  according  to  the 
 system  of  chronology  which  he  followed. 
 
 2  Africanus  reckons  744  years,  from  the  death  of  Moses,  or 
 784  from  the  Exodus.  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  according  to 
 Eusebius,  reckons  from  Joshua  to  the  building  of  the  temple 
 574,  which  with  the  40  years  in  the  wilderness  and  27  for 
 Joshua,  would  be  641  years.  Eusebius  considers  that,  according 
 to  St  Paul's  reckoning,  the  whole  period  was  600  years.  Theo- 
 philus  (ad  A  utolyc  iii.  22)  says  that  the  Tyrian  histories  make 
 the  building  of  the  temple  to  have  taken  place  in  the  566th  year 
 of  the  Exodus.  The  Paschal  Chronicle  reckons  632  years. 
 Georgius   Syncellus   659  years.      Eusebius   himself  makes    the 
 
254  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 is  drawn  that  the  numeral  in  1  Kings  vi.  is  far 
 too  doubtful  to  be  of  authority  against  opposite 
 conclusions  resting  on  solid  ground. 
 
 As  regards  the  statement  of  St  Paul  in  his 
 discourse  at  Antioch,  in  Acts  xiii.  18 — 21,  it  is  as 
 follows:  'And  about  the  time  of  forty  years  suffered 
 he  their  manners  in  the  wilderness.  And  when  he 
 had  destroyed  seven  nations  in  the  land  of  Chanaan, 
 he  divided  their  land  to  them  by  lot.  And  after 
 that  he  gave  unto  them  judges,  about  the  space  of 
 four  hundred  and  fifty  years,  until  Samuel  the  pro- 
 phet. And  afterward  they  desired  a  king:  and 
 God  gave  unto  them  Saul  the  son  of  Cis,  a  man  of 
 the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  by  the  space  of  forty  years.* 
 Now,  as  it  is  universally  acknowledged,  that  this 
 number  of  years  for  the  judges  is  quite  inconsistent 
 
 number  of  years  from  the  Exodus  to  the  foundation  of  the  temple 
 480  years.  And  deducting  the  40  years  in  the  wilderness,  and 
 the  4  years  of  Solomon,  says  that  it  leaves  436  to  be  divided 
 among  5  generations,  or  85  years  to  a  generation,  v^hich  he  con- 
 siders to  be  within  the  compass  of  possibility.  But  it  is  obvious 
 that  even  so  the  calculation  cannot  stand.  For  only  70  years 
 are  assigned  in  Scripture  to  David's  whole  life  (30  +  40),  not  85. 
 Salmon  was  probably  a  full-grovsTi  man  at  the  entrance  into 
 Canaan,  not  a  new-born  babe;  judging  both  from  the  age  of 
 Nahshon,  whose  sister  was  Aaron's  wife,  and  from  his  own  con- 
 nexion with  Rahab,  who  was  a  full-grown  woman  at  the  taking 
 of  Jericho,  and  5  x  85  =  425,  not  436.  So  that  15  +  20  + 11  =  46 
 years  more,  must,  at  the  lowest  computation,  be  further  distri- 
 buted among  the  five  generations,  which  will  give  above  96  years 
 to  a  generation.  I  venture  to  apply  to  this  calculation  what 
 Eusebius  himself  says  of  that  which  assigns  140  years  to  each 
 generation,  '  Cui  rei  nemo  sapiens  fidem  adjunget,'  p.  71 ;  or,  as 
 he  says  of  120  years  to  a  generation,  *  quod  a  fide  prorsus  ab- 
 horret.' 
 
IX.]        AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       255 
 
 with  the  number  of  years  expressed  in  1  Kings  vi., 
 we  are  at  least  no  worse  off  in  this  respect  if  we 
 adopt  the  more  limited  period  here  proposed.  If 
 conjectural  alteration  of  the  numerals  be  admis- 
 sible, it  is  as  easy  to  alter  them  to  suit  the  shorter 
 as  the  longer  period,  or  to  leave  them  out  alto- 
 gether, as  an  interpolation  by  some  chronologist. 
 Or,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  words  are  admitted  to 
 be  St  Paul's,  we  are  as  much  at  liberty  to  adopt 
 the  explanation,  which  I  will  give  in  the  words  of 
 the  pious  and  candid  Scott,  to  account  for  a  larger 
 as  for  a  smaller  difference.  After  quoting  a  passage 
 from  Whitby  to  the  effect  that  St  Paul  here  follows 
 the  chronology  adopted  by  Josephus  and  the  Jews, 
 who  make  591  years  from  the  Exodus  to  the  foun- 
 dation of  the  temple,  and  objecting  to  that  system 
 that  the  whole  biblical  chronology  would  be  altered 
 by  it,  he  adds,  '  But  how  far  the  Apostle,  and  Luke 
 in  recording  his  discourse,  took  these  unimportant 
 matters  as  they  found  them,  is  another  question : 
 and  if  they  did  so,  the  circumstance  of  learned  men 
 in  their  studies  having  discovered  that  these  gener- 
 ally admitted  calculations  were  inaccurate,  has,  in 
 my  view,  nothing  to  do  with  the  divine  inspiration 
 of  either  the  preacher  or  the  historian.  For  they 
 were  inspired  to  deliver  divine  truth  to  mankind, 
 unsophisticated  and  unmutilated,  not  to  correct  ge- 
 nealogies, or  give  chronological  calculations.  Even 
 on  the  supposition  that  the  Apostle  was  aware  of 
 the  inaccuracy,  it  would  have  obstructed  his  grand 
 object,  to  advance  any  new  opinion,  or  to  go  out  of 
 
25  G  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 his  way  to  correct  the  current  one.'  Comment,  on 
 Luke  xiii.  20. 
 
 In  like  manner  Eusebius  had  said  many  hun- 
 <ired  years  before  :  '  Porro  nuntius  Apostolus  hand 
 mihi  videtur  aliquam  chronologiam  proponere,  ne- 
 que  definita  sententia  supputationem  aliquam  tra- 
 dens  prsedictorum  annorum ;  neque  seposita  salu- 
 taris  verbi  doctrina,  dare  operam  tractationibus 
 temporum  ;  verum  communi  videtur  usus  lectione 
 Judicum  qui  jus  dixerunt.'  Chronic.  Canon.  Lib. 
 prior,  p.  74.^  And  with  this  explanation  of  the  pas- 
 sage in  Acts  xiii.  we  must  be  satisfied  till  some 
 better  is  found,  if  indeed  any  better  is  required. 
 It  certainly  does  not  seem  to  have  been  the  pur- 
 pose of  inspiration  to  teach  miraculously  any  arts 
 or  sciences ;  and  therefore  it  should  not  be  deemed 
 more  derogatory  to  the  inspiration  of  St  Paul  or 
 St  Luke,  that  they  were  not  beyond  the  most 
 learned  of  their  contemporaries  in  the  science  of 
 chronology,  than  it  would  be  were  we  to  discover 
 that  St  Paul  came  short  of  modern  skill  in  the 
 art  of  tent-making,  or  that  St  Luke  had  not  all  the 
 physiological  knowledge  attained  by  the  most  emi- 
 nent physicians  of  our  times. 
 
 And  now,  having,  as  we  hope,  cleared  away  the 
 dead  weight  which  the  specific  numbers  in  the 
 three  passages  we  have  been  considering  opposed 
 to  shortening  the  time  between  Joshua  and  David, 
 let  us  see  what  further  internal  evidence,  direct  or 
 indirect,  is  supplied  by  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges, 
 *  To  tlie  same  effect,  Allein,  dham  of  Prophecy. 
 
IX.]        AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       257 
 
 Ruth,  and  Samuel,  as  to  the  shortness  of  the  period 
 in  question. 
 
 Now,  first,  it  is  a  remarkable  circumstance,  that, 
 barring  the  specific  dates,  there  should  not  be  one 
 single  tittle  of  positive  evidence  as  to  the  length  of 
 the  period  being  what  the  chronologists  have  as- 
 sumed it  to  be.  But,  on  the  contrary,  every  mark 
 of  time  that  is  interspersed  through  the  narrative 
 points  to  a  much  shorter  time.  Thus  in  the  eigh- 
 teenth chapter  of  Judges,  in  the  course  of  that 
 story  which  occupies  that  and  the  preceding  chap- 
 ter, we  suddenly  light  upon  a  note  of  time  in  the 
 thirtieth  verse,  where  we  find  that  the  Levite  who 
 acted  the  part  of  priest,  first  to  Micah,  and  then  to 
 Dan,  was  grandson  to  Moses,  as  all  the  best  MSS. 
 read,  instead  of  Manasseh^  In  the  sad  story  which 
 fills  up  the  rest  of  the  book,  we  find,  by  another  in- 
 cidental notice,  that  Phinehas  the  son  of  Eleazar,  the 
 son  of  Aaron,  was  still  alive  at  the  time,  xx.  28. 
 One  of  the  longest  genealogies  in  the  book  of 
 Judges  is  that  of  Abimelech.  But  this  only  gives 
 us  seven  generations  from  Manasseh,  or  eight  from 
 Joseph:  viz.  Joseph,  Manasseh,  Machir,  Gilead, 
 Abiezer,  Joash,  Gideon,  Abimelech ;  and  three,  or 
 four  at  most,  from  the  entrance  into  Canaan.  We 
 have  again  a  genealogy  of  Tola,  who  judged  Israel, 
 in  Judg.  X.  Only  tAvo  generations  are  given  be- 
 tween him  and  Issachar,  'Tola  the  son  of  Puah, 
 the  son  of  Dodo,  a  man  of  Issachar.'    The  probable 
 
 '  See  note,  p.  234. 
 
 17 
 
258  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 inference  from  which  is,  that  he  lived  in  about  the 
 third  generation  from  the  settlement  in  the  land, 
 the  intermediate  generations  between  Dodo  and 
 Issachar  being  omitted.  In  the  book  of  Ruth 
 again  we  are  told  that  Boaz  was  the  son  of  Salmon, 
 and  grandson  of  Nahshon.  In  the  first  chapter  of 
 1  Sam.  (ver.l),  which  has  every  appearance  of  being 
 a  continuation  of  Ruth,  (for  both  are  mainly  family 
 histories  of  David  and  his  house),  we  find  Elkanah, 
 the  fifth  generation  from  Zuph,  whose  name  indi- 
 cates that  he  was  the  first  settler  in  that  district,  or 
 village,  in  mount  Ephraim,  which  was  called  after  him 
 Ramathaim-Zophim^  and  whose  pedigree  in  1  Chron. 
 vi.,  as  we  have  seen,  confirms  the  conclusion,  for 
 he  was  the  grandson  of  Korah.  Another  most  sig- 
 nificant circumstance  is,  that  in  the  whole  history 
 of  the  times,  from  the  entrance  into  Canaan  till  the 
 birth  of  Samuel,  we  have  no  mention  of  any  High 
 Priest  except  Eleazar,  Phinehas,  and  Eli.  Now, 
 though  there  may  have  been  one  or  two  who  might 
 merit  no  particular  mention,  it  is  surely  incredible 
 that  in  a  space  of  400  years,  in  a  theocracy  like 
 that  of  Israel,  nothing  should  have  occurred  to 
 make  the  mention  of  a  High  Priest  necessary,  but 
 that  a  dozen  or  more  should  have  lived  and  died 
 without  any  notice  whatever.  It  is  not  so  with 
 any  subsequent  period.  From  Eli  to  the  close  of 
 the  canon  we  have  the  series  complete,  or  all  but 
 
 *  A  confirmation  of  this  may  be  found  in  the  circumstance 
 that  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  Samuel's  dwelling  there 
 was  a  district  called  the  land  of  Zuph,  1  Sam.  ix.  5. 
 
IX.]        AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       259 
 
 complete.  Why  should  these  400  years  alone  be 
 without  any  recorded  pontificate  ?  absolutely  with- 
 out any :  because  the  genealogy  itself  does  not 
 interpose  above  two  names,  if  so  many,  or  if  any, 
 between  the  close  of  the  pontificate  of  Phinehas  and 
 the  commencement  of  Eli's  ^ 
 
 Again.  Not  only  does  the  internal  condition  of 
 the  Israelites  appear  to  be  about  the  same  through 
 the  whole  times  of  the  Judges,  but  the  relative 
 condition  of  their  neighbours  and  oppressors,  Mo- 
 abites,  Ammonites,  Midianites,  Amalekites,  and 
 Philistines  also,  appears  to  have  been  much  the 
 same  also.  And  it  does  not  seem  probable  that 
 400  or  500  years  should  elapse,  especially  at  that 
 unsettled  age  of  the  world,  and  find  all  the  neigh- 
 bouring nations  in  the  same  relative  position  at  the 
 close  as  at  the  beginning. 
 
 Another  indication  of  a  much  shorter  time  than 
 400  or  500  years  is,  that  we  find  Mizpah  the  place 
 
 *  Jewish  traditions  are  for  the  most  part  so  absurd,  and  so 
 comparatively  modern,  that  they  have  little  vv^eight  on  any  sub- 
 ject. Let  it  therefore  go  for  what  it  is  worth,  which  Selden  tells 
 us,  de  Success,  in  Pontif.  Ebrw.,  that  the  Jews  consider  Heli  to 
 be  the  successor  of  Phinehas;  and  that  ancient  Rabbis  referred 
 to  by  Jarchi  held  that  Phinehas  was  deprived  of  his  priesthood 
 because  he  woidd  not  release  Jephthah  from  his  vow,  thus  making 
 Jephthah  to  be  contemporary  with  Phinehas.  To  the  same  effect, 
 Patricides,  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  about  the  middle  of  the  10th 
 century,  says,  'Jephthah's  friends  advised  him  to  go  to  Phinehas 
 the  prophet,  the  son  of  Eleazar,  to  consult  him  how  he  might  save 
 his  daughter's  life.'  The  Alexandrian  Chronicle  also  says  that 
 *Eli  was  the  fourth  high-priest  of  the  Jews.'  Selden,  Oper.  Vol. 
 II.  Tom.  I.  p.  89. 
 
 17—2 
 
2G0  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 of  assemblage  for  the  Israelitish  parliaments,  so  to 
 speak,  (1)  during  the  life-time  of  Phinehas  (Judg. 
 XX.  28,  compared  with  v.  1);  (2)  in  the  time  of 
 Jephthah  (Judges  xi.  11);  and  (3)  in  the  time  of 
 Samuel  (1  Sam.  vii.  6;  x.  17).  It  does  not  seem 
 probable  that  in  such  unsettled  times  the  place  of 
 national  rendezvous  should  have  remained  un- 
 changed for  500  years. 
 
 Special  marks  of  proximity  to  the  settlement  in 
 Canaan  in  the  1st  Book  of  Samuel,  besides  those 
 already  pointed  out,  are  the  following : 
 
 In  1  Sam.  iv.  8,  we  find  the  Philistines  exclaim- 
 ing in  terror  at  the  appearance  of  the  ark  on  the 
 field  of  battle :  '  Woe  unto  us  !  who  shall  deliver  us 
 out  of  the  hand  of  these  mighty  gods  ?  these  are 
 the  gods  that  smote  the  Egyptians  with  all  the 
 plagues  in  the  wilderness.'  And  again  in  ch.  vi.  6, 
 we  find  another  reference  on  the  part  of  the  Phi- 
 listine priests  and  diviners  to  the  Exodus,  and  the 
 plagues  brought  upon  Pharaoh  and  the  Egyptians. 
 Now,  however  natural  it  may  be  for  the  Israelites 
 themselves  to  refer  to  these  wonderful  interposi- 
 tions of  God  on  their  behalf  frorn  generation  to 
 generation,  it  does  not  seem  natural  that  they 
 should  be  so  fresh  in  the  recollection  of  a  neigh- 
 bouring heathen  nation  500  years  afterwards,  as 
 upon  the  calculation  quoted  by  St  Paul  they  would 
 have  been,  or  400  years  after,  according  to  the 
 numbers  in  1  Kings  vi.,  as  to  be  the  ground  of  an 
 alarm  on  the  field  of  battle — a  circumstance  which 
 supposes  them  to  be  matters  of  universal  notoriety. 
 
IX.]       AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       261 
 
 Indeed,  it  is  incredible  that  they  should  have  been 
 so.  The  shorter  the  interval  which  had  elapsed, 
 the  more  probable  does  this  reference  to  the  Exo- 
 dus, in  the  mouths  of  the  Philistines,  appear. 
 
 Again,  Saul's  mission  to  destroy  the  Amalekites, 
 on  account  of  their  enmity  against  the  Israelites  at 
 the  time  of  the  Exodus,  is  much  more  consonant 
 with  probability  on  the  supposition  of  200  years 
 having  elapsed  since,  than  if  we  suppose  400  or 
 500  years  to  have  passed  ;  and  this  shorter  interval 
 is  in  m.uch  closer  agreement  with  the  declaration 
 that  '  God  visits  the  sins  of  the  fathers  upon  the 
 children  unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation  of 
 them  that  hate  him.'  The  perpetuation  of  the 
 dynasty  of  Agag  (Num.  xxiv.  7,  compared  with 
 1  Sam.  XV.  8,  20,  &c.),  the  separate  existence  of  the 
 little  tribe  of  Kenites  (Numb.  xxiv.  21,  compared 
 with  1  Sam.  xv.  6),  the  surviving  of  the  race  of 
 Anak  till  the  days  of  David  (compare  Josh.  xi.  22, 
 with  2  Sam.  xxi.  16 — 22),  are  all  circumstances 
 fitting  in  with  with  the  short  better  than  with  the 
 longer  period  of  time.  It  may  be  added,  that  there 
 may  be  also  a  connexion  between  the  calamitous 
 period  from  Joshua  to  David,  as  measured  by  the 
 four  generations  of  David's  house,  and  the  sins  of 
 the  generation  which  perished  in  the  wilderness, 
 which  may  be  a  practical  commentary  on  the  ex- 
 pression above  alluded  to  in  the  second  command- 
 ment, and  to  which  'the  sure  mercies  of  David' 
 are  in  striking  contrast. 
 
 On   the    whole,  then,    it   may    be    confidently 
 
262  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 asserted,  that  all  the  internal  evidence,  of  a  miscel- 
 laneous and  incidental  kind,  bears  out  the  direct 
 evidence  of  eight  formal  genealogies  as  to  the  time 
 between  the  entrance  into  Canaan  and  the  reign  of 
 David,  being  much  shorter  than  is  usually  sup- 
 posed. And  if  we  proceed  to  calculate  the  number 
 of  years  from  the  generations,  considering  fourteen 
 as  the  number  of  generations  from  the  patriarchs 
 to  David  and  his  contemporaries,  and  deducting  six, 
 from  observing  that  the  generation  which  flou- 
 rished in  the  wilderness  was  the  6th  from  the 
 patriarchs,  as  e.g.  Nahshon,  Phinehas,  Zelophehad, 
 Achan,  and  others,  which  leaves  eight  generations 
 from  the  entrance  into  Canaan  to  the  beginning  of 
 David's  reign,  and  allowing  30  years  to  a  genera- 
 tion, we  shall  then  have  8  x  30  =  240.  But  in  the 
 genealogy  of  David  there  are  only  five  generations 
 after  Nahshon.  We  have  therefore  to  divide  240 
 by  5,  which  gives  48  years  to  a  generation.  Or,  if 
 we  prefer  to  distribute  the  years  according  to  his- 
 torical probability,  we  may  suppose  30  years  for 
 Salmon S  65  years  for  Boaz,  43  years  for  Obed, 
 72  years  for  Jesse,  and  30  for  David.  And  if  we 
 suppose  these  years  to  have  been  236  instead  of 
 240,  and  add  40  years  for  David's  reign,  and  4  for 
 the  beginning  of  Solomon's,  we  shall  then  have 
 280  from  the  entrance  into  Canaan  to  the  founda- 
 
 '  Salmon  may  have  married  Rahab  soon  after  the  taking 
 of  Jericho,  but  have  been  separated  from  her  for  many  years  by 
 the  w^ars,  as  we  know  was  the  case  with  the  Reubenites  and 
 Gadites;  and  Boaz  may  have  been  one  of  liis  youngest  children. 
 
IX.]       AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       2G3 
 
 tion  of  the  temple,  which  may  have  been  the  ori- 
 ginal calculation  in  1  Kings  vi.;  though  of  course 
 it  is  impossible  to  arrive  at  any  certainty  upon  this 
 point.  It  is  important  however  to  add,  without 
 going  into  details  which  are  beyond  the  scope  of 
 this  work,  that  the  events  related  in  the  books  of 
 Judges  and  Samuel  and  the  opening  of  the  first 
 book  of  Kings,  may  well  have  happened  within 
 this  period  of  years.  For  if  we  assign  40  years  to 
 Eli's  judgeship,  30  to  Samuel's  i,  40  to  Saul,  40  to 
 David,  and  4  to  Solomon,  the  sum  of  these  years 
 is  154,  which  deducted  from  280,  leaves  126  years 
 from  the  entrance  into  Canaan  to  the  commence- 
 ment of  Eli's  judgeship.  If  then  we  allow  37  years 
 for  Joshua  and  the  elders,  8  years  of  Mesopotamian 
 servitude,  and  20  (instead  of  40)  years  of  rest 
 under  Othniel,  and  suppose  that  the  Moabitish 
 dominion  on  the  east  of  Jordan  began  eleven  years 
 before  Othniel's  death,  and  add  7  years  for  the 
 close  of  the  Moabitish  dominion  during  which  they 
 afflicted  Israel  west  of  Jordan ;  and  if  we  further 
 suppose  the  judgeships  of  Ehud,  Gideon  and  Jeph- 
 thah,    and    the    long   rest    which    followed   their 
 
 ^  Eusebius  and  others  only  assign  40  years  to  Samuel  and 
 Saul.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  Samuel  could  not  have  been 
 judge  less  than  30  years  before  Saul's  reign,  both  from  his  being 
 old  when  Saul  was  chosen  king,  and  apparently  young  at  Eli's 
 death,  and  also  from  the  fact,  that  20  years  elapsed  between  the 
 capture  of  the  ark,  the  same  year  that  Eli  died,  and  the  recovery 
 of  Kirjath-jearim  from  the  Philistines  (for  so  I  understand  1  Sam. 
 vii.  2)  in  the  days  of  Samuel,  when  the  40  years  of  Philistine 
 dominion  ended. 
 
2G4  DISCORDAJ^CE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 respective  victories  to  synchronize — being  the  result 
 of  the  expulsion  of  the  children  of  the  East  from 
 Israelitish  territory  by  their  several  victories  over 
 them,  and  put  this  period  of  rest  at  40  years — we 
 shall  have  37  + 28 +  7+ 40  =  11 2,  leaving  an  inter- 
 val of  14  years  before  the  commencement  of  Eli's 
 judgeship.  Or,  if  we  take  the  reading  80  years 
 as  correct  for  the  rest  after  Ehud,  it  would  bring 
 us  down  to  the  26th  year  of  Eli's  judgeship.  The 
 Philistine  oppression  commenced,  I  conceive,  in 
 the  20th  year  of  Eli ;  for  it  seems  to  have  termi- 
 nated, 20  years  after  Eli's  death,  in  the  judgeship 
 of  Samuel,  when  the  Israelites  recovered  possession 
 of  Kirjath-jearim  where  the  ark  was,  and  of  the 
 other  cities  which  the  Philistines  had  taken  from 
 them.  See  1  Sam.  vii.  Either  therefore  on  this 
 supposition,  80  years  is  a  round  number  for  74,  or 
 we  have  brought  the  commencement  of  the  rest  six 
 years  too  low,  or  possibly  we  have  made  Eli's  judg- 
 ship  commence  six  years  too  soon.  There  is  no- 
 thing to  determine  at  what  part  of  the  Philistine 
 dominion  Samson's  judgeship  is  to  be  placed.  If 
 Jabin's  oppression  and  Barak's  victory  really  took 
 place  after  Ehud,  they  must  be  assigned  to  this 
 period';  otherwise  they  would  fall  within  Joshua's 
 
 ^  To  tlie  latter  part  of  it :  the  80  years'  rest  having  only 
 extended  to  that  part  of  Israel  which  had  been  under  Ehud's 
 government.  But  I  strongly  incline  to  the  opinion  that  Barak 
 vpas  before  Ehud.  (See  note,  p.  246).  The  earlier  time  for  the 
 Canaanitish  power  being  still  in  vigour,  seems  more  probable. 
 The  occupation  of  so  large  a  part  of  Canaan  by  the  Moabites  and 
 Midianites   seems  to  presume  the  non-existence  of  a  powerful 
 
IX.]        AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       265 
 
 life-time,  in  which  case  i,  2  years,  is  a  more 
 probable  duration  for  Jabin's  oppression  than  5, 
 20  years.  Here,  too,  we  must  place,  as  before 
 hinted,  the  civil  war  against  Benjamin,  which  con- 
 sequently comes  in  its  right  place  at  the  end  of  the 
 book,  except  that  the  history  of  Samson  should 
 have  followed  it  chronologically;  but  this  might 
 have  been  inserted  first  as  completing  the  records 
 of  the  foreign  wars  of  the  Israelites.  Phinehas 
 might  well  have  been  alive  eighty  years  after  the 
 death  of  Moses,  especially  if  we  ascribe  to  him,  as 
 his  peculiar  position,  and  the  examples  of  Joshua 
 and  Caleb,  seem  to  justify  us  in  doing,  a  patriarchal 
 longevity,  which  he  would  probably  be  the  last  to 
 enjoy.  As  regards  Jephthah,  the  above  calculation 
 places  the  commencement  of  his  judgeship  72 
 years  after  the  death  of  Moses,  which  would  make 
 him  above  80,  if  he  were  the  son  of  Gilead,  and 
 so  young  as  even  ten  years  old  at  the  death  of 
 
 Canaanitisli  rule.  The  coincidence  too,  above  referred  to,  of  the 
 names  of  Jabin  and  Hazor  must  not  be  forgotten.  It  is  moreover 
 very  remarkable  that  Samuel,  in  his  enumeration  of  the  Jewish 
 servitudes,  1  Sam.  xli.  9,  names  Jabin  king  of  Hazor  first,  then 
 the  Philistines,  then  the  king  of  Moab ;  and  that  in  the  enume- 
 ration in  v.  11  of  the  judges  sent  to  deliver  them  from  the  above- 
 named  oppressors,  we  luive  Gideon  and  Jephthah  for  the  king  of 
 Moab ;  Barak  (as  beyond  a  doubt  we  ought  to  read  with  the 
 Septuag.  and  St  Paul,  Heb.  xi.  32,  instead  of  the  corrupt  Bedan, 
 'y~\'2.  instead  of  p^)  for  Jabin;  and  Samuel,  or,  as  I  think  we 
 ought  to  read,  again  following  Heb.  xi.  32,  and  probability, 
 though  here  without  the  Septuag.,  Samson,  for  the  Philistines, 
 or  yet  more  probably  Shamgar.  For  the  position  in  whicli  the 
 Philistines  are  named  seems  to  indicate  their  earlier  incursions 
 against  Israel. 
 
266  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 Moses,  which  is  an  improbable  age.  If  the  Mo- 
 abitish  oppression  east  of  Jordan  began  before  the 
 death  of  Joshua,  or  if  Jephthah  were  Gilead's 
 grandson^  or,  if  we  assign  a  shorter  time  than 
 37  years  to  Joshua  and  the  elders,  this  difficulty 
 would  be  removed. 
 
 However,  whatever  uncertainty  may  still  ob- 
 scure the  precise  arrangement  of  the  materials 
 handed  down  to  us  in  the  book  of  Judges,  I  think 
 the  possibility  of  the  different  events  recorded  in 
 it  to  have  happened  to  Judah,  Ephraim,  Manasseh, 
 the  Gileadites,  and  other  tribes,  respectively,  having 
 really  fallen  within  the  compass  of  about  150  years, 
 exclusive  of  the  Philistine  oppression,  cannot  be 
 denied  :  and  consequently,  that  it  must  be  acknow- 
 ledged that  all  the  events  between  the  death  of 
 Moses  and  the  foundation  of  Solomon's  temple 
 may  well  have  happened  within  the  compass  of  280 
 years.  So  that,  as  far  as  the  sacred  history  itself 
 is  concerned,  no  important  objection  can  be  brought 
 against  the  short  interval  here  supposed  to  have 
 elapsed  between  Moses  and  Solomon. 
 
 But  an  important  consideration  remains,  viz. 
 how  far  this  shorter  period  fits  in  with  general 
 chronology.  Because,  obviously,  if  general  chrono- 
 logy requires  that  an  interval  of  500  or  600  years 
 should  be  placed  between  Moses  and  Solomon,  we 
 shall  have  gained  nothing  by  merely  shewing  that 
 Jewish  history  does  not  require  it.  To  go  fully  into 
 this  subject  is  quite  beyond  the  scope  of  this  little 
 work.    I  will  only  therefore  observe,  that  I  am  not 
 
IX.]        AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       267 
 
 aware  of  anything-  in  the  chronology  of  other  nations 
 which  militates  against  the  schenae  here  proposed. 
 Rather  I  would  hope  that  the  rectification  of  an 
 error  of  200  years  in  Jewish  chronology,  if  it  be  a 
 rectification,  may   lead  to  the   discovery,  through 
 Egyptian  or  Assyrian  monuments,  of  more  points  of 
 contact  between  early  Jewish  and  profane  history 
 than  have  hitherto  been  brought  to   light.     This 
 hope  has  been  greatly  strengthened  on  turning  to 
 Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson's  Manners  and  Customs  of 
 the  Egyptians,  by   finding-  the  subjoined   passage 
 with  reference  to  the  Exodus.     After  stating   his 
 own  acquiescence  in  the  opinion  that  the  Exodus 
 took    place    under    Thothmes    III.,     an     opinion 
 founded  solely  or  mainly  upon  the  supposed  date 
 of  the  Exodus,  and  adding-  that  his  own  view  as  to 
 B.  c.  1355  being  the  true  date  of  the  accession  of 
 Remeses  the  Great,  is  confirmed  by  the  astronomical 
 ceiling  of  the  Memnonium,  he  adds,  Vol.  i.  p.  77: 
 "But  another  opinion... may  also  be  maintained  by 
 "many  forcible  arguments,  and  as  my  object  is  to 
 "examine  the  question  impartially,  I  gladly  avail 
 "myself  of  this  opportunity   of  introducing  Lord 
 "Prudhoe's  view  of  the  subject,  which  he  has  done 
 "me  the  favour  to  embody  in  the  following  remarks: 
 It  is  extremely  difficult  to  determine  the  date  of  the 
 Exodus  in  Egyptian  history  from  the  want  of  suf- 
 ficient data  in  the  Bible,  and  from  the  incorrectness 
 of  names  given  hy  ancient  historians ;  hit  the  event 
 is  so  important,  that  even  an  attempt  to  ascertain 
 tliat  date  must  he  interesting.    The  first  text  bearing 
 
268  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [ciI. 
 
 on  the  subject  is  Genes,  xlvii.  5,  6:  'Pharaoh 
 spake  unto  Joseph  saying.  Thy  father  and  thy  bre- 
 thren are  come  unto  thee :  the  land  of  Egypt  is  before 
 thee;  in  the  best  of  the  land  make  thy  father  and  thy 
 brethren  to  divell ;  in  the  land  of  Goshen  let  them 
 dwell. — (Ver.  11.)  A7id  Joseph  gave  them  a  posses- 
 sion in  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  the  best  of  the  land, 
 in  the  land  of  Rameses,  as  Pharaoh  had  com- 
 manded' In  this  quotation  it  does  not  appear  that 
 the  land  was  called  Rameses  when  Pharaoh  ga,ve  it 
 to  Jacob ;  Ms  words  are,  'Give  them  the  best  of  the 
 land ;  the  remainder  of  the  text  is  in  the  form  of  a 
 narrative  by  Moses.  But  the  land  was  called  Ra- 
 meses when  Moses  wrote,  and  consequently  it  was 
 so  called  before  the  Exodus.  It  probably  received 
 its  name  from  one  of  the  Pharaohs ;  we  may  there- 
 fore conclude  the  Exodus  did  not  take  place  until 
 after  the  reign  of  a  Remeses ;  and  the  earliest  king 
 of  that  name  is  distinguished  among  students  of 
 hieroglyphics  by  the  title  of  Remeses  I. 
 
 'Now  there  arose  up  a  new  king  over  Egypt 
 which  knew  not  Joseph.'  (Exod.  i.  8,)  This  text 
 Qvould  agree  with  Remeses  I,  who  appears  to  have 
 been  the  first  king  of  a  new  dynasty,  and  might 
 Qvell  be  ignorant  of  the  benefits  conferred  on  Egypt 
 by  Joseph.  '  Tlierefore  they  did  set  over  them  task- 
 masters to  afflict  them  with  their  burdens.  And 
 they  built  for  Pharaoh  treasure-cities,  Pithom  and 
 Raamses.'  The  last  was  the  name  of  the  Pharaoh; 
 and  it  is  remarkaUe  that  the  prefix  used  to  desig- 
 nate Remeses  II.  was  compounded  of  Pi '  the,'  and 
 
IX.]        AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       269 
 
 Thme  'justice.'  And  though  the  figure  of  the  god- 
 dess Thme  is  introduced  into  the  names  of  his 
 father  and  other  Pharaohs,  he  is  the  first  Remeses 
 in  whose  prefix  it  occurs;  and  we  may  therefore 
 conclude  it  was  for  this  monarch  that  the  Hebrews 
 huilt  the  t?'easure-cities. 
 
 Another  instance  of  the  name  so  used  is  con- 
 firmed by  the  testimony  of  Straho  and  Aristotle, 
 who  attribute  the  making  of  the  Suez  canal  to 
 Sesostris ;  and  Herodotus  says  that  it  enters  the 
 sea  near  the  town  of  Patumos,  Sesostris  is  now 
 generally  considered  to  be  Remeses  11. ;  and  the 
 circumstance  of  his  name  being  found  on  buildings 
 near  the  carnal  gives  another  Pithom  built  by  this 
 king. 
 
 Lysimachus  mentions  'that  iii  the  reign  of  Boc- 
 coris  king  of  Egypt,  the  Jewish  people,  being 
 infected  7vith  leprosy,  scurvy,  and  sundry  other 
 diseases,  took  shelter  in  the  temples,  where  they 
 begged  for  food ;  and  that  in  consequence  of  the  vast 
 number  of  persons  who  were  seized  with  the  com- 
 plaint, there  became  a  scarcity  in  Egypt.  Upon 
 this  Boccoris  sent  persons  to  enquire  of  the  oracle 
 of  Ammon  respecting  the  scarcity;  and  the  god 
 directed  him  to  cleanse  the  temples  of  all  polluted 
 and  impious  men,  and  to  cast  them  out  into  the 
 desert,  when  the  land  would  recover  its  fertility^ 
 This  the  king  did  with  much  cruelty. 
 
 If  Boccoris  could  be  a  mistake  for  the  Coptic 
 name  OCIPI  with  the  article  n  prefixed,  it  was 
 Osiri,  the  father  of  Remeses  II.,  who  thus  oppressed 
 
270  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 tliem.  Again,  the  son  of  Remeses  II.  was  called 
 Ptliameno][)li.  Josephus  states  'that  the  king  Amen- 
 ophis  was  desirous  of  beholding  the  gods,  as  Orus, 
 one  of  his  predecessors  in  the  kingdom,  had  done. 
 And  having  communicated  his  desire  to  the  priest 
 Amenophis,  the  son  of  Pajns,  the  priest  returned 
 for  answer,  that  it  was  in  his  power  to  behold  the 
 gods  if  he  woidd  cleanse  the  whole  country  of  the 
 lepers  and  other  unclean  persons  who  abounded  in 
 it;  upon  which  the  king  gathered  them  together  and 
 sent  them  to  work  in  the  quarries?  Josephus 
 relates,  in  continuation,  that  a  revolt  was  the  conse- 
 quence of  this  measure;  and  after  some  delays  and 
 difficulties,  king  Amenop)his  marched  with  300,000 
 Egyptians  against  the  enemy,  defeated  tliem,  and 
 pursued  them  to  the  bounds  of  Syria,  halving  pre- 
 viously placed  his  son  Sethos  under  the  care  of  a 
 faithful  adherent. 
 
 It  is  probable  that  by  Amenophis  Josephus 
 meant  Pthamenoph ;  and  this  opinion  is  twice  con- 
 firmed; first,  by  his  son  Sethos,  the  Se-ptha,  of  the 
 hieroglyphics,  which  is  the  only  instance  of  a  king 
 so  called  in  the  known  series  of  the  Pharaohs;  and, 
 secondly,  when  he  describes  Horus  as  one  of  his 
 predecessor's :  for  the  grandfather  of  Phtha-menoph 
 succeeded  to  Horus,  who  was  the  only  Egyptian 
 monarch  who  bore  that  name. 
 
 If  these  coi^rections  of  names  be  permitted,  six 
 Pharaohs  who  succeeded  each  other  in  regidar  suc- 
 cession are  mentioned  either  as  a  direct  or  a  col- 
 lateral evidence  of  the  Exodus  having  taken  place 
 
IX.]       AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       271 
 
 at  this  cera :  1,  Horns,  one  of  the  'predecessors  of 
 Amenophis :  2,  Remeses  I.,  the  new  king  who  knew 
 not  Joseph:  3,  Osiri  I.,  or  Boccoris,  who  oppressed 
 the  Jews:  4,  Remeses  IL,  who  built  Pithom  and 
 Raamses :  5,  Phtha-menoph,  the  Pharaoh  of  the 
 Exodus:  6,  Sethos  his  son,  who  was  placed  with 
 an  attendant. 
 
 From  the  many  complaints  of  oppression  in  the 
 Bible,  it  appears  that  the  bondage  was  both  severe 
 and  of  some  duration ;  these  two  reigns  may  there- 
 fore not  be  too  long:  but  what,  may  be  inquii^ed, 
 would  be  the  effect  in  Egypt  of  an  oppressio7i  of  so 
 numerous  a  population,  and  of  their  subsequent 
 Exodus  f...l.  To  oppress  and  keep  them  in  bond- 
 age required  a  powerful  monarch,  and  a  warrior, 
 and  such  were  in  an  eminent  degree  Osiri  I.  and 
 Remeses  II.  2,  The  labours  of  so  great  a  popu- 
 lation could  not  fail  to  be  distinguished ;  and  no 
 Pharaohs  have  left  finer  buildings,  nor  in  greater 
 numbers,  than  these  two  kings.  3,  A  successful 
 revolt  could  only  take  place  under  a  feeble  monarch, 
 and  such  ivas  PhiJia-menoph ;  and  the  loss  of  so 
 great  a  popidation  woidd  inflict  a  blow  on  the  pros- 
 perity of  Egypt,  and  cause  a  lasting  debility.  Such 
 was  the  state  of  Egypt  after  the  reign  of  Remeses  IL, 
 when  a  sudden  decline  of  the  arts  and  power  of  the 
 country  ensued;  and  if  at  the  accession  of  Remeses 
 HI.  they  for  a  time  reappeared,  and  in  great  splen- 
 dour, yet  with  this  monarch  the  glory  of  ancient 
 Egypt  departed  for  ever. 
 
 "From  the  preceding  statement  it  is  evident  that 
 
272  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [cil. 
 
 "Lord  Prudhoe  places  the  Exodus  in  the  reign  of 
 "Phthahmen,or,as  he  writes  it,  Phtha-menoph — the 
 "last  king  of  the  18th  dynasty;  and  that  consequently 
 *Hhe  dates  of  tJiose  monarchs  are  all  thrown  hack 
 ^' about  200  j/ears.  The  decision  of  this  interesting 
 "  question  I  leave  to  the  learned  reader ;  and  shall 
 "feel  great  satisfaction  when  the  subject  becomes  so 
 "well  understood  as  to  enable  a  positive  opinion  to 
 "be  pronounced  upon  it^" 
 
 From  the  above  passage,  then,  it  appears  that 
 there  are  very  strong  circumstances  of  internal 
 evidence  to  lead  us  to  identify  certain  Egyptian 
 monarchs  as  those  Pharaohs  who  are  mentioned 
 in  the  history  of  the  bondage  and  Exodus  of  the 
 Israelites :  but  that  the  great  difficulty  in  the  way 
 of  such  a  scheme  is  that  Egyptian  chronology 
 assigns  to  those  kings  an  age  200  years  later  than 
 the  supposed  date  of  the  Exodus  according  to  Jew- 
 ish chronology.  But  by  the  shortening  of  the 
 period  between  the  Exodus  and  Solomon  by  200 
 years,  a  perfect  synchronism  is  at  once  established. 
 I  cannot  forbear  adding,  that  the  attempted  recti- 
 fication of  the  Scripture  chronology  was  completed 
 exactly  as  it  now  stands  in  the  preceding  pages, 
 without  the  slightest  reference  to  Egyptian  chro- 
 nology, and  in  total  forgetfulness  of  the  above  pas- 
 sage in  Sir  G.  Wilkinson's  works,  which  I  had  not 
 read  for  fifteen  years ;  and  that  I  wa^  no  less  sur- 
 prised than  gratified  to  find,  on  turning  to  the  Man- 
 ners and  Customs  of  the  Egyptians,  with  the  view  of 
 '  See  note  E  at  the  end  of  the  Volume. 
 
IX.]        AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.       273 
 
 seeing  how  far  the  proposed  scheme  was  consistent 
 with  Egyptian  chronology,  that  the  precise  number 
 of  200  years,  which  I  had  been  led,  from  purely 
 Scriptural  data,  to  think  excessive  in  the  received 
 Jewish  chronology,  was  the  very  number  which 
 alone  stood  in  the  way  of  the  synchronism  proposed 
 by  Lord  Prudhoe,  and  apparently,  but  for  this  diffi- 
 culty, approved  by  Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson. 
 
 Another  argument  of  no  inconsiderable  weight 
 in  favour  of  the  later  date  for  the  Exodus  may  be 
 drawn  from  the  age  of  the  Shepherd-kings,  or  Hyk- 
 sos.  It  is  agreed  that  the  15th,  16th,  and  17th 
 dynasties,  and  Chevalier  Bunsen  thinks  the  13th 
 and  14th  also,  were  under  the  Shepherd  rulers. 
 Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson  places  the  arrival  of  Joseph 
 under  the  16th  dynasty,  in  the  reign  of  Osirtasen  : 
 the  very  time  when,  according  to  Manetho,  the 
 Shepherds  must  have  been  at  the  height  of  their 
 power.  But  in  Gen.  xlvi.  34,  we  learn  that,  at  the 
 time  of  Jacob's  going  down  to  Egypt,  '  every  shep- 
 herd was  an  abomination  to  the  Egyptians.'  Surely 
 the  natural  inference  from  this  passage  is,  that  the 
 Shepherds  had  lately  been  expelled  from  Egypt, 
 and  that  the  detestation  of  their  late  oppressors 
 was  still  fresh  in  the  mind  of  the  Egyptians.  Now, 
 upon  our  hypothesis,  Jacob  must  have  come  down 
 to  Egypt  early  in  the  18th  dynasty;  and,  according 
 to  Chevalier  Bunsen,  the  first  king  of  this  dynasty 
 took  Memphis  from  the  Shepherds,  and  Thothmes 
 III.  finally  expelled  them  from  Egypt,  where  their 
 last  stronghold  was  Pelusium.     Thothmes  III.,  ac- 
 
 18 
 
274  DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY  [CH. 
 
 cording  to  Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson's  chronological 
 table,  began  to  reign  B.C.  1495.  And  as  he  places 
 Joseph's  arrival  in  the  year  B.C.  1706,  if  we  bring 
 it  down  200  years  later,  we  shall  place  it  at 
 1506.  Jacob's  arrival,  consequently,  would  be 
 immediately  after  the  final  expulsion  of  the  Hyk- 
 sos.  It  appears  to  me,  therefore,  that  Egyptian 
 chronology  is  highly  favourable  to  this  later  date 
 for  the  Exodus.  Nor  is  it  difficult  to  account 
 for  the  unanimity  of  writers  on  chronology  in  fa- 
 vour of  the  earlier  date.  The  only  materials,  as 
 before  observed,  from  which  they  derived  their 
 chronology  of  Israelitish  affairs  was  the  Bible,  and 
 a  mistaken  computation  of  the  years  recorded  in  it 
 from  Moses  to  Solomon.  And  when  they  attempt- 
 ed to  connect  Jewish  history  with  Egyptian,  they 
 were  necessarily  thrown  out  by  this  error  about 
 200  years.  But  the  consequence  of  this  was,  that 
 they  fell  into  the  period  of  the  expulsion  of  the 
 Shepherd-kings,  and  were  therefore,  and  especially 
 the  Jewish  writers,  easily  led  to  apply  to  the 
 Exodus  and  to  the  Israelites  such  notices  as  they 
 found  in  Egyptian  history  concerning  the  Shep- 
 herds. It  is  not  improbable,  too,  that  Egyptian 
 tradition  may  itself  have  confounded  the  circum- 
 stances of  the  departure  of  the  two  enemies  of 
 Egypt,  the  Hyksos  and  the  Hebrews.  The  absence 
 of  any  further  allusion  in  the  books  of  Genesis  and 
 Exodus  to  the  Shepherds,  besides  the  very  impor- 
 tant and  significant  one  in  Gen.  xlvi.  34,  is  thus 
 also  fully  accounted  for. 
 
IX.]       AND  CHRONOLOGY  OF  JUDGES.        275 
 
 If,  again,  we  turn  to  Edomitish  history,  we  shall 
 find  that  the  fragment  of  it  preserved  in  Gen.  xxxvi., 
 and  in  1  Chron.  i.  43,  seqq.  is  in  exact  accordance, 
 as  far  as  it  goes,  with  our  hypothesis.  For  in  the 
 enumeration  of  the  '  kings  that  reigned  in  the 
 land  of  Edom  before  any  king  reigned  over  the 
 children  of  Israel,'  we  have  a  list  of  eight  kings. 
 Now  we  know  from  Numb.  xx.  14 — 17,  that  there 
 was  a  king  in  Edom  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus. 
 Therefore  from  the  time  of  the  Exodus  to  the 
 time  of  Saul  there  were  at  the  most  eight  kings. 
 Allowing  30  years  to  a  reign,  that  would  give  240 
 years.  It  may  be  added,  that  the  name  of  the  first 
 king  'Bela  the  son  of  Beor'  (1  Chron.  i.  43),  makes 
 it  highly  probable  that  he  should  be  about  con- 
 temporary with  'Balaam  the  son  of  Beor,'  whose 
 near  relative,  and  perhaps  his  own  brother,  he  must 
 have  been,  by  the  similarity  of  the  names',  if  indeed 
 he  is  not  the  same  individual ;  and  that  the  last 
 king,  Hadad  (not  Hadar,  as  it  is  corruptly  written 
 in  Gen.  xxxvi.  39)  must  certainly  have  reigned  as 
 late  as  Saul,  because  we  learn  that  the  dynasty  of 
 the  Hadads  continued  till  the  reign  of  David.  For 
 Hadad,  who  escaped  from  the  slaughter  of  his 
 countrymen  by  Joab,  was  ' of  the  kings  seed  in 
 Edom,'  and  apparently  the  king's  son.  (1  Kings  xi. 
 14 — 17).  So  that  the  confirmation,  from  the  suc- 
 cession of  the  Edomitish  kings,  of  the  short  time 
 from  the  Exodus  to  David  really  is  most  striking. 
 
 '    TlVl'l^.     )jb3.    1  Chron.  i.  43,    compared    with    'oyh^. 
 
 18—2 
 
276    DISCORDANCE  BETWEEN  GENEALOGY,  &C.  [CH.IX. 
 
 On  the  whole,  then,  our  inference  from  the  Jew- 
 ish history  and  genealogies  as  to  the  Chronology  of 
 the  times  of  the  Judges,  seems  to  be  not  contradicted, 
 but  greatly  supported,  by  the  contemporary  history 
 of  other  nations;  and  we  may  now  assert,  with  some 
 degree  of  confidence  and  assurance,  that  when  St 
 Matthew  and  St  Luke  recorded  that  Salmon  begat 
 Booz,  and  that  Booz  begat  Obed,  that  Obed  begat 
 Jesse,  and  that  Jesse  begat  king  David,  they  re- 
 corded that  which  is  perfectly  consistent  with  his- 
 torical probability,  and  with  those  laws  of  nature 
 with  which  their  Divine  Author  never  interferes, 
 but  for  some  great  and  adequate  end.  And  this 
 assertion  will,  it  is  hoped,  meet  with  the  concur- 
 rence of  the  candid  and  learned  reader. 
 
CHAPTER  X. 
 
 Genealogy  of  the  High  Priests. 
 
 AS  in  the  course  of  our  argument  we  have  had 
 occasion  to  refer  once  or  twice  to  the  genealogy 
 of  the  High  Priests,  and  as  this  genealogy  bears 
 out,  to  a  very  remarkable  degree,  many  of  the 
 observations  which  have  been  made ;  and  as,  more- 
 over, considerable  obscurity  attaches  to  some  parts 
 of  the  history  of  the  High  Priests,  and  their  succes- 
 sion, it  may  perhaps  not  be  beyond  the  scope  of 
 this  work,  or  unacceptable  to  the  reader,  if  we 
 devote  a  few  pages  to  the  endeavour  to  clear  up 
 such  obscurity,  and  exhibit  the  succession  of  the 
 High  Priests,  and  assign  to  them  their  place  in  the 
 parallel  history  of  Israel  to  the  close  of  the  canon 
 of  Scripture. 
 
 The  genealogy  of  Jehozadak,  who  went  into  cap- 
 tivity when  his  father  Seraiah  was  put  to  death  by 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  (compare  2  Kings  xxv.  18 — 21, 
 with  1  Chron.  vi.  15)  is  given  in  1  Chron.  vi.  1 — 15. 
 If  we  add  the  generations  subsequent  to  Jehoza- 
 dak, as  they  are  given,  Ezra  iii.  2,  Nehem.  xii.  10, 
 IJ,  we  shall  have  the  complete  genealogical  list  as 
 follows,  the  stem  of  the  house  of  Eli  being  also 
 added : 
 
278  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS. 
 
 1  Levi 
 
 I 
 
 2  Kohath 
 
 I 
 
 3  Amram 
 
 I 
 
 4  Aaron 
 
 I 
 
 [CH. 
 
 5  Eleazar 
 
 I 
 
 6  Phinehas 
 
 I 
 
 7  Abishua 
 
 I 
 
 8  Bukki 
 
 I 
 
 9  Uzzi 
 
 I   . 
 JO  Zerahiali 
 
 I 
 
 11  Meraioth 
 
 I   . 
 
 12  Amariah 
 
 I 
 
 13  Ahitub 
 
 I 
 
 14  Zadok 
 
 I 
 
 15  Ahimaaz 
 
 1 
 
 16  Azariah 
 
 17  Johanan 
 
 I. 
 
 18  Azariah 
 
 19  Amariah 
 
 20  Ahitub 
 
 I 
 
 21  Zadok      • 
 
 I 
 
 22  Shallum 
 
 I 
 
 23  HiLKIAH 
 
 1 
 
 Ithamar 
 
 10  Eli 
 
 I 
 
 11  Phinehas 
 
 I 
 
 12  Ahitub 
 
 I 
 
 13  Ahimelech  or  Ahijah 
 
 I 
 
 14  Abiathar 
 
 I 
 
 15  Jonathan. 
 
X.]  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  279 
 
 24  AZARIAII 
 
 ■   I 
 
 25  Seraiah 
 
 I 
 
 26  Jehozadak 
 
 27  Jeshua 
 
 I 
 
 28  JOIAKIM 
 
 I 
 
 29  Eliashib 
 
 I 
 
 30  Joiada 
 
 I 
 
 31  Jonathan  or  Johanan 
 
 32  Jaddua. 
 
 Now  it  is  obvious  at  once,  that  even  supposing 
 this  genealogical  stem  to  be  accurate  and  complete, 
 it  does  not  necessarily  follow  either  that  all  the 
 persons  named  in  it  were  High  Priests,  or  that  it 
 contains  in  it  all  who  were  High  Priests.  Indeed, 
 it  is  probable,  considering  the  length  of  time  which 
 this  genealogy  covers,  that  neither  of  these  would 
 be  the  case.  Brothers,  uncles,  nephews,  or  cou- 
 sins of  those  in  the  line,  must  most  likely,  or  at 
 least  may  probably,  have  been  High  Priests,  while 
 some  in  the  line,  though  descendants  and  ances- 
 tors of  High  Priests,  may  never  have  attained  that 
 dignity  themselves'.     It  is  only  from  the   history 
 
 '  I  do  not  attach  the  sHghtest  weight  to  Josephus's  boasting 
 expression,  Otiroi  7ra'j/T69  vrarBe?  irapd  TraT^oV  hieCe^auTo  rrji/ 
 l€po3(Tvvt]v,  Antiq.  X.  viii.  Q,  if  intended  to  assert  that  the  High 
 Priests  had  always  succeeded  in  an  unbroken  Hue  from  father  to 
 son.  But  the  expression  may  afford  vahiable  evidence  that  the 
 list  of  the  High  Priests,  preserved  in  the  archives  of  the  temple, 
 was  in  a  genealogical  form,  and  was  in  this  respect  an  exact 
 
280  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  [CH. 
 
 of  the  times,  as  far  as  they  inform  us,  that  we  can 
 know  for  certain  which  of  the  above  were  High 
 Priests,  and  who  besides  them  were.  In  order  to 
 make  it  apparent  at  a  glance  which  of  them  were 
 certainly  High  Priests,  either  singly,  or,  according 
 to  a  practice  which  long  prevailed,  with  a  coadju- 
 tor, the  names  of  those  whom  we  know  to  have 
 attained  the  pontificate  are  in  the  above  list 
 printed  in  capitals. 
 
 Let  us,  in  the  first  instance,  verify  the  right 
 of  all  such  persons  to  be  considered  as  High 
 Priests,  and  also  insert  in  their  proper  places 
 those  others  whom  we  learn  from  the  history 
 to  have  filled  that  office.  In  the  case  of  Aaron, 
 Eleazar,  and  Phinehas,  there  is  no  doubt.  See 
 Exod.  xxviii.  1,  &c. ;  Josh.  xiv.  1,  &c.,  xxiv.  33 ; 
 Judg.  XX.  28.  But  the  six  next  descendants  of 
 Phinehas  are  only  named  in  this  stem  and  in  Ezra 
 vii.  2 — 5,  and  the  seventh,  Ahitub,  only  named  be- 
 sides, as  the  father  of  Zadok  (2  Sam.  viii.  17,  &c.). 
 Who  succeeded  Phinehas  in  the  priesthood  we  know 
 not  for  certain ;  but  I  do  not  think  it  necessary 
 to  suppose  that  more  than  one,  and  perhaps  not 
 even  one  High  Priest,  intervened  between  Phinehas, 
 supposing  him  to  have  lived  to  a  patriarchal  age, 
 and  Eli,  supposing  him  to  have  entered  upon  the 
 Pontificate  early  in  his  long  life.  Whether  that 
 one,  if  there  was  one,  were  Abishua  ^,  or  Bukki,  or 
 
 counterpart  of  the  list  of  the  regal  succession  handed  down  to  us 
 by  St  Matthew. 
 
 '  Abisluia  and  Bukki  are  both  omitted  altogether  by  Epi- 
 
X.]  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  281 
 
 Eli's  father,  we  know  nothing  that  can  help  us  to 
 determine. 
 
 Again,  we  have  no  proof  that  Ahitub,  the  son 
 of  Phinehas,  ever  exercised  the  functions  of  High 
 Priest,  which  his  father  Phinehas,  we  know,  did  not 
 live  to  attain.  Nor  do  we  know  who  was  High 
 Priest  during  his  minority.  In  all  probability,  the 
 office,  in  its  political  character,  was  thrown  into  the 
 shade  during  Samuel's  life-time,  both  by  his  per- 
 sonal dignity  and  great  authority,  and  from  the 
 circumstance  of  Ahitub  having  been  left  a  mere 
 child  (as  is  probable)  at  the  death  of  his  father 
 and  grandfather.  In  Samuel's  old  age,  however, 
 we  find  Ahiah  the  son  of  Ahitub  described  as  '  the 
 •Lord's  priest  in  Shiloh,'  1  Sam.  xiv.  3.  And  from 
 the  resemblance  of  the  names,  the  first  element  in 
 both  being  "Tti^,  and  the  proximity  of  the  times  to 
 each  other,  it  is  most  probable  that  he  is  the  same 
 
 phanius  in  his  list  of  High  Priests  from  Ahimaaz  to  Aaron. 
 Adver.  Melchizedec.  iii.  Josephus,  Ant.  Jud.  viii.  1,  calls  Abi- 
 shua  (corrupted  to  'Iwo-j/tto?)  '  the  High  Priest,'  and  his  descend- 
 ants till  Zadok,  private  persons.  But  there  is  a  passage  in 
 1  Chron.  ix.  11,  and  repeated  in  Neh.  xi.  II,  which,  if  the  words 
 '  ruler  of  the  house  of  God '  apply,  as  they  may,  after  the  analogy 
 of  Ezra  vii.  5,  to  Ahitub,  proves  that  Zadok's  father  Ahitub  was 
 High  Priest.  If  again  these  words  belong  to  Jedaiah,  as  the 
 English  version  of  Neh.  xi.  II,  would  lead  us  to  think  they  do, 
 it  seems  to  follow  that  Jedaiah  must  be  the  same  person  as  Joiada 
 the  High  Priest,  Jehoiarib  as  Eliashib,  Jakin  as  Joiakim,  and 
 that  omitting  Jeshua  and  Jehozadak,  the  line  is  continued  up- 
 wards to  Ahitub.  In  this  case,  Jedaiah  n''i^T  compared  with 
 Joiada  j;*]'*')'',  is  another  instance  of  the  transposition  of  the 
 Divine  Name  in  proper  names.  See  p.  115.  It  is  obvious  that 
 in  both  passages  we  ought  to  read,  '  Jedaiah  the  son  of  Joiarib, 
 the  son  of  Jachin,  the  son  of  Seraiah,'  &c. 
 
282  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  [CH. 
 
 person  as  is  called  in  1  Sam.  xxii.  20,  '  Ahimeleeh 
 the  son  of  Ahitub,'  *]7^  being  substituted  for  il\ 
 as  the  second  element.  Abundant  instances  of 
 similar  variations  in  names  have  been  brought 
 forward  in  the  preceding  pages.  He  was  put  to 
 death  by  Saul,  for  having  favoured  David  by  giving 
 him  the  shew-bread  to  eat,  and  Goliath's  sword. 
 His  son  Abiathar  succeeded  him,  and  continued 
 to  be  High  Priest,  in  conjunction  with  Zadok,  all 
 through  the  reign  of  David,  and  was  the  last  of 
 Ithamar's  line  that  was  so :  for  he  was  thrust  out 
 from  the  office  by  Solomon  on  his  accession,  for 
 having  taken  part  with  Adonijah,  though  his  life 
 was  spared  in  consideration  of  his  long  attachment 
 to  David,  1  Kings  ii.  26,  27,  35.  And  this  circum- 
 stance is  sufficient  to  confute  an  absurd  hypothesis 
 that  has  been  invented  to  account  for  an  accidental 
 mistake  of  some  transcriber.  In  2  Sam.  viii.  17, 
 '  Ahimeleeh  the  son  of  Abiathar,'  was  accidentally 
 written  instead  of '  Abiathar  the  son  of  Ahimeleeh/ 
 a  mistake  which  was  repeated  in  the  duplicate 
 passage,  1  Chron.  xviii.  16,  with  the  further  mis- 
 take of  writing  *Abimelech'  for  'Ahimeleeh,'  and 
 continued  in  1  Chron.  xxiv.  3,  6,  31.  As  through- 
 out the  history  of  David's  reign  we  always  have 
 Abiathar  mentioned  as  the  priest,  and  that  over 
 and  over  again,  and  unto  Solomon's  reign,  it  should 
 seem  impossible  for  any  one  to  doubt  that  this  was 
 at  first  a  mere  clerical  errors  However,  upon  the 
 notion  of  the  absolute  perfection  of  the  Hebrew 
 
 *  Vitinm  librarii  hoc  esse  dicunt.     Nam  e  contra  Abiathar 
 filius  est  Ahimelechi.    Procopius  Gaza?us  in  2  Sam.  viii.  17- 
 
X.]  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  283 
 
 text,  an  hypothesis  has  been  invented  of  two  Ahi- 
 melechs  and  two  Abiathars,  so  that  there  might 
 be  both  an  Abiathar  son  of  Ahimeleeh,  and  an 
 Ahimelech  son  of  Abiathar.  This  seems  to  be, 
 indeed,  straining  at  a  gnat  and  swallowing  a  camel. 
 But  unfortunately,  after  all,  it  does  no  good.  For 
 the  broad  fact  remains  unmoved,  that  Abiathar, 
 the  son  of  that  Ahimelech  who  was  killed  by  Saul 
 continued  to  be  priest  all  through  David's  reign, 
 and  into  Solomon's ;  so  that  we  should  not  know 
 what  to  do  with  Ahimelech  son  of  Abiathar,  if  we 
 had  him.  A  much  greater  difficulty  is  that  in 
 Mark  ii.  25,  26  :  we  read,  as  part  of  our  Saviour's 
 words,  that  David  '  went  into  the  house  of  God  in 
 the  days  of  Abiathar  the  High  Priest,  and  did  eat 
 the  shew-bread,'  &c.  For  according  to  the  narra- 
 tive in  1  Sam.  xxl,  xxii.,  it  was  not  in  the  pontifi- 
 cate of  Abiathar,  but  of  Ahimelech  his  father,  that 
 this  occurred.  If  the  words  are  as  our  Lord  spoke 
 them,  and  the  name  has  not  been  altered  in  mis- 
 taken deference  to  the  corrupt  reading  in  2  Sam. 
 viii.  17,  and  1  Chron.  xviii.  16,  it  should  seem  that 
 Abiathar  is  mentioned  rather  than  his  father,  as 
 being  so  well  known  as  the  High  Priest,  of  David's 
 reign,  and  the  title  'High  Priest'  is  added  to  his 
 name  as  that  by  which  he  was  commonly  spoken 
 of  in  after  times,  although  he  had  not  at  this  time 
 yet  attained  that  dignity.     The  order  of  the  words, 
 
 CTTi  ApiaOap  Tov  ap'^iepeco^,  not  €7ri  apyiepeoo'i  AfBiaOap^ 
 
 is  very  favourable  to  this  solution.  (See  Burring- 
 ton's  Arrangement  of  the  Geneal.,  Notes  on  Table 
 X.,  p.  80.) 
 
284  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  [CH. 
 
 Another  singular  corruption  has  taken  place  in 
 connexion  with  the  name  Abimelech  in  the  title  to 
 Psalm  xxxiv.,  where  JlJ  *T[7^  ^^^^,  Achish,  king 
 of  Gath,  has  been  transformed  into  '^^  *^5<,  Abi- 
 melech. 
 
 Jonathan  the  son  of  Abiathar,  mentioned  2  Sam. 
 XV.  S6,  and  xvii.  17,  20,  is  the  last  descendant  of 
 Eli  mentioned  in  Scripture,  (unless  perchance 
 Daniel,  Ezra  viii.  2,  were  his  descendant),  and  he 
 never  attained  the  high-priesthood. 
 
 Before  we  leave  this  branch  of  the  Aaronic 
 family,  it  ma^  be  well  to  draw  attention  to  the 
 community  of  names  in  the  two  families.  Phine- 
 has,  the  son  of  Eli,  had  the  same  name  as  the 
 son  of  Eleazar ;  a  circumstance  perhaps  not  with- 
 out significance  as  regards  the  proximity  of  Eli  to 
 Phinehas  in  point  of  time,  and  probably  of  affinity 
 likewise.  Ahitub  the  son  of  Amariah,  and  the 
 father  of  Zadok,  must  have  been  contemporary,  or 
 nearly  so,  with  Ahitub  the  son  of  Phinehas,  and 
 father  of  Ahijah  :  and  we  have  the  same  word  AM, 
 brother,  in  Ahitub  and  Ahimaaz,  of  the  house  of 
 Eleazar,  and  in  Ahitub  and  Ahimelech,  or  Ahijah, 
 of  the  house  of  Ithamar.  The  most  probable  infer- 
 ence from  this  is,  that  there  were  frequent  inter- 
 marriages between  the  two  families. 
 
 To  turn  then  next  to  the  line  of  Eleazar. 
 
 Zadok  the  priest  must  have  been  a  very  old 
 man  when  Solomon  succeeded  to  the  throne,  and 
 he  himself  became  the  first  priest,  1  Kings  ii.  35 : 
 for  he  was  David's  contemporary,  2  Sam.  viii.  17, 
 &c.      It  is  not  at  all  strange,  therefore,  that  he 
 
X.]  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  285 
 
 should  have  been  succeeded  immediately,  or  at  all 
 events  after  a  very  short  interval,  by  his  grandson 
 Azariah^:  and  that  early  in  Solomon's  reign.  Ac- 
 cordingly, we  find  soon  after  Solomon's  accession 
 that  'Azariah  the  son  of  Zadok  was  the  priest/ 
 1  Kings  iv.  2.  For  what  is  said  in  ver.  4,  that  Zadok 
 and  Abiathar  were  the  priests  is  a  manifest  interpo- 
 lation :  both  because  it  is  impossible,  that  if  Azariah 
 the  son  of  Zadok  was  Hhe  priest,'  (which  always 
 means  the  High  Priest),  Zadok  and  Abiathar  could 
 be  so  too :  and  because  the  assertion  that  Abiathar 
 was  one  of  the  priests,  is  in  direct  contradiction  to 
 what  we  read  in  1  Kings  ii.  27,  '  So  Solomon  thrust 
 out  Abiathar  from  being  priest  unto  the  Lord ;  that 
 he  might  fulfil  the  word  of  the  Lord,  which  he  spake 
 concerning  the  house  of  Eli  in  Shiloh.'  We  can 
 hardly,  therefore,  be  mistaken  in  saying  that  these 
 words  have  been  transported  from  the  parallel 
 account  of  David's  officers  in  2  Sam.  viii.  and 
 1  Chron.  xviii.  Azariah  then  was  the  High  Priest 
 in  Solomon's  reign.  And  this  leads  us  to  a  very 
 easy,  and,  in  my  opinion,  almost  certain,  solution  of 
 a  difficulty,  which  has  greatly  puzzled  commen- 
 tators, viz.  the  explanation  of  what  is  meant  in 
 1  Chron.  vi.  10,  when  it  is  said  of  Azariah  the  son 
 of  Johanan,  'he  it  is  that  executed  the  priesfs 
 office  in  the  temple  that  Solomon  built  in  Jeru- 
 
 ^  He  is  called  '  the  son  of  Zadok '  in  1  Kings  iv.  2.  If  this 
 is  to  be  understood  literally,  then  he  must  have  been  brother 
 of  Ahimaaz,  and  not  his  son.  Probably,  however,  he  is  called 
 son,  in  the  broader  sense. 
 
286  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  [CH. 
 
 salem.'  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  myself 
 that  this  remark  belongs  not  to  this  Azariah,  but 
 to  his  grandfather,  the  son  of  Ahimaaz.  And  that 
 the  information  given  is  that  which  the  words 
 obviously  convey,  that  he  was  the  High  Priest  at 
 the  time  of  the  completion  and  dedication  of  king 
 Solomon's  temple,  which  I  see  from  Burrington's 
 Notes  on  Table  X.  No.  1,  was  substantially  Houbi- 
 gant's  opinion'.  The  view  there  quoted  of  Vata- 
 blus  and  Grotius,  that  this  expression  refers  to  that 
 Azariah  who  withstood  king  Uzziah  when  he  tried 
 to  offer  incense  in  the  temple,  is  not  only  quite 
 incompatible  with  the  words  of  1  Chron.  vi.  10, 
 which  say  not  a  word  about  withstanding  or  acting 
 strenuously,  but  simply  that  he  was  priest,  and 
 which  absolutely  require  that  the  description  of 
 the  temple  as  that  'which  Solomon  built,'  should 
 have  some  point  and  meaning,  but  is  also  entirely 
 at  variance  with  chronology,  placing  Azariah  the 
 sixth  High  Priest  beginning  with  Zadok,  or  to  speak 
 more  truly,  the  third  in  succession  from  him  who 
 was  Solomon's  contemporary,  viz.  Azariah,  (son  or 
 grandson  of  Zadok),  as  contemporary  with  Uzziah, 
 the  tenth  from  Solomon,  and  with  the  end  of  his 
 long  reign  of  52  years !  and  not  only  so,  but  thus 
 making  one  who  was  priest  in  Uzziah's  reign,  come 
 before  Amariah,  who  was  priest  in  Jehoshaphat's 
 reign,  five  reigns  before  Uzziah !  Or,  to  put  it  in 
 another  way,  making  five,  or  rather  as  aforesaid, 
 
 '  Burrington  also  tells  us  that  two  of  Kennicott's  MSS.  omit 
 Johanan,  and  the  second  Azariah.     Notes  on  Table  X.  2.  (to). 
 
X.]  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  287 
 
 three  high-priesthoods  cover  10  reigns,  and  leaving 
 seven,  besides  the  several  High  Priests  who  are  not 
 contained  in  this  list,  as  Jehoiada,  Zechariah,  Uri- 
 jah,  and  perhaps  more,  to  cover  the  much  shorter 
 period  of  seven  generations  of  kings  after  Uzziah 
 to  Jehoiachin. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  if  we  understand  Azariah, 
 the  son  of  Ahimaaz,  to  be  the  High  Priest  who  of- 
 ficiated at  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  temple,  we 
 may  suppose  him  to  have  been  succeeded  by  his 
 son  Johanan,  who  may  have  been  priest  in  the 
 latter  part  of  Solomon's  and  in  Rehoboam's  reign. 
 His  son  Azariah  is  ascribed  by  the  Seder  01am  to 
 Abijah's  reign,  which  exactly  fits  in.  His  successor 
 is  Amariah,  and  Amariah,  we  know  from  2  Chron. 
 xix.  11,  was  High  Priest  in  the  reign  of  Jehosha- 
 phat.  Probably,  therefore,  Azariah,  if  he  was  High 
 Priest  in  the  short  reign  of  Abijah  (three  years),  con- 
 tinued through  the  greater  part  of  Asa's  reign. 
 Thus  far  the  succession  is  tolerably  clear,  because 
 the  names  in  the  pedigree  are  corroborated  by  the 
 history  of  the  times.  But  between  Amariah  in 
 Jehoshaphat's  reign,  and  Shallum  the  predecessor 
 of  that  Hilkiah  who  was  priest  in  Josiah's  reign, 
 there  is  a  great  gap  in  the  genealogy :  for  it  is 
 impossible  not  to  suspect  that  the  two  names  which 
 follow  Amariah,  viz.  Ahitub  and  Zadok,  are  one  or 
 both  of  them  spurious.  It  is  to  the  last  degree  im- 
 probable that  the  sequence  Amariah,  Ahitub,  Zadok, 
 should  occur  twice  over,  but  it  is  very  probable  that 
 the  recurrence  of  the  name  Amariah  might  lead  to 
 
288  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  [CH. 
 
 writing  after  it  the  same  two  names  which  had 
 followed  it  before.  It  is  singular  also,  and  signifi- 
 cant, that  these  two  suspicious  names  should  have 
 no  corroboration  from  the  history  of  the  times,  but 
 should  fall  exactly  where  two  well-known  names 
 ought  to  fall,  if  they  were  in  the  line,  viz.  Jehoiada 
 (2  Chron.  xxii.  11,  xxiv.  15,)  and  his  son  Zeciiaiiiah 
 (2  Chron.  xxiv.  20.)  From  the  history  we  are  able 
 also  to  supply  the  names  of  Azariah  in  the  reign  of 
 Uzziah  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  20),  Urijah  in  the  reign  of 
 Ahaz  (2  Kings  xvi.  10,  11),  and  Azariah  in  the 
 reign  of  Hezekiah  (2  Chron.  xxxi.  10) :  but  whether 
 these  were  lineal  ancestors  of  Jehozadak,  and  ought 
 therefore  to  be  inserted  in  his  pedigree  in  1  Chron. 
 vi.,  it  is  of  course  impossible  to  say  for  certain.  The 
 next  name  in  the  pedigree  is  Shallum,  who  is  called 
 Meshullam  (1  Chron.  ix.  11,  Nehem.  xi.  11),  and 
 was,  we  may  presume,  the  father  of  that  Hilkiah 
 who  was  High  Priest  in  the  18th  year  of  the  reign 
 of  Josiah  (2  Kings  xxii.  4) ;  but  we  know  nothing 
 more  about  him.  If  he  was  ever  High  Priest  it 
 must  have  been  in  the  latter  part  of  Manasseh,  in 
 the  reign  of  Amon,  and  perhaps  at  the  beginning 
 of  Josiah's  reign.  The  Seder  01am  places  him  in 
 the  reign  of  Amon.  The  gap,  therefore,  in  the 
 genealogy  extends  from  Amariah  in  the  reign  of 
 Jehoshaphat,  say  about  b.  c.  900,  to  Shallum  in  the 
 reign  of  Manasseh  and  Amon,  say  b,  c.  660,  a 
 period  of  240  years,  to  cover  which  we  have  only 
 the  two  spurious  names  of  Ahitub  and  Zadok.  This 
 gap  is  filled  up  in  Josephus  by  seven  intervening 
 
X.]  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  289 
 
 names,  Phideas,  Sudeas,  Joel,  Jotliam,  Urijah,  Ne- 
 riah,  Odeas :  of  which  more  by  and  by. 
 
 In  HiLKiAH,  who  comes  next,  our  genealogy 
 and  our  history  once  again  coincide.  For  we  learn 
 from  2  Kings  xxii.  4.  seqq.  that  he  was  High  Priest 
 in  the  reign  of  Josiah :  and  he  it  was  who  found  in 
 the  temple  the  copy  of  the  law  of  Moses  (2  Chron. 
 xxxiv.  14),  which  (as  Kennicott  supposes)  was  the 
 original  copy.  {History  of  Hebr.  Text.  pp.  298 — 
 302).  And  though  Hilkiah  the  son  of  Shallum 
 Avould  not  fit  in  at  all  to  the  reign  of  Josiah,  if  we 
 reckoned  the  generations  from  Zadok  to  Hilkiah, 
 as  if  the  genealogy  was  complete :  for  then  Hilkiah 
 would  belong  rather  to  the  reign  of  Uzziah,  130 
 years  earlier :  yet  if  we  make  the  calculation  up- 
 wards from  Jehozadak  we  shall  find  him  in  his 
 right  place.  For  from  the  accession  of  Josiah  to 
 the  end  of  Zedekiah  was  53  years.  And  in  the 
 genealogy  Hilkiah  appears  as  the  grandfather  of 
 Seraiah,  who  was  put  to  death  by  Nebuchadnezzar. 
 There  is,  however,  considerable  reason  to  suspect 
 that  there  has  been  a  disturbance  of  the  order  of 
 the  names,  and  that  Azariah  ought  to  precede 
 Shallum  instead  of  following  Hilkiah  :  in  which  case 
 Seraiah  would  be  the  son  of  Hilkiah,  as  in  Nehem. 
 xi.  11;  just  as  Zedekiah  was  the  son  of  Josiah; 
 and  Azariah  would  then  belong  to  Hezekiah's  reign, 
 and  be  the  Azariah  mentioned  in  2  Chron.  xxxi.  10 ; 
 and  so  our  genealogy  and  history  would  meet 
 sooner  than  above  said,  viz.  in  Hezekiah's  reign. 
 Otherwise  there  must  have  been  another  Azariah, 
 
 19 
 
290  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  [CH. 
 
 the  fifth  since  Zadok.  The  resemblance  of  the 
 names  Seraiah  and  Azariah  is  a  ready  source  of 
 confusion  \  Hilkiah  also  appears  to  be  in  his  right 
 place,  reckoning  from  Zadok,  if  to  the  number  of 
 generations  in  the  genealogy  we  add  the  additional 
 High  Priests  whose  names  we  learn  from  the  his- 
 tory— viz.  Azariah  (in  Uzziah's  reign),  Urijah  in 
 Ahaz's  reign,  Azariah  in  Hezekiah's  reign,  one  for 
 Manasseh's  reign,  and  one  other  who  seems  to  be 
 missing  in  Amaziah's  reign  and  the  early  part  of 
 Uzziah. 
 
 Azariah,  who  follows  Hilkiah,  we  have  already 
 supposed  to  be  out  of  his  right  place ;  in  which 
 we  have  the  countenance  of  Josephus  and  Nice- 
 phorus,  who  place  Seraiah  next  after  Hilkiah.  The 
 Seder  01am  follows  the  present  text  of  Scripture 
 in  inserting  Azariah  between  Hilkiah  and  Seraiah, 
 and  assigns  him  to  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  but 
 solely,  I  conceive,  on  account  of  his  place  in  the 
 genealogy.  Indeed,  the  very  modern  date  of  the 
 Seder  01am,  about  the  eleventh  or  twelfth  century 
 of  our  sera,  precludes  the  hope  of  its  containing  any 
 authentic  traditional  information. 
 
 Seraiah,  who  follows,  was  Chief  Priest  at  the 
 time  of  the  destruction  of  the  temple  by  Nebuzar- 
 adan,  and  was  put  to  death  by  Nebuchadnezzar  at 
 Riblah.     (2  Kings  xxv.  18—21.) 
 
 '■  Thus,  whereas  in  1  "Chron.  ix.  11,  we  read,  'Azariah  the  son 
 of  Hilkiah/  we  read  in  Nehem.  xi.  11,  'Seraiah  the  son  of 
 Hilkiah  ;'  and  whereas  in  Ezra  ii.  2,  we  read,  Jeshua,  Nehemiah, 
 Seraiah,  in  Nehem.  vii.  7,  we  read,  Jeshua,  Nehemiah,  Azariah. 
 (See  Kennicott,  Second  Dissa-t.  p.  509). 
 
X.]  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  291 
 
 Jehozadak,  his  son,  was  taken  captive  to  Baby- 
 lon (1  Chron.  vi.  15),  and  could  never,  therefore, 
 have  exercised  the  office  of  High  Priest,  as  there 
 was  no  temple  standing,  and  he  died  before  the 
 return  from  captivity,  as  is  evident  from  the  fact 
 that 
 
 Jeshua,  his  son,  was  High  Priest  on  the  return 
 of  the  Jews  with  Zerubbabel,  (Ezra  ii.  2,  iii.  2, 
 Hagg.  i.  1,  &c.) 
 
 JoiAKiM  is  mentioned  as  High  Priest  by  impli- 
 cation, Nehem.  xii.  10,  12. 
 
 Eliashib,  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah,  Joiada, 
 JoHANAN  or  Jonathan,  and  Jaddua,  in  Nehem. 
 xii.  10,  11,  22.  See  also  Nehem.  xiii.  28.  Jose- 
 phus,  Eusebius,  and  Nicephorus,  adopt  the  reading 
 JoHANAN.  Jaddna,  according  to  Josephus,  was 
 High  Priest  in  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great. 
 
 We  have  thus  then  established  the  claim  of 
 eighteen  persons  named  in  the  genealogy  from 
 Aaron  to  Jaddua  to  be  High  Priests,  and  have  added 
 three  names,  Jehoiada,  Azariah  and  Urijah,  to  the 
 list  from  the  historical  notices  of  them.  Of  four 
 others,  Ahimaaz,  Johanan,  Azariah,  and  Shallum, 
 father  of  Hilkiah,  we  have  no  proof  that  they  were 
 ever  actually  High  Priests,  though  they  all  may  pro- 
 bably have  been  so  except  Ahimaaz,  who  it  is  likely 
 died  before  his  father  Zadok.  Whether  or  no  Ze- 
 chariah,  the  son  of  Jehoiada,  exercised  the  office  of 
 High  Priest,  we  cannot  be  quite  sure.  The  second 
 Ahitub  and  Zadok  we  have  seen  reason  to  discard 
 as  spurious.     We  have  also  seen  that  there  is  room 
 
 19—2 
 
292  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  [CH. 
 
 in  the  history  for  two  more  High  Priests,  one  in  the 
 reign  of  Amaziah  and  the  early  part  of  Uzziah's, 
 the  second  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  And  this 
 concludes  the  Scriptural  evidence  on  the  subject,  as 
 far  at  least  as  I  am  aware. 
 
 But  the  subject  cannot  be  dismissed  without 
 some  reference  to  the  list  given  by  Josephus,  which 
 derives  great  importance  from  his  having  lived  pre- 
 viously to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  having 
 seen,  as  he  assures  us,  the  register  in  which  the 
 whole  succession  of  the  High  Priests  was  con- 
 tained.   Josephus's  list  is  as  follows: — 
 
 HjOWTO?  luev  ovv  ^aowKo^  o  ap-^iepev^  eyevero  tov 
 vaov,  ov  ^oXo/xwv  (VKooofxrjae^.  julct  avTov  o  o  v\o<i  Ayi,aa<; 
 ciace-^eTui  Trjv  Tifxriv,  kui  juera  A-^ifxav  ' A^apias.  tovtov 
 ce  'l(x)paixo<s,  TOV  oe  Iwpafxov  '  laog,  ijMt  avTov  oe  ' A^uo- 
 pofios.  TOVTOV  ce  <3>toea9,  tov  ce  <i>toea  'Eovoea^,  tov  Se 
 Soi/oea  lovTjXos,  tov  ce  lov>j\ov  Icuaa/xos',  IwOdfxov  oe 
 Ovpia?,  Ovp'iov  ce  ISitjp'ia^,  tov  oe  Ntjpia  'Qoea^,  tovtov 
 be  ^aWov/j.o<>,  ^aWovfxov  ce  EX/f/a?,  EXkiu  Se  ^apea?, 
 tov   ce     IcoaaowKos    o    ul'^fxaXcoTiaOel^    els  Ba/BuXaJj/a. — ■ 
 
 Antiq.  Jud.  x.  viii.  6. 
 
 'The  first  High  Priest  of  the.  temple  which 
 Solomon  built  was  Sadok ;  after  him  his  son  Ahi- 
 maaz  succeeded  to  the  honour,  and  after  Ahimaaz, 
 Azarias,  whose  son  was  Joram,  whose  son  was  Isus, 
 
 ^  I  conceive  this  statement  to  rest  only  on  the  passage, 
 1  Kings  iv.  4,  concerning  which  see  pp.  284,  5,  There  is  however 
 no  absolute  impossibiUty  in  the  supposition  that  Zadok  was  ahve 
 at  the  dedication,  but  that  his  grandson  Azariah  officiated  on 
 account  of  his  grandfather's  age  and  infirmity. 
 
X.]  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  203 
 
 after  whom  came  Axioram.  His  son  was  Phideas, 
 Phideas'  son  was  Sudeas,  his  son  Joel,  the  son  of 
 Joel  was  Jotham,  the  son  of  Jotham  was  Urijah, 
 the  son  of  Urijah  Neriah,  the  son  of  Neriah  Odeas; 
 his  son  Shallum,  his  son  Hilkiah,  his  son  Seraiah, 
 his  son  Jozadak,  who  went  captive  to  Babylon/ 
 
 Now  the  discrepancies  between  this  list  and 
 that  contained  in  the  Scripture  are  very  consider- 
 able, and  at  first  sight  exceedingly  perplexing.  But 
 I  conceive  it  to  be  beyond  a  doubt  that  some  of  the 
 names  in  Josephus  were  either  very  much  corrupted 
 in  the  register  which  he  copied,  or  have  become 
 so  in  the  MSS.  of  the  Jewish  Antiquities.  Another 
 source  of  error  seems  to  have  been  this.  The 
 registers  were  composed  as  the  Seder  01am  is,  i.  e. 
 they  contained  not  the  High  Priests  alone,  but  the 
 contemporary  Kings  and  Prophets.  Hence  in  the 
 course  of  frequent  transcription  the  names  got 
 mixed ;  a  priest's  name  sometimes  got  into  the 
 place  of  the  king's,  and  a  king's  or  a  prophet's 
 into  that  of  the  priest's.  This  has  actually  taken 
 place  in  the  Seder  01am,  as  in  the  case  of  Jozedek 
 referred  to  by  Selden,  (p.  104,)  who  from  having 
 been  named  as  priest  in  the  reign  of  Zedekiah, 
 when,  it  was  added,  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  were 
 prophets,  by  the  dropping  out  of  the  word  'priest' 
 in  the  text,  is  reckoned  as  a  prophet  with  the  two 
 named  with  him — and  is  actually  so  spoken  of  in 
 consequence  by  Genebrard  in  his  chronography. 
 Bearing  in  mind  these  two  sources  of  error,  it  will 
 not  be  difficult  to  correct  or  account  for  the  dis- 
 
294  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  [CII. 
 
 crepancies  in  Josephus's  list  as  compared  with  the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 The  first  three  names,  Zadok,  Ahimaaz,  Aza- 
 rias,  agree  exactly  with  the  Scriptures.  But  Jose- 
 phus  appears  to  me  to  start  with  an  error  in 
 considering  Zadok  as  the  High  Priest  of  Solomon's 
 temple,  instead  of  Azariah.  His  next  name  is 
 Joramus,  then  Isus,  then  Axioramus.  Now  the  clue 
 to  the  restoration  of  this  passage  is  in  the  last  mon- 
 strous name.  Axioramus  is  for  Asioramus,  which 
 manifestly  consists  of  the  name  Joramus,  with 
 the  syllable  'As'  prefixed  to  it.  But  what  is  the  syl- 
 lable 'As?'  manifestly  the  termination  of  a  pre- 
 ceding name,  which  by  mistake  has  stuck  on  to  the 
 beginning  of  Joramus.  That  preceding  name  may 
 have  been  either  Azarias  or  Amarias.  If  it  was 
 Azarias,  then  we  have  merely  to  suppose  that  in 
 some  list  the  names  were  written  consecutively,  and 
 of  course  without  any  interval,  as  is  the  case  with 
 Greek  MSS.,  AZAPIASIQPAMOS,  as  successive 
 High  Priests,  and  that  the  division  was  afterwards 
 wrongly  made  AZAPI  AEIQPAM02  so  as  to  pro- 
 duce the  form  Asioramus,  which  was  .easily  changed 
 into  ASFQPAMOS.  And  in  this  case  we  can  account 
 for  the  name  Joramus  in  two  ways.  Either  the 
 name  1^^1^^^  Amariah,  was  written  in  some  copies 
 '^^^JV  (after  the  analogy  of  the  transpositions  refer- 
 red to  at  pp.  115, 116),  and  thence  became  in  Greek 
 IQMAP02,  and  by  a  very  slight  change,  IQPAMOS; 
 and  so  the  strange  Axioramus  represents  the  Scrip- 
 tural sequence,  Azarias,  Amarias ;  or  else  Joramus 
 
X.]  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  295 
 
 is  Joram,  the  priest  mentioned  in  2  Chron.  xvii.  8, 
 as  employed  by  Jehosliaphat  to  teach  the  people. 
 And  this  latter  opinion  derives  some  support  from 
 the  fact  that  Josephus,  in  his  account  of  the  reign 
 of  Jehosliaphat,  does  not  seem  to  consider  Amariah 
 as  High  Priest,  but  speaks  of  him  as  of  the  tribe  of 
 Judah  {Antiq.  Jiid.  ix.  cap.  1).  He  may,  there- 
 fore, have  thought  that  Joram  was  High  Priest  in 
 Jehoshaphat's  reign.  If  the  A  2  is  the  termination 
 of  Amarias,  we  should  then  suppose  that  in  the 
 list  Amarias  and  Joram  were  both  set  down  as  '  the 
 Priests^  i.  e.  the  chief  and  the  second  priest,  as 
 thus :  01  Se  lepei^  AMAPIA2  IQPAMOS,  and  that  the 
 names  were  subsequently  wrongly  divided  as  before. 
 And  here  again  our  conjecture  is  very  remarkably 
 confirmed  by  the  fact  that  in  the  text  of  Nicepho- 
 rus  a  mistake  almost  identical  has  actually  occurred, 
 and  in  this  very  name  Amariah.  For  we  there  read 
 A^t/xa^,  A^apia,  ^a/uLapia<s,  where  the  final  s  of  Azarias 
 has  actually  adhered  to  the  following  Amariah,  and 
 turned  it  to  Samaria.  (See  Selden,  de  Sue.  p.  103). 
 
 But  having  established  that  Axioramus  is  Jora- 
 mus,  with  the  last  syllable  of  the  name  which  pre- 
 ceded his  proposed,  it  follows  necessarily  that  we 
 have  the  sequence  Azarias,  Joramus,  twice  over. 
 That  is  to  say,  that  owing  to  the  recurrence  of  two 
 Azariahs  with  one  intervening  generation,  the  suc- 
 cessor of  the  first  Azariah  has  been  omitted,  and 
 the  successor  of  the  second  placed  in  his  room. 
 And  then  by  a  further  error,  that  the  sequence, 
 Azariah,  Joram  (Amariah),  has  been  repeated. 
 
296  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PEIESTS.  [CH. 
 
 And  thence  it  follows  further  that  1202  is  no 
 name  of  a  High  Priest  at  all,  but  in  all  probability 
 only  a  corruption  of  YI02.     The  original  sentence 
 
 may  have  stood  thus  :  kuI  fxerd  'A-^i/udu  'Ai^apia^,  rov- 
 Tov  ce  'luavvas,  tou  oe    lojavvov   fios  A^apia^,  fxer  aurov 
 
 Se  'Iwpafxo^.  Or  1202  might  be  a  corruption  of 
 12Q2,  which  word  had  been  introduced  to  mark 
 that  the  son  of  Johanan  was  called  Azarias,  in  like 
 manner  as  his  father  had  been ;  but  losing  its 
 meaning  when  the  two  Azarias's  were  no  longer  in 
 the  text,  got  changed  itself  into  a  proper  name. 
 Or,  lastly,  it  may  be  the  fragment  of  the  name 
 AMA2IA2  (as  Josephus  writes  Amariah,  Ant.  ix.  1), 
 which  when  robbed  of  its  final  A  2  remained  AMA- 
 2!,  and  was  corrupted  into  1202. 
 
 Anyhow,  it  is  tolerably  certain  that  we  have 
 only  two  real  names  of  priests  here  set  before  us, 
 viz.  Azariah  and  Joram,  or  Amariah ;  and  that  the 
 first  Azariah  and  Johanan  have  been  omitted. 
 
 Hence  we  are  also  enabled  to  conclude  with 
 confidence,  that  the  next  name  in  Josephus,  viz. 
 <MAEA2,  is  only  a  corruption  of  IQAEA2,  or  Je- 
 hoiada,  who  doubtless  succeeded  Amariah  in  the 
 High  Priesthood,  and  whose  name  is  written  in  the 
 Septuagint  'Iw^ae.  And  if  Jehoiada's  name  was 
 repeated  in  the  list  as  belonging  to  the  next  reign 
 also,  it  is  not  improbable  that  20YAEA2^  may  be 
 
 ^  In  Kennicott's  comparison  of  the  list  of  the  Jews  who  re- 
 turned from  Babylon  as  given  (1)  by  Ezra,  (2)  by  Nehemiah, 
 (3)  in  the  1st  of  Esdras  {Second  Dissert.,  p.  511),  the  Hodaviah 
 and  llodcvah  of  the  two  former  appears  as  Sudias  in  tlie  latter. 
 
X.}  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  207 
 
 another  corruption  of  the  same  name.  The  next 
 lovr]\oi,  who  belongs  to  Uzziah's  reign,  is  probably 
 the  name  of  the  prophet  Joel,  who  prophesied  in 
 the  days  of  Uzziah,  substituted  for  that  of  the 
 High  Priest  Azariah.  The  following  Jotham,  cor- 
 responding to  Jotham's  reign,  is  the  name  of  the 
 king,  instead  of  the  contemporary  priest.  Ovpia<s 
 agrees  with  Urijah,  in  the  days  of  Ahaz.  NHPIAS 
 is  a  corruption  of  AZAPIA2,  in  the  days  of  Heze- 
 kiah,  QAEA2  may  be  the  genuine  name  of  a  High 
 Priest  not  mentioned  in  Scripture,  but  belonging 
 to  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  for  which  there  is  room, 
 though  perhaps  not  an  absolute  necessity.  If  so,  it 
 may  either  stand  for  another  Joiada,  or  Jedaiah, 
 which  was  a  common  name  among  the  priests,  or 
 be  a  corruption  of  Q2EA,  corresponding  to  the 
 Hoshaia  or  Hosea  of  the  Seder  01am  ^  The  re- 
 maining names  in  Josephus  agree  exactly  with  the 
 Scriptures,  except  in  the  omission  of  Azariah  be- 
 
 The  change  from  'IwSae  to  'Eovcia<;  would  be  quite  as  easy.  As 
 regards  the  supposition  of  two  different  corruptions  of  the  same 
 name  having  found  their  way  into  the  text,  it  may  be  added 
 that  Dr  Kennicott  (Hist,  of  Heb.  Text^  p.  400)  gives  a  remark- 
 able example  of  a  similar  corruption  in  a  list  of  names.  In  the 
 Vatican  copy  of  the  Sept.,  2  Sam.  v.  14 — 16,  the  eleven  sons  of 
 David  are  made  twenty-four,  by  being  all  expressed  twice  over, 
 according  to  different  orthographies,  and  two  of  them  a  third 
 time.  Thus,  e.  g.  Shobab  appears  as  2u)/5«,'3  and  as  'lea-ai/SdO ; 
 Solomon  as  SaAw/^wV  and  FaAa/iaaV;  Elishama  as  'E/Xio-ajwa  and 
 AeaaafxCi ;  Elishua  as  'EXiaove  and   Qet^a-ou<;,  &c. 
 
 ^  It  is  however  very  suspicious,  if  we  regard  Hodeas  as  a 
 corruption  of  Hoshaiah,  that  he  coincides  in  time  both  with 
 Hosea  the  prophet,  and  with  Hoshea  the  son  of  Elah  king  of 
 Israel. 
 
298  GExXEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PUmSTS.  [CH. 
 
 tween  Hilkiah  and  Seraiali,  an  omission  which  I 
 believe  to  be  consonant  with  the  truth. 
 
 From  the  above  analysis  of  Josephus's  list  it 
 appears  that  the  general  accuracy  of  the  Scriptural 
 list  is  not  in  the  slightest  degree  shaken  by  this 
 testimony ;  that  where  there  is  a  gap  in  the  Scrip- 
 tural list,  he  contributes  nothing  having  the  sem- 
 blance of  probability,  except  possibly  the  single 
 name  'Q^ea? ;  but  that  his  testimony  is  favourable  to 
 the  expunging  of  Ahitub  and  Zadok,  which  we  saw 
 reason  on  other  grounds  to  consider  as  spurious. 
 He  also  supports  us  in  the  omission  of  the  last 
 Azariah^ 
 
 As  regards  other  authorities  it  may  be  enough 
 to  say  that  the  Seder  01am  ^  is  probably  made  up 
 
 '  The  mistakes  in  the  text  of  Josephus,  Ant.  Jud.  Lib.  viii. 
 cap.  1,  3,  in  which  he  enumerates  the  descendants  of  Eleazar  as 
 far  as  Zadok,  are  more  numerous  in  proportion  than  those  we 
 liave  been  considering,  e.  g.  'IcoV^jTro?,  apparently  for  Abishua, 
 'Iw0a//os  for  Uzzi  or  Zerahiah,  ^Apocpaio'i  for  Amariah. 
 
 ^  Havmg  repeatedly  referred  to  the  Seder  01am,  it  may  be 
 well  to  add  the  following  brief  account  of  this  Chronicle,  extract- 
 ed from  Wolf's  Bihliotheca  Hebraica,  Tom.  i.  pp.  492 — 499, 
 under  the  name  of  Rabbi  Jose,  fil.  Chelpeta,  Zipporensis,  who 
 flourished  a.d.  130.  He  says  that  the  Seder  Olam,  or  Ordo 
 Scpculi,  which  is  generally  ascribed  by  the  Jews  and  the  Talmud 
 to  R.  Jose,  is  now  called  Seder  Olam  Rabbah,  or  Great  Chro- 
 nicle, to  distinguish  it  from  the  Seder  Olam  Zuta,  or  Little 
 Chronicle ;  which  last  is  the  one  referred  to  in  our  text.  The 
 Great  Chronicle  gives  a  history  of  the  world  from  the  creation  to 
 the  time  of  Hadrian,  almost  exclusively  derived  from  Scripture: 
 the  Little  Chronicle  is  an  abridgement  of  the  former,  and  is 
 brought  down  to  the  year  522  a.  d.,  with  a  further  addition 
 of  eight  generations.  The  author  of  the  Little  Chronicle  is 
 thought  by  Morinus  to  have  lived  a.d.  1124;  but  "Wolf  appears 
 
X.]  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  299 
 
 partly  from  Josephus,  and  partly  by  guess  from 
 Scripture.  And  other  writers,  such  as  Nicephorus, 
 having-  no  original  authorities  to  consult,  only  con- 
 tribute a  few  very  bad  guesses  to  fill  up  the  gaps, 
 as  when  they  propose  Somnas  and  Eliakim  to  be 
 added  to  the  list,  who  turn  out  to  be  only  Shebna 
 and  Eliakim,  mentioned  in  Isai.  xxii.  15, 20,  as  beino; 
 ri^3n  7j^  '  over  the  house,'  viz.  of  David ;  but  which 
 Nicephorus  understood  to  mean  '  the  house  of  God,' 
 and  therefore  reckoned  him  and  Shebna  as  High 
 Priests.  Not,  however,  to  linger  any  longer  on 
 such  unfruitful  ground,  the  reader  will  find  sub- 
 joined a  table,  giving  in  parallel  columns :  1.  The 
 kings  of  Judah.  2.  The  High  Priests  named  in  the 
 historical  books.  3.  The  priestly  pedigree.  4.  Jo- 
 sephus's  list.  5.  The  list  of  the  Seder  01am.  6.  A 
 complete  list  of  the  High  Priests  from  Zadok  to 
 Jaddua,  made  up  from  the  historical  notices,  the 
 genealogy,  and  Josephus. 
 
 to  ascribe  an  earlier  date  to  him,  perhaps  the  lOtli  or  11th 
 century,  though  lie  does  not  speak  positively.  Both  Chronicles 
 were  translated  into  Latin  by  Genebrard.  They  are  said  to  be 
 esteemed  by  the  Jews  next  to  the  Canonical  Scriptures,  though 
 not  by  all.  But  learned  Christian  writers,  such  as  Morinus, 
 Meyer,  and  Allix,  have  exposed  numerous  errors  and  ignorance 
 of  history  in  them.  In  the  preface  to  Munster's  Commentary  on 
 Isaiah,  given  in  the  fourth  volume  of  the  Bihlia  Critica,  is  an 
 extract  from  Seder  Olam  Zutha,  containing  a  list  of  tlie  kings, 
 and  prophets,  and  rulers,  from  David  to  the  destruction  of  the 
 temple  by  Titus,  in  Hebrew,  with  a  Latin  version. 
 
Kings  of  Judah. 
 
 Years. 
 
 1  David 
 
 40 
 
 2  Solomon 
 
 40 
 
 3  Rehoboam 
 
 17 
 
 4  Abijah 
 
 3 
 
 5  Asa 
 
 40 
 
 6  Jehoshaphat 
 
 25 
 
 7  Jehoram 
 
 8 
 
 8  Ahaziah 
 
 1 
 
 Athaliah 
 
 9  Jehoash 
 
 46 
 
 10  Amaziah 
 
 29 
 
 11  Uzziah 
 
 52 
 
 12  Jotham 
 
 16 
 
 13  Ahaz 
 
 16 
 
 14  Hezekiah 
 
 29 
 
 15  Alanasseh 
 
 55 
 
 16  Amon 
 
 2 
 
 17  Josiah 
 
 31 
 
 18  Jehoiakirn 
 
 11 
 
 Jeconiah 
 
 19  Zedekjah 
 
 11 
 
 1           ' 
 
 B.C.  588 
 
 Salathiel   ■' 
 
 Zerubbabel 
 
 High  Priests  named  in 
 Historical  Books. 
 
 Genealogy  of 
 High  Priests. 
 1  ChroD.  vi.  3—;, 
 
 Zadok  and  Abiathar,  2  Sam.  xv.  35,    1   Zadok 
 &c.  I 
 
 Zadok,  Azariah,  1  Kings  iv.  2 ;  2  Ahimaaz 
 
 1  Chron.  vi.  10.  | 
 
 3  Azariah 
 
 1 
 
 4  Johanan 
 
 I 
 
 5  Azariah 
 
 I 
 
 6  Amariah 
 
 I 
 
 7  Ahitub 
 
 I 
 
 8  Zadok 
 
 Perhaps  2  Chron.  xv.  1,  Azariah. 
 Amariah,  2  Chron.  xix.  11. 
 Jehoiada,  2  Chron.  xxii.  2,  11. 
 Jehoiada,  ibid. 
 
 Jehoiada,  2  Chron.  xxiv.  Zechariah, 
 ib.  V.  20. 
 
 Azariah,  2  Chron.  xxvi.  17. 
 
 Urijahj  Isai.  viii.  2 ;    2  Kings  xvi. 
 
 10 — 16; 
 Azariah,  2  Chron.  xxxi.  10. 
 
 (9)  Shallum 
 
 I 
 Hilkiah,  2  Kings  xxii.  4  and  xxiii.     (IO)Hilkiah 
 
 Seraiah,  2  Kings  xxv.  18. 
 Jehozadak,  1  Chron.  vi,  15. 
 
 Hananiah.      Hattush.  Ezra 
 Hodaiah.        Nehemiah. 
 
 11  Azariah 
 
 I 
 
 12  Seraiah 
 
 I 
 
 13  Jehozadak 
 
 I 
 
 Jeshua 
 
 I 
 
 JOIAKIJX 
 
 I 
 Eliashib 
 I 
 
 JOIADA 
 I 
 
 Jonathan 
 
 1 
 Jaddua. 
 
Josephus'  Li>t  of  Hig 
 
 Priests. 
 
 Antiq.  X.  viii.  6. 
 
 1    2AAQK02 
 
 2  AXIMA2 
 
 3  AZAPIA2 
 
 4  IQPAMOS 
 
 5  1202 
 
 6  ASIQPAM02 
 
 7  4>IAEA2 
 
 8  20YAEA2 
 
 9  lOYHAOS 
 
 10  I0YeAM02 
 
 11  0YPIA2 
 
 12  NHPIA2 
 
 13  i2AEA2 
 
 14  2AAA0YM02 
 
 15  EAKIA2 
 
 16  2APEA2 
 
 17  IQ2AAQK02 
 
 High  Priests,  according  to  the 
 Seder  Olam. 
 
 1  Zadoc  iu  the  reign  of  Solo- 
 
 mon. 
 
 2  Ahimaaz    in    the    reign    of 
 
 Rehoboam. 
 
 3  AzARiAH  in  the  reign  of  Abi- 
 
 jah. 
 
 4  JoAHAz  in  the  reign  of  Je- 
 
 hoshaphat  (evidently  for 
 Johanan,  as,  vice  versa, 
 Johanan  is  put  for  Joahaz, 
 1  Chron.  iii.  15). 
 6  Jehoiarib  in  the  reign  of 
 Jo  ram. 
 
 6  Jehosiiaphat   in   the  reign 
 
 of  Ahaziah. 
 
 7  Jehoiada|  in    the   reign  of 
 Phadea  j        Joash. 
 
 8  Zedekiah   in   the   reign   of 
 
 Amaziah. 
 
 9  Joel  in  the  reign  of  Uzziah. 
 
 10  JoTHAM  in  the  reign  of  Jo- 
 
 tham. 
 
 1 1  Uriah  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz. 
 
 12  Neria  in  the  reign  of  Heze- 
 
 kiah. 
 
 13  HosHAiAH   in   the  reign  of 
 
 Manasseh. 
 
 14  Sallum  in  the  reign  of  A- 
 
 mon. 
 
 15  HiLKiAHU   in   the   reign   of 
 
 Josiah. 
 
 16  AzARiAH  in  the  reign  of  Je- 
 
 hoiakim 
 
 17  Saraia  in  the  reign  of  Je- 
 
 hoiachin. 
 
 18  Jehosedec  in  the  reign  of 
 
 Sedekiah. 
 (taken  from  Selden,  de  Success.) 
 
 It  will  be  observed  that  besides 
 the  many  wrong  names,  this 
 list  is  thrown  out  by  the  ab- 
 surdity of  making  Zadok  So- 
 lomon's contemporary. 
 
 Corrected  List  of 
 High  Priests. 
 
 1  Zadok. 
 
 2  Ahimaaz. 
 
 3  Azariah. 
 
 4  Johanan, 
 
 5  Azariah. 
 
 6  Amariah. 
 
 7  Jehoiada. 
 
 8  Zechariah. 
 
 9  Azariah. 
 
 10  Urijaf. 
 
 11  Azariah. 
 
 12  Hoshea? 
 
 13  Shallum  or  Meshullara 
 
 14  HlLKIAH. 
 
 15  Seraiah. 
 
 16  Jehozadak. 
 Jeshua. 
 joiakiji, 
 Eliashib. 
 
 JOIADA. 
 
 Jonathan. 
 
 Jaddua. 
 
302  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  [CH. 
 
 The  only  change  made  in  the  genealogy  in  the 
 above  corrected  table  is  the  shifting  Azariah  from 
 between  Hilkiah  and  Seraiah,  to  between  Zadok 
 and  Shallum,  so  as  to  place  him  in  Hezekiah's 
 reign.  For  which  the  authority  of  Josephus,  of 
 Nehem.  xi.  11,  and  of  probability,  are  perhaps  a 
 sufficient  justification,  though  it  is  impossible  to  be 
 quite  sure.  The  only  addition,  not  on  Scriptural 
 authority,  is  that  of  Hoshea.  The  result  of  the 
 investigation  is,  that  beginning  with  Zadok,  David's 
 contemporary,  and  ending  with  Jehozadak,  the  con- 
 temporary of  Jehoiachin,  we  have  sixteen  High 
 Priests  to  correspond  with  nineteen  kings;  and  if 
 we  add  the  two  who  we  thought  were  wanting  for 
 the  reigns  of  Manasseh  and  Amaziah,  we  should 
 then  have  eighteen  priests  to  correspond  to  nine- 
 teen kings,  and  to  cover  a  period  (from  the  birth 
 of  David,  b.c,  1078  to  the  taking  of  Jerusalem, 
 588)  of  about  490  years,  i.e.  if  the  generations  are 
 sixteen,  about  thirty  years  to  a  generation ;  and  if 
 they  are  eighteen,  about  twenty-seven  years.  If, 
 however,  Jehozadak  was  under  80  years  of  age  at 
 the  death  of  his  father,  we  must  add  as  many  years 
 to  the  490  as  are  wanting  to  make  up  thirty  years, 
 possibly  ten,  or  even  twenty,  which  would  raise  the 
 average  to  about  twenty-eight  years  to  a  generation. 
 However,  judging  only  by  the  generations,  the 
 smaller  number  of  High  Priests,  viz.  sixteen,  is 
 more  probable ;  and  it  is  not  unlikely,  that,  owing 
 to  the  very  early  marriages  of  the  kings,  there 
 should  be  more  generations  of  kings  than  of  High 
 
X.]  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  303 
 
 Priests.  At  all  events,  considering  the  imperfect 
 information  we  possess,  the  approximate  agreement 
 between  the  generations  of  the  High  Priests  and 
 the  Kings  from  David  to  the  captivity,  is  quite  suffi- 
 cient to  establish  the  general  truth  of  the  history ; 
 and  the  genealogy  and  the  historical  notices  mutu- 
 ally confirm  each  other  as  far  as  they  go.  It  may 
 also  be  observed,  that  the  historical  notices  of  the 
 High  Priests  fully  bear  out  the  conclusion  to  Avhich 
 the  small  number  of  generations  in  the  genealogy 
 led  us,  that  the  genealogy  was  defective. 
 
 If  we  proceed  to  enquire  into  the  cause  of  the 
 defect,  one  general  cause  is,  of  course,  the  remote- 
 ness of  the  times  from  the  time  when  the  gene- 
 alogies were  inserted  in  the  book  of  Chronicles,  in 
 the  time  namely  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  And  that 
 this  is  one  main  cause  is  plain  from  this — that 
 from  Hilkiah  in  Josiah's  time  down  to  Jaddua,  all 
 is  plain,  and  clear,  and  easy ;  not  a  name  is  cor- 
 rupted, not  a  generation  is  lost.  The  gaps  and  con- 
 fusion are  only  in  the  remoter  times.  But  a  more 
 particular  cause  may  be  conjectured  to  be  the  fol- 
 lowing :  it  was  the  succession  of  the  High  Priests 
 that  was  kept  with  the  greatest  care.  And  as  long- 
 as  this  went  regularly  from  father  to  son  no  diffi- 
 culty arose.  Accordingly,  the  succession  from  Zadok 
 to  Amariah  is  unbroken,  and  all  the  historical 
 notices  from  Solomon  to  Jehoshaphat  inclusive, 
 agree  exactly  with  the  genealogy.  But  Amariah 
 having  been  succeeded  by  his  son  (as  is  proba- 
 ble) Jehoiada,  who  lived  to  a  great  age,  above  100 
 
304  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  [CH. 
 
 years \  and  his  posterity  having  been  cut  off  by  the 
 ungrateful  cruelty  of  Jehoash,  the  High-priesthood 
 passed  to  Azariah,  who  was  descended  probably 
 from  some  other  son  of  Amariah,  and  perhaps  after 
 an  interregnum  of  some  years,  and  with  an  interval 
 of  three  or  four  generations.  To  which  circum- 
 stance may  be  attributed  the  Septuagint  substitution 
 of  the  name  Azariah  for  Zechariah,  in  2  Chron. 
 xxiv.  20.  However,  the  result  was  that  the  three 
 or  four  generations  which  followed  Amariah,  but  had 
 not  attained  the  High-priesthood,  may  have  been 
 lost.  But  whether  this  were  so  or  not,  or,  if  it 
 were  so,  whether  or  no  it  had  any  thing  to  do 
 with  what  has  happened,  this  at  least  is  scarcely  a 
 matter  for  doubt,  that  the  sequence,  Amariah, 
 Ahitub,  Zadok,  does  not  belong  here,  but  is  a  repe- 
 tition of  ver.  7,  8.  It  is  also,  in  my  humble  opi- 
 nion, highly  probable  that  one  cause  of  the  sub- 
 stitution of  these  two  names  for  the  six  or  seven  at 
 least  who  really  intervened  between  Shallum  and 
 Amariah,  is,  that  in  Ezra  vii.  1 — 5,  where  we  have 
 Ezra's  own  abbreviated  genealogy,  the  genealogist 
 passes  from  Shallum,  the  father  of  Hilkiah,  to 
 Zadok  the  priest  in  David's  reign,  and  so  upwards 
 through  successive  generations  to  Aaron.  Shallum 
 consequently  there  appears  as  '  the  son  of  Zadok, 
 
 *  130  as  the  text  now  is.  ]  03  is  more  probably  right,  both 
 in  itself,  and  relatively  to  the  preceding  reigns.  For  he  married 
 Jehoram's  daughter.  Now  supposing  him  to  have  died  so  late 
 as  the  40th  of  Jehoash,  that  only  makes  49  years  from  Jeho- 
 ram's accession,  when  he  (Jehoram)  was  only  thirty-two  years 
 old. 
 
X.]  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  PRIESTS.  SOS' 
 
 the  son  of  Ahitub,  the  son  of  Amariah.'  And,  from 
 its  not  being  perceived  that  the  intermediate  gene- 
 rations were  simply  omitted,  in  order  to  shew  at  once 
 that  Shallum  was  of  the  house  of  Zadolc,  the  idea 
 arose  of  a  second  Zadok,  Ahitub,  and  Amariah, 
 upon,  as  was  thought,  Ezra  s  authority.  This  passage 
 seems  also  to  have  caused  the  error  about  Seraiah 
 the  son  of  Azariah.  For  the  Seraiah  in  Ezra  vii.  1, 
 was,  I  presume,  Ezra's  own  father  or  grandfather, 
 (Ezra  ii.  2),  and  a  very  different  person  from 
 Seraiah  the  High  Priest  in  Zedekiah's  reign ;  and 
 Seraiah's  father,  Azariah,  some  priest  during  the 
 captivity  who  was  descended  from  Hilkiah  the  High 
 Priest  in  Josiah's  reign.  But  the  sequence  Hilkiah, 
 Azariah,  Seraiah,  deceived  some  copyist,  who  ima- 
 gined that  Seraiah  must  be  the  High  Priest  of  that 
 name,  and  therefore  inserted  Azariah  between  Hil- 
 kiah and  Seraiah  in  the  genealogy,  1  Chron.  vi.,  in 
 order  to  bring  it,  as  he  thought,  into  agreement 
 with  Ezra  vii.^ 
 
 And  thus  much  must  suffice  as  regards  the 
 genealogy  of  the  High  Priests.  We  have  not,  indeed, 
 been  able  to  make  the  succession  quite  complete, 
 or  the  genealogy ;  but  we  have  seen  that  where- 
 ever  there  is  a  name  in  the  genealogy  which  is 
 
 ^  The  insertion  of  'Azariah/  in  Ezra  vii.  3,  between  Amariah 
 and  Meraioth,  is  of  course,  as  far  as  it  goes,  unfavourable  to  the 
 above  view.  Nevertheless,  I  feel  persuaded  that  Zadok  in  ver.  2 
 is  the  Zadok  of  David's  reign,  both  because  he  was  the  head  of 
 a  great  division  of  the  priests,  and  also  because,  with  the  single 
 exception  of  this  Azariah,  the  chain  from  Zadok  to  Aaron 
 (Ezra  vii.  2 — 5)  is  identical  with  1  Chron.  vi.  1 — 8. 
 
 20 
 
306  GENEALOGY  OF  THE  HIGH  miESTS.       [CH.  X. 
 
 also  a  High  Priest's  name  in  the  history,  such  name 
 falls  exactly  in  its  right  chronological  place,  upon 
 the  ordinary  calculation  of  the  length  of  a  genera- 
 tion; the  earlier  ones  if  we  reckon  from  the  top,  i.e. 
 from  Zadok,  the  later  ones  if  we  reckon  from  the 
 bottom,  i.e.  from  Jehozadak. 
 
 We  have  seen  also  that  the  historical  High 
 Priests  who  are  not  mentioned  in  the  genealogy, 
 fall  just  where  there  is  a  gap  in  the  genealogy — 
 a  gap  the  existence  of  which  is  proved  by  the  fact 
 that  the  names  preceding  it  are  in  their  right  place, 
 if  we  reckon  from  the  beginning,  and  the  names 
 succeeding  it,  if  we  reckon  from  the  end — as  well 
 as  by  the  small  number  of  generations  in  the  exist- 
 ing genealogy.  The  result  then  fully  bears  out  the 
 principle  of  calculation  by  generations:  though  it 
 must  be  acknowledged  it  also  teaches  us  caution  in 
 the  use  of  genealogies,  seeing  they  are  so  liable  to 
 be  mutilated  and  curtailed.  But  since  our  former 
 calculations  were  based,  not  upon  one  genealogy 
 but  upon  eight,  all  telling  the  same  tale,  this  cau- 
 tion will  not,  I  think,  shake  the  conclusion  before 
 arrived  at. 
 
CHAPTER  XL 
 
 The  Chronology  of  the  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
 with  reference  to  the  age  of  Hattiish. 
 
 ^HE  argument  from  the  mention  of  Hattush  at 
 p.  103,  and  again  at  p.  109,  is  so  dependent 
 upon  the  chronology  of  the  kings  of  Persia,  and 
 the  identification  of  the  monarchs  mentioned  in 
 Scripture  as  Darius,  Ahasuerus,  and  Artaxerxes, 
 with  those  of  profane  history,  that  it  seems  neces- 
 sary to  go  somewhat  into  that  difficult  subject; 
 and  especially  as  Dr  Mill,  in  his  able  tract  on  the 
 Genealogies,  has  drawn  an  argument  from  the  pre- 
 sent state  of  the  text  of  1  Chron.  iii.  22,  in  favour 
 of  what  I  must  consider  a  preposterous  interpre- 
 tation, viz.  that  the  Darius  of  Ezra,  and  Haggai, 
 and  Zechariah,  is  Darius  Nothus ;  and  the  Artaxer- 
 xes of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  is  Artaxerxes  Mnemon, 
 following  herein  the  authority  of  Hottinger,  in  his 
 riENTAS  Dissertationum  (Dissert,  ii.  Sect.  11) ; 
 and  adopting  the  same  hypothesis  as  Junius,  Dru- 
 sius,  Scaliger,  Casaubon,  Cocceius,  and  others  of 
 name. 
 
 The  question  to  be  solved  is,  Who  is  '  Darius 
 king  of  Persia,'  in  whose  reign  Zerubbabel  and 
 Jeshua,  animated  by  the  prophets  Haggai  and  Ze- 
 chariah, built  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  which  had 
 been  begun  in  the  reign  of  Cyrus?    From  the  answer 
 
 20—2 
 
308       CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF       [CH, 
 
 to  which  question  will  follow,  as  a  corollary,  the 
 settlement  of  the  question,  '  Who  is  the  Artaxerxes 
 of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  ? '  The  doubt  (if  doubt  there 
 can  be)  lies  between  Darius  Hystaspes  and  Darius 
 Nothus.  I  will  therefore  first  give  my  own  reasons 
 for  feeling  perfectly  sure  that  Darius  is  Darius 
 Hystaspes,  and  cannot  possibly  be  Darius  Nothus ; 
 and  will  then,  secondly,  answer  the  objections  urged 
 by  Dr  Mill,  which  include  the  only  important  ones 
 brought  forward  by  Hottinger  against  this  hypo- 
 thesis. 
 
 P'or  the  convenience  of  the  reader,  I  prefix  a 
 list  of  the  kings  of  Persia,  with  the  dates  of  their 
 accession  to  the  throne. 
 
 B.C. 
 
 Cyrus 536 
 
 Cambyses    529 
 
 Smerdis. 
 
 Darius  Hystaspes  521 
 
 Xerxes 486 
 
 Artaxerxes  Longimanus 464 
 
 Xerxes  2nd     424 
 
 Darius  Nothus  423 
 
 Artaxerxes  Mnemon 405 
 
 Ochus 358 
 
 Arses   337 
 
 Darius  Codomanus     335 
 
 Now  it  was  in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus  that  the 
 Jews  returned  from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem,  under 
 Zerubbabel  their  prince  and  Jeshua  the  High 
 Priest,  and  proceeded  to  lay  the  foundations  of  the 
 temple  of  the  Lord.  Ezra  i.  ii.  iii.  But  the  adver- 
 saries of  Judah,  being  unwilling  that  they  should 
 build   the  house    of  the   Lord,  troubled  them   in 
 
XI.]  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  309 
 
 building,  and  hired  counsellors  against  them,  and 
 so  effectually  frustrated  them,  that  the  work  ceased 
 through  all  the  days  of  Cyrus  king  of  Persia,  even 
 until  the  reign  of  Darius  king  of  Persia.  Ezra  iv.  But 
 in  the  second  year  of  Darius  king  of  Persia,  upon  the 
 prophesying  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  Zerubbabel 
 and  Jeshua  arose  and  began  to  build  the  house  of 
 the  Lord.  Ezra  v.  And  upon  this  occasion,  the  pro- 
 phet Haggai,  by  Divine  command,  addressed  this 
 question  to  Zerubbabel,  to  Jeshua,  and  to  the  rest  of 
 the  people,  '  Who  is  left  among  you  that  saw  this 
 house  in  her  first  glory?  and  how  do  ye  see  it 
 now?  Is  it  not  in  your  eyes  in  comparison  of  it 
 as  nothing?'  Hag.  ii.  2,  3.  From  which  we  learn,  as 
 positively  as  words  can  teach  us,  not  only  that 
 Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua  were  still  alive,  but  that 
 there  were  some  survivors  who  recollected  the  first 
 temple  before  it  was  destroyed  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
 some  fifty-two  years  before  the  first  year  of  Cyrus. 
 Can  any  one  believe  that  the  Darius  in  whose  second 
 year  all  this  took  place,  was  not  the  Darius  whose 
 second  year  fell  about  IG  or  17  years  after  Cyrus's 
 decree,  but  another  Darius  whose  second  year  was 
 114  years  from  the  decree  of  Cyrus?  What  had 
 Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua  been  about  during  these 
 114  years?  Had  they  stopped  growing  old  while 
 the  work  of  building  stopped  ?  Were  they  in  a 
 deep  sleep  all  the  time,  and  did  they  wake  up  as 
 fresh  and  vigorous  and  young  as  when  they  lay 
 down  114  years  before?  But  what  might  have 
 been  their  age  ?      If  Darius  of  Ezra  v.  vi.,   and 
 
310       CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF       [CH. 
 
 Hag'gai,  is  Darius  Nothiis,  as  Hottinger,  and  others, 
 would  have  us  believe,  they  could  not  have  been 
 less  than  144  years  old^  in  the  second  year  of  his 
 reign,  and  148  in  the  sixth  year,  when  the  temple 
 was  finished  and  dedicated,  and  they  were  still 
 alive,  as  we  may  learn  from  Zech.  iii.  iv.  I  pass  over 
 Shimei,  Zerubbabel's  brother,  who  was  alive  when 
 Zech.  xii.  13  was  delivered,  and  who  could  not 
 have  been  far  behind  in  the  race  of  longevity. 
 But  why  make  so  much  difficulty  about  Zerubbabel 
 and  Jeshua?  They  were  mere  boys,  with  their 
 seven  score  years  about  them,  compared  with  those 
 others,  whose  names  we  know  not,  to  whose  per- 
 sonal recollections  of  the  first  temple  and  all  its 
 glory  Haggai  appealed  in  the  second  year  of  Da- 
 rius, saying,  'Who  is  left  among  you  that  saw 
 this  house  in  her  first  glory 2?'  For  if  the  temple 
 was  destroyed  B.C.  588,  and  they  were  seven  years 
 old  at  the  time,   they  must  have  been  173  years 
 
 *  Supposing  them  to  have  been  30  years  old  when  they  came, 
 the  one  as  Governor,  and  the  other  as  High  Priest,  to  Jerusalem, 
 114  years  before. 
 
 ^  Dr  Mill  (note,  p.  164)  says,  'At  that  period  (2nd  of  Darius 
 Nothus)  all  who  remembered  the  first  temple  were  most  cer- 
 tainly dead,  and  the  appeal  of  the  jDrophet  must  be  to  a  tradi- 
 tional recollection  only.'  But  with  all  deference  to  the  learned 
 and  able  writer,  I  must  submit  that  the  expression  in  Hag.  ii.  3, 
 
 •  T  ;    •  V  -  • . V  T    T  V  -;  T   :     •  -  v  T 
 
 is  entirely  Avithout  force  or  meaning  if  that  which  is  referred  to 
 as  belonging  to  only  a  small  remnant  amongst  them  was  com- 
 mon to  them  all,  as  'a  traditional  recollection'  was:  and  if  that 
 which  is  said  of  this  remnant,  that  they  had  seen  the  temple  in 
 its  first  glory;  was  not  true  or  possible  in  the  case  of  any  of 
 
XI.]  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  311 
 
 old  in  the  year  B.C.  422,  that  is,  old  enough  to 
 be  Zerubbabel's  and  Jeshua's  fathers. 
 
 Again,  if  Darius  means  Darius  Nothus,  Arta- 
 xerxes  in  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  must  of  course  mean 
 Artaxerxes  Mnemon.  Now  the  seventh  year  of 
 Artaxerxes  Mnemon  would  be  about  b.  c.  398.  And 
 Hilkiah  was  High  Priest  in  Josiah's  reign,  about 
 B.C.  623,  or  225  years  before.  But  according  to 
 Ezra  vii.  1,  from  Hilkiah  to  Ezra  inclusive  were 
 four  generations,  which  ought  only  to  cover  120 
 years.  Whereas  the  seventh  of  Artaxerxes  Longi- 
 manus  fell  about  B.C.  457,  or  16G  years  after  the 
 eighteenth  of  Josiah,  a  period  already  full  long,  but 
 as  Ezra  might  well  be  50  or  60  years  old,  and  was 
 necessarily  descended  from  a  younger  son  of  Hil- 
 kiah, involving  no  improbability.  In  like  manner 
 the  twentieth  year  of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon  would 
 be  about  B.C.  385.  But  in  Nehemiah's  time,  sub- 
 sequent to  the  twentieth  of  Artaxerxes,  Eliashib 
 was  High  Priest.  But  Eliashib  was  the  grandson 
 of  Jeshua,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  was  High  Priest 
 B.C.  536,  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  before ;  whereas 
 you  would  expect  after  such  an  interval  to  find  the 
 fifth  generation.  But  the  twentieth  year  of  Ar- 
 taxerxes Longimanus  fell  about  B.C.  445,  or  about 
 
 them.  Hottinger's  loophole  is  not  a  bit  more  serviceable.  After 
 making  the  admission  that  if  Darius  means  Nothus,  '  hos  necesse 
 est  180'^  annum  attigisse,'  he  answers,  '  at  horum  vol  nullos 
 vel  oppido  raros  fuisse  ipsa  ilia  Ilaggcei  verba  . . .  aperte  satis 
 innuunt.  Nee  verba  Haggcei  assertiva  sunt,  sed  interrogatoria : 
 Quis  in  vobis  est?  inquit.'  p.  113.  He  evidently  suggests  that 
 the  answer  would  have  been  Nemo.     Surely  this  is  mere  trifling. 
 
312       CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF       [CH. 
 
 ninety  years  after  Jeshua,  whose  grandson,  or  the 
 third  generation,  is  exactly  the  generation  which 
 you  would  expect  to  find  closing.  In  the  latter 
 part  of  Nehemiah's  time,  accordingly,  Joiada  the  son 
 of  Eliashib  appears  as  having  a  son  old  enough  to 
 marry,  though  his  grandfather  Eliashib  was  still 
 perhaps  alive  ^  (Nehem.  xiii.  28).  But  if  this  were 
 after  the  twentieth  year  of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon, 
 upon  the  usual  calculation  of  thirty  years  to  a 
 generation,  Eliashib  would  be  almost  as  remarkable 
 a  specimen  of  longevity  as  his  grandfather  Jeshua, 
 for  he  would  range  from  120  to  130  years  of  age. 
 Or  put  it  in  another  way.  From  the  taking  of 
 Jerusalem  to  the  time  of  Eliashib  there  elapsed 
 four  generations:  (1)  Jehozadak  or  Josedech,  (2) 
 Jeshua,  (3)  Joiakim,  (4)  Eliashib.  Therefore, 
 Eliashib  ought  to  terminate  his  generation  about 
 120  years  after  the  taking  of  Jerusalem,  or  rather 
 sooner,  as  Josedech  himself  was  among  the  cap- 
 tives taken  to  Babylon  (1  Chron.  vi.  15),  and 
 therefore  we  cannot  reckon  a  whole  generation  for 
 him.  Now  120  years  from  B.C.  588  was  B.C.  468,  at 
 which  time  Eliashib  ought  to  be  more  than  thirty 
 
 ^  This  however  is  very  doubtful.  For  if  we  interpret  the 
 expression  in  Nehem,  xiii.  28,  according  to  the  rule  of  Rabbi 
 Moses,  son  of  Hachman,  quoted  by  RosenmUU.  in  Josh.  xv.  17, 
 that  such  a  descriptive  sentence  as,  'the  High  Priest,'  applies 
 to  the  person,  '  cujus  prtecipua  mentio  est/  it  would  follow  that 
 at  this  time  Joiada  himself  was  High  Priest,  and  consequently, 
 tliat  Eliashib  was  dead.  The  Eliashib  the  priest  mentioned  in 
 the  earlier  part  of  Nehem.  xii.  is  thought  by  many  not  to  be  the 
 High  Priest  of  that  name. 
 
XI.]  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  813 
 
 years  old.  And  with  this  exactly  agrees  the  fact 
 that  he  was  High  Priest  at  the  twentieth  year  of 
 Artaxerxes  (Nehem.  iii.  1),  in  the  year  B.C.  445, 
 which  was  twenty-three  years  later.  So  that  while, 
 upon  the  supposition  that  Darius  and  Artaxerxes 
 are  Darius  Nothus  and  Artaxerxes  Mnemon,  we 
 have  nothing  but  improbabilities  and  absurdities 
 at  every  turn,  upon  the  supposition  that  Darius 
 Hystaspes  and  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  are  meant, 
 all  these  improbabilities  and  absurdities  imme- 
 diately disappear,  and  all  the  personages,  Jeshua, 
 Zerubbabel,  Shimei,  the  old  men  who  had  seen  the 
 first  temple,  Ezra,  and  Eliashib,  all  fit  exactly  to  their 
 right  places.  The  building  of  the  temple  was  re- 
 sumed after  about  16  years'  cessation,  and  68  years 
 after  the  destruction  of  the  first  temple,  when 
 obviously  there  might  be  a  few  old  men  who  would 
 remember  it — and  the  expression  of  the  historian, 
 Ezra  iv.  4,  5,  that  the  people  of  the  land  '  hired 
 counsellors  against  them  to  frustrate  their  purpose 
 all  the  days  of  Cyrus  king  of  Persia,  even  until  the 
 reign  of  Darius  king  of  Persia,'  is  perfectly  natural 
 and  proper;  whereas  it  would  be  very  strange  if 
 the  Darius  who  reigned  nearest  to  Cyrus  was  not 
 meant,  but  one  who  reigned  after  an  interval  of 
 six  reigns. 
 
 But  what,  let  us  proceed  to  enquire,  are  the 
 objections  which  men  of  sense  and  learning  have 
 deemed  sufficiently  weighty  to  induce  them  to 
 abandon  such  an  obvious  and  natural  interpreta- 
 tion, and   to   prefer  one   which  entails  such  por- 
 
314       CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF       [CH. 
 
 tentous  difficulties,  and  such  prodigious  improba- 
 bilities? That  we  may  state  these  objections  fully 
 and  fairly,  we  will  take  them  from  Dr  Mill.  There 
 are,  then,  four  objections  which  he  deems  decisive 
 of  the  question,  and  which  we  will  give  in  his  own 
 words  (note  to  p.  164,  of  Vindication  of  our 
 Lord's  Genealogies). 
 
 1.  '  The  specification  of  the  interval  between 
 the  two  periods  (Cyrus  and  Darius)  in  Ezra's  inter- 
 mediate chapter,  as  extending  through  the  reigns 
 of  Xerxes  and  Artaxerxes  1st  to  that  of  Darius 
 2nd  (Nothus),'  an  objection  which  is  further  urged 
 at  p.  153,  by  the  observation  that  'the  names  on  the 
 Zendic  monuments  will  not  permit  us  to  apply 
 the  succession  indicated  in  Ezra  iv.  5-8  —  Aha- 
 suerus,  Artaxerxes,  Darius,  to  any  other  monarchs 
 than  Xerxes,  Artaxerxes,  and  Darius  Nothus.' 
 
 2.  '  The  circumstance  that  in  the  next  ascent 
 from  Babylon,  that  of  Ezra  himself,  not  long  after 
 the  death  of  Zorobabel,  the  chief  of  David's  house 
 was  one  removed  from  him  by  at  least  six  genera- 
 tions ;  thus  proving  the  extraordinary  longevity 
 which  his  progenitor  must  have  attained,  and  the 
 impossibility  of  the  descendant's  ascent  from  Ba- 
 bylon being  earlier  than  the  reign  next  to  that  of 
 Darius  Nothus,  viz.  that  of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon. 
 
 3.  '  The  further  circumstance,  that  in  the  next 
 ascent  from  Babylon,  after  that  of  Ezra,  and  in  the 
 same  reign,  the  principal  opponent  of  Nehemiah, 
 in  his  work  of  rebuilding  Jerusalem,  was  a  man 
 who  can  be  demonstrated  to  have  continued  an 
 
XI.]  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  S15 
 
 active  chief  of  the  Samaritans  till  the  time  of  Alex- 
 ander the  Great,  and  to  have  then  founded  the 
 rival  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim.  To  assign  his 
 former  opposition  to  the  early  reign  of  Artaxerxes  I. 
 were  to  attribute  to  Sanballat  a  greater  longevity 
 than  that  which  the  actual  testimony  of  Ezra  v. 
 gives  to  Zorobabel. 
 
 4.  '  If  to  these  arguments  I  do  not  add  a 
 fourth,  viz.  that  the  seventy  hebdomads  of  Dan.  ix., 
 which  end  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  a.d.  71, 
 cannot  be  begun  otherwise  than  by  an  edict  in 
 the  second  year  of  Darius  Nothus,  (as  the  second 
 year  of  the  elder  Darius  is  separated  by  a  much 
 longer  interval  than  490  years,  even  from  the 
 crucifixion  and  from  the  birth  of  our  Lord),  it  is  not 
 from  any  doubt  of  its  truth  and  cogency,  but  from 
 regard  to  the  general  principle,  that  history  should 
 interpret  prophecy,  and  not  be  determined  by  it.' 
 
 1.  As  regards  then  the  first  objection,  I  would 
 at  starting  express  my  full  concurrence  with  the 
 principle  that  we  must  understand  those  kings  to  be 
 meant  by  the  sacred  historian  which  the  names  by 
 which  they  are  called  indicate.  Any  interpretation 
 which  is  based  upon  the  supposition  that  Darius 
 means  Xerxes,  and  Ahasuerus  means  Cambyses,  and 
 so  on,  must  be  as  unsatisfactory  as  any  future  ex- 
 position of  English  history,  which  should  be  based 
 upon  the  supposition  that  King  George  means 
 King  William,  or  Queen  Victoria  means  Queen 
 Anne.  But  I  believe  the  difficulty  in  Ezra  iv.  may 
 be  explained,  without  any  violation  of  probability 
 
G16  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  [CH. 
 
 or  proj)riety  of  language,  reserving  to  every  king 
 his  proper  name.  The  truth  is,  that  from  the  Gth 
 verse  to  the  23rd  verse,  both  inclusive,  is  a  paren- 
 thesis, and  probably  inserted  by  a  later  hand  than 
 that  which  penned  the  main  narrative.  This  paren- 
 thesis was  suggested  by  what  is  said  in  ver.  5,  that 
 the  people  of  the  land  '  hired  counsellors  against 
 them,  to  frustrate  their  purpose  all  the  days  of 
 Cyrus  king  of  Persia,  even  until  the  reign  of 
 Darius  king  of  Persia,'  and  was  inserted  to  explain 
 that  the  opposition  only  temporarily  ceased,  but  was 
 revived  again  in  the  reign  of  Ahasuerus  (Xerxes), 
 and  even  in  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Arta- 
 xerxes;  the  particulars  of  which  last-named  opposi- 
 tion follow  to  the  end  of  ver.  23.  And  then  the 
 main  narrative  proceeds,  and  we  are  told  that  in 
 consequence  of  the  hindrances  raised  by  the  people 
 of  the  land  and  the  counsellors  they  hired,  as 
 before  mentioned,  the  work  ceased  through  the 
 rest  of  Cyrus's  reign,  and  till  the  second  year  of 
 Darius,  when  the  work  was  resumed,  after  16  or  17 
 years'  interruption.  But  the  narrative  itself  proves 
 that  the  decree  of  Artaxerxes  mentioned  in  ch.  iv. 
 had  not  been  issued  when  they  resumed  the  work 
 in  ch.v.  For  if  it  had,  they  would  not  have  builded 
 till  it  had  been  reversed ;  for  they  would  certainly 
 not  have  acted  in  direct  opposition  to  it.  For  no- 
 thing is  more  remarkable  than  that  the  rebuilding 
 of  the  temple  and  the  walls,  and  all  the  proceedings 
 of  the  restored  Jews,  were  in  strict  obedience  to 
 the  decrees  of  the  Persian  kings.    (See  Ezra  vi.  14). 
 
XI.]  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  317 
 
 Moreover,  the  decree  of  Artaxerxes  referred  to  in 
 eh.  iv.,  as  well  as  the  hostile  representations  of 
 Rehum  and  Shimshai,  point  to  the  building  of  the 
 dtp,  and  the  walls  thereof  {wer.  16,  21),  which  was 
 not  the  matter  in  hand  at  that  former  time,  but 
 the  building  of  the  temijle.  Neither  is  there  any 
 inconsistency,  as  Dr  Mill  seems  to  intimate,  (note 
 to  p.  153),  in  the  same  Artaxerxes  who  stopped  the 
 building  by  one  decree  afterwards  permitting  it  by 
 another.  For  the  first  decree  itself  expressly  holds 
 out  such  a  possibility.  And  as  Ezra  did  not  go 
 up  to  Jerusalem  till  the  seventh  year  of  Artaxerxes, 
 there  was  abundant  time  for  such  a  change  of 
 policy  \  which  is  distinctly  ascribed  to  the  influence 
 of  Ezra,  and  even  then  only  extended  to  beautify- 
 
 '  Joseplius  apparently  read  in  his  copies,  (what  indeed  must 
 occur  to  any  one  who  reads  the  passage  as  a  not  improbable 
 reading)  in  Ezra  iv,  6,  Artaxerxes  instead  of  Akasuerus.  In 
 which  case  there  would  be  a  peculiar  significance  in  the  expres- 
 sion, 'in  the  beginning  of  his  reign/  intended  to  mark  the  contrast 
 with  his  benevolence  to  the  Jews  in  the  later  part  of  his  reign. 
 If  the  reading  Ahasuerus  is  right,  which  on  the  whole  it  seems 
 to  be,  then  the  expression  would  point  to  Xerxes'  subsequent 
 favour  to  the  Jews  after  Esther  was  made  queen — when  doubt- 
 less such  hostile  efibrts  ceased — although  no  decree  was  given 
 in  favour  of  the  Palestine  Jews.  Having  here  mentioned  Xerxes 
 as  being  the  Ahasuerus  of  the  book  of  Esther,  which  his  name 
 is  a  sufficient  warrant  for  asserting  he  was,  if  the  Hebrew  text 
 is  correct  (for  the  Septuag.  read  Artaxerxes),  I  would  just  ob- 
 serve by  the  way,  that  the  genealogy  of  Mordecai  in  Esther  ii. 
 5,  which  makes  him  the  fourth  generation  from  his  ancestor 
 Kish,  who  came  to  Babylon  with  Jeconiah,  is  quite  in  harmony 
 with  the  supposition.  For  the  seventh  of  Xerxes  (ii.  16),  whicli 
 fell  B.C.  480,  was  119  years  from  the  captivity  of  Jehoiachin 
 B.C.  599 ;  and  four  generations  cover  1 20  years. 
 
318  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  [CII. 
 
 ing  the  temple,  without  making  any  concession  as 
 to  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  which  were  the  object 
 of  a  decree  much  later  in  his  reign,  (Nehem.  ii.) 
 On  the  other  hand,  it  is  decidedly  improbable  that 
 if  the  historian  had  meant  to  speak  of  two  different 
 kings,  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  and  Mnemon,  he 
 should  have  given  them  both  the  same  name,  with- 
 out any  mark  of  distinction. 
 
 But  if  it  be  asked  how  so  considerable  a  paren- 
 thesis came  to  be  inserted  out  of  all  historical  order, 
 to  the  confusion  of  the  narrative,  it  may  be  replied 
 with  great  probability,  that  the  earlier  chapters  of 
 the  book  of  Ezra  to  the  end  of  chapter  vi.  were 
 written  by  Haggai  or  Zechariah,  or  one  of  their  con- 
 temporaries, of  which  a  striking  indication  is  given 
 in  the  application  of  the  old  title,  'King  of  Assyria,' 
 to  Darius,  Ezra  vi.  22 ;  a  title  which  the  older  men  of 
 that  generation  well  recollected  in  their  youth,  and 
 which  was  indeed  one  of  the  titles  of  the  kings  who 
 had  carried  them  captive  from  their  own  land  :  but 
 which  would  be  quite  out  of  date  some  80  years 
 later,  when  Ezra  wrote  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes 
 Longimanus.  From  chapter  vii.  to  the  end  was 
 added  by  Ezra.  But  when  Ezra  was  editing  those 
 early  chapters  with  his  own  addition  of  the  history 
 of  his  own  times,  he  thought  it  desirable  to  shew 
 how  the  same  hostility  had  continued  to  be  at 
 work  both  in  the  reign  of  Xerxes  and  Artaxerxes. 
 And  having  had  perfect  knowledge,  from  his  posi- 
 tion at  the  court  of  Persia,  of  the  steps  taken  by  the 
 enemies  of  the  Jews  at  the  beginning  of  Artaxerxes' 
 
XI.]  EZliA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  819 
 
 reign,  and  having  in  his  possession  copies  both  of 
 the  letter  of  Rehum  the  chancellor,  and  of  the  de- 
 cree which  he  and  his  companions  had  obtained 
 from  the  king,  he  here  inserted  them.  And  as  no 
 second  Darius  or  second  Artaxerxes  had  then  existed, 
 of  course  it  never  occurred  to  him  that  by  so  doing 
 he  could  cause  any  historical  confusion.  Let  full 
 weight,  too,  be  given  to  the  very  important  circum- 
 stance already  alluded  to,  that  the  hostile  decree  of 
 Artaxerxes  in  Ezra  iv.,  does  not  say  a  word  about 
 stopping  the  building  of  the  temple ;  and  for  this 
 obvious  reason,  the  temple  had  been  rebuilt,  when 
 this  decree  w^as  issued,  above  50  years.  But  the 
 walls  of  the  city  had  not  been.  In  like  manner, 
 when  the  favourable  decree  in  the  7th  of  Arta- 
 xerxes was  given,  there  is  no  mention  of  huilding, 
 but  only  of  beautifying  the  temple,  'the  house  of 
 our  God  which  is  in  Jerusalem.''  Ezra  vii.  27.  This 
 seems  to  prove  distinctly  that  the  decree  of  Darius 
 in  Ezra  vi.  preceded  the  hostile  decree  of  Arta- 
 xerxes. 
 
 But,  further,  on  referring  to  the  original  Hebrew 
 text,  we  find  a  very  remarkable  confirmation  of  the 
 view  above  given,  that  these  verses  are  a  parenthe- 
 tical insertion  by  some  later  hand.  For,  first,  ver.  6 
 is  printed  detached  from  ver.  5,  with  a  long  break, 
 between  them ;  and  in  like  manner  ver.  7  is  sepa- 
 rated from  ver.  6,  and  then,  after  another  break, 
 at  ver.  8  the  language  changes  into  Chaldee,  and  so 
 continues  to  the  end  of  the  18th  verse  of  chapter  vi. 
 Now  this  leads  one  to  conjecture  that  originally 
 
320       CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF       [cil. 
 
 Ezra,  or  whoever  the  annotator  might  be,  only 
 inserted  ver.  6  and  ver.  7  parenthetically,  which 
 scarcely  broke  in  at  all  upon  the  main  narrative ; 
 but  that  afterwards  a  further  addition  was  made 
 by  him,  or  some  other  reviser,  of  the  original  Chal- 
 dee  document  alluded  to  in  ver.  7,  which  greatly 
 lengthened  the  parenthesis,  and  may  possibly  have 
 led  (though  it  is  not  necessary  to  the  hypothesis  to 
 suppose  this)  to  some  further  addition  by  a  subse- 
 quent copyist,  who  was  deceived  by  the  position  of 
 the  parenthetical  history,  and  thought  it  was  part 
 of  the  main  narrative.  This,  however,  as  before 
 said,  is  not  necessary,  and  ver.  24,  if  rendered  into 
 Hebrew,  would  cohere  very  well  with  ver.  5,  as  I 
 make  no  doubt  it  originally  did.  The  passage  in 
 English  would  have  stood  thus :  '  Then  the  people 
 of  the  land  weakened  the  hands  of  the  people  of 
 Judah,  and  troubled  them  in  building;  and  hired 
 counsellors  against  them  to  frustrate  their  purpose 
 all  the  days  of  Cyrus  king  of  Persia,  even  until  the 
 reign  of  Darius  king  of  Persia.  So  the  work  of 
 the  house  of  God  which  is  at  Jerusalem  ceased. 
 And  it  ceased  till  the  second  year  -of  Darius  king 
 of  Persia.' 
 
 If  one  might  hazard  a  conjecture  as  to  the  cause 
 of  the  continuance  of  the  Chaldee  in  ver.  24  of 
 chapter  iv.,  and  through  chapter  v.,  and  as  far  as 
 vi.  18,  one  would  ascribe  it  to  accident,  arising  in 
 this  way.  There  was,  of  course,  a  Chaldee  version 
 of  Ezra  for  the  use  of  those  who  had  ceased  to  un- 
 derstand Hebrew.     One  of  the  volumina  or  scrolls 
 
XI.]  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  821 
 
 upon  which  Hebrew  MSS.  were  written  ended  with 
 the  parenthesis  in  Chaldee,  which  was  contained 
 from  ver.  8  to  ver.  23  inckisive.  And  this  led  to, 
 what  we  should  call,  the  bookbinder  joining  on  the 
 next  scroll,  beginning  with  iv.  24  and  ending  with 
 vi.  18,  from  the  Chaldee  version  instead  of  the  He- 
 brew original'. 
 
 Another  striking  confirmation  of  the  above 
 hypothesis  is  to  be  found  in  Ezra  vi.  14,  where  we 
 read  that  'they  builded  and  finished  it  (the  temple) 
 according  to  the  commandment  of  the  God  of 
 Israel,  and  according  to  the  commandment  of 
 Cyrus,  and  Darius,  and  Artaxerxes,  king  of  Persia.' 
 Where,  first,  the  order  in  which  these  kings  are  enu- 
 merated is  to  be  observed,  not  Cyrus,  Artaxerxes, 
 Darius,  but  Cyrus,  Darius,  Artaxerxes,  shewing 
 plainly  enough  that  Darius  preceded  Artaxerxes. 
 Then  again  it  is  to  be  marked  that  the  mention  of 
 Artaxerxes,  king  of  Persia,  as  one  of  the  favourers 
 of  the  Jews,  cannot  refer  to  any  thing  that  had  pre- 
 ceded in  order  of  history  the  times  the  writer  was 
 speaking  of,  nor  to  the  previous  mention  of  Ar- 
 taxerxes in  chap.  iv.  17,  seqq.,  where  the  only  de- 
 cree of  his  mentioned  was  a  hostile  one.  Evidently, 
 therefore,  the  writer  or  editor  of  this  passage,  writing 
 
 ^  '  The  sacred  books  were  probably  written  on  skins  or  leaves 
 of  vellum,  fastened  by  the  sides  to  each  other,  and  rolled  up 
 into  (what  were  then  properly  called)  volumes.  The  consequence 
 of  which  has  probably  been  that  several  transpositions  have  been 
 made,  on  account  of  the  sheets  being  sometimes  joined  together 
 oxit  of  their  proper  order  of  succession.'  Kennicott's  Hist,  of 
 Heh.  Text,  pp.  341,  342. 
 
 21 
 
322       CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF      [CH. 
 
 after  the  decree  of  Artaxerxes,  chap.  vii.  12,  seqq., 
 which  tended  so  greatly  to  'beautify  the  house  of 
 the  Lord  which  is  in  Jerusalem,'  was  issued,  here 
 joins  the  name  of  his  living  patron  Artaxerxes  to 
 that  of  the  other  royal  benefactors  of  the  Jews, 
 although  the  benefit  in  question  had  not  been  con- 
 ferred at  the  time  which,  as  an  historian,  he  was 
 then  describing.  Just  as  in  iv.  6,  7,  the  mention  of 
 the  injuries  done  to  the  Jews  by  their  enemies  in 
 the  reign  of  Cyrus,  and  till  the  second  year  of  Da- 
 rius, led  to  the  mention,  by  anticipation,  of  other 
 injuries  done  subsequently  in  the  reigns  of  Ahasue- 
 rus,  or  Xerxes,  and  the  beginning  of  Artaxerxes. 
 
 And  thus,  I  conceive,  that  the  first  objection 
 arising  from  the  order  of  the  kings  named  in  Ezra 
 iv.,  though  at  first  sight  a  very  formidable  one,  is 
 fully  met,  without  resorting  to  the  expedient  of 
 Josephus,  Usher,  Prideaux,  and  others,  of  assigning 
 to  the  different  kings  any  but  their  own  proper 
 names,  an  expedient  justly  objected  to  by  Dr  Mill ; 
 though  bad  as  it  is,  I  must  think  it  preferable,  were 
 there  no  alternative,  to  bringing  upon  the  stage,  in 
 the  reign  of  Darius  Nothus,  the  very  same  indivi- 
 duals whom  we  had  left  there  (and  many  of  them 
 far  advanced  in  years)  114  years  before. 
 
 2.  The  second  objection  will  occupy  us  for  a  v6ry 
 short  time ;  because,  if  we  have  rightly  emended 
 the  passage  in  1  Chron.  iii.,  Hattush,  instead  of 
 being  the  6th  or  7th  generation  from  Zerubbabel, 
 was  his  own  nephew;  so  that  the  objection  has 
 already  disappeared ;  and  we  may  derive  a  strong 
 
XI.]  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  323 
 
 argument  in  favour  of  the  emendation  from  the 
 fact  of  the  present  text  being  irreconcileable  with 
 the  chronology  of  the  times. 
 
 8.  The  third  objection  is,  if  we  grant  the  pre- 
 mises, insuperable.  Because,  as  Dr  Mill  truly  ob- 
 serves, if  Sanballat  opposed  Nehemiah  in  the  reign 
 of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  about  b.  c.  440,  and  also 
 headed  the  Samaritans  in  the  reign  of  Alexander 
 the  Great,  about  b.  c.  333,  he  must  have  lived  to  a 
 greater  age,  or  at  least  as  great,  as  that  which  has 
 been  attributed  to  Zerubbabel :  though,  even  in 
 this  case,  he  would  have  been  far  behind  those 
 wonderful  men  who  spanned  the  166  years  be- 
 tween the  first  and  second  temple.  But  that  San- 
 ballat did  head  the  Samaritans  in  Alexander's 
 time,  is  what  I  do  not  for  one  moment  believe. 
 The  whole  story,  and  that  of  his  building  the  tem- 
 ple on  Mount  Gerizim,  rests  upon  the  sole  autho- 
 rity of  Josephus ;  and  there  is  abundant  cause  to 
 suspect  that  he  was  led  into  this  error  by  con- 
 founding Darius  Nothus  with  Darius  Codomanus; 
 a  mistake  known  to  have  been  prevalent  among 
 the  Jews^  to  whose  ignorance  of  the  history  of 
 foreign  nations  Josephus  himself  bears  testimony. 
 I  suspect  also  that  he  confounded  Joiada  and  Jad- 
 dua ;  and  was  perhaps  further  misled  by  the  gene- 
 alogy interpolated  in  Nehem.  xii.  coming  down  to 
 the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great. 
 
 '  Great  light  is  thrown  upon  this  strange  error  in  Jewish 
 chronology  by  Dr  Lepsius,  in  liis  Egypt,  Mthiopia,  S^-c.  Eng, 
 Trans,  p.  450,  sqq.     See  Note  E  at  the  end  of  this  Yolume. 
 
 21—2 
 
324       CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF      [cil. 
 
 The  reader  will  find  the  causes  of  Josephus's 
 mistake  very  ably  stated  in  Prideaux's  Connexion, 
 and  the  fact  that  he  was  mistaken  argued  with 
 considerable  force.  (Vol.  i.  p.  289,  seqq.)  And  he 
 collects  such  a  number  of  errors  from  the  xith 
 book  of  the  Antiquities  as  must  tend  to  destroy 
 the  authority  of  any  unsupported  statement  in  it. 
 Indeed,  the  truth  is,  that  it  is  enough  to  peruse  this 
 part  of  Josephus's  history  in  order  to  be  convinced 
 that  he  was  labouring  under  some  extraordinary 
 hallucination.  For  he  passes  on  immediately  from 
 the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  {rod  fierd 
 Aep^ijv,  as  he  describes  the  king  in  whose  reign  the 
 author  of  Esther  wrote  the  latest  book  of  Scripture, 
 in  his  1st  book  against  Apion)  to  the  reign  of  Da- 
 rius Codomanus,  'the  last  king'  of  Persia,  by  whom, 
 he  says,  Sanballat  was  sent  into  Samaria.  And  it  is 
 also  clear  that  he  confounded  Artaxerxes  Mnemon 
 with  Artaxerxes  Longimanus ;  for,  speaking  of  Ba- 
 goas,  he  describes  him  as  the  general  tov  Xaou  'Ap- 
 Ta^ep^ov,  having  just  before  mentioned  Artaxerxes 
 Longimanus.  The  change  of  the  text  to  rod  aWou 
 'ApTo^ep^ov  is  a  mere  conjecture,  to  get  rid  of  this 
 blunder.  Another  remarkable  circumstance  is,  that 
 though  Josephus  manifestly  derives  his  materials 
 for  the  history  of  Nehemiah  from  the  scriptural 
 book  of  Nehemiah  (whom  he  places  in  the  reign  of 
 Xerxes),  and  alludes  generally  to  the  enmity  of  the 
 Ammonites,  yet  he  is  entirely  silent  about  the 
 names  of  Sanballat  and  Tobiah,  and  about  the  inter- 
 marriages of  the  priests  and  of  the  principal  Jews 
 
XI.]  EZRA  AND  NEIIEMIAH.  325 
 
 with  the  heathen  at  that  time'.  He  reserved  these 
 particulars  for  the  reign  of  Alexander  the  Great ! 
 not,  surely,  a  v^ry  honest  proceeding,  nor  a  very 
 wise  one,  seeing  that  in  so  doing  he  forsook  his 
 safe  guide  Nehemiah,  and  followed  either  his  own 
 fancy  or  some  ignorant  Jewish  apocryphal  writer 
 of  historical  romanced     He  seems  anyhow  to  have 
 
 *  In  fact,  Josephus  directly  alters  and  corrupts  Ills  sacred 
 authority.  Nehemiah  says  that  Sanballat  opposed  the  Jews  iu 
 the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  i.  c.  according  to  Josephus,  Xerxes. 
 Josephus  suppresses  this  fact,  and  places  him  in  the  reign  of 
 Darius  Codomanus.  Nehemiah  says  that  it  was  a  son  of  Joiada, 
 who  in  the  same  reign  of  Artaxerxes  (in  the  32nd  year,  Xerxes, 
 be  it  noted  by  the  way,  having  only  reigned  23  years)  married 
 a  daughter  of  Sanballat.  Josephus  suppresses  this  fact,  and  says 
 that  in  the  reign  of  the  last  Darius,  Manasseh,  son  of  John,  and 
 grandson  of  Joiada,  whom  he  calls  Judas,  married  Sanballat's 
 daughter.     Both  these  accounts  cannot  be  true. 
 
 ^  This  appears  to  me  the  most  probable  source  of  Josephus's 
 blunders.  We  know  from  the  extant  apocryphal  books,  as  well 
 as  from  other  Jewish  writings,  how  thoroughly  ignorant  of  chro- 
 nology, and  how  addicted  to  fable,  Jewish  writers  were.  Now 
 among  fabulous  writers  of  history,  nothing  is  more  common  than 
 to  keep  their  heroes  upon  the  stage  for  an  incredible  length  of 
 time,  and  to  reproduce  them  at  different  epochs,  to  play  analo- 
 gous parts  for  good  or  evil.  Thus  to  travel  no  further  in  search 
 of  an  example  than  the  times  and  the  country  we  have  now 
 to  do  with,  we  find  in  Persian  history  the  warrior  Rostoom 
 figuring  in  the  five  reigns  of  Kai  Kobad  (Deioces),  Kai  Karoos 
 (Cyaxares),  Kai  Khoosroo  (Cyrus),  Lohrasp  (probably  Camby- 
 ses),  Gushtasp  (Darius  Tlystaspes),  and  killed  at  last  in  the  reign 
 of  Bahman  (Artaxerxes  Longimanus),  although  Kai  Kobad 
 reigned  120  years,  Kai  Karoos  a  great  number  of  years,  Kai 
 Khoosroo  60  years,  Lohrasp  120  years,  and  Gushtasp  60  years! 
 (Malcolm's  Hist,  of  Persia.)  In  like  manner,  if  the  atrox  Jiaji- 
 tium  of  the  building  of  the  temple  on  mount  Gerizim  was  to  be 
 accounted  for  by  the  agency  of  some  great  enemy  of  the  Jews, 
 
326       CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF       [CH. 
 
 been  fairly  puzzled.  Having  settled  that  Nehemiah 
 lived  under  Xerxes,  he  appears  to  have  thought  it 
 impossible,  or  unlikely,  that  the  S^nballat,  who  was 
 his  adversary,  should  have  figured  in  Alexander  the 
 Great's  time ;  and  yet  knowing  that  Sanballat  was 
 sent  to  Samaria  by  Darius,  and  having  no  doubt  but 
 that  Darius  was  '  the  last  king,'  he  concluded  that 
 Sanballat  must  have  been  contemporary  with  Alex- 
 ander. But  at  all  events  the  expression  above 
 referred  to  in  the  1  st  book  against  Apion,  that  the 
 Canonical  Scripture  history  reaches  iJ^expi  t^s  'Ap- 
 Ta^ep^ov  Tov  juterd  aep^ijv  YIeptrcov  l3aai\ew^  cLpyrj^,  IS 
 utterly  inconsistent  with  the  ascription  of  persons 
 mentioned  in  the  book  of  Nehemiah  to  the  reign  of 
 Darius  Codomanus,  and  can  only  be  accounted  for 
 at  all  upon  the  supposition  that  Josephus  thought 
 Darius  Ochus,  the  successor  of  Artaxerxes  Longi- 
 manus,  was  the  same  as  Darius  Codomanus.  In 
 short,  he  stands  convicted  of  the  grossest  ignorance 
 of  the  Persian  history  of  those  times,  and  is  also, 
 quite  unsupported  by  the  accurate  Arrian  in  other 
 particulars  of  the  passage  of  Alexander  the  Great 
 through  Palestine,  in  relating  which  he  seems 
 again  to  follow  Jewish  romancers,  rather  than  nar- 
 rate facts  really  resting  upon  trustworthy  evidence  ^ 
 
 ■who  so  proper  as  Sanballat,  and  what  could  it  signify  whether 
 or  no  he  had  been  dead  a  century  or  so  ? 
 
 ^  One  is  sorry  to  throw  discredit  upon  the  interesting  story 
 in  Josephus,  of  the  meeting  of  the  High  Priest  and  Alexander, 
 and  the  reference  to  the  prophecy  of  Daniel.  But  the  author 
 feels  bound  to  confess,  that  after  carefully  comparing  the  two 
 accounts  in  Josephus  and  Arrian,  he  was  convinced  that  Jose- 
 
XI.]  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  327 
 
 Under  these  circumstances  the  escape  from  the 
 difficulty  is  as  easy  as  at  first  sight  it  seemed  to 
 be  difficult.  Even  had  Josephus  shewn  himself 
 deserving  of  credit,  and  been  supported  by  other 
 historians,  one  would  have  been  prepared  to  take 
 one's  stand  with  Prideaux,  and  say,  '  Here  there  is 
 no  opposition  between  Scripture  and  Scripture,  but 
 only  between  Scripture  and  the  writings  of  a  pro- 
 fane author.  Nehemiah  placeth  Sanballat  in  the 
 time  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus ;  Josephus  makes 
 him  live  down  to  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great, 
 above  a  hundred  years  after . . .  (And  since)  both 
 cannot  consist  together,  the  profane  writer  must 
 give  place  to  the  sacred:  and  therefore  the  true 
 answer  to  this  matter  is,  Josephus  was  mistaken.' 
 {Connex.  of  the  Hist,  of  Old  and  New  Test.  Vol.  i. 
 pp.  289,  290).  But  as  the  matter  stands,  to  make 
 Josephus's  single  authority  a  reason  for  loading 
 the  Scripture  narrative,  which  is  otherwise  perfectly 
 clear,  accurate,  and  harmonious  with  itself  and 
 with  Greek  history,  with  such  a  mass  of  enormous 
 improbabilities,  appears  to  me  to  be  equally  op- 
 posed to  all  the  principles  of  sound  criticism,  and 
 to  enlightened  reverence  for  the  Word  of  God. 
 
 4.  The  fourth  objection  is  drawn  from  the  im- 
 possibility of  interpreting  '  the  seventy  hebdomads 
 of  Daniel  ix.  wliicli  end  in  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
 salem, A.D.  71,'  otherwise    than  by  making  them 
 
 phus's  story  was  not  to  be  depended  upon,  before  he  bad  the 
 least  idea  that  some  of  the  best  critics  had  rejected  it  as  non- 
 historical. 
 
328  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  [cil. 
 
 begin  'in  the  second  year  of  Darius  Nothus.'  Now, 
 as  in  the  last  objection,  the  whole  difficulty  arose 
 from  assuming  as  fact  Sanballat's  pretended  agency 
 in  the  time  of  Alexander,  so  here  the  whole  diffi- 
 culty is  created  by  another  assumption,  which  rests 
 on  no  better,  nor  near  so  good  grounds,  viz;  that  the 
 weeks  of  Daniel  terminate  with  the  destruction  of 
 Jerusalem.  So  far  is  this,  in  my  humble  judgment, 
 from  being  the  natural  or  possible  termination  of 
 the  weeks  according  to  the  language  of  the  pro- 
 phecy itself,  that  were  it  not  for  the  general  prin- 
 ciple so  properly  urged  by  Dr  Mill,  that  history 
 should  interpret  prophecy,  and  not  be  determined 
 by  it,  I  should  say  rather  that  that  historical 
 scheme  must  be  wrong,  which  makes  it  necessary 
 to  terminate  the  weeks  with  the  destruction  of 
 Jerusalem.  For  if  we  refer  to  the  language  of 
 the  prophecy,  (Dan.  ix.  24),  all  the  prophet's,  or 
 rather  the  angel's  expressions,  point  to  mercy, 
 atonement,  reconciliation,  justification,  as  marking 
 the  termination  of  the  epoch  in  question,  not  to 
 vengeance,  desolation,  and  destruction.  And  in 
 ver.  25  it  seems  to  be  stated,  in  language  as  dis- 
 tinct as  words  can  be  made,  that  the  69  weeks  were 
 to  end  in  or  with  the  life-time  of  Messiah  the 
 Prince^:  that  in  the  70th  or  last  week  Messiah  was 
 to  be  cut  off:  that  in  that  same  week  many  Jews 
 would  embrace  the  Covenant  (the  New  Covenant 
 
 '  The  expression  in  the  Septuag.  of  Dan.  ix.  25,  ew?  Xpta-rov 
 tjyovfxevov,  may  properly  mean  till  the  death  of  Messiah,  i.e.  it 
 is  inclusive  of  the  period  which  it  defines. 
 
XI.]  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  329 
 
 in  the  blood  of  Jesus),  and  that  at  the  same  time 
 the  daily  sacrifice  should  be  made  to  cease.  And 
 the  destruction  of  the  city,  and  the  desolation  of 
 the  sanctuary,  and  war  and  foreign  invasion  and 
 oppression  of  an  indefinite  length,  are  spoken  of  as 
 to  follow,  '  until  the  consummation ;'  but  obviously, 
 as  interpreted  by  history,  these  last-named  events 
 cannot  be  included  in  the  'one  week'  which  re- 
 mained over  and  above  '  the  seven  weeks  and  the 
 threescore  and  two  weeks.'  For  we  know  that  not 
 seven  years,  but  between  thirty  and  forty,  elapsed 
 between  the  crucifixion  and  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
 salem, and  that  nearly  eighteen  centuries  have 
 elapsed  since  the  latter  event,  and  yet  the  desola- 
 tion of  Jerusalem  is  not  yet  consummated.  So  that 
 the  language  of  the  prophecy  seems  to  make  it 
 absolutely  necessary  that  the  termination  of  the 
 epoch  should  be  signalized  by  some  crowning  act  of 
 mercy  and  grace ;  that  the  cutting  off  of  Messiah 
 should  be  within  seven  years  of  the  termination  of 
 the  whole  seventy  weeks ;  and  that  the  days  of  Mes- 
 siah should  coincide  with  the  latter  part  of  the 
 sixty-nine  weeks.  In  other  words,  the  language  of 
 the  prophecy  seems  to  make  it  necessary  that  the 
 crucifixion  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  should  fall  at 
 the  end  of  the  sixty-ninth,  or  rather  early  in  the 
 seventieth  week.  The  single  expression  in  the  pro- 
 phecy which  looks  like  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
 salem being  the  termination  is  that  which  says, 
 '  In  the  midst  of  the  week  he  shall  cause  the  sacri- 
 fice and  the  oblation  to  cease.'    But  when  we  re- 
 
330       CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF       [CH. 
 
 collect  that  after  the  offering  up  of  the  body  of 
 Jesus  Christ  once  for  all  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  and 
 His  entrance  upon  His  office  as  High  Priest  of  the 
 Church  of  God,  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  not  made 
 with  hands,  the  Levitical  sacrifices  and  oblations 
 and  priesthood  were  really  disannulled  and  super- 
 seded, as  St  Paul  fully  argues  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
 Hebrews,  (compare  the  expressions  aGerrjai^  irpoa- 
 yovat]^  ei'ToXtjs)  vii.  18  ;  e'y'yys  d<pavia[xov,  VUl.  13;  and 
 especially  apaipel  t6  Trpwrou  (o.  6.  9v(riav  Kai  irpocr- 
 (popav  K.  T.  X.)   'iva  to  cevrepov  CTrjcrrf,  X.  9,   With   the 
 
 Greek  Vers,  of  Dan.  ix.  27,  ev  tw  i^fxia-ei  rjj?  e/3^o- 
 
 fxacos  apOriaerai   fxov   Ova'ia   kuI  aTrovcr])',  and  that  the 
 
 actual  forcible  cessation  of  sacrifice  after  the  de- 
 struction of  Jerusalem  was  only  the  visible  enforce- 
 ment of  the  sentence  which  had  already  abolished 
 the  Levitical  sacrifices  as  a  Divine  ordinance;  we 
 shall,  I  think,  acknowledge  that  sacrifice  and  obla- 
 tion was  made  to  cease  in  the  midst,  or  first  half,  of 
 the  week,  viz.  upon  the  death,  resurrection,  and 
 ascension  of  our  Lord ;  and  that  at  all  events  we 
 must  be  guided  in  our  understanding  of  this  phrase 
 by  the  whole  tenor  of  the  prophecy.  I  conclude, 
 therefore,  upon  the  whole,  that  if  we  are  guided  by 
 the  language  in  Daniel,  it  is  quite  impracticable 
 to  make  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  the  termi- 
 nation of  the  epoch. 
 
 But  again,  as  regards  the  commencement  of 
 the  epoch,  if  we  carefully  consider  the  angel's 
 words,  it  should  seem  absolutely  necessary  that  the 
 seventy  weeks  should  begin  from  some  decree  for 
 
XI.]  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  831 
 
 rebuilding,  not  the  temple,  but  the  ivall  and  street 
 of  Jerusalem  ^  (ver.  25).  For,  remarkably  enough, 
 the  temple  is  not  mentioned  or  alluded  to  in  con- 
 nexion with  the  decree,  but  Jerusalem,  its  street 
 and  wall,  are  so  expressly,  as  to  be  rebuilt.  Now 
 it  is  incontrovertible  that  up  to  the  20th  year  of 
 Artaxerxes  this  had  not  been  done.  Nehemiah's 
 complaint  to  the  king,  founded  on  the  report  of 
 Hanani  and  other  Jews  from  Jerusalem,  was  '  the 
 city,  the  place  of  my  fathers'  sepulchres,  lieth  waste, 
 and  the  gates  thereof  are  consumed  with  fire ;'  for 
 they  had  told  him  that  '  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  also 
 is  broken  down,'  as  it  had  been  ever  since  the  days 
 of  Nebuzaradan,  2  Kings  xxv.  9, 10 ;  Nehem.  i.  3, 
 ii.  3,  iv.  2.  And  when  he  came  to  Jerusalem  so  he 
 found  it.  '  I  went,'  said  he,  '  by  night,  and  viewed 
 the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  which  were  broken  down, 
 and  the  gates  thereof  were  consumed  with  fire,' 
 ii.  13.     Nor  need  this  surprize  us;  for  if  we  ex- 
 
 ^  V^*im  il'lTl  •  Each  of  these  words  is  proper  to  a  fortified 
 city.  Thus,  Gesenius  in  his  Thesaurus  renders  ^I'ni  '  Forum, 
 i.  e.  spatium  amphim  ante  portam  urhium  orientaHuiii,  uhi  ju- 
 dicia  habehantur:'  of  which  a  good  example  is  2  Chron.  xxxii. 
 6,  "l^^rr  "S^J^  liri")  '  t^^^  street  of  the  gate  of  the  city,'  i.  e.  the 
 forum.  Of  course  only  a  walled  town  can  have  a  gate ;  and  thus  it 
 ought  to  have  been  translated  here,  forum  instead  of  street.  It  is  in 
 the  plural  /TJUrn  ^^^^^  the  word  seems  to  be  properly  rendered 
 streets.  All  the  instances  in  the  singular,  given  by  Gesenius 
 for  the  meaning  street,  may  with  more  propriety  be  rendered 
 forum.  See  Gen.  xix.  2;  Judg.  xix.  15, 17;  Esther  vi.  9,  11 ; 
 Ezek.  xvi.  24,  31,  &c.  y?nn  '^^  renders,  '  Fossa  urbis  muni- 
 tae;'  and  adds,  that  in  Dan.  ix.  25,  'vallum  et  reliqua  munimenta 
 includere  videtur.' 
 
332  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  [cil. 
 
 amine  the  former  decrees  given  in  favour  of  the 
 Jews,  we  shall  perceive  that  they  only  gave  licence 
 to  return  and  to  build  the  temple,  but  say  not  one 
 word  about  restoring  Jerusalem  as  a  fortified  city. 
 Thus  the  decree  of  Cyrus  declares,  'The  Lord... hath 
 charged  me  to  build  him  an  house  at  Jerusalem, 
 which  is  in  Judah.  Who  is  there  among  you  of 
 all  his  people?. ..let  him  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  and 
 build  the  house  of  the  Lord  God,  &c.''  Ezra  i. 
 2,  3 ;  V.  13 — 17.  The  decree  of  Darius,  in  like 
 manner,  after  recapitulating  the  decree  of  Cyrus, 
 ordains,  '  Now  therefore,  Tatnai,  &c.,  let  the  work 
 of  this  house  of  God  alone ;  let  the  governor . . . 
 and  the  elders  of  the  Jews  build  this  house  of  God 
 in  his  place . . .  that  they  may  offer  sacrifices  . . .  and 
 pray  for  the  life  of  the  king,  and  of  his  sons,'  vi. 
 6 — 10.  But  not  one  word  about  the  walls  of  the 
 city'.  It  was  evidently  no  part  of  his  intention, 
 any  more  than  it  had  been  of  Cyrus's,  that  'the 
 rebellious  and  bad  city,'  which  '  of  old  made  insur- 
 rection against  kings,'  should  be  rebuilt.  Neither 
 again  does  the  decree  of  Artaxerxes  in  his  7th  year, 
 granted  to  Ezra,  say  a  word  about  rebuilding  the 
 city  or  its  walls,  but  only  provides  for  beautifying  the 
 house  of  God,  and  assisting  the  temple-services,  and 
 gives  permission  to  the  Jews  to  return.  And  this  is 
 a  very  pointed  silence,  because  the  hostile  decree, 
 
 '  The  wall  mentioned,  Ezra  v.  3,   J^31{^J^  is  the  strong  wall 
 
 T  ;  -    ~ 
 
 of  the  temple  itself  described,  Ezra  vi.  3,  not  the  "^rijif  or  J^l^iti^ 
 (Heb.  niOin  or  niDin)*  t^ic  walls  of  the  city.  See  Neh.  iv 
 33,  38  (Heb.)  &c.,  and  Lev.  xxv.  31,  Targ.  Onkelos. 
 
XI.]  EZRA  AND  NEIIEMIAH.  333 
 
 given  by  anticipation  in  Ezra  iv,,  had  been  especi- 
 ally directed  against  rebuilding  the  city  and  the 
 walls  which  Rehum  and  his  companions  had  written, 
 word,  either  truly  or  falsely,  the  Jews  were  begin- 
 ning to  do,  and  which,  they  added,  would  be  cer- 
 tainly followed  by  a  refusal  to  pay  tribute :  an  ob- 
 servation, by  the  way,  which  marks  very  distinctly, 
 what  indeed  is  sufficiently  obvious,  the  wide  differ- 
 ence between  the  permission  given  by  the  earlier 
 Persian  monarchs  to  the  Jews  to  build  the  temple, 
 and  inhabit  Jerusalem  as  an  unwalled  town  or 
 village,  and  a  permission  to  restore  those  fortifica- 
 tions which  it  had  cost  such  a  long  siege  to  subdue 
 in  the  days  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  It  was  exceedingly 
 improbable  that  this  latter  permission  should  be 
 granted  to  the  Jews,  while  the  memory  of  their 
 former  power  was  at  all  recent  :  and  it  is  mar- 
 vellous that  so  sensible  and  judicious  a  writer  as 
 Prideaux  should  not  have  perceived  the  difference, 
 as  he  evidently  did  notS  (see  his  observations  on 
 Cyrus's  decree,  Vol.  i.  p.  257),  or  should  have  ex- 
 plained so  important  a  matter  as  building  the  walls 
 
 '  Mr  Bosanquet  also  (Chron.  of  Times  of  Daniel^  Ezra,  S,'C.) 
 speaks  of  the  '  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem/  upon  the  decree  of  Da- 
 rius,' p.  89,  &c.;  and  in  pp.  64,  65  argues  as  if  the  command  'to 
 build  the  house,'  and  to  build  Jerusalem  were  the  same  thing. 
 The  passages  there  quoted  from  Zech.  i.  ii.,  do  indeed  refer  to 
 the  rebuilding  of  the  city,  but  they  are  prophetical,  and  were 
 not  accomplished  till  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes.  'The  historical 
 authority  of  Josephus,  and  the  first  book  of  Esdras,'  are  one  and 
 the  same  thing,  Josephus  having  simply  transcribed  what  he 
 found  there;  and  the  book  of  Esdras  itself  is  utterly  without 
 authority,  and  as  full  of  mistakes  as  it  is  of  fables. 
 
334       CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF       [CH. 
 
 and  the  street,  figuratively  of  'restoring  and  set- 
 tling of  the  church  and  state  of  the  Jews,'  (p.  278). 
 But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  first  decree  of  any  Per- 
 sian king  for  restoring  Jerusalem  to  what  it  had 
 been  before,  viz.  a  fortified  city,  and  rebuilding  it 
 as  such  (CD^S^ni  ^^^'^\  ^V^7  as  the  prophecy 
 runs)  was  the  decree  granted  to  Nehemiah  in  the 
 20th  year  of  Artaxerxes,  which  gave  him  express 
 permission  to  'hdld  the  city  of  his  fathers'  se- 
 pulchres,' and  an  order  to  the  keeper  of  the  forest 
 for  'timber  to  make  beams  for  the  gates  of  the 
 palace,  and  for  the  wall  of  the  city  ;'  and 
 accordingly,  immediately  upon  his  arrival  at  Jeru- 
 salem, Nehemiah  carefully  inspected  the  broken- 
 down  walls;  and,  having  done  so,  summoned  the 
 priests,  and  the  nobles,  and  the  rulers,  and  thus 
 addressed  them :  '  Ye  see  the  distress  that  w^e  are 
 in — how  Jerusalem  lieth  waste,  and  the  gates  thereof 
 are  burnt  with  fire :  come,  and  let  us  build  up  the 
 WALL  OF  Jerusalem,  that  we  be  no  more  a  re- 
 proach.' And  then,  in  spite  of  the  taunt  of  San- 
 ballat,  (which  again  marks  the  importance  of  the 
 walls  as  distinguished  from  an  unwalled  and  open 
 town),  'will  ye  rebel  against  the  king?'  they  pro- 
 ceeded with  great  vigour,  as  is  related  at  large 
 in  ch.  iii,,  to  rebuild  the  ovall  of  Jerusalem  from  the 
 sheep-gate  (iii.  1),  round  to  the  sheep-gate  again, 
 (iii.  32).  See  also  through  ch.  iv.  Let  us  then  re- 
 peat it :  Here,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  is  the  first  and 
 only  decree  for  '  restoring  and  rebuilding  Jeru- 
 salem.'    Now  for  the  first  time  since  the  breaking 
 
XI.]  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  335 
 
 down  of  the  wall  and  the  burning  of  the  gates  by 
 Nebuzaradan  was  the  wall  actually  rebuilt,  and  the 
 gates  restored,  vi.  1 ;  xii.  30 ;  xiii.  19.  But  truly 
 it  was  done  in  troublous  times,  as  has  been  most 
 carefully  recorded  in  Nehem.  iv.  v.  vi.,  and  most 
 pointedly  too  :  can  one  doubt  for  the  express  pur- 
 pose of  shewing  every  attentive  reader  of  Holy 
 Scripture,  that  this  was  the  fulfilment  of  Daniel's 
 prophecy,  '  the  street  shall  be  built  again  and  the 
 wall,  even  in  troublous  times?'  In  a  word,  then, 
 have  we  not  found  a  beginning  for  the  seventy 
 weeks,  exactly  corresponding  to  the  angel's  words, 
 in  the  20th  year  of  Artaxerxes  ?  Most  assuredly 
 we  have ;  and  it  now  only  remains  for  us  to  mea- 
 sure the  distance  which  intervenes  between  the 
 20th  of  Artaxerxes  and  the  crucifixion  of  our  Lord 
 and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 The  20th  year  of  Artaxerxes,  according  to  the 
 common  reckoning,  fell  in  the  Vulgar  sera  b.  c.  445 ; 
 and  the  birth  of  our  Saviour  happened,  according 
 to  the  best  computations,  B.C.  3  or  4  (see  Hayes' 
 Critical  Examination  of  St  Matthew'' s  and  St  Lukes 
 Gospels) ;  and  if  we  add  30  years  for  our  Saviour's 
 life-time  (which,  with  the  3  or  4  years  of  His  life 
 included  in  the  445  years  from  the  Vulgar  sera, 
 would  make  His  age  33  or  34  at  His  death),  we 
 shall  have  the  death  of  Christ  falling  475  years 
 after  the  20th  year  of  Artaxerxes.  But  69  weeks 
 of  years  amount  to  483  years ;  and  therefore  the 
 computation  falls  short  by  8  years.  But  when  we 
 recollect  the  great   uncertainty  that   attends  the 
 
336       CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF       [CH. 
 
 exact  dates  of  events  which  happened  in  remote 
 times,  and  for  our  accounts  of  which  we  are  wholly 
 indebted  to  foreign  historians,  who  often  disagree ; 
 and  when  we  bear  in  mind  how  many  doubtful 
 assertions  there  are  in  the  writings  of  the  best 
 and  most  careful  chronologists,  and  what  con- 
 flicting opinions,  amongst  the  most  learned  and  sa- 
 gacious men,  about  even  such  important  dates  as 
 the  birth  of  Christ,  and  His  age  at  His  death ;  we 
 cannot,  I  think,  be  much  disconcerted  by  a  differ- 
 ence of  8  years  in  a  period  of  above  480  years,  or 
 fail  to  see,  in  such  an  approximate  agreement,  upon 
 such  a  scale,  a  confirmation  of  the  correctness  of 
 our  understanding  of  the  beginning  and  the  ending 
 of  the  period,  even  though  we  may  not  be  able  to 
 trace  the  exact  cause  of  the  trifling  disagreement. 
 There  are,  however,  several  ways  in  which  this  dis- 
 agreement may  be  wholly  removed.  Thus,  Arch- 
 bishop Usher  and  Petavius  do  both  conceive  there 
 is  good  ground  for  placing  the  20th  of  Artaxerxes 
 as  much  as  nine  years  earlier  than  b.  c.  445 :  inas- 
 much as  Thucydides  says,  that  Themistocles  came 
 to  Artaxerxes  who  had  lately  {vewar'i)  begun  to 
 reign ;  but  Themistocles,  according  to  Diodorus  Si- 
 culus,  came  to  the  Persian  court  in  the  2nd  year  of 
 the  77th  Olympiad,  i.e.  B.C.  471;  and  supposing 
 Artaxerxes  to  have  been  king  about  3  years,  this 
 would  place  the  beginning,  and  consequently  the 
 20th  year  of  his  reign,  nine  years  earlier  than  the 
 common  date ;  or,  if  he  had  been  king  2  years,  then 
 it  would   give  us   exactly  the   8  years  we  want. 
 
XI.]  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  837 
 
 Petavius  supposes  that  Artaxerxes  reigned  with 
 Xerxes  his  father,  conjointly,  these  9  years;  but 
 Usher  thinks  Xerxes  died  so  many  years  earlier 
 (Petav.  de  Doct.  Temp.  Lib.  x.  cap.  xxvi.;  Usher, 
 Annal.  Vet.  Test.).  Another  method  by  which  se- 
 veral at  least  of  these  8  years  may  be  disposed  of, 
 is  the  following.  If  we  suppose,  as  surely  we  must 
 do,  that  Daniel's  70  weeks  do  not  mean  any  periods 
 of  seven  years,  but  legal  weeks  of  years  defined  as 
 to  their  beginning  and  ending  by  successive  Sabba- 
 tical years  ^  seven  of  which,  as  hinted  not  obscurely 
 in  V.  25,  would  end  at  the  year  of  Jubilee,  then  it  is 
 obvious  that  the  first  and  last  week  need  not  neces- 
 sarily be  entire  periods  of  seven  years  each.  For 
 whether  the  first  and  last  events  mentioned  fell 
 early  or  late  in  their  respective  weeks,  the  weeks 
 in  which  they  happened  would  be  equally  reckoned 
 as  weeks,  according  to  the  regular  Jewish  mode  of 
 reckoning  which  prevails  in  Scripture.  As  for  ex- 
 ample, it  was  predicted  of  our  Lord  that  He  should 
 
 '  That  the  ordinance  of  the  Sabbatical  year  was  not  obsolete 
 after  the  return  from  captivity,  is  clear  from  Neh.  x.  31,  where 
 we  read  that  the  solemn  covenant  sworn  to  by  Nehemiah  and 
 all  the  people,  included  among  other  things,  a  promise  to  '  leave 
 the  seventh  year,  and  the  exaction  of  every  debt.'  See  also  Lev. 
 xxvi.  34,  35;  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  21.  Josejihus  also  relates  that 
 Jaddua  requested  Alexander  the  Great  to  grant  the  Jews  an 
 exemption  from  paying  tribute  on  the  seventli  year  (Antiq.  xi. 
 viii.  5).  It  may  here  be  added,  the  margin  of  six  or  seven  years 
 thus  given  is  well  suited  to  the  nature  of  prophecy,  where  the 
 object  is  to  combine  such  a  measure  of  uncertainty,  as  may  lead 
 to  watching  and  waiting  on  the  part  of  the  people  of  God,  with 
 such  a  degree  of  precision  as,  when  the  prophecy  is  fulfilled, 
 shall  prove  it  to  have  been  given  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 
 
 22 
 
338       CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF       [CH. 
 
 be  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  grave,  al- 
 though He  was  not  laid  there  till  late  in  the  first, 
 and  quitted  it  very  early  on  the  third  day.  So  again 
 it  is  said  of  Delilah,  in  Judg.  xiv.  17,  that  *she  wept 
 before  him  the  seven  days,  while  the  feast  lasted,' 
 although  three  days  out  of  the  seven  had  elapsed 
 before  she  began  to  do  so.  If  then  the  decree  of 
 Artaxerxes  was  issued  one  year  only  before  the 
 Sabbatical  year  which  closed  the  week  in  which  it 
 went  forth,  still  that  week  would  be  reckoned  as 
 the  first  of  the  70  weeks,  although  at  the  end  of 
 the  seven  weeks  of  which  that  was  the  first,  not 
 7  X  7=49  years  would  have  elapsed,  but  2+(7  x  6) =44. 
 Now  in  the  Chronological  Table,  arranged  accord- 
 ing to  Sabbatical  years  and  Jubilees  in  Mr  Bosan- 
 quet's  Chronology  of  the  Times  of  Daniel,  Ezra, 
 and  Nehemiah,  (in  which  however  he  takes  quite  a 
 different  view  of  the  prophecy),  the  year  B.C.  445 
 is  the  year  preceding  the  Sabbatical  year.  So  that 
 the  years  of  this  first  week  would  be  reduced  to 
 two,  and  consequently  the  69  weeks  which  close 
 with  the  Crucifixion  would  be  reduced  to  478  years, 
 leaving  an  excess  of  only  3  years  or  3 J  years.  Now, 
 whether  these  three  years  are  to  be  accounted  for 
 by  placing  our  Saviour's  birth  2  or  3  years  later 
 with  some  authors,  or  by  adding  3  years  to  his  life, 
 as  others  have  done,  and  as  some  of  the  old  fathers 
 evidently  thought  ought  to  be  done,  or  by  throwing 
 back  Artaxerxes's  accession  to  the  throne  a  few 
 years  earlier,  or  by  reckoning  the  years  as  Jewish 
 years  of  354  days,  as  Africanus  does,  or  in  some 
 
XI.]  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAII.  339 
 
 other  way  which  further  research  and  more  accu- 
 rate knowledge,  should  it  be  vouchsafed  to  us,  may- 
 discover,  anyhow  I  submit  it  to  the  reader's  candid 
 consideration,  whether  the  reasons  for  beginning 
 the  70  weeks  at  the  20th  of  Artaxerxes  Longima- 
 nus  and  closing  them  with  the  Crucifixion,  are  not 
 sufficiently  decisive,  and  the  discrepance  in  the 
 number  of  years  sufficiently  insignificant,  to  leave  a 
 firm  conviction  upon  the  mind  that  this  is  the  true 
 interpretation  of  this  prophecy,  and  that  the  fulfil- 
 ment is  a  wonderful  testimony  to  the  inspiration  of 
 Scripture.  And  may  we  not  conclude  with  no 
 little  confidence,  that  there  is  no  more  necessity,  on 
 account  of  Dr  Mill's  fourth  objection,  than  on  ac- 
 count of  the  three  former,  to  run  counter  to  the 
 uniform  evidence  of  Scripture  and  all  historical 
 probability,  by  making  the  Darius  of  Jeshua  and 
 Zerubbabel  to  be  Darius  Nothus,  and  the  Arta- 
 xerxes of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  and  Eliashib  to  be 
 Artaxerxes  Mnemon  ?  If  so,  I  cannot  but  congratu- 
 late my  readers,  as  well  as  myself,  at  being  thus,  on 
 clear  and  sufficient  grounds,  relieved  from  the  pain- 
 ful effort  of  trying  to  believe  that  we  have  exactly 
 the  same  chief  actors  upon  the  stage  in  the  year 
 B.C.  421  whom  we  had  in  the  year  B.C.  536,  and 
 the  same  individuals  looking  on  previously  to  the 
 year  b.c.  588,  and  subsequently  to  the  year  B.C.  421^ 
 
 ^  The  reader  may  be  glad  to  see  Africanus's  exposition  of 
 Dan.  ix.,  and  his  method  of  accounting  for  the  difference  in  the 
 number  of  years. 
 
 'Oti  jXfv  ovv  "Kepi  'Tr\<;  tov  ^pia-TOv  Trapovaia^  XeyCTai  TavTa, 
 fxeTa   €piioixaba<i  e/SdofXt^KovTa   /xeAAoi/To?   eirKpaivea-Oat^  ZrjXov'    eiu, 
 
 22—2 
 
340  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  [CH. 
 
 The  bearing  however  of  all  this  upon  our  im- 
 mediate subject  is,  to  prove  that  Hattush,  who  came 
 
 "yap    Tov    !Ea)Tf7po?,  »;    airo   tovtov,    ra    Te    Trapa'mtidjxaTa   iraXai' 
 
 ovrai*,    Kai   al   afxaprlaL   crvuTeXovvrai'     Cid   Be   Ttjv  acpecriv  a"  -re 
 
 avofxiai   e^i\a<TfX(Ji]   /xexa   twu    oCikimv    e^a\ei(f)uvTai,    CiKaiocruvr]   Te 
 
 aloovio^    KUTayyeWeTai    irapa    Tt]v   6k    tov   vo/jlov'     opaa-et^   t€   kui 
 
 Trpo<priTetai  pe'^pi's    luxxvvov,    -^p'leTai    8e    ayjo?    ajlwV     nrpo     jap 
 
 Trj^  TOV    2wT>;po?   rifxcav   irapovcr'ia'i    ova    oi/tu    Tai/ra    irpocreiioKaTo 
 
 /xoi'oi/.      ap^aaOai    oe    tmv    dpiQpwv^    TOVTecrTi    Ttav    epboptjKovTa 
 
 e pConaowVy  d   ecmv  cTt]   TeTpaKoaia  evvevrjKovTa,  o    AyyeXo^  vtto- 
 
 Tid€Tai'   ctTTo   e^ddov  \6yov  tov   aTroKptOtjvai  (^''ti^n/?    '  ^^  restore,' 
 
 ■  T  : 
 
 or,  '  to  answer.'  Africanus  follows  the  version  of  the  Sept.)  ko.) 
 oiKohoiJirj(Tai  'lepova-aXt^iJ..  <Tvvef3t]  he  TavTa  eVi  'ApTa^ep^ov  tov 
 Tlepcrdov  fia<ri\evovTO<;  eiKoaTio  erei.  NeeyUia?  yap  o  tovtov  oivo~ 
 ■yoo<i  Boj^ei?  a7roK|0((Tew?  eTu^ei/,  otKodoptjdfjvat  'lepovcraXt^p.^  kui 
 Xoyo^  e^rjxde  KeXeu'wi/  TavTa'  {^e')(^pi  fxev  yap  eKc'tvov  tov  -ypovov 
 ri  TToXi's  tjpt]fXU}To.  Kupou  yap  fxeTa  Trjv  e'f^^ofxrjKovTaeTiav  Ttj<! 
 al'y^fxaXwa-ia';  tmv  ftovXofxevuiv  eKaarTov  eKOV(ria<TT\  KaTa'irep.'\l/av-' 
 To<;,  o'l  {xeTu  'li'jaov  tov  /xeyaXov  /eoew?  Ka\  Zopof3af3eX  Kare-X- 
 DO//T6?,  Kai  ol  eiri  tovtoi^  ayua'Ecroot,  tov  veiov  oiKohopeTv  eKoaXvovTo 
 TO  TTjOtora,  Ka\  Te?T^09  Trj  iroXei  Treptf^dXXeiv,  to?  ov  KeKeXevaixe- 
 vov  TOVTOV.  epetvev  ovv  ew?  l^ee/xiov  Kai  /SatriAew?  ApTa^ep^ov, 
 Kai  TT]^  Trepcruiv  tiyfipovia<;  ctov;  TrevTeKaiceKaTov  Kai  eKaToaTov. 
 aTTo  06  T>;?  aAoxreto?  lepovaaXiJH  eKaTOv  6yhot]KovTa  7re'i/T6  CTt] 
 y'lveTai.  kui  totc  /JacriXeJ?  'ApTa^ep^t]<s  eKeXevuev  olKodoprjdrji'ai 
 Triv  iroXiv.  tieepta^  Be  KaTa'irefX(p6e\<;  tov  epyov  -rrpoea-Tri,  tj  Be 
 (aKocoprjdr]  TrXaTeTa  Kai  TreyOirei^oc,  to?  irpoecpriTevdrj'  KoKeTOev 
 apidixova-tv  ^/xTv  e/3hopr]KovTa  e/SZopdoe';  ek  tov  yipicTTov  a-vvTe- 
 XovvTai. 
 
 After  shewing  that  it  is  impossible  to  reckon  from  any  other 
 epoch,  he  proceeds  : 
 
 Airo   Be     ApTu^ep^ov    at    e/ddofxrJKOvTa  €/3hopdoe<;   e??   tov  c'ttI 
 XpKTTov   (TvvTeXovvTai  ■ypovov  KttTd  ToJ?   TuJv   'lovdaiuv  dpiOpov<:. 
 
 *  This  expression  does  not  occur  in  the  Greek  version  of  Daniel;  but  I 
 think  it  must  have  been  in  Afrieanus's  copy  of  the  Septuagint.  TraXaiou}  repre- 
 sents the  Heb.  ,1^2-  Now  the  Heb.  of  Dan.  ix.  24,  has  VJifsn  i^b'd^ 
 for  n?3-  If  any  Hebrew  MS.  had  read  n?^  instead  of  rb'2-,  this  would 
 have  been  rendered  by  the  verb  ■jraXctini». 
 
XI.]  EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  341 
 
 up  to  Jerusalem  with  Ezra,  could  not  be  removed 
 six  generations  from  Zerubbabel,  and  therefore  to 
 
 airo  jap  Neejuiou,  o9  vtto  ApTa^ep^ov  Trju  lepovcraXrJiJi  ai/oiuo- 
 tontjcrwi/  CTrefxcpur],  erei  Trei/TeKaioeKaTco  Kat  eKaTo'crTw  Trj<s  Trep- 
 crwv  /3acn\eia<;^  aurou  Se  ^ApTU^ep^ov  f3a(Ti\€ia<;  ejKocrTW  £T£(, 
 Kai  OAu/XTTiado?  ojoor]KocrTi]<:  Tplrt]<i  eTCi  T£Ta'pTw,  eVj  tovtov 
 Tov  j^povov  o5  ijv  '0/\ujU7riaSo?  ZiaKoa-io<TTr}<!  hevTepa<:  6to9  hevTe- 
 pov^  Tipepiov  de  Ka<cr«^09  r]yefxovia<:  eTo<s  eKKaiOeKaroi/,  tTt] 
 (TvvdjeTat  TCTpaKocria  efSciOfxrjKovTa  TreVre.  airep  'EfSpaiKci  -re- 
 TpaKoeria  evvevrjKOVTa  e-rt]  yiiieTai^  Kara  tov  "^eXrjviaTov  Zpofxov 
 ToJ?  eviavTov!  tKeivwv  e^apiQixov fxevoiv^  cos  e<7T<  Trpoyeipou  eiTreTv, 
 tjfxepaiu  TpiaKoaiutv  TrevTtjKOVTCi  TecrfrapojV  tov  rjKiaKov  kvkXov 
 virap'^ovTO^  ilfxepwv  TpiaKoaiuv  e^ijKovTa  irevTe  TerapTOv,  tijv 
 yap  Kara  <r€\t]vtjv  hu)6eiiap.t]uov  TrapaXdcraei  t]nepai<3  evdCKU  Ka\ 
 TCTapTU).  eta  Tovro  Ka\  "Fj\\t]ve<;  Ka\  'lovcaToi  T^e??  /ujjya?  euf3o- 
 Xip-ov;  erecTd/  oktio  irapefx/SaWova-tv.  oktoki^  yap  rot  evhcKa  Ka\ 
 TtTapTOV  TTOie?  Tptfxrjvov,  tu  Toivvv  TeTpaKOiTia  efiZofxriKOVTa 
 Treiire  ex/;,  OKraeTrjpicei  y'wovTai  irevTtjKOVTa  evvea^  kcli  pr]ve<; 
 Tyoel?.  (cor.  eT}]  Tp'ia)  to?  Tpifxt^vov  Be  en[3u\tp.ov  Trj  oKTaeTta  yi- 
 i/ojuei/»;?,  (cor.  yivop-tvov)  CTr]  Trei/TeKaiSexa,  oX'iywu  ijfxepwi'  cctto- 
 Seo'i/Tft)i/,  ytyvovTai'  tuvtu  de  irpo^  to??  TeTpaKocrioi<:  efSoopi'iKuuTa 
 irevTe  eVecrd/,  a'l  efSoo/jitjKoi'Ta  e'/SSojua'oe?  (yvvTeXovvrai. 
 
 Translation  of  the  alove  passage. 
 '  It  is  clear  that  this  prophecy  relates  to  the  coming  of  Christ, 
 who  was  to  be  manifested  after  seventy  weeks.  For  in,  or  from, 
 the  time  of  the  Saviour,  both  transgressions  were  abolished,  and 
 sins  were  made  an  end  of;  and  on  account  of  remission,  reconci- 
 liation was  made  for  iniquity,  and  unrighteousness  was  blotted 
 out,  and  an  everlasting  righteousness  was  proclaimed,  different 
 from  that  which  is  by  the  law.  Visions  and  prophecies  too  were 
 until  John,  and  the  Holy  of  Holies  was  then  anointed.  For 
 before  the  coming  of  our  Saviour  these  things  had  not  actually 
 taken  place,  but  were  only  expected.  But  the  angel  suggests  to 
 us  to  begin  the  reckoning,  that  is,  the  seventy  weeks,  which  make 
 490  years,  from  the  going  forth  of  the  word  of  the  answer,  and 
 for  rebuilding  Jerusalem.  Now  these  things  came  to  pass  in  the 
 twentieth  year  of  Artaxerxes,  king  of  Persia.  For  Nehemiah, 
 his  cupbearer,  having  made  a  petition  to  him,  received  an  answer 
 
342     CHRONOLOGY  OF  EZRA  AND  NEIIEMIAH.  [CH.  XI. 
 
 add  another  forcible  argument  in  favour  of  the 
 proposed  correction  of  1  Chron.  iii.  22. 
 
 that  Jerusalem  should  be  rebuilt,  and  a  word  (or  decree)  went 
 forth  ordering  it  to  be  done.  For  until  that  time  the  city  con- 
 tinued to  lie  waste  and  desolate.  For  though  Cyrus,  after  the 
 seventy  years'  captivity,  dismissed  all  who  chose  to  return,  those 
 who  came  back  with  Jeshua  the  high-priest  and  Zorobabel,  and 
 those  afterward  who  came  with  Ezra,  were  in  the  first  instance 
 prevented  from  building  the  temple,  and  from  surrounding  the 
 city  with  a  wall,  for  which  it  was  said  no  permission  had  been 
 granted.  The  city,  .therefore,  continued  as  it  was  till  the  time 
 of  Nchemiah,  and  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  and  the  115th  year 
 of  the  Persian  empire.  But  185  years  had  elapsed  from  the 
 taking  of  Jerusalem,  and  then  king  Artaxerxes  ordered  the  city 
 to  be  rebuilt.  Nehemiah  being  sent  to  Jerusalem,  presided  over 
 the  work :  and  the  street  and  the  wall  were  rebuilt  according 
 to  the  prophecy.     And  from  thence,  if  we  reckon  to  the  time  of 
 
 Christ,  we  shall  find  that  seventy  weeks  were  completed. 
 
 *  *  *  *  *  * 
 
 *  But  from  Artaxerxes  to  the  times  of  Christ  seventy  weeks 
 are  completed,  according  to  the  reckoning  of  the  Jews.  For  from 
 Nehemiah,  who  was  sent  by  Artaxerxes  to  rebuild  Jerusalem,  in 
 the  115th  year  of  the  Persian  empire,  and  in  the  20th  year 
 of  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  and  in  the  4th  year  of  the  83rd 
 Olympiad,  to  this  time,  which  was  the  2nd  year  of  the  202nd 
 Olympiad,  and  the  16tli  year  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius  Ca?sar, 
 there  are  475  years.  These  are  equal  to  490  Hebrew  years. 
 For  the  Hebrews  number  their  years  according  to  the  revo- 
 lutions of  the  moon,  which  it  is  easy  to  calculate  make  354 
 days.  And  since  the  sun's  cycle  consists  of  365^  days,  it  exceeds 
 12  lunar  months  by  11  J-  days.  For  this  reason  both  Greeks  and 
 Jews  insert  3  intercalary  months  every  8  years  ;  for  8  times  11^ 
 days  make  3  months.  So  then  the  475  years  are  59  octaeterids 
 +  3  years.  And  since  the  intercalation  of  3  months  takes  place 
 every  8  years,  they  amount  to  15  years  within  a  few  days. 
 And  if  these  be  added  to  the  475  years,  the  70  weeks  are 
 complete,' 
 
CHAPTER  XII. 
 
 Concluding  Chapter. 
 
 TT  now  only  remains  to  sum  up  the  chief  points 
 -■-  of  the  preceding  argument.  We  have  seen  that 
 both  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke  give  the  genealogy 
 of  our  Lord  through  Joseph  his  reputed  and  legal 
 father,  and  we  have  ascertained  that  the  former, 
 giving  the  succession  to  the  throne  of  Solomon, 
 necessarily  deduces  his  line  through  Solomon  and 
 the  kings  of  Judah,  whose  legal  heir  and  repre- 
 sentative Joseph  was ;  while  the  latter,  giving  Jo- 
 seph's real  parentage,  traces  his  lineage  to  Nathan, 
 whose  children  became  the  heirs  of  his  brother 
 Solomon's  throne  upon  the  failure  of  Solomon's 
 line  in  the  person  of  Jehoiachin.  And  we  found  a 
 most  satisfactory  corroboration  of  this  opinion,  as 
 regards  St  Matthew's  list :  First,  in  the  very  fact 
 of  the  existence  of  a  second  genealogy,  which  could 
 not  have  been  the  case  had  St  Matthew's  list  given 
 Joseph's  real  lineage;  and,  Secondly,  in  two  ex- 
 press declarations  of  Scripture,  that  neither  Je- 
 hoiakim  nor  Jehoiachin  should  have  any  successor 
 upon  the  throne  of  Judah  :  as  regards  St  Luke's 
 list,  in  the  names  of  the  ancestors  which  gave  as 
 distinct  a  proof  as  the  nature  of  the  case  admits, 
 that  that  list  exhibits  Nathan's  descendants  and 
 Joseph's  ancestors.  Moreover,  we  found  a  third 
 evidence  in  favour  of  this  conclusion,    of  a  very 
 
^44  CONCLUDING  CHAPTER.  [CH. 
 
 forcible  and  indeed  conclusive  kind,  in  the  fact, 
 that  two,  we  may  now  say  four,  generations  are 
 common  to  the  two  genealogies  in  the  part  imme- 
 diately subsequent  to  him  who  was  pronounced 
 childless.  This  view  was  further  fortified  by  shew- 
 ing, from  several  examples  out  of  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment, that  it  was  in  strict  accordance  with  Jewish 
 usage  that  persons  deriving  property,  not  from 
 their  direct  ancestors,  should  have  a  genealogy 
 suited  to  their  inheritance,  as  well  as  one  exhibit- 
 ing their  real  parentage.  It  was  then  shewn  that 
 no  valid  objection  could  arise  to  this  scheme,  either 
 from  the  tradition  reported  by  Africanus,  which  was 
 examined  both  on  its  merits  as  a  tradition,  and  on 
 its  own  intrinsic  merits,  and  on  both  counts  con- 
 demned ;  or  from  the  use  of  the  term  '  begat ;'  or 
 on  the  ground  of  its  excluding  the  lineage  of  the 
 Virgin  Mary,  who  was  shewn  to  have  been,  in  all 
 probability,  the  cousin-german  of  Joseph,  descended 
 from  the  same  grandfather,  and  therefore  having 
 precisely  the  same  pedigree.  And  having  thus 
 laid  down  and  vindicated  the  general  principles 
 upon  which  these  genealogies  are  composed,  we 
 proceeded  to  shew,  step  by  step,  their  mutual 
 agreement  with  the  Old  Testament  genealogies  of 
 the  house  of  David,  observing,  from  time  to  time, 
 several  striking  internal  proofs  of  their  truth  and 
 historical  accuracy,  and  indications  of  the  sources 
 from  whence  they  were  compiled :  specially,  by  two 
 very  slight  alterations  of  the  text,  where  it  was 
 evidently,  or  probably,  corrupt,  we  were  enabled. 
 
XII.]  CONCLUDING  CHAPTER.  345 
 
 for  the  first  time  since  the  earliest  days  of  Chris- 
 tianity, to  exhibit  an  exact  agreement  between  St 
 Matthew,  St  Luke,  and  the  first  book  of  Chronicles, 
 in  respect  to  the  two  generations  following  Zerub- 
 babel ;  and,  by  one  of  these  emendations,  we  at  the 
 same  time  got  rid  of  an  extraordinary  anomaly — 
 the  extension,  viz.  of  one  genealogy  in  1  Chron.  iii. 
 to  a  time  subsequent  by  at  least  two  centuries  to 
 the  close  of  the  canon  of  Scripture,  and  of  several 
 anachronisms  beside.  We  were  also  enabled,  by 
 the  view  taken,  to  throw  light  upon  several  re- 
 markable prophecies  of  Holy  Scripture :  and  by 
 ascertaining  Hattush's  true  genealogical  place  we 
 were  greatly  assisted  in  fixing  the  true  interpreta- 
 tion of  the  famous  prophecy  in  Daniel  ix.  and  in 
 removing  one  argument  by  which  it  has  been 
 thought  that  a  system  of  chronology  for  the  times 
 of  Ezra,  involving  the  most  prodigious  improba- 
 bilities, was  supported  and  made  necessary.  We 
 sought  at  the  same  time  to  meet  and  refute  three 
 other  arguments  in  defence  of  the  same  system. 
 An  attempt,  lastly,  has  been  made  to  reconcile  that 
 glaring  discordance  between  the  genealogy  and  the 
 chronology  of  the  times  preceding  David,  which  has 
 so  greatly  perplexed  the  learned,  but  which  they 
 have  done  so  little  to  remove;  and  if,  in  some  points, 
 our  success  has  been  less  complete  than  might  have 
 been  desired,  and  considerable  doubts  and  difficul- 
 ties still  encumber  the  subject,  it  is  yet  hoped  that 
 progress  has  been  made  in  a  right  direction,  and 
 that  some  assistance  has  been  given  to  future 
 labourers,  who,  with  more  extensive  knowledge,  and 
 
346  CdNCLUDING  CHAPTER.  [CH. 
 
 greater  powers,  may  be  able,  by  God's  blessing,  to 
 finish  what  is  here  left  incomplete,  and  to  present, 
 at  length,  to  the  pious  but  intelligent  reader  of 
 Scripture,  the  interesting  history  of  the  times  be- 
 tween Moses  and  Samuel  in  a  connected  and  con- 
 sistent shape,  in  harmony  alike  with  nature  and 
 with  other  portions  of  the  Word  of  God.  To  the 
 writer  the  subject,  which  may  seem  dry  to  others, 
 has  been  one  of  the  deepest  and  most  lively  in- 
 terest. Never  before  was  he  so  much  impressed 
 with  the  profound  truth  and  majesty  of  the  Word 
 of  God,  as  when,  under  some  corruption  of  word  or 
 letter  which  has  worn  the  rust  of  two  or  three 
 thousand  years,  and  passed  into  every  language 
 spoken  by  man,  he  seemed  to  discover  the  original 
 deposit  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  shining  forth  in  all  the 
 simplicity  and  brightness  of  truth.  Never  was  he 
 more  affected  with  a  sense  of  the  never-failing 
 Providence  of  God  in  His  care  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
 tures, than  when  the  restoration  of  some  one  state- 
 ment to  its  proper  place  seemed  to  restore  simul- 
 taneous harmony  to  many  others  which  were  pre- 
 viously disjointed,  contradictory,  or  obscure.  And 
 never  was  the  lesson  more  forcibly  brought  to  him, 
 how  worthy  all  the  Scriptures  are  of  the  most 
 reverent  and  diligent  study,  than  when  some  bare 
 catalogue  of  names,  or  other  equally  unpromising 
 field,  seemicd  to  yield  a  most  bountiful  and  pleasant 
 harvest  in  return  for  such  labour  as  he  was  able 
 to  bestow  upon  it.  Profound  and  intimate  too  is 
 the  conviction  which  these  studies  have  left  upon 
 his  mind,  that  while  the  Scriptures  are  from  God, 
 
XII.]  CONCLUDING  CHAPTER.  347 
 
 and  vindicate  their  claim  to  Divine  Inspiration  in 
 ten  thousand  ways,  and  in  many  that  we  can  nei- 
 ther fathom  nor  explain,  they  do  not  assert  their 
 Divine  origin  by  requiring  the  abrogation  of  reason 
 on  the  part  of  those  who  study  them,  nor  are 
 honoured  most  by  those  who  apply  to  the  inter- 
 pretation of  them  rules  inadmissible  in  any  branch 
 of  human  learning.  As  far  as  the  Holy  Scriptures 
 do  contain  history,  chronology,  or  any  science,  it 
 contains  them  just  such  as  they  are  in  nature  and 
 in  common  life.  And  the  text  of  Scripture  must 
 be  ascertained  by  precisely  the  same  rules  of  criti- 
 cism as  those  by  which  the  text  of  any  profane 
 writer  is  established.  The  care  of  God  for  the 
 text  of  Scripture  is  shewn,  not  by  His  disannulling 
 human  skill  and  human  labour  in  this  important 
 point,  but  by  the  abundant  materials  which  He  has 
 vouchsafed  to  preserve  to  our  hands,  by  which  the 
 true  text  may  be  ascertained  to  demonstration,  in 
 all  important  points,  by  the  application  of  the  ordi- 
 nary rules  of  human  criticism.  Nor  is  it  in  the 
 least  derogatory  to  that  Divine  care  that  in  some 
 instances  the  true  text  has  to  be  restored  by  con- 
 jecture. For  there  are  cases  where  conjectural 
 emendation  carries  as  full  conviction  of  its  truth, 
 as  the  authority  of  the  most  accurate  manuscript 
 can  do.  Of  course,  conjectural  emendation  may 
 be  rash  and  ill-advised,  and  what  are  proposed  as 
 corrections  may  turn  out  to  be  corruptions.  All 
 that  is  here  contended  for  is,  that  we  are  not  to  beg 
 the  question  that  the  text  of  Scripture  has  been  kept 
 miraculously  incorrupt,  and   then  on  this  suppo- 
 
348  CONCLUDING  CHAPTER.  [ciI. 
 
 sition  to  defend,  with  perverse  ingenuity,  the  most 
 glaring  absurdities  which  the  alteration  of  a  single 
 letter  w411  often  remove,  or  the  comparison  of  a 
 parallel  passage  instantly  set  to  rights.  At  all 
 events,  the  writer  trusts  that  it  is  in  no  spirit  of  irre- 
 verence for  the  Word  of  God,  or  rash  presumption, 
 that  the  emendations  in  the  preceding  pages  have 
 been  proposed.  lie  trusts,  too,  that  the  appeals  to 
 reason  and  common  sense  which  have  been  made 
 will  not  be  confounded  with  that  rationalistic  spirit 
 which  rebels  against  any  miraculous  interposition 
 on  the  part  of  Almighty  God  in  the  affairs  of  His 
 people,  and  rejects  as  incredible  whatever  does 
 not  fall  within  the  narrow  range  of  human  expe- 
 rience, although  vouched  for  by  the  Word  of  God. 
 But  he  feels  deeply  that  there  is  'a  time  for  all 
 things ;'  and  that  it  is  not  a  bit  more  commendable 
 to  shut  the  eyes  of  one's  reason  and  common  sense 
 to  those  parts  of  Scripture  which  address  them- 
 selves to  reason  and  common  sense,  than  it  is  to 
 withhold  the  exercise  of  childlike  faith  and  reve- 
 rential submission  to  those  other  parts  of  Scripture 
 which  address  themselves  to  our  faith.  He  has 
 also  a  firm  conviction  that  it  is  as  injurious  to  the 
 mind  and  moral  nature  of  man  to  believe  what  is 
 false,  as  it  is  to  disbelieve  what  is  true.  Truth  is 
 that  at  which  all  men  should  aim — and  those  espe- 
 cially who  are  ordained  to  preach  the  Gospel  of 
 truth.  Nor  can  there  be  a  worse  or  more  false 
 calculation,  than  to  suppose  that  the  truth  requires 
 the  assistance  of  falsehood  to  maintain  it^  or  that 
 there  is    any    danger   lest  the   progress  of  truth 
 
XII.]  CONCLUDING  CHAPTER.  349 
 
 should  endanger  the  Truth.  The  only  danger  is, 
 where  rotten  buttresses  are  set  to  prop  up  a  solid 
 building,  lest,  when  the  buttress  falls,  inconside- 
 rate and  short-sighted  people  should  imagine  that 
 the  building  is  falling  too. 
 
 If  the  preceding  pages  should  have  contributed 
 in  any,  however  small,  a  degree  to  elucidate  the 
 truth  concerning  the  genealogy  of  our  Lord  and 
 Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  clear  away  any  obscu- 
 rity in  which  the  lapse  of  ages,  and  the  mistaken 
 efforts  of  learned  men  may  have  involved  it  and 
 other  subjects  connected  with  it,  the  writer  will 
 not  think  that  he  has  laboured  in  vain.  To  clear 
 up  any  portion,  however  relatively  unimportant,  of 
 the  Sacred  Scriptures,  and  to  present  such  portion 
 in  a  more  intelligible  light  to  the  Church  of  God, 
 is  a  most  high  and  honourable  privilege.  Whether 
 this  has  been  done  in  this  little  work  the  writer 
 will  not  presume  to  prejudge.  It  has  been  his 
 earnest  desire  and  prayer  to  God  that  he  might  do 
 so.  If  he  has  failed,  he  can  only  commend  the 
 endeavour  to  the  charitable  consideration  of  his 
 brethren  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  hope  that 
 his  failing  may  help  to  guide  others  to  a  more  suc- 
 cessful issue. 
 
 Glory  be  to  the  Father,  and  to  the  Son,  and  to 
 the  Holy  Ghost.  As  it  was  in  the  beginning,  is  now, 
 and  ever  shall  be,  world  without  end.     Amen. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 Note  A,  to  p.  7-     On  Luke  iii.  23. 
 
 IT  is  impossible  to  pass  over  without  any  observation  a  pas- 
 sage which  has  been  construed  in  so  many  different  ways  as 
 Luke  iii.  23,  and  which  appears  not  to  be  quite  accurately  ren- 
 dered in  our  English  Version,  or  in  the  Latin  Vulgate.  I  will 
 therefore  briefly  set  down  the  principal  renderings  that  have 
 been  proposed,  and  then  subjoin  what  seems  to  me  to  be  the 
 true  translation  of  the  words,  Ka\  avTo<;  »;i/  6  'Itjcrov^  wcrei  eVwi/ 
 TpiaKOvra   dpyonevo';,   wV,   w?  e'l/ojui^eTO,   vio<!    lujcnicp,   k.t.A. 
 
 The  English  version  of  these  words  is,  'And  Jesus  himself 
 began  to  be  about  thirty  years  of  age,  being  (as  was  supposed) 
 the  son  of  Joseph,  &c.,-'  where  apparently  ^v  dp-^6ix€vo<!  is  con- 
 sidered to  be  equivalent  to  i^px^ro  e7vai  (for  the  participle  wV  is 
 construed  with  the  following  v'toi  'luxTtjcj),  being  . . .  the  son  of 
 Joseph),  and  the  genitive  eVwi/  rptoKovTa  to  be  governed  by  the 
 verb  '  to  be,'  understood,  as  in  ii.  42,  ore  ejevcTo  eVwi/  3w'2eKa, 
 '  when  He  was  twelve  years  old/  and  viii.  42,  Qvydrrip  fxovo- 
 yevr]<;  r/i/  avTca  w?  eVwi/  h(od€Ka,  '  He  had  one  Only  daughter, 
 about  twelve  years  of  age.' 
 
 But  in  the  Vulgate  translation,  '  Et  ipse  Jesus  erat  incipiens 
 quasi  annorum  triginta,  ut  putabatur,  filius  Joseph,  qui  fuit 
 Heli,'  &c.,  it  is  difficult  to  say  whether  or  not  the  genitive  eTwi; 
 is  considered  as  governed  by  dp-)(oixevo<s^  which  in  Greek  it  ob' 
 viously  might  be,  and  as  some  commentators  consider  that  it  is  ; 
 the  cardinal  TpiaKovra  being,  it  is  said,  used  for  the  ordinal 
 TpiaKO(TTov  eTov;,  as  frequently  in  Hebrew. 
 
 Grotius  would  take  the  participle  *oV  with  dp-xtlfxevo^,  and 
 construe  riv  dp-^6fxevo<;  wV  as  equivalent  to  tju  dpy^o^evo^  elvai, 
 'was  beginning  to  be  about  thirty  years  of  age,'  which  is  the 
 rendering  of  Erasmus  also  {ap.  Gomar.  p.  46). 
 
 Beza  would  read  with  Epiphanius,  nv  ^^  'h^(rov<i  dp-xoixevo<s 
 elvai   0)9  eTWf  TpiciKOVTa,   wi>   wo?   k.t.A. 
 
 Gomar  stops  and  construes  thus  :  xai  aJro?  ^u  d  '1>](tov<:  wVef 
 
 exwi/  TpiaKOVTCi    dp-^6jxevo<;^    wv    (to?   ivofxi^eTO    i/('o?  'Iwcrrjcp)    tuv 
 
352  NOTES. 
 
 'HA(.  '  Et  ipse  Jesus  incipiebat  esse  circiter  annorum  triginta, 
 existens  (quum  putaretur  filius  Joseph)  filius  Heli.' 
 
 Mr  Hayes,  in  his  Critical  Examination  of  the  Holy  Gospels^ 
 p.  28,  says,  '  I  am  myself  very  clear  in  it  that  the  passage  ought 
 to  be  rendered  thus,  "  Et  ipse  erat  Jesus  quasi  annorum  triginta 
 subditus  (sc.  parentibus,  vel  legi,  vel  utrisque)  existens,  ut  pu- 
 tabatur,  filius  Joseph,"  &c.  That  is,  Jesus  was  obedient,  or  lived 
 in  obedience  and  subjection  to  his  parents  about  thirty  years, 
 being,  as  was  supposed,  the  son  of  Joseph,  c^r./'  an  interpretation 
 whicli  is  highly  commended  and  adopted  by  Yardley.  {Geneal. 
 of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  217). 
 
 Casaubort  conjectures  that  ep')(^onevn<i  should  be  read  for  dp- 
 '^ofxevo's.  But  the  interpretation  which  is  now  most  generally 
 adopted  is  that  given  by  Bengel,  and  approved  by  Kuinoel  and 
 many  others,  and  by  Alford  in  his  Greek  Testament,  viz.  that 
 a'jo^opiei/o?  means,  '  when  He  began  his  public  ministry,'  into 
 ■which  He  was  initiated  at  his  baptism,  and  at  the  legal  age  of 
 thirty.  'Jesus  was  about  thirty  years  old  when  he  began  his 
 ministry.'     Alford. 
 
 Bengel  refers  to  Acts  i.  1,  22;  xiii.  24,  to  which  may  be 
 added  Mark  i.  1,  and  Matt.  iv.  17 .  And  perhaps  Eusebius  so 
 vmderstood  the  phrase ;  for  he  says,  apx^"  "'"'J^  eJayyeXiKfj?  cioa- 
 (TKaA/a?  Tov  'K.piaTov  '7roir](rafxevov  Kara  to  7revT€KatC€KaToi/  cro? 
 Ti/3epiov  Kai<Tapo<;.     Evang.  Prcep.  Lib.  x.  cap.  xi. 
 
 But  it  is  a  great  objection  to  this  interpretation,  that  while 
 the  construction  of  dpj^ofjievo<;  without  any  substantive  or  other 
 word  following  it  to  explain  what  it  was  which  He  began,  is 
 exceedingly  harsh,  no  reason  can  be  given  why  the  word,  which 
 should  have  been  added,  was  omitted.  It  was  perfectly  easy  to 
 add,  T»7?  hihacTKaXia^,  or  t^9  BtfitKoi/i'a?,  or  fJayyeXf^ecrOai,  or 
 whatever  other  phrase  was  intended ;  and  therefore  one  cannot 
 but  feel  that  it  is  unlikely  that  such  word  or  phrase  should  have 
 been  omitted.  Moreover,  had  that  been  the  Evangelist's  meaning, 
 he  would  doubtless  have  written  ore  ijp-)^€To,  or  eV  t-w  ap-^e- 
 uQai.  I  incline  therefore  to  think  that  the  expression  is  a  He- 
 braism, very  likely  caused  by  this  particular  passage  being  a 
 translation  from  some  Hebrew  or  Aramean  document,  consulted 
 by  St  Luke,  and  that  dp-^ofxevo-i  qualifies  and  defines  the  previous 
 expression,  »/i/  wo-ei  eVwi/  TptaKovTa.  'Jesus  was  about  thirty 
 years  of  age,  beginning,'  i.  e.  to  be  so. 
 
NOTES.  353 
 
 In  Hebrew,  such  phrases  as  nbyi  ^''Dh  '  ^od  he  added  and 
 did,'  i.  e.  he  did  so  a  second  time,  are  very  common.  Sometimes 
 too  after  the  verb  expressing  the  action  done,  it  is  added  simply 
 'T'D"'  J^lbl  '  ^^^  he  did  not  add/  to  do  so  any  more,  understood, 
 as  Job  XX.  9 ;  Exod.  xi.  6,  &c.  Or,  as  in  the  common  phrase, 
 *T'DV  nbl  D\'i'?}^  niiyy  nb  '  So  may  God  do,  and  so  may 
 He  add,'  to  do,  understood.  In  hke  manner,  the  verb  j»}^!2  '  he 
 filled,'  or  'completed,'  is  also  used;  as  ^{^>)0  ^^J~lp  'cry  aloud, 
 cry  fully.'  Jer.  iv.  5.  niH^  nnt<  {^'^^^)  ^^^  '^^^  ^«^- 
 lowed  the  Lord  fully.'  So  too  the  verb  ^nil  '  ^^e  began,'  among 
 other  constructions  is  construed  with  the  finite  verb,  as  Deut. 
 ii.  24.     Jif-)    ^nn    'Begin  to  inherit.'      And  in  1  Sam.  iii.  12, 
 
 T  ••    T 
 
 •••D''p5^  'I  "^ill  perform  against  Eli  all  things  which  I  have 
 spoken  concerning  his  house,'  n^31  bpin  '  beginning  and  end- 
 ing,' going  through  with  it  from  beginning  to  end.  (See  Ges. 
 Thes.  Ling.  Hehr.).  In  which  latter  passage,  observe  especially 
 the  use  of  ^nH  heginnmg,  as  qualifying  and  defining  the  pre- 
 
 ■•    T 
 
 ceding  finite  verb. 
 
 After  the  analogy  of  the  above  phrases,  it  might  be  said  in 
 Hebraizing  Greek  :  kai  tjp^aTo  6  'lr]<TOv<;  Kai  tjv  wa-ei  e-rwu  \., 
 'Jesus  began,  and  was  about  thirty  years  of  age;'  or,  kui  »|i/  o 
 'Irjaov^  wa-et  iriSv  \.  dp-)^6ix€vo<;,  '  Jesus  was  about  thirty  years 
 of  age,  beginning'  to  be  so.  The  sense  being,  that  Jesus  had 
 just  completed  his  thirtieth  year.  (For  this  use  of  the  genitive, 
 see  Luke  ii.  42 ;  viii.  42).  Compare,  Ka\  rjp^aro  Nwe  avdpw- 
 TTo^  y€wpyo<;  7^?,  Kai  i(pvTev(rev  ap-TreXuiva.  Gen.  ix.  20.  And 
 the  particular  force  of  this  addition,  dp-x^dpevo<;  may  be  illus- 
 trated by  the  phrase  e.  g.  in  1  Chron.  xxiii.  3,  where  we  read, 
 '.nb^f^i')  n:m  U>U}b^  pD  D'iSt  nSD^l  '^o^v  the  Levites 
 were  numbered  from  the  age  of  thirty  years  old  and  vptcard.' 
 Had  the  evangelist  merely  said  that  Jesus  was  about  thirty  years 
 old,  it  might  have  been  understood  as  only  asserting  that  he  was 
 of  legal  age,  but  leaving  it  doubtful  how  much  older  he  might  be: 
 whereas  the  addition  of  the  word  dp^dpevo<s  marks  that  he  had 
 only  just  attained  the  legal  age. 
 
 Other  instances  in  which  in  Hebrew  a  participle  or  infinitive 
 is  added  at  the  end  of  a  sentence,  to  qualify  or  define  the  pre- 
 
 23 
 
Ot)4  NOTES. 
 
 ceding  finite  verb,  are  very  frequentj  as  e.  g-  in  such  phrases  as 
 IHD  ninn ,  bl2]  Tfbrr  l  Sam.  ii.  26,  &c.  &c.  With  regard 
 to  the  pronoun  avrm,  'Jesus  himself,'  the  contrast  is,  as  Bengel 
 rightly  observes,  with  John  the  Baptist,  the  commencement  of 
 whose  ministry  was  defined  by  the  year  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius 
 Ca3sar,  and  other  dates ;  but  the  Lord's  baptism  is  marked  by 
 the  year  of  his  own  Incarnation. 
 
 1  may  add  here,  though  somewhat  out  of  place,  what  Mal- 
 donatus  says  in  his  commentary  on  St  Matthew,  ch.  i.,  that  the 
 heading  of  St  Matthew's  Gospel,  B(/3ao?  'yeveaeu}<;  'hja-ov  Xpta-Tov 
 K.T.A.,  'The  Book  of  the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ,'  &c.,  is  the 
 title  of  the  whole  Gospel,  and  equivalent  to  '  The  Book  of  the 
 life  of  Jesus  Christ;'  and  answers  exactly  to  the  Septuagint 
 version  of  Gen.  v.  1,  where  Q^^{  Jin'^in  1SD  is  rendered, 
 BipAoc  yei/eo-ecoc  avdpioirtov. 
 
 The  same  commentator,  alluding  to  the  opinion  of  the  author 
 of  the  tract,  De  ortu  Beatce  Vhylnis,  falsely  ascribed  to  St  Je- 
 rome, (and  quoted  as  Jerome's  by  Annius  of  Yiterbo),  that  Mary 
 was  the  daughter  of  Eli,  which  opinion  he  says,  '  Nee  Augustino 
 displicet,'  adds,  '  Mihi  quoque  placeret,  nisi  viderem  evangelistas 
 verum  Josephi  genus  descrihere  voluisse' 
 
 Having  alluded  in  the  note  p.  58,  to  the  apocryphal  gospels, 
 as  the  source  of  the  tradition  that  Mary  was  the  daughter  of 
 Joacim  and  Anna,  I  add  a  few  passages  to  shew  that  this  was 
 the  case. 
 
 The  Protevangelium  of  James,  which  is  ascribed  to  the 
 second  century,  tells  the  story  of  Joacim  a  rich  man  in  Israel, 
 and  Anna  his  wife,  who  had  no  children.  And  how  in  conse- 
 quence Joacim,  in  deep  grief,  left  his  wife,  and  pitched  his  tent 
 in  the  wilderness,  and  fasted  forty  days  and  forty  nights.  But 
 at  length  the  angel  of  the  Lord  was  sent  to  Joacim,  and  said  to 
 him,  'Joacim,  Joacim,  the  Lord  hath  heard  thy  prayer;  thy  wife 
 Anna  shall  conceive  in  her  w^omb.'  And  accordingly,  he  returned 
 home,  and  in  due  time  Anna  bare  a  daughter,  *  (Ka\  eTrovonaa-e 
 TO  ovofxa  avTi]<!  Mapiaix),  and  she  called  her  name  Maky.' 
 
 The  Pseudo-Matth^i.  Evangelium  which  is  partly  a  Latin 
 version  of  the  preceding,  and  partly  made  up  from  other  sources, 
 tells  substantially  the  same  story. 
 
 The  Evangelium  de  Nativitate  Makle  begins,  'Beata  et 
 gloriosa  semper  virgo  Maria  de  stirpee  regia  et  familia  David 
 
NOTES.  355 
 
 oriunda in  templo  Domini  nutrita  fuit.     Pater  ejus  Joachim, 
 
 mater  vero  Anna  dicebatur.' — See  Tischendorf 's  Evang.  Apocryp. 
 
 Tliey  are  all  manifestly  religious  romances. 
 
 The  following  reflection  from  a  review  of  the  whole  genealogy 
 may  interest  the  reader. 
 
 'Sic  Divina  Majestas  voluit  secundum  carnem  inter  majores 
 habere  omne  genus  hominum,  nobiles,  ignobiles,  pauperes,  locu- 
 pletesj  Judteos,  Gentiles;  cum  primis  vero  insignes  peccatores, 
 omnium  enim  est  Dominus,  et  omnium  Redemptor.' 
 
 D,  Benedict.  Aretii  Comment,  in  Matth. 
 
 Note  B.     p.  72. 
 
 I  subjoin  the  following  passages  from  one  of  the  most  sensible 
 and  scholar-like  of  the  fathers,  St  Jerome,  '  Verum  quia  evange- 
 lists propositum  erat  tres  tessaradecades  in  diverso  temporum 
 statu  ponere,  et  Joram  generi  se  miscuerat  impiissimas  Jezabel, 
 idcirco  usque  ad  tertiam  generationem  ejus  memoria  tollitur,  ne 
 in  sanctce  nativitatis  ordine  poneretur.'  Comment,  in  Matt.  i.  (p.  6, 
 Oper.  Tom.  iv.). 
 
 Again, '  Si  voluerimus  Jechoniam  in  fine  primse  tesseradecadis 
 ponere,  in  sequenti  non  erunt  quatuordecim,  sed  tredecim.  Scia- 
 mus  igitur  Jechoniam  priorem,  ipsum  esse  quem  et  Joacim :  se- 
 cundum autem,  filium  non  patrem:  quorum  prior  per  c  et  m, 
 sequens  per  cJi  et  n  scribitur :  quod  scriptorum  vitio,  et  longitu- 
 dine  temporum,  apud  Grtecos  Latinosque  confusum  est.'    Ih.  p.  7- 
 
 And  in  his  commentary  upon  Daniel  i.  '  Nemo  igitur  putet 
 eumdera  in  Danielis  principio  esse  Joacim,  qui  in  Ezekielis  exordio 
 Joachin^  scribitur.  Iste  enim  extremam  syllabam  chin  habet, 
 ille  dm.  Et  ob  banc  causam  in  evangelic  secundum  Matthajum 
 una  videtur  deesse  generatio :  quia  secunda  T-eo-o-apaBe/cas  in  Joa- 
 cim desinit  filio  Josice,  et  tertia  incipit  a  Joachin  filio  Joacim.' 
 
 This  scheme  is  approved  by  an  intelligent  commentator  of 
 the  sixteenth  century,  the  accomplished  D.  B.  Aretius.  He 
 says,  'Placet  eorum  sententia  qvii  superius  pro  Jechonia  pa- 
 trem Joakim  intelligunt.'  Comment,  in  Matt.  i.  But  this  does 
 not  meet  the  whole  difficulty,  as  we  have  observed  in  the  text 
 (p.  73).  Since  that  portion  of  this  work  was  printed,  I  have  had 
 an  opportunity  of  consulting  out  of  the  library  at  Culford,  the 
 commentary  of  the  learned  and  judicious  Maldonatus,  and  find 
 
 23—2 
 
35G  NOTES. 
 
 that  he  takes  almost  precisely  the  same  view  that  I  have  done. 
 His  words  are,  '  Quje  ducE  res  (viz.  that  Josiah  had  no  son  named 
 Jeconiah,  and  that  Jeconiah  had  no  brethren)  non  solum  persua- 
 dent,   sed  etiam   impelhmt   ut  credam   legendum  esse  hoc  loco 
 
 "  Josias  autem  genuit  Joacim  et  fratres  ejus." "  Joacim  autem 
 
 genuit  Jechoniam."'  One  cannot  but  wonder  that  having  seen 
 the  evident  corruption  of  the  passage,  he  did  not  go  one  step 
 further,  and  attribute  the  words  eVi  t»7s  fxeroineaiu^  Ba/3v\wvo^, 
 to  Jehoiakira  instead  of  to  Josiah. 
 
 Note  C.     p.  112. 
 
 I  add  the  following  additional  notices  of  the  chief  of  the 
 dispersion,  the  J^ttf^'l  or  Rhesa. 
 
 Mr  Layard  speaking  of  the  tomb  of  Ezekiel,  (Nineveh  and 
 Babi/lon,  p.  500),  tells  us  that  'to  this  spot  annually  flock  in 
 crowds,  as  their  forefathers  have  done  for  centuries,  the  Jews  of 
 Baghdad,  Ilillah,  and  other  cities  of  Chaldaja,  the  descendants  of 
 the  captives  of  Jerusalem,  who  still  linger  in  the  land  of  their 
 exile.'  He  then  proceeds  to  quote  a  description  of  this  '  holy 
 place,'  from  Benjamin  of  Tudela,  who,  in  describing  the  concourse 
 of  people  who  flocked  there  in  his  days  (the  twelfth  century), 
 says,  '  Great  rejoicings  take  place  there  about  this  time,  which 
 are  attended  even  by  the  Prince  of  the  Captivity,  and  the  presidents 
 of  the  colleges  of  Baghdad.' 
 
 At  p.  524,  he  again  refers  to  Benjamin  of  Tudela  as  describing 
 the  Jewish  population  in  Babylonia  in  his  days,  and  adds,  '  Ac- 
 cording to  their  own  tradition,  these  Hebrew  families  were 
 descended  from  the  Jews  of  the  captivity.  They  still  preserved 
 their  pedigrees,  and  traced  their  lineage  to  the  princes  and  pro- 
 phets of  Judah.  Their  chief  resided  at  Baghdad,  and  his  title 
 was  "  Lord  Prince  of  the  Captivity."  He  was  lineally  descended, 
 according  to  his  people,  from  king  David  himself.  Even  Mo- 
 hammedans acknowledged  his  claim  to  this  noble  birth,  and 
 called  him,  "  Our  Lord,  the  son  of  David."  His  authority 
 extended  over  the  countries  of  the  east  as  far  as  Thibet  and  Hin- 
 dostan.  He  was  treated  on  all  occasions  with  the  greatest  honour 
 and  respect,  and  when  he  appeared  in  public  he  wore  robes  of  em- 
 broidered silk,  and  a  white  turban  encircled  by  a  diadem  of  gold.' 
 
 Benjamin  of  Tudela's  words  are  as  follows :  '  The  principal 
 of  all  these  (presidents  of  colleges)  is  Rabbi  Daniel  Ben  Chisdai, 
 
NOTES.  357 
 
 ^vho  bears  the  titles  of  Prince  of  the  Captivity  and  Lord,  and 
 "who  possesses  a  pedigree  which  proves  his  descent  from  king 
 David.  The  Jews  call  him  Lord  Prince  of  the  Captivity,  and  the 
 Mahommedans,  "  Saidna  Ben  Daoud,"  and  he  holds  great  com- 
 mand over  all  Jewish  congregations Every  one  of  his  sub- 
 jects, whether  he  be  Jew  or  Mohammedan,  or  of  any  other  faith, 
 is  commanded  to  rise  in  the  presence  of  the  Prince  of  the  Captivity, 
 and  to  salute  him  respectfully,  under  penalty  of  one  l^undred  stripes : 
 
 T   :  •  —  T ;     •  V  ••     •    T  •    -  T   ■•.  V  T  ; 
 
 rhi^n  i^xi  ^r.3nt?  Dn^n^rr  im'y}  D^J^^li'PI '  ^^^^re  the  title 
 
 is  expressed  in  Hebrew,  not  in  Chaldee). 
 
 *The  authority  of  the  Prince  of  the  Captivity  extends  over  the 
 following  countries,  viz.  over  Mesopotamia,  Persia,  Khorassan,  Seba 
 which  is  Yemen,  Diarbekh,  all  Armenia,  and  the  land  of  Kota 
 near  mount  Ararat;  over  the  countries  of  the  Alanians,  which  is 
 shut  in  by  mountains,  and  has  no  outlet  except  by  iron  gates 
 which  were  made  by  Alexander ;  over  Sikbia  and  all  the  pro- 
 vinces of  the  Turkmans  unto  the  Aspisian  mountains ;  over  the 
 country  of  the  Georgians  unto  the  river  Oxus  (these  are  the 
 Girgashim  of  Scripture,  and  believe  in  Christianity),  and  as  far 
 as  the  frontiers  of  the  provinces  and  cities  of  Tibet  and  India. 
 Permission  is  granted  by  the  Prince  of  the  Captivity  to  all  the 
 Jewish  congregations  of  these  different  countries  to  elect  rabbis 
 and  ministers,  all  of  whom  appear  before  him  in  order  to  rec«ve 
 consecration,  and  the  permission  to  officiate,  upon  which  occasions 
 presents  and  valuable  gifts  are  offered  to  him  even  from  the  re- 
 motest countries. 
 
 '  The  Prince  of  the  Captivity  possesses  hostelries,  gardens,  and 
 orchards  in  Babylonia,  and  extensive  landed  property  inherited 
 from  his  forefathers,  of  which  nobody  dares  deprive  him.  He 
 enjoys  a  certain  yearly  income  from  the  Jewish  hostelries,  tlie 
 markets  and  the  merchandise  of  the  country,  which  is  levied  in 
 form  of  a  tax,  over  and  above  what  is  presented  to  him  from 
 foreign  coimtries ;  the  man  is  very  rich,  an  excellent  scholar,  and 
 so  hospitable  that  numerous  Israelites  dine  at  his  table  every  day. 
 
 '  At  the  time  of  the  installation  of  the  Prince  of  the  Captivity 
 he  spends  considerable  sums  in  presents  to  the  king  or  khalif, 
 his  princes  and  nobles.  The  ceremony  is  performed  by  the  act  of 
 the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  king  or  khalif,  after  which  the 
 
358  NOTES. 
 
 Prince  rides  home  from  the  king's  abode  to  his  own  house,  seated 
 in  a  royal  state  carriage,  and  accompanied  by  the  sound  of  various 
 musical  instruments ;  he  afterwards  lays  his  hands  on  the  gen- 
 tlemen of  the  university The  metropolitan  synagogue  of  the 
 
 Prince  of  the  Captivity  is  ornamented  with  pillars  of  richly 
 coloured  marble,  plated  with  gold  and  silver ;  on  the  pillars  are 
 inscribed  verses  of  the  Psalms  in  letters  of  gold.  The  ascent  to 
 the  holy  ark  i|  composed  of  ten  marble  steps,  on  the  uppermost 
 of  which  are  the  stalls  set  apart  for  the  Prince  of  the  Captivity, 
 and  the  other  princes  of  the  house  of  David.'  Asher's  edition  of 
 Benjamin  of  Tudela,  pp.  101 — 103. 
 
 Such  was  the  state  and  dignity  of  the  Rhesa,  or  Prince  of 
 the  Captivity,  as  described  by  Benjamin  of  Tudela,  in  his  account 
 of  Bagdad;  and  it  is  obvious  how  likely  it  is  that  this  title 
 should  be  ascribed  to  Zerubbabel,  the  first  who  fulfilled  the  office 
 of  Prince  of  the  Captivity,  by  some  Christian  Jew,  who  felt  the 
 same  sort  of  interest  in  the  fortunes  of  the  Jewish  dispersion 
 which  is  manifested  in  these  extracts  from  Benjamin's  itinerary. 
 But  to  complete  our  case,  we  must  shew  that  this  office  existed 
 many  centuries  before  the  time  of  Benjamin,  in  whose  days  in- 
 deed it  is  thought  to  have  been  extinct*.  Milman  tells  us  {Hist. 
 of  theJeies,Yo\.  iii.  p.  151),  'that  it  is  by  no  means  certain  at  what 
 time  the  Princes  of  the  Captivity  commenced  their  dynasty  ;'  and 
 adds,  that  at  the  time  of  which  he  is  writing  (a.  d.  160 — 180),  '  the 
 Prince  had  probably  not  yet  obtained  the  influence,  or  assumed 
 tha*  state  which  during  the  first  fifty  years  of  the  third  century 
 distinguished  the  Jewish  sovereign  of  the  East.'  But  writing  of 
 the  third  century,  he  proceeds,  '  In  the  mean  time  the  rival  throne 
 in  Babylonia,  (i.  e.  rival  to  the  Jewish  patriarch  of  Tiberias)  that 
 of  the  Prince  of  the  Captivity,  was  rapidly  rising  to  the  state  and 
 dignity  which  perhaps  did  not  attain  its  perfect  height  till  under 
 the  Persian  monarchs.  There  seems  to  have  been  some  acknow- 
 ledged hereditary  claim  in  R.  Houa,  who  now  appears  as  the 
 Prince  of  the  Captivity,  as  if  his  descent  from  the  house  of 
 David  had  been  recognized  by  the  willing  credulity  of  his  bre- 
 thren  The  Prince  of  the  Captivity  might  recal  in  his  splen- 
 dour, particularly  during  his  inauguration,  some  lofty  reminis- 
 cences of  the  great  Jewish  monarchy,  under  the  ancestors  from 
 whom  he  claimed  his  descent,  the  holy  David,  and  the  magni- 
 
 *  In  the  eleventh  century,  according  to  Milman's  and  Basnage's  account. 
 Hist,  of  Jews,  Vol.  III.  p.  293. 
 
NOTES.  359 
 
 ficent  Solomon,  though  afFectingly  mingled  with  allusions  to  their 
 present  state  of  degradation.  The  ceremonial  of  his  installation 
 is  thus  described.  '  The  spiritual  heads  of  the  people,  the  mas- 
 ters of  the  learned  schools,  the  elders  and  the  people,  assembled 
 in  great  multitudes  within  a  stately  chamber,  adorned  with  rich 
 curtains,  in  Babylon,  where,  during  his  days  of  splendour,  the 
 Eesch-Glutha  fixed  his  residence.  The  Prince  was  seated  upon 
 a  lofty  throne ;  the  heads  of  the  schools  of  Sura  and  Pumbeditha 
 
 on  his  right  hand  and  left On  the  next  Thursday  he  was 
 
 inaugurated  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  and  the  sound  of  trum- 
 pets, and  acclamations.  He  was  escorted  to  his  palace  with  great 
 pomp,  and  received  magnificent  presents  from  all  his  subjects 
 
 '  The  court  of  the  Resch-Glutha  is  described  as  equally  splen- 
 did, lu  imitation  of  his  Persian  master,  he  had  his  oflficers, 
 counsellors,  and  cupbearers.  Rabbins  were  appointed  as  satraps 
 over  the  difierent  communities.  This  state,  it  is  probable,  was 
 maintained  by  a  tribute  raised  from  the  body  of  the  people,  and 
 substituted  for  that  which,  in  ancient  times,  was  paid  for  the 
 temple  in  Jerusalem.*    pp.  159 — 162. 
 
 '  The  Prince  of  the  Captivity  probably  rose  to  power  in  the 
 interval  between  the  abandonment  of  the  Mesopotamian  provinces 
 by  Hadrian,  about  118  A.  c,  and  the  final  desolation  of  the  Par- 
 thian kingdom  about  229  A.  c. . . .  But  his  more  splendid  state 
 seems  to  have  been  assumed  after  the  accession  of  the  Persian 
 dynasty.'     p.  169. 
 
 Dr  McCaul  has  kindly  informed  me  that  '  Fiirst  of  Leipzic,  in 
 his  Kultur  unci  Liter aturgescliiclite  cler  Indien  in  Asien,  pp.  8,  9, 
 says  that  the  Jews  in  Babylon  had  their  Princes  of  the  Captivity 
 of  the  house  of  David  from  the  times  of  Ezra,  but  gives  no  his- 
 toric testimony  for  the  assertion,' — and  that  '  Maimonides,  in  his 
 HilcJwth  Sanhedrin,  c.  iv.  says  that  the  Princes  of  the  Captivity 
 of  the  house  of  David  were  established  instead  of  the  kings,  and 
 had  similar  rights,  but  does  not  mention  any  time  of  their  insti- 
 tution.' He  has  also  furnished  me  with  references  to  Basnage 
 and  Jost,  from  whom  I  extract  the  following  passages,  which 
 shew  that  they  both  think  the  ofiice  was  not  instituted  till  the 
 second  century  of  our  era. 
 
 'L'origine  des  Chefs  de  la  Captivite  n'est  pas  connue.  II 
 paroit  seulement  qu'il  n'y  en  av6it  pas  avant  la  fin  du  second 
 siecle . . .  Pendant  que  le  temple  de  Jerusalem  subsista,  les  refugies 
 de  I'orient  envoioient  de  la  leur  presens  a  Jerusalem,  et  venoient 
 de  temps  en  temps  y  faire  leur  devotions . . .  On  ne  pensa  done 
 
3G0  NOTES. 
 
 pas  a  se  faire  un  Chef  de  la  Captivite  pendant  qu'on  vit  quelque 
 forme  de  gouvernement  dans  la  Judee . . .  Aucun  historien  n'en 
 a  parle  (avant  la  rulne  de  Jerusalem),  et  le  premier  de  ces  chefs 
 qui  paroit  sur  le  theatre  etoit  Huna,  qui  ne  vivoit  qua  la  fin 
 du  second  siecle  de  I'Eglise.'     Hist,  des  Jmfs,  Lib.  iii.  ch.  iv. 
 
 '  On  cite  un  aveu  de  Juda  le  Saint,  lequel  reconnoit  que  si 
 Ilnna,  qui  etoit  Chef  de  la  Captivite  a  Babylone,  venoit  en 
 Judee,  il  seroit  oblige  de  lui  ceder  le  pas,  et  de  se  lever  devant 
 lui,  parceque  ITuna  etoit  de  la  tribu  de  Juda,  et  de  la  race  de 
 David  par  le  roi  Jehoiakim.'     Ih. 
 
 '  Capita,  sive  jirincipes  captivorum,  qui  sunt  Babylone,  vice 
 regis  sunt  constituti ;  licetque  ipsis  imperare  omni  in  loco,  sive 
 placeat  illis,  sive  non  placeat.'     Jad  Chasacha.     lb. 
 
 '  Ce  Prince  devoit  etre  dela  maison  de  David.'     Ih. 
 
 Jost,  after  having  explained  the  origin  of  the  office  of  Prince 
 of  the  Captivity,  or,  as  he  calls  him,  the  Resch-Glutha,  and 
 traced  it  to  the  same  causes  as  Basnage  had  done,  and  shewn 
 how  favourable  the  Parthian  kingdom  was  to  such  a  prosperous 
 and  independent  state  of  the  Jewish  emigrilnts,  has  the  following 
 sentence :  '  This  state  of  things  prepared  the  way  for  the  gather- 
 ing together  of  the  Jews  under  the  Rescli-Glutha,  who  was  at 
 the  head  of  the  colonies;  of  which  already  in  the  end  of  the 
 second  century  distinct  traces  are  to  be  seen.'  Geschichte  der 
 Israeliten.    Vol.  iv.  p.  267- 
 
 Now  the  bearing  of  all  this  on  our  subject  is  this.  We  saw 
 reason  at  pp.  110,  111,  to  believe  that  the  name  Ilhesa  was  not  in 
 Irenteus's  copy  of  St  Luke,  i.  e.  that  Ilhesa  was  not  in  the  list 
 of  our  Lord's  ancestors  in  the  middle  and  towards  the  end  of  the 
 second  century.  But  we  know  that  he  was  in  the  list  at  the 
 latter  part  of  the  fourth  century.  Moreover,  we  conjectured  that 
 it  was  the  title  of  the  Prince  of  the  Captivity  which  had  been 
 affixed  to  the  name  of  Zerubbabel  in  the  margin,  to  mark  that 
 he  was  the  first  Resch-GIutha.  Now  these  extracts  shew  that 
 from  the  end  of  the  second  to  the  fourth  century  was  a  most 
 probable  time  for  such  an  interpolation  to  be  made ;  because  it 
 was  just  then  that  this  office  arose,  and  speedily  acquired  such 
 remarkable  splendour.  The  constant  reference  to  the  Princes 
 being  of  the  house  of  David  (of  which  numerous  instances  too 
 may  be  found  in  Benjamin  of  Tudela)  adds  further  probability 
 to  this  title  being  ascribed  to  Zerubbabel.  It  should  be  added 
 that  this  historical  account  of  the  Rliesa,  shews  that  it  is  much 
 more  probable  tliat  this  word  crept  in  from  the  margin,  than  that 
 
NOTES.  361 
 
 it  was  the  oriVinal  title  of  Zerubbabel  himself,  inserted  by  St 
 Luke. 
 
 Note  D.     p.  219. 
 
 At  p.  270  of  his  work  on  the  Genealogies,  Yardley  says,  '  So 
 that  from  the  number  of  generations  there  is  no  certain  rule  to 
 determine  the  time,  nor  from  the  time  to  fix  the  number  of 
 persons  born  therein.'  In  support  of  this  view  he  refers  to  the 
 difference  between  the  twelve  descents  in  David's  line,  and  the 
 fifteen  in  Zadok's,  and  the  twenty-three  in  that  of  Heman  the 
 singer.  And  then,  as  his  climax,  he  contrasts  the  number  of 
 generations  in  the  line  from  Joseph  to  the  daughters  of  Zelo- 
 phehad  (Numb,  xxvii.  1),  which  are  seven,  with  that  of  the 
 cotemporaneous  line  from  the  same  Joseph  to  Joshua  the  son  of 
 Nun,  which  he  does  not  commit  himself  by  specifying,  but  only 
 naively  observes,  '  It  is  surprising  to  count  how  many  there  are.' 
 There  are  about  nineteen^  or  taking  the  lowest  computation, 
 twelve.  Having  already  accounted  for  the  difference  between  the 
 number  of  generations  in  David's  line  and  Zadok's,  and  shewn 
 that  Ileman's  line  really  contains  only  fourteen  generations,  it 
 may  be  well  briefly  to  examine  the  genealogy  of  Joshua  also, 
 with  a  view  of  seeing  whether  it  really  does  support  Yardley 's 
 theory  of  the  worthlessness  of  genealogies  for  chronological  pur- 
 poses. In  doing  so,  we  shall  derive  immense  assistance  from  the 
 duplicate  genealogy  in  Numb.  xxvi.  35  sqq.  But  it  will  be  also 
 necessary  to  correct  the  text,  which  is  in  a  most  corrupt  state. 
 
 Placing  then  the  sons  of  Ephraim  as  given  in  Numb.  xxvi. 
 35  sqq.  side  by  side  with  the  same  as  given  in  1  Chron.  vii.  20 — 
 27,  we  shall  find  in  Numb...  Shuthelah,  Bechee,  Tahan,  to 
 correspond  with  (in  Chron.)  SiiUTHELAn,  Bered,  Tahath',  where, 
 besides  the  orthographical  differences,  we  shall  see  that  after 
 Bered,  and  Tahatii,  the  words  'his  son'  are  twice  improperly 
 added  in  1  Chron.  vii.  20.  Proceeding  to  the  36th  verse  of 
 Numb,  we  find  only  one  family  of  the  sons  of  Shuthelah,  Eran  ; 
 and  if  we  try  to  find  out  from  our  English  Bibles  which  of  the 
 names  in  1  Chron.  vii.  corresponds  with  it,  we  shall  probably 
 try  in  vain ;  for  the  name  which  really  is  identical  is  written  in 
 V.  20  Eladah,  in  v.  21  Elead,  and  in  v.  26  Laadan.  But 
 when  we  write  them  in  Hebrew,  their  identity  will  be  imme- 
 diately apparent  even  to  those  unacquainted  with  that  language. 
 
 '  This  interchange  of   Tahan  and   Tahath  is  exactly  similar  to  that   of 
 Matthan,  and  Matthat.     See  pp.  129,  130. 
 
362  NOTES. 
 
 Merely  premising  therefore  that  the  name  Eran  is  here  written 
 exactly  as  it  is  in  Numb,  xxvi.  35,  viz.  with  the  prefix  ^  {l) 
 meaning  '  of,'  I  set  these  names  down,  one  under  the  other. 
 
 pj;^       of  Eran.  Numb.  xxvi.  35. 
 
 n\^h       Laadan.  1  Chron.  vii.  26. 
 
 (ll'j^h  t^  Eladah.  ih.             20. 
 
 lyS  J<  Elad.  ib.             21. 
 
 In  the  two  last  cases  the  N  has  probably  been  prefixed  by 
 way  of  correction,  in  order  to  give  them  the  appearance  of  real 
 names.  But  further.  We  have  already  seen  that  Eran  is  the 
 son  of  Shuthelah  (Numb.  xxvi.  36),  and  Laadan  is  the 
 grandson  of  Telah,  according  to  1  Chron.  vii.  25,  26.  But  if 
 we  write  the  two  names,  one  under  the  other, 
 
 n^ni^  Shuthelah,  Numb.  xxvi.  36;  1  Chron,  vii.  20. 
 n /fl  telah,  1  Chron.  vii.  25, 
 
 we  shall  at  once  perceive  that  Telah  is  merely  a  corruption  of 
 Shuthelah,  the  first  syllable  having  dropped  out.  It  follows  that 
 in  all  probability  Tahan  (the  name  of  Ephraim's  son),  who  now 
 separates  Laadan  from  Telah,  is  out  of  his  place  and  ought  to  be 
 left  out.  And  if  so  we  have  in  vv.  25 — 27  the  following  cor- 
 rected pedigree  for  Joshua.  Jehoshuah,  the  son  of  Non,  the  son 
 of  Elishama,  the  son  of  Ammihud,  the  son  of  Eran,  the  son  of 
 Shuthelah.  And  as  we  know,  both  from  the  book  of  Numbers 
 and  1  Chron.  that  Shuthelah  was  the  son  of  Ephraim,  we  are 
 able  to  affirm,  that  the  genealogy  of  Joshua  ran  nearly  as  under, 
 and  dare  place  by  its  side  the  genealogy  of  Zelophehad's  daughters, 
 without  any  fear  of  endangering  thereby  the  chronological  value 
 of  genealogies. 
 
 (l)  Joseph 
 
 I 
 
 (2)  Ephraim  (2)  Manasseh 
 
 I  I 
 
 (3)  Shuthelah  (3)  Machir 
 
 (4)  Eran  (4)  Gilead 
 
 I  I 
 
 (6)  Ammihud  (5)  Hepher 
 I  f 
 
 (6)  Elishama  (6)  Zelophehad 
 
 I  I 
 
 (7)  Non  (7)  Daughters. 
 
 I 
 
 (5)  Joshua. 
 
NOTES.  363 
 
 As  far  then  as  regards  our  main  purpose,  the  correction  of 
 this  passage  is  easy  and  tolerably  certain.  The  20th  verse  tells 
 ns  that  Shuthelah  was  Ephraim's  son,  and  vv.  25 — 27  give  us 
 the  consecutive  generations  from  (Shu)tlielah  to  Joshua.  The 
 20th  and  21st  verses  are  discovered  to  give  us  the  same  names 
 as  the  parallel  chapter  in  Numbers,  and  we  conclude  without  any 
 doubt  that  the  second  Shuthelah  and  the  second  Tahath  are  mere 
 repetitions  of  the  name  of  the  same  individual,  and  that  the  names 
 Laadan,  Eladah  and  Elead  are  corruptions  of  Eran,  such  as  we  saw 
 before  in  the  list  of  David's  sons  (see  p.  296;,  note).  But  there 
 remain  two  names  to  be  accounted  for  in  v.  21,  viz.'  Zabad  and 
 Ezer.  It  is  not  impossible  that  these  may  be  two  real  names  of 
 sons  of  Shuthelah,  who  with  Eran  their  brother  were  slain  by 
 the  men  of  Gath,  and  having  been  thus  cut  off  without  children 
 are  not  mentioned  in  Numb.  xxvi. ;  or  they  may  be  sons  of 
 Ephraim,  At  the  same  time  some  suspicion  attaches  to  Zabad 
 from  its  close  resemblance  to  Bered,  as  will  appear  by  writing,  as 
 before,  the  two  names  one  under  the  other  in  Hebrew  characters. 
 
 Tn^l  and  Bered, 
 *IiT  Zabad; 
 
 and  if  we  suppose  that  the  copyist  thought  that  "n^l  was  "IHT 
 with  two  daleths,  either  by  mistake  or  to  fill  up  the  line,  or  that 
 in  his  copy  the  final  "]  was  omitted  or  obliterated,  it  is  clear  how 
 easily  the  mistake  might  have  been  made.  JiJzer  is  also  suspi- 
 cious from  its  near  resemblance  to  Gezer,  one  of  the  towns  be- 
 longing to  Ephraim  (1  Chron.  vii.  28),  which  may  have  been 
 mentioned  as  the  seat  of  the  Eranites,  just  as  in  v.  24,  Beth- 
 horon  and  Uzzen-sherah  are  mentioned  as  belonging  to  Sherah. 
 Compare  *^;y  with  "if;|.  The  close  affinity  of  ain  and  gimel, 
 represented  in  Arabic  by  the  same  character,  is  well  known. 
 
 However  if  Zabad  and  Ezer  are  real  names,  v.  21  probably 
 ran  thus  : — '  And  the  sons  of  Shuthelah,  Zabad,  and  Ezer,  and 
 Eran,  whom  the  men  of  Gath  slew,'  &c. 
 
 As  regards  v.  24,  it  is  difficult  to  say  whose  daughter  Sherah 
 really  was.  If  she  was  Ephraim's  daughter  or  Beriah's,  as  her 
 present  position  in  the  text  would  indicate,  and  the  founder  of  a 
 house  of  fathers,  then  we  must  understand  the  expression  that 
 '  she  bviilt  Beth-horon  and  Uzzen- Sherah,'  to  mean  that  her 
 family  built  it,  and  called  the  latter  place  after  her  name.  But 
 I  am  more   inclined    to  suspect    that   she  was  a  daughter   or 
 
3G4  NOTES. 
 
 sister  of  Joshua's,  and  that  he  gave  her  a  portion  out  of  his 
 own  inheritance  (Josh.  xix.  49,  50).  The  verses  follovFing  v. 
 24  are  evidently  an  extract  from  Joshua's  genealogy,  and  it  is 
 somewhat  remarkable  that  we  have  nowhere  any  mention  in 
 Scripture  of  any  son  or  posterity  of  Joshua.  The  name  Uzzen- 
 Sherah  seems  far  more  naturally  to  imply  that  the  person  who 
 built  it  gave  her  name  to  it,  than  that  a  remote  ancestress  of  the 
 founder  did  so  ;  and  ^in  spite  of  the  difference  of  the  spelling  of 
 n"1i^ti^  ^^^  niDj  it  is  not  improbable  that  Timnath-serah 
 (Josh.  xix.  50)  was  also  called  from  her,  imless  indeed  it  be 
 actually  the  same  place  as  Uzzen-Sherah.  The  identity  of  She- 
 rah  with  Serah  is  rendered  yet  more  probable  by  the  occurrence 
 of  niii^  "^  1  Chron.  vii.  30,  combining  the  two  spelHngs;  where 
 we  must  also  notice  the  very  singular  coincidence,  whatever  its 
 significance  may  be,  of  a  Beriah  having  a  sister  Serah,  in  the 
 family  of  Asher, 
 
 Turning  next  to  v.  25,  we  find  it  no  less  difiicult  to  determine 
 who  or  what  Rephah  and  Reseph  are.  If  they  are  names  of 
 men,  are  they  sons  of  Ephraim,  or  of  Beriah,  or  of  Slierah  ? 
 Perhaps  of  the  latter.  But  it  is  not  improbable  that  they  are 
 the  names,  not  of  men,  but  of  towns  built  by  Sherah,  though  I 
 can  offer  nothing  beyond  the  position  of  the  verse  in  support  of 
 this  conjecture.  In  this  case  the  word  "j^^  '  his  son,'  has  either 
 been  inserted  to  make  sense,  or  is  a  corruption  of  some  part  of 
 the  verb  ,133.  '*'0  build.' 
 
 T  T 
 
 If  the  supposition  that  Sherah  was  Joshua's  daughter  be  well 
 founded,  we  must  then  suppose  that  the  24th  verse  has  got  out 
 of  its  proper  place,  and  a  probable  cause  for  this,  according  to  a 
 well-known  law  of  transcribers'  errors,  may  be  found  in  the  fact 
 that  the  23rd  verse  ends  with  the  word  lJT>i  which  is  almost 
 identical  with  ^ji^. 
 
 However,  not  to  dwell  longer  upon  the  uncertain  correction 
 of  this  very  corrupt  text,  I  again  request  the  reader's  attention  to 
 the  remarkable  confirmation  which  this  passage,  as  far  as  the 
 correction  of  it  is  tolerably  certain,  affords,  both  of  the  reality  of 
 the  genealogies  of  Scripture,  and  also  of  their  immense  value  for 
 historical  and  chronological  purposes ;  and  at  the  same  time  of 
 the  utter  folly  of  dealing  with  texts  which  are  corrupt,  as  if  they 
 were  the  genuine  expressions  of  the  inspired  records.  Here  is  a 
 passage  which  as  it  now  stands  is  full  of  absurdities.     It  makes 
 
NOTES.  3G5 
 
 Ephraim  alive,  and  beget  a  son  in  the  days  of  the  8th  generation 
 from  himself.  It  obscures  and  makes  unintelligible  a  most  inte- 
 resting narrative  of  the  unfortunate  fate  of  the  sons  of  Ephraim 
 during  their  father's  lifetime,  which  is  nowhere  else  recorded,  but 
 which  explains  the  circumstance  of  their  being  so  few  families 
 of  the  Ephraimites  in  the  days  of  Moses  (Numb.  xxvi.  35 — 37)  ; 
 it  is  in  utter  disagreement  with  the  duplicate  genealogy  of 
 Numbers;  and  it  makes  one  of  the  most  important  characters 
 of  the  Old  Testament,  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun,  live  either  330 
 or  120  years  after  his  true  time.  But  immediately  the  passage 
 is  restored  to  even  a  partial  soundness,  all  these  contradictions 
 vanish,  and  we  find  consistent  genealogies,  rational  chronology, 
 and  intelligible  and  valuable  history  in  their  room.  And  yet 
 there  are  those  who  think  it  safer  to  leave  such  a  mass  of 
 confusion,  than  by  the  simplest  process  of  correction  to  restore 
 the  letter  of  Scripture  to  its  integrity ! 
 
 We  just  note  in  the  last  place  that  Joshua's  grandfather 
 Elisharaa,  the  son  of  Ammihud,  was  the  prince  of  the  tribe  of 
 Ephraim  in  the  wilderness,  as  we  learn  from  Numb.  ii.  18;  vii. 
 48,  which  exactly  agrees  with  Joshua  being  'a  young  man' 
 when  he  was  Moses's  minister,  Exod.  xxxiii.  11,  xxiv.  13;  and  is 
 also  in  harmony  with  Joshua  being  the  leader  of  Israel  after 
 Moses's  death,  and  with  the  tabernacle  being  pitched  at  Shiloh  in 
 the  tribe  of  Ephraim.     See  Josh,  xviii.  1,8;  Psal.  Lxxviii.  60,  67' 
 
 P.  S.  Dr  Lepsius  {Letters  from  Egypt,  S)X.  Eng.  Trans,  by 
 Leonora  and  Johanna  Horner,  p.  460)  speaks  of  this  genealogy 
 as  '  evidently  confused.'  He  says  in  the  note,  '  It  is  impossible 
 that  the  descendants  of  Ephraim  could  have  been  killed  at  the 
 same  time  by  the  men  of  Gath,  since  they  include  eight  gene- 
 rations. The  march  also  to  Gath  which  is  mentioned,  could  not 
 have  been  from  Egypt  since  they  went  dozen.'  The  last  obser- 
 vation is  a  just  and  an  important  one,  but  I  think  may  be  made 
 a  better  use  of.  I  believe  it  shews  us  that  the  right  way  to 
 construe  the  words  is,  that  '  the  men  of  Gath  came  down  (from 
 Palestine,  viz.  to  Egypt)  to  steal  the  cattle'  of  the  Ephraimites 
 in  the  land  of  Goshen,  and  slew  them  in  the  affray  that  ensued. 
 The  multitude  of  cattle  possessed  by  the  Israelites  is  frequently 
 alluded  to,  and  seems  to  have  tempted  the  cupidity  of  their 
 Philistine  neighbours.  This  previous  acquaintance  of  the  Israel- 
 ites with  the  terrible  prowess  of  the  Philistines  may  throw  some 
 light  upon  the  circuitous  route  taken  by  the  Israelites  in  the 
 
366  NOTES. 
 
 Exodus,  and  also  upon  the  sending  the  spies  to  spy  out  the  land. 
 This  explanation  also  gives  point  to  the  words, '  which  were  born 
 in  the  land/  and  these  again  necessitate  the  explanation  which 
 follows,  to  account  for  their  being  within  reach  of  the  Ephrairaites, 
 '  For  (or,  when)  they  came  down  to  take  their  cattle.' 
 
 Note  E.    p.  272. 
 
 The  whole  of  the  text  of  this  work  had  been  for  two  months 
 in  the  printer's  hands,  and  two  or  three  sheets  of  the  ninth 
 chapter  were  actually  printed,  when  I  became  acquainted  for  the 
 first  time  with  an  interesting  volume  of  Dr  Lepsius:  Letters 
 from  Egypt^  S^c.^  with  extracts  from  his  Chronology  of  the  Egyp- 
 tians with  reference  to  the  Exodus  of  the  Israelites :  translated  by 
 Leonora  and  Joanna  B.  Horner.  Some  of  the  arguments  and 
 conclusions  of  the  author  with  regard  to  the  genealogies  and  the 
 dates,  are  so  precisely  similar  to  some  in  this  chapter,  that  I 
 think  it  right  to  make  this  explicit  statement;  and  I  deem  it 
 important  to  do  so,  not  merely  from  the  natural  desire  that  what 
 is  strictly  an  original  view  deduced  solely  from  my  own  study 
 of  the  Scriptures,  should  go  forth  as  such,  but  because  it  appears 
 to  be  a  striking  evidence  of  the  soundness  of  the  view  in  question, 
 that  two  persons  contemplating  the  subject  from  quite  opposite 
 sides,  the  one  from  the  side  of  Egyptian  history  and  chrono- 
 logy, and  the  other  exclusively  from  the  internal  evidence  of 
 Scripture  itself,  should  arrive  at  the  same  conclusion  on  so  im- 
 portant a  point,  as  shortening  by  about  two  hundred  years  the 
 interval  between  Joshua  and  David.  I  may  add,  that  any  little 
 disappointment  which  may  be  occasioned  by  being  thus  antici- 
 pated in  presenting  to  the  Church  a  statement,  which  if  true  is, 
 on  many  accounts,  of  the  highest  importance,  is  .abundantly  com- 
 pensated by  the  satisfaction  of  having  so  striking  a  confirmation 
 of  it  supplied  by  so  great  an  authority  as  Dr  Lepsius,  and, 
 which  is  still  more  important,  by  such  weighty  arguments  as  his 
 book  contains.  Whatever  may  be  the  real  origin  of  the  different 
 Scriptural  dates  which  this  statement  contravenes,  I  do  not  think 
 any  one  of  sound  judgment  can  withstand  the  mass  of  proof 
 supplied  both  from  'the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians,'  and  from 
 Biblical  criticism,  as  to  the  true  date  of  the  Exodus.  Nor  is  it 
 easy  to  overvalue  the  weight  of  the  testimony  thus  supplied  to 
 the  authenticity  of  the  history  contained  in  the  Bible,  and  the 
 genuineness  of  the  genealogies  in  particular. 
 
NOTES.  3G7 
 
 As  regards  Lepslus'  views,  for  a  particular  account  of  them 
 I  would  refer  the  reader  to  the  volume  itself.  It  must  sufl&ce 
 to  mention  here  in  general,  that  the  learned  Prussian  Egypto- 
 loger takes  the  same  view  of  the  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus,  and 
 supports  it  in  the  main  by  the  same  arguments,  as  the  Duke 
 of  Northumberland  does  in  the  passage  cited  at  our  267th  and 
 following  pages.  He  further  shews  how  exactly  the  account  of 
 the  expulsion  of  the  lepers  from  Egypt,  given  by  Manetho, 
 Hecatteus  (in  Diodorus  Siculus),  and  Lysimachus,  tallies  with  the 
 Israelitish  Exodus,  and  how  all  the  incidental  notices  and  names 
 in  Genesis  and  Exodus  agree  exactly  with  the  theory  that  Me- 
 nephthes  or  Amenephthes,  (or  Menojihthah,  or  Phthah-men)  is 
 the  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus;  whereas  they  are  utterly  irrecon- 
 cileable  with  the  theory  of  Thothmes.  Especially  he  brings  out 
 with  great  force  the  argument  derived  from  the  name  of  the 
 towns  Pithom  and  Raamses  (Exod.  i.  11).  He  then  further  sug^ 
 gests  that  'the  true  epoch  of  Egyptian  history  in  which  the 
 Exodus  of  the  Israelites  occurred  has  been  preserved  in  late 
 Jewish  traditions;'  for  they  place  the  Exodus  in  the  year  B.C. 
 1313,  when,  according  to  Manetho's  chronology,  Menephthes  was 
 king.  This  is  178  years  later  than  the  common  date.  He  thinks 
 too  that  the  error  of  about  1 65  years  in  the  Rabbinical  chrono- 
 logy for  the  building  of  Solomon's  temple,  the  captivity,  the 
 second  temple,  and  so  on  down  to  the  time  of  Alexander  the 
 Oreat,  was  occasioned  by  their  having  retained  as  fixed  points 
 the  true  date  of  the  Exodus  (2448  from  the  Creation,  or  B.C. 
 1313)  handed  down  to  them  by  tradition,  and  the  commence- 
 ment of  the  seva  of  the  Seleucidje,  B.C.  312,  and  having  filled 
 up  the  intervening  period  according  to  the  numbers  of  years  in 
 the  corrupted  Bible  chronology.  The  result  of  this  was  to  place 
 all  the  above-named  events  between  150  and  200  years  too  late, 
 and  at  last  to  crowd  the  period  from  the  building  of  the  second 
 temple  under  Darius  Hystaspes  to  the  time  of  "Alexander,  which 
 really  occupied  184  years,  into  34  years,  and  cause  Darius 
 Ochus  to  be  taken  fur  the  same  person  as  Darius  Nothus.  The 
 reader  is  requested  to  mark  carefully  the  bearing  of  this  upon 
 the  question  discussed  in  our  eleventh  chapter,  and  the  inter- 
 pretation of  Daniel's  prophecy  of  the  weeks.  Dr  Lepsius  then 
 proceeds  as  follows  : — 
 
 '  Viewing   it,    therefore,    from   this   side,   wo   return  to  the 
 opinion,   that  the   great   stumblingblock  to   the   whole   of  the 
 
368  NOTES. 
 
 chronology  hitherto  adopted  for  the  Old  Testament  was  the 
 number  of  480  years,  which  was  calculated  as  the  period  be- 
 tween the  Exodus  and  the  building  of  the  temple  mentioned  in 
 the  first  book  of  Kings.  As  soon  as  we  set  this  aside,  regard- 
 ing it  only  as  a  supplementary  multiple  of  twelve  generations, 
 or  segments  of  40  years  each,  the  Hebrew  and  Egyptian  chro- 
 nologies are  no  longer  opposed .  to  each  other,  with  reference  to 
 the  time  of  the  Exodus.  All  the  other  intimations  we  meet 
 with  in  the  Hebrew  accounts,  and  their  whole  connexion,  de- 
 mand, on  the  contrary,  precisely  the  same  time  which  we  find 
 unequivocally  stated  in  the  Egyptian  annals  of  Manetho. 
 
 *  The  question  now  is,  whether  along  with  this  number  480, 
 to  which  we  can  attribute  no  greater  importance  than  to  the 
 simple  number  forty ^  so  often  repeated  in  the  history  of  Israel 
 at  that  period,  we  must  also  give  up  as  valueless  every  other 
 chronological  measure  of  the  events  immediately  succeeding  the 
 Exodus.  But  this  is  so  little  the  case,  that,  on  the  contrary, 
 in  the  true  chronological  scale  which  the  Mosaic  writings  fur- 
 nish, we  find  a  fresh  refutation  of  the  opinions  hitherto  adopted, 
 and  a  confirmation  of  the  Egyptian  statements.  We  look  upon 
 the  Register  of  Generations  as  this  scale.'     pp.  457,  458. 
 
 Then  after  an  analysis  of  the  genealogies,  the  details  of 
 which  however  he  arranges  somewhat  diflferently  from  what  we 
 have  done,  and  I  venture  to  think  not  quite  so  correctly,  he 
 sums  up  with  the  conclusion,  that  'the  whole  discussion  leads 
 to  this,  that  tlie  genealogies^  the  only  trustworthy  although  less 
 exact  chronological  thread  of  those  Hebrew  times,  speak  as  de- 
 cidedly against  the  calculation  hitherto  adopted  of  480  years,  as 
 in  favour  of  our  calculation  of,  about,  300  years.  This  agreement 
 appears  to  me  of  the  greatest  importance  in  judging  both  the 
 Egyptian  as  well  as  the  Jewish  history.'     p.  470. 
 
 For  Dr  Lepsius's  mode  of  accounting  for  the  numbers  in  the 
 book  of  Judges,  and  reconciling  them  with  the  sum  of  the  whole 
 period  above  given,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  book  itself. 
 
 THE   END. 
 
Date  Due 
 
 .Ma^#^ 
 
 $ 
 
 1 
 
 ,1      ^   WUii 
 
 J 
 
 ^1^ 
 
 >  ^"UMiSIA'i^lW'l 
 
 W^ 
 
 ~;  •:;■■'"■   - 
 
 .^im 
 
 j)ft> 
 
 L£S^ 
 
 l^'     ' 
 
 ^j_ 
 
 •^ 
 
 >lil^ 
 
 %> 
 
 JUIia%^ 
 
 .^ 
 
 ^ 
 
-f^.y^