Farther Considerations on the Best Mode of Reconciling and Explaining the Genealogy of Our Lord, as Given by St. Matthew and St. Luke, Chiefly Extracted From the Prolegomena of the Rev. Dr. Barrett’s Fac-Simile of a Fragment of the Gospel of St. Matthew, From a MS. in Trinity College, Dublin.

FARTHER CONSIDERATIONS ON THE BEST MODE OF RECONCILING AND EXPLAINING THE GENEALOGY OF OUR LORD, AS GIVEN BY ST. MATTHEW AND ST. LUKE, CHIEFLY EXTRACTED FROM THE PROLEGOMENA OF THE REV. DR. BARRETT’S FAC-SIMILE OF A FRAGMENT OF THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW, FROM A MS. IN TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN.

PERHAPS few questions have occasioned more trouble and perplexity to the learned than that which concerns the genealogy of our blessed Lord, as it is given by the evangelists, St. Matthew and St. Luke. The tables found in these writers are extremely different, or, as some think, contradictory. Allowing the Divine inspiration of the authors, we must grant that they could make no mistakes in any point, and especially on a subject where the truth of the Gospel history, and the fulfilment of the ancient prophecies are so nearly concerned. The expression of Le Clerc, however, Universam antiquitatem exercitam habuere, is not strictly true. In later times, the difficulty has certainly excited much discussion; but it is worthy of remark that, while the archives of the Jews remained entire, the accuracy of the evangelists was never called in question. Hence it follows, either that some corruptions have since that time crept into the text, or that the true method of reconciling the seeming inconsistencies was then better understood. The silence of the enemies of the Gospel, both Heathen and Jewish, during even the first century, is itself a sufficient proof that neither inconsistency nor corruption could be then alleged against this part of the evangelical history. If a charge of this nature could have been supported, it unquestionably would have been made. The Jews and Heathens, who agreed in their hostility to the religion of Christ, were equally interested in this subject; and could they have proved that a single flaw existed in these genealogical tables, they might at once have set aside the pretensions of our Lord and his disciples; for, if the lineal descent of Jesus from David were not indisputable, he could not possess the character essential to the Messiah, nor any right to the Jewish throne. If his title, in this respect, were even questionable, it is impossible to suppose that the Jews would have withheld an allegation which must fully vindicate them in denying his Messiahship, and in putting him to death as an impostor. We may confidently assert, therefore, that his regular lineal descent from David could not be disproved, since it was not even disputed, at a time when alone it could have been done successfully, and by those persons who were so deeply interested in the event. The sincere believer may consequently be assured that whatever difficulties appear at present had formerly no existence, and are even now of such a nature as cannot be allowed to shake the faith of any reasonable man. I would not, however, be understood to intimate that these difficulties are now insuperable; on the contrary, I am satisfied that the real difficulties are few, and that these have, for tho most part, been satisfactorily explained by most of the evangelical harmonists. Among those who have written on this difficult question, few seem to have studied it so deeply as Dr. Barrett; who, in his edition of a Fragment of St. Matthew’s Gospel, has brought an unusual measure of general knowledge, correct criticism, and sound learning, to bear upon this point; and though it should not be admitted that he has entirely cleared away the obscurities of the subject, yet, by his criticisms, and even his conjectures, he has cast much light upon it generally, and certainly has lessened the difficulties which some of his predecessors in the discussion had either left as they found them, or endeavoured to account for in a manner that could yield little satisfaction to the intelligent inquirer. As the subject is important, and Dr. Barrett’s work is not likely to come into the hands of many readers, and is written in a language which but few can understand, I shall lay before them the substance of his elaborate dissertation; abstract his principal arguments and illustrations; transcribe his various corrected tables; and freely intersperse such observations and explanations as the different branches of his reasoning may suggest.

The opinion of Africanus in his Epistle to Aristides, (preserved by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 50. 1. c. 7,) which was received by the Church for many centuries as the only legitimate mode of reconciling the Evangelists St. Matthew and St. Luke, is the following:—

“The names of kindred among the Jews were reckoned in two ways. 1. According to nature, as in the case of natural generation.

2. According to law, as when a man died childless, his brother was obliged to take his wife, and the issue of that marriage was accounted to the deceased brother. In this genealogy, some succeeded their fathers as natural sons, but others succeeded who bore their names only. Thus, neither of the Gospels is false; the one reckoning the pedigree by the natural, the other by the legal line. The race both of Solomon and Nathan is so interwoven by those second marriages, which raised up issue in the name of a deceased brother, that some appear to have two fathers: him whose natural issue they were, though they did not bear his name; and him to whom, having died childless, the children of his wife and brother were accounted for a seed, assuming his name. If we reckon the generations according to Matthew, from David by Solomon,

Matthan will be found the third from the end, who begat Jacob, the father of Joseph; but if we reckon according to Luke, from Nathan the son of David, then the third person from the end will be Melchi, whose son was Heli, the father of Joseph; for Joseph was the son of Heli, the son of Melchi - Matthan and Melchi having each successively married the same wife, the later begat children, who were brethren by the mother. Matthan, descending from Solomon, begat Jacob of Estha. After the death of Matthan, Melchi, who descended from Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another race, took his widow to wife, and begat Heli; thus Jacob and Heli were brethren by the mother. Heli dying without issue, Jacob married his widow and begat Joseph, who by the law was accounted the son of Heli, because the law required the seed to be raised up to the deceased brother. Matthew therefore properly says, Jacob begat Joseph; but Luke says, he was the son of Heli; and it is worthy of remark, that this evangelist never uses the term begot or begetting, because he traces up this genealogy by putative, and not by natural sons.”

This is the substance of Africanus’s account, which he says he received from the relatives of our Lord, who, because of their consanguinity to him, were called desposunoi. Dr. Barrett notices the difficulties of this hypothesis, (pp. 18, 19,) and gives it up on the following principle, among others, which I think decisive - that it refers wholly to the descent of Joseph from David, without attempting to prove that the son of Mary was the son of David.

Dr. B. then states his own hypothesis, viz. that Matthew relates the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. Hence appears a sufficient reason that, after Matthew had given his genealogical table another should be added by Luke, fully to prove that Christ, according to the flesh, derived his descent from David, not only by his supposed father Joseph, but also by his real mother Mary. The writers who agree in this opinion, Dr. B. divides into two classes. 1. Those who affirm that the families of Solomon and Nathan coalesced in Salathiel and Zerubbabel, after which they became divaricated, till they were at last reunited in the marriage of Joseph and Mary. 2. Those who assert that Salathiel and Zerubbabel were distinct individuals, and deny that any coalition took place between the families previously to the marriage of Joseph and Mary. Dr. B. rejects this latter opinion, because it appears to contradict the Divine promise, 2 Samuel 7:12 - 16; for according to this hypothesis it would be evident that Mary, and consequently Christ, did not descend from David by Solomon. He therefore proposes to support the other hypothesis, and to clear away its difficulties.

As Irenaeus, Africanus, and Ambrosius assert that Luke has some names interpolated, to detect this error, Dr. B. divides the genealogy into four classes. 1. From GOD to Abraham. 2. From Abraham to David. 3. From David to Salathiel. 4. From Salathiel to Christ. From Abraham to Christ, Ambrosius reckons fifty generations, i.e. fifty - one names; Africanus reckons from Abraham to Joseph fifty persons, i.e. to Christ, fifty - one names; but the present text contains fifty - six names. Hence it is probable, five names are interpolated, unless we suppose the name of Abraham to be excluded, and then there are four names in the three succeeding classes to be expunged. In the first division, therefore, there is no interpolation. As to the second division, from Abraham to David, it is evident, from the consent of the fathers, from the consent of MSS. and versions, and from the books of the Old Testament, Ruth 4:18; 1 Chronicles 2:9, 12, that neither of the evangelists has suffered any interpolation in this part of the genealogy; though, in Luke 3:33, some MSS. and versions insert another name between Aram and Esrom. Thus the Coptic: fa Aminadab, fa Admin, fa Aarni, fa Esrwm. Having accounted for this error, and finding no evidence, in the received text, of an interpolation in this second part of the genealogy, Dr. B. examines whether the four names be not found in the two parts of the genealogy between David and Christ, or, which is more likely, in that which follows the Babylonish captivity; as, previously, the Jews were both punctual and correct in keeping their genealogical records.

Recent interpreters have asserted that two names, Matthat and Levi, have been interpolated, Luke 3:24; because Africanus, endeavouring to reconcile the evangelists, places Melchi the third from the end, and, making him the father of Heli, leaves no room for Matthat and Levi. This method of reconciling the evangelists is followed by Ambrose, lib. 3, in Luc., Hieron. Com. in Matthew, Nazianzen in his genealogical verses, and Augustin, Retr. 2:7. But, on the other hand, it is objected, 1. That the testimony of these fathers is worthy of little credit, because inconsistent with itself. Austin himself mentions forty - three generations from David to Christ, seventy - seven persons in the whole genealogy; he therefore could omit none. 2. Though Africanus does omit some, it is not certain which they are; it is possible he transposed Matthat and Levi; for it does not appear whom he makes the father of Melchi. Damascenus, who endeavours to reconcile Africanus, transposes these names, and makes Levi the father of Melchi, not his son; as does also Epiphanius in a hitherto inedited fragment produced by Dr. B. in this publication, p. 46. In the Cod. A. of Matthai, instead of Matthai the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna; we read; Melchi, the son of Matthat - of Janna - of Levi: it does not follow, therefore, that Africanus omitted Matthat and Levi. 3. These names are not omitted in any of the ancient versions, nor in any MS. yet discovered.

In order to give a satisfactory view of this part of the subject, Dr. B. introduces a synopsis of the principal various readings of MSS., versions, &c., on Luke 3:24 - 31; from which I judge it necessary to make the following extract.

Verse 24. Melci is omitted by the Cod. Vaticanus—Instead of Matqat, tou Leui, tou Melci, tou Ianna, one of the Bodleian MSS. reads, Melci, tou Matqat, totou Ianna, tou Leui.

——Matqat, many MSS. read matqan, and the Antehieronymian versions read, some Matthiae - Mathei - Mathi - Matat - Mathae - and Matthatiae.

——Instead of Iwshf, Iwannan is read in one of Matthai’s MSS. Verse 25. Mattaqiav is omitted by several of the Antehieronymian versions, and by the Vulgate.

——Amwv is omitted also by the same.

——Naoum is read Nauum by some, and Anum by others.

——Esli is read Eslim, Essai and Elsi in different MSS., and Sedi by four of the Antehieronymian.

——Naggai, in many MSS. Aggai, in the Vulgate Magge, and in the Cod. Vercellensis, Nance: instead of Naggai, one of Matthai’s MSS. has Salmon.

Verse 26. Maaq is omitted by the Vulgate, and some of the Antehieronymian versions. The Cod. Forojuliensis has Manat. ——Mattaqiou, the Cod. Leicestr. reads Matqiou, and some of the Antehier. Mathiani, Matthiae, and Mathath; and one adds Jae after Mattaqiou.

——Semei, in one of Matthai’s MSS. Leui. - Semeja and Semein in the Vercell. and Veronensis.

——Iwshf, the Cod. Vatic. and Cod. L. in Griesbach read Iwshc: several others agree in the same reading, and with them the Coptic and Armenian versions, and Greg. Nazianzen. Some also read Osech, Osche, Joseth, and Joseph Osse.

——Iouda, read Iiwda in Cod. Vat. L. Cod. Leicestr. and Idda and Joiade by some Latin MSS.

Verse 27. Iaanna, read Iwanan by the Cod. Alexandr. Vatic. and several others, Iannan and Jonae by some others.

Verses 30, 31. Eleiakeim, Melea, Mainan, are omitted in some of the Latin MSS. Mmelea only is omitted in one of the Antehieron. Mainan in the Cod. Alexandr. and two others.

From this collation of authorities, Dr. B. concludes: 1. That the omission of Melchi, in the Codex Vaticanus is an error, as it contradicts Africanus, and all the fathers, versions, and MSS. 2. That three names have been omitted in the Antehieronymian version by Sabatier; and also in the Cod. Vercell. and Cod. Veron.: viz. Luke 3:25, Mattathias and Amos; and in Luke 3:26, Maath.

Of these, two, viz. Mattathias, Luke 3:25, and Maath, Luke 3:26, are omitted in Dr. B.’s MS. Z. which contains a copy of the Antehieronymian version; and which also reads Mattathias for Matthat. Hence arises a suspicion that Maath is an interpolation, and should be omitted, and that Mattathias, Luke 3:26, although omitted in many MSS., is that which occurs Luke 3:25. As to the names Melea and Mainan, both appear to be interpolated. Excluding these four names, Mattathias, Maath, Melea, and Mainan, (unless, for one of these, Amos, should be rejected,) the genealogy will consist of seventy - two generations.

These generations Dr. B., following Irenaeus, thinks should be laid down in the following order:—

1. Jesus. 2. Joseph (or Mary the daughter of Heli.) 3. Heli the grandfather of Christ. 4. Matthat. 5. Levi. 6. Melchi. 7. Janna. 8. Joseph. 9. Mattathias. 10. Amos. 11. Naum. 12. Esli. 13. Nagge;

14. Semei. 15. Joseph. 16. Juda. 17. Joanna. 18. Rhesa. 19; Zerubbabel. 20. Salathiel. 21. Neri. 22. Melchi. 23. Addi. 24. Cosam. 25. Elmodam. 26. Er. 27. Jose. 28. Eliezer. 29. Jorim. 30. Matthat. 31. Levi. 32. Simeon. 33. Juda. 34, Joseph. 35. Janan. 36. Eliakim. 37. Mattatha. 38. Nathan. 39. David. 40. Jesse. 41. Obed.

42. Booz. 43. Salmon. 44. Naason. 45. Aminadab. 46. Aram. 47. Esrom. 48. Pharez. 49. Judah. 50. Jacob. 51. Isaac. 59. Abraham.

53. Terah. 54. Nahor. 55. Serug. 56. Ragau. 57. Peleg. 58. Eber.

59. Sala. 60. Cainan. 61. Arphaxad. 62. Shem. 63. Noah. 64. Lamech 65. Methusala. 66. Enoch. 67. Jona. 68. Mahalaleel. 69 Cainan. 70. Enos. 71. Seth. 72. Adam.

From the generations thus laid down, there will be found fifty - one names between Christ and Abraham, excluding the latter, which agrees both with Africanus and Ambrosius. Now, let thirty years be reckoned to each generation between Christ and David; Salathiel will then appear to have been born anno 570 before Christ, which will be found near the truth; and David 1140. David, in fact, was born 1085 B.C., whence there appears an error of fifty - five years, or about the twentieth part of the whole time in so many generations. But, according to the received text of Luke, Salathiel must be born B.C. 630, and David 1260; this would be an error of 175 years, or one sixth part of the whole interval.

Dr. B. endeavours to solve the principal difficulty by adopting the genealogy of David as delivered in 1 Chronicles 3:1 - 24. In this chapter, and in the books of Kings, the whole is laid down in the most accurate manner, till the reign of Jechonias; after which, he supposes some errors have been admitted into the text,

1st. Because what is recorded, 1 Chronicles 3:19, is repugnant to other parts of Scripture: viz. Pedaiah is said to be the father of Zerubbabel, whereas Salathiel is reckoned to be the father of Zerubbabel according to Ezra 3:8; 5:2; Nehemiah 12:1; Haggai 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 23; 1 Esdr. 5:5. See also Josephus, Ant. book 11:4. 2dly. Although the various design of the writer is to bring down the regal family through Zerubbabel, yet the names which he mentions in the 22d, 23d, and 24th verses cannot be connected (by the assistance of the 21st verse) with Zerubbabel, mentioned in the 19th verse. {1 Chronicles 3:19, 21 - 24} The breach in the connection renders it impossible to construct the genealogical tree downward from Jechonias; for although some copies mention the sons of Rephaiah, yet it no where appears who was his father.

3dly. Many names occur in these verses, such as Delaiah, Pelaiah, Rephaiah, Pedaiah, or Pheraiah, which very nearly resemble each other, not only in the sound, but also in their constituent letters. This very similitude is a ground of suspicion, as in such names it was impossible to prevent confusion.

4thly. Nor is the opinion of the rabbins exempt from similar chronological difficulties. They assert that Salathiel, the son of Jechonias, was the father of Pedaiah, and grandfather of Zerubbabel. This will appear to be impossible, when it is considered that Jechonias and his queen were both led into captivity, B.C. 599, (Jeremiah 29:20, 21,) and none of his children are recorded, wheNce it is inferrEd that then he had none; Salathiel, therefore, could not be born before the year 598. Supposing him to have been born at this time, and, at the age of twenty, to have had a son born, Pedaiah, who also shall be supposed, at the same age, to have had a son born; even then Zerubbabel could not have been born before 558: and yet he was superintendent of the Israelites on their return from the Balylonish captivity in 536; i.e. when he would be only twenty - two years old. On the contrary it is evident, from 1 Esdras 5:5, that he had a son named Joachin, who was one of the chief men that conducted the returning Israelites; therefore he must be more than twenty - two years old. Besides it will be manifest that only two generations had intervened, if we compare the sacerdotal with the regal line. Jechonias was contemporary with Seraiah; their sons were Salathiel and Josedek; therefore Salathiel and Josedek were contemporaries. Jeshua, the son of Josedek, was coeval with Zerubbabel, who was therefore the son, not the grandson, of Salathiel. St. Jerome himself, while he endeavours to prove that Salathiel and Pedaiah were the same person, (Quaest. Hebrews in Lib. Paral.,) evidently grants, that he considered Zerubbabel as the grandson of Jechonias, and that only two generations had intervened.

5thly. There are manifest errors in 1 Chronicles 3:18 - 22; for there are only five sons of Shemaiah numbered in 1 Chronicles 3:22, and yet there are said to be six.

6thly. The enumeration of the children of Zerubbabel, 1 Chronicles 3:19, 20, is imperfect, as it is evident, from 1 Esdras 5:5, that Zerubbabel had a son named Joachim, of whom no mention is made, 1 Chronicles 3:19, 20; but Jechamiah, a name very similar to this, is found in 1 Chronicles 3:18. Norare Rhesa or Abiud mentioned among his children, although Luke mentions the former, and Matthew the latter. 7thly. If we have recourse to the hypothesis of St. Jerome, which supposes that those who are mentioned, 1 Chronicles 3:18, are the children of Jechonias, and that Pedaiah, one of them, is the same with Salathiel, and that Zerubbabel was the grandson of Jechonias, and the son of Salathiel, alias Pedaiah - it may be objected, that it is not at all likely that he who is called Salathiel, 1 Chronicles 3:17, should be called by a different name, 1 Chronicles 3:18; nor will the difficulty be removed if it be granted that Salathiel and Pedaiah were brothers, and that Zerubbabel was the actual son of the one, and the legal son of the other, according to the law (Deuteronomy 25:6.) Let it be supposed that one of these, e.g. Pedaiah, died childless, and that his brother took his wife; from this marriage Zerubbabel, and Shimei are mentioned as sons of Pedaiah: but, according to the law, the first - born only succeeded in the name of the deceased, and was accounted the legal child. Let Zerubbabel be the first - born; as Shimei, therefore, was not the legal son of Pedaiah, he must have been his real son; therefore Pedaiah did not die childless, - which is contrary to the hypothesis.

8thly. The versions do not agree in the name of the father of Zerubbabel: instead of Pedaiah, the Arabic and Syriac bring in Nedabiah, and some MSS. of the LXX. read Salathiel, in the place of Pedaiah; and these which agree in making Pedaiah the father of Zerubbabel, express the name differently. For instance, Kennicott’s MS. No. 1, both in 1 Chronicles 3:18, and 1 Chronicles 3:19, reads Peraiah for Pedaiah, which is the reading of the Syriac and Arabic, in 1 Chronicles 3:18. This is worthy of remark, because the name of Rephaiah occurs 1 Chronicles 3:21, which, by the transposition of the two first letters, might be easily converted into Peraiah, or Pedaiah, hydp hyrp or hypr Rephaiah; and it is farther necessary to remark, that the father of this Rephaiah is not mentioned. As the names of the posterity of Hananiah, the son of Zerubbabel, are mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:21, with the names of Rephaiah and his posterity, if, with Houbigant, we read wnb beno, his son, for ybn beni, sons, it will not appear improbable that this Rephaiah was the son of Zerubbabel. Among those who were employed in repairing Jerusalem, Rephaiah, the son of Hur, who is said to have been prince of the half part of the city, is mentioned, Nehemiah 3:9. “Hur,” Dr. B. thinks, “was probably the same with Zerubbabel; the Septuagint call him sour, and one of the Kennicott MSS. rc.” In this place it is difficult to comprehend Dr. B.’s meaning: Jpafaia uiov sour is certainly found in the Codex Vaticanus of the LXX.; but in the Codex Alexandrinus uiov sour is omitted. No. MS. of Kennicott’s has rc ˆb ben sar, for uiov sour. Two MSS. omit the whole verse; two the word rwh Hur; and one the following word rc sar; this last word cannot possibly be put in the place of rwh Hur, for it is probably the first word of the following clause: µlvwry klp ypj rc sar chatsi pelec yerushalam, prince of the half part (or, the region) of Jerusalem. Among those who were employed in repairing the city, in Nehemiah 3:12, is Shallum, the son of Hallopesh, perhaps Meshallum, the son of the eloquent, 1 Chronicles 3:19, viz. Zerubbabel, whose eloquence and doctrine are celebrated, 1 Esdras 3:4; Jos. Ant. 11:4. It must, however, be acknowledged that the Syriac verse reads it differently, Nehemiah 3:9, and Jeremiah the son of Hur; Nehemiah 3:12, and Shallum the son of Hatush.

From these considerations Dr. B. concludes that those who are mentioned, 1 Chronicles 3:18, were not the sons of Jechoniah, (Obs. 7,) nor the sons of Salathiel, (Obs. 4,) and that consequently they must be sons of Zerubbabel, as seems tolerably well ascertained by a collation of the 3d, 6th, and 8th observations - that Pedaiah or Peraiah is the same who, in 1 Chronicles 3:21, is called Rephaiah, and who is mentioned, Nehemiah 3:9; and that Jechamiah is no other than Joachim, who, according to Esdr. 5:5, was the son of Zerubbabel. Both these names, Pedaiah or Peraiah, and Jechamiah, occur 1 Chronicles 3:18; consequently a verse is transposed, a thing not unfrequent in the sacred writings. The text, therefore, of 1 Chronicles 3:18 - 22, should be read, as Dr. B. contends, in the following order:—

Verse 18. And the sons of Salathiel, Zerubbabel, and Shimei, and the sons of Zerubbabel, Meshullam, Hananiah; and Shelomith their sister. Verse 19. Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushab - hesed.

Verse 20. And Malchiram, and Rephaiah, and Shenazar, Jechamiah, Hoshamah, and Nedabiah: six.

Verse 21. And the sons of Hananiah, Pelatiah, and Jesiah; the sons of Rephaiah; Arnan his son; Obadiah his son; Shechaniah his son, (reading according to Houbigant, wnb beno, for ynb beni.)

Verse 22. The sons of Shechaniah; Shemaiah - the sons of Shemaiah; Hattush, and Igeal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and Shaphat: five. On the propriety of the substitution of wnb beno, his son, for ynb beni, sons, in 1 Chronicles 3:21, I cannot but agree with Dr. B. That the latter is a corruption appears to me self - evident; the mistake might easily be made, from the great similarity between y yod, and w vau; and numerous mistakes of this kind in the sacred text have long been the perplexity and the complaint of critics. Houbigant’s note on this verse is worthy of serious regard: “Illud ynb quod hoc versu quater legitur, quater esse legendum wnb filius ejus, docet ipsa per se pagina sacra. Nec aliter legunt omnes Veteres, sed in fine post hynkv addendum wnb filius ejus, quod etiam legebant Veteres, et quod scriba omisit deceptus similitudine ejus ynb quod sequitur initio versus 22.” Houbigant in loco. From these observations Dr. B. concludes that, by an error of the transcriber, Pedaiah is put for Rephaiah or Peraiah, in 1 Chronicles 3:18; whilst in 1 Chronicles 3:21 the proper name Rephaiah is retained; hence those whose names are mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:18, were supposed not to be the sons of Zerubbabel, and so the whole verse in which they were contained was transposed, and put before 1 Chronicles 3:19, where the name of Zerubbabel occurs; and as the last word of this verse, viz. Nedabiah, or hydbn, Nebadiah, according to the Septuagint, (who omitted the word six in this place, and added it to 1 Chronicles 3:22,) contains almost all the letters of the words hydp ynb beni Pedaiah, this word by a mistake of the transcriber, was changed into hyrp ynb beni Peraiah, and thus it was supposed that a mistake in a name twice written was corrected; hence it was that Zerubbabel was called the son of Pedaiah, whose name occurred in the preceding verse. Many examples of similar permutations occur in the sacred writings: see Job 40:1 - 14, which ought to be placed, as both Kennicott and Heath have observed, between what is related, Job 40:2, 6, 7; see also Exodus 30:1, 10; also Job 31:38 - 40, which should follow Job 31:25. A similar transposition may be seen 1 Chronicles 9:2, 17, where the whole clause appears to be taken from Nehemiah 9:2, 19. Many other instances appear in Kennicott’s Dissertations on the state of the printed Hebrew text. Dr. Barrett, having thus far made his way plain, proceeds to lay down a table of the regal line, taken from 1 Chronicles 3:17 - 24, on each side of which he places the genealogy as given by the Evangelists St. Matthew and St. Luke, that the general agreement may be the more easily discerned.

Matthew, chap. 1. 1 Chron. chap. 3. Luke, chap. 3.

Salathiel Salathiel Salathiel

Zerubbabel Zerubbabel Zerubbabel

First generation omitted

Rephaiah Rhesa

Another generation omitted

Arnan, or Onan Joanna or Jonan

Abiud Obadiah Juda

Eliakim Shechaniah Joseph or Josech

A third generation omitted

Shemaiah Semei

No corresponding generation

Mattathias

No corresponding generation

Maath

Fourth generation omitted Neariah Nagge

Azor who is also Azriam who is

Elioenai

Esli (from whom descended Mary)

From the above descends

Joseph who espoused Mary

Joanan Joanam Naum or Anum.

Dr. Barrett then proceeds to lay down the two following propositions. I. That Salathiel in Matthew is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chronicles 3:17. This admits of no doubt, and therefore he despatches it in a single sentence: both were descended from David through the same ancestors; both lived at the same time, viz. of the captivity; and both were born of the same father.

II. That Salathiel in Luke is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chronicles 3:17, the same as in Matthew 1:12, and consequently that Mary the mother of Jesus, descending from Salathiel in Luke, descends lineally from David by Solomon, - a matter of vast consequence according to the opinion of Calvin, who asserts, “If Christ has not descended from Solomon, he cannot be the Messiah.” Having taken for granted that Salathiel in Matthew is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chronicles 3:17, he proceeds to deduce the following consequences from his hypothesis.

1. Zerubbabel in 1 Chronicles 3:19 is the same with Zerubbabel in Luke; they agree in name, the time also is the same, and they had the same father.

2. Rephaiah in 1 Chronicles 3:21 is the same with Rhesa in Luke, where a notable coincidence occurs in the names.

3. Arnan in 1 Chronicles 3:21 is the same with Joanna in Luke; and here it is worthy of notice, that in one of Kennicott’s MSS. the name was originally written ˆnwa Onan, a w vau being used instead of a r resh. It is well known that the MSS. in Luke write the name in great diversity of forms, viz. Ianna, Iwanan, Iwnam, Iwnna, Iwna, and some Iwnan between which and Onan there is but little difference.

4. Obadiah in 1 Chronicles 3:21 is the same as Juda in Luke. In this name may be found that of Abiud mentioned Matthew 1:13, who is the third from Zerubbabel; whence it is evident that in St. Matthew two generations are omitted. The MSS. in St. Luke also vary considerably in the name; some write it Iwada, which answers to the Hebrew Joida, or even hydb[ Obadiah. Obadiah was one of the priests who signed and sealed the same covenant, Nehemiah 10:5, and seems to be the same with Iddo, Nehemiah 12:4, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Newton, Chronol. p. 361.

5. Shechaniah in 1 Chronicles 3:21 is the same with Joseph. or Osech, between which names there is a considerable similitude.

6. Shemaiah in 1 Chronicles 3:22 is the same with Semei in Luke. In this place the names perfectly agree. Thus, through six successive generations in the same line, the names either perfectly agree, or are manifestly similar; each preserving the same order. Hence it may be legitimately concluded, that the preceding hypothesis is perfectly correct; and that Salathiel in Luke is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chronicles 3:17, especially when we consider that the time which elapsed between David and Christ was nearly bisected by the captivity; so that the number of generations between them was divided into two almost equal parts by Salathiel. The two generations which occur after Semei in Luke, Mattathias and Maath, of which no trace is found in 1 Chronicles 3:17 - 24, are already rejected from the text of Luke, as interpolations, according to the proofs advanced in Dr. Barrett’s second section. Immediately after Shemaiah, the writer of 1 Chronicles 3:22, 23 subjoins Neariah, in which Dr. B. supposes he has found the person called Nagge in Luke 3:25, as he thinks the names do not differ widely, for the LXX. whom Luke generally follows, often express the Hebrew [ ain, by the Greek g gamma; and even in this chapter, for the w[r of the Hebrew text, they write JRagau.

To this Neariah, says Dr. B., the book of Chronicles gives three children: in Azrikam, the first of these, we discover the Azor of St. Matthew, the son of Eliakim. But, according to the opinion of some critics, Abner should be inserted between Eliakim and Azor, (see Le Clerc in Hammond, vol. 1. p. 6:) or, according to others, between Abiud and Eliakim. (Drusius. Crit. sac. in Matthew) However this may be, Dr. B. thinks he can discover Shechaniah in Eliakim, and either Shemaiah or Neariah in Abner. Another son of Neariah was Elioenai, the same probably which Luke calls Esli or Eslim; nor can they be considered as different persons, though their names in Greek and Hebrew do not perfectly correspond. He thinks also that Elioenai in 1 Chronicles 3:23 and Elisthenan in the LXX. are different, although they certainly may be names of the same person differently written, and signify the same son of Neariah. As Elioenai and Azrikam are different, the same may be said of Esli and Azor; hence the family of Salathiel became branched out into two families, one of which is traced by Matthew, the other by Luke. It is not therefore surprising if the subsequent names, as far as Joseph, should differ, as a different line of descent is described. Luke gives to his Esli a son called Naum or Anum; and in 1 Chronicles 3:24 among the sons of Elioenai, we meet with Joanam, sometimes written Joanan - names which have a considerable similitude to that recorded by Luke.

Having thus fixed the genealogy, by proving that Salathiel in Matthew and Luke is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chronicles 3:17, Dr. Barrett proceeds to inquire whether chronology will support him in the times of those generations, the correlative succession of which he has endeavoured to ascertain. In the year 445 B.C. Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem, at which time both Shemaiah the son of Shechaniah, and Rephaiah, who preceded him four generations, were employed in building the walls of the city. At this time, therefore, Shemaiah must have been very young, Dr. B. supposes about twenty years old; he also considers that each of the generations consist of the same number of years; that Rephaiah must consequently be about a hundred years old to have been born in the year before Christ 545; his father Zerubbabel to have been born about the year 570; and Salathiel in 590, or 595: there is consequently no place for the suppositious Pedaiah, because Jechonias had not at that time begotten Salathiel, Matthew 1:12, as he was not led away captive till the year

599. Shemaiah, above mentioned, had a brother called Hattush, the son of Shechaniah, who is mentioned Ezra 8:2, 3, and 1 Esdras 8:29, as returning to Jerusalem with Ezra; and as Shemaiah had more sons, the last but one of whom was Neariah, this Neariah may be considered as having been born in 420, when Shemaiah was about forty - five years old. We may also suppose, says Dr. B., that in the fortieth year of Neariah, or before Christ 380, Elioenai the youngest son was born. Now as Elioenai begat several sons, the youngest of whom was Joanam or Naum, it will not appear improbable, if we consider Naum to have been begotten in the year 340, or the fortieth year of Elioenai. The line of Naum is carried no farther in the book of Chronicles, whence we may suppose he had reared no children in the time of Simon, surnamed the Just, who was high priest from 242 to 283, and is thought to have put the finishing hand to this book. It is probable, therefore, that Naum begot Amos in 290, when he himself was in the fiftieth year of his age. After Amos, let thirty years be computed for each generation, or a hundred years for three, and the dates of these generations will appear as under: -

MATTHEW. LUKE. A. a. C.

Azor born before Christ, 380 Elioenai, or Esli, born 380

A generation omitted Naum 340

Another generation omitted Amos 290

Sadoc Mattathias 260

Achim Joseph 230

Eliud Janna 200

Eleazar Melchi 165

Matthan Levi 130

Jacob Matthat 100

Joseph the husband of Mary Heli 65

Mary the mother of Christ 25

Dr. B. now proceeds to inquire, whether by the proposition it appears that Salathiel in Luke, and Salathiel in 1 Chronicles 3:17, are the same person, provided the generations be traced up to David. This inquiry he acknowledges is pressed with many and great difficulties; and the utmost that can be expected from it is to show that the objections advanced against it are destitute of force.

Matthew states that Jechonias was the father of Salathiel; but Luke says that Neri was his father. These two accounts, however, may be reconciled by the hypothesis, that Neri was the maternal grandfather of Salathiel, and hence, according to the custom of the Hebrews, put down for his father; so we read, Ezra 2:61: Who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai, and was called after their name. The truth of this hypothesis is next examined. It is a received opinion among the Jews, that Susanna was wife of Jechonias, and mother of Salathiel, which is confirmed by Blblioth. Clement. Vatic. tom. 1. page 490, where it is said “that Joachim, the husband of Susanna, was supposed to have been the king whom Nebuchadnezzar shut up in prison, whence he was liberated, on the death of that monarch, by his son and successor, Evil - merodach. Of Susanna was born Salathiel: because he was of the regal line, the elders of the people sat in judgment in his house, as in the palace of the king.” That Susanna was nearly allied to the throne will be readily credited, if it is considered that, when she came to the tribunal, she was accompanied by fifty servants: (see the Septuag. version of Daniel, fol. Romae, 1772:) this was a proof of the regal state; for when Absalom and Adonijah affected the throne, they prepared fifty men to run before them, ( 2 Samuel 15:1; 1 Kings 1:5.) The Jews also affirm that she was of the tribe of Judah. Dr. B. next inquires into the genealogy of Neri, whom he supposes to be the same with Neriah, mentioned so frequently by Jeremiah, Jeremiah 32:12, 16; 36:4, 8, 14, 32; 43:3, 6; 45:1; 51:59, and who was the father of Baruch and Seraiah. Baruch was certainly of an illustrious family, as we learn from Josephus, (Ant. 10:11,) who calls him the son of Neri. This Dr. B. farther establishes by the following considerations: 1. The title of prince is given to his brother Seraiah, Jeremiah 51:59. 2. When the Jews were conquered by the Chaldeans, Johanan, the son of Kareah, took the remnant of Judah, and all the nobility and persons of distinction, and carried them down into Egypt; and among these were Jeremiah the prophet, and Baruch the son of Neriah, Jeremiah 43:5 - 7. 3. The words of Jeremiah 45:4, 5: “The Lord saith, Behold that which I have built I will break down, and that which I have planted will I pluck up; and seekest thou great things for thyself? seek them not, for I bring evil upon all flesh, &c.” Here it is evident the threatening is directed against the house of David; ( 2 Samuel 7:16; 1 Chronicles 17:25;) and the great things which Baruch sought for himself were certainly a share in the government of the land, as being nearly allied to the throne, or even the throne itself. 4. Add to this, that the Jews alleged as a charge against Baruch, that, by his instigation, Jeremiah exhorted them rather to continue under the power of the Chaldeans than escape to Egypt, Jeremiah 43:3, which seems strongly to intimate that he expected to exercise the regal power over the remaining Jews by the assistance of the Chaldeans, which he could not expect to maintain in Egypt. From all these considerations, Dr. B. infers that Baruch, and consequently Neriah, sprang from Nathan, the son of David.

As nothing is related of the ancestors of Neriah, Dr. B. is obliged to recur to conjectures; the chief of which are the following. “Maaseiah or Melchi, the father of Neriah, was probably the same who, during the reign of Josiah, was governor of the city, 2 Chronicles 34:8, whom the Syriac calls the scribe, and the Arabic the teacher of the city. Probably also, Simeon, the son of Juda, (Luke 3:30,) is the same as is called Maaseiah, the son of Adaiah, 2 Chronicles 23:1. Simeon and Maaseiah (Dr. B. observes) are written in nearly the same letters, and differ scarcely, except in their situation. As to the names of Adaiah and Juda, the difference is nearly the same with that already observed between Obadiah and Juda, Luke 3:26.” That the names in the Old Testament have been extremely corrupted, not only in the different translations through which the Sacred Writings have passed, but also in various copies of the original, is well known to every Biblical critic, and has been continually deplored, from the days of St. Jerome, to the present hour. The complaint of this father, in his comment on Ezekiel 40:7, is as follows: Statim mensus est limen portoe quod LXX. qee nominant, pro quo in Hebraeo scriptum est ãcalm Seph: et diligentem et studiosum lectorem admonendum puto - ut sciat omnia prope verba Hebraica et nomina quae in Graeca et Latina translatione sunt posita, nimia vetustate corrupta scriptorumque vitio depravata, et dum de inemendatis scribuntur inemendatiora, de verbis Hebraicis facta esse sarmatica, imo nullius gentis, dum et Hebraea esse desicrint, et aliena esse non caeperint. HIERON. Opera, vol. 3. col. 981. edit. Martinay.

Dr. B. thinks that, if the above hypothesis be allowed as probable, it will follow that the family of Nathan was concealed in an humble and obscure situation, until almost the whole of the race of Solomon was destroyed by the treachery of Athaliah. Maaseiah or Simeon, the prince of this family, fearing a similar destruction, and being moved with pity towards his relative Joash, and having, by the assistance of Jehoiada the priest, removed Athaliah out of the way, set Joash at last on the throne, according to the particular account in 2 Chronicles 22:10 - 23:15. From that time, the wealth and dignity of this family increased, till the whole line of Solomon becoming extinct, Jechonias, his only remaining heir, took Susanna, the daughter of Neriah, to wife: to which circumstance, Dr. B. thinks the author of Psalm 132:17, probably alludes: “There will I make the horn of David to bud: I have ordained a lamp (that is, Neri) for mine anointed.” Here Dr. B. plays a little on the original word rn ner, a lamp; and as yrn Neri signifies my lamp, and hyrn Neriah, the lamp of the Lord, he seems to think this a prophetical declaration of the preservation of the seed royal in the person of Neriah, the direct ancestor of Christ. Supposing this hypothesis to be true, Dr. B. constructs his genealogical table in the following manner, beginning at the division of the line of Solomon, and omitting Melea and Mainan, for reasons that have been already assigned.

1 SOLOMON. 1 NATHAN.

2 Rehoboam 2 Mattatha

3 Abiah 3 Eliakim

4 Asa 4 Jonan

5 Jehosaphat 5 Joseph

6 Jehoram 6 Juda or Adaiah

7 Ahaziah 7 Simeon or Maaseiah

8 Joash 8 Levi

9 Amaziah 9 Matthat

10 Uzziah 10 Jorim

11 Jotham 11 Eliezer

12 Ahaz 12 Jose

13 Hezekiah 13 Er

14 Manasses 14 Elmodam

15 Amon 15 Cosam

16 Josias 16 Addi

17 Jehoiakim 17 Melchi or Maaseias

18 Jehoiachin or Jechonias 18 Neri

19 Susanna

On the ancestors of Mary, and the consanguinity between her and Joseph, Dr. B. shows that the virgin descended, not from the tribe of Levi, (an opinion which some of the ancients embraced,) but from the family of David; and brings several additional arguments to prove that St. Luke’s professed object was to trace out the genealogy of Mary, and St. Matthew’s that of Joseph.

According to the universal voice of antiquity, the father and the mother of the virgin were called Joachim and Anna. Dr. B. thinks it indisputable, that Joachim is the same name with Eli, Luke 3:23, or Eliakim, 2 Chronicles 36:4. To give a greater probability to the opinion that Luke delivers the genealogy of Mary, Dr. B. refers to those Jewish writings, quoted by Lightfoot, in which the mother of our Lord is called yl[ tb µyrm: Mary the daughter of Eli; and though the latter word is written yl[ instead of yla this does not, in his opinion, tend to invalidate the argument, as a and [ are frequently interchanged. It may therefore be taken for granted that Eli was the father of Mary, and maternal grandfather of Christ, and that he is considered by St. Luke as the real father of Christ, while Joseph is only the putative father; and thus, Dr. B. thinks, his own exposition is not only confirmed, but Luke is represented to be consistent with himself through the whole of his account: for in the same way as Neri is said to be the father of Salathiel, though it is evident he was no more than the maternal grandfather, so Eli would appear to be the maternal grandfather of Christ, although he is called his father. On the contrary, if the hypothesis of Africanus be adopted, the genealogy by St. Luke is self - contradictory. Dr. B. next takes into consideration the family of Anna, the mother of Mary. It is generally agreed, that the father of Anna was named Matthan: who this person was, is not easy to be known. Some suppose him to have been a priest; and as it was lawful for the daughters of the priests to marry into any tribe (Leviticus 22:12) we may perceive how Mary could be the cousin (suggenhv) of Elisabeth, who was really of the tribe of Levi,) though her father Joachim, or Eli, was a descendant of the tribe of Judah.

From considering the family of Anna, the Virgin’s mother, Dr. B. proceeds to the family of Joachim; but, in this examination, he finds very few documents to guide his inquiries. Ancient writers, in order to prove that Mary sprang from David, invented two names, Panther and Barpanther, as the grandfather and father of Joachim. Concerning this fabulous Panther, there are two hypotheses: one is, that Panther was the surname of Jacob, the father of Joseph; and this was the opinion of Epiphanius. Others have maintained that he was of the family of Nathan, and brother of Melchi: this hypothesis is delivered by Damascenus, who appears to have found it in Epiphanius. Leaving all these precarious and forged authorities, Dr. B. thinks that the family of Joachim is more likely to be ascertained, by inquiring among the brethren of our Lord, mentioned Matthew 13:55, and Mark 6:3, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas. Concerning these, there have been two opinions: 1. That they were the sons of Joseph by a former wife, which Origen, Epiphanius, and Theophylact seem to have believed, and Jerome has opposed with considerable asperity. (See his books Deuteronomy viris illustribus et adversus Helvidium.) Jerome’s hypothesis, on the contrary, is, that James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, were cousins of our Lord, being the sons of Mary, the wife of Alpheus, and sister to the virgin, who is called maria h tou klwpa, John 19:25. Dr. B. asserts, after Baronius and others, that James the Just, the first bishop of the Church at Jerusalem, was the same who is called the brother of our Lord, and the son of Alpheus.

Concerning Cleopas, or Klopas, there are various opinions, both among ancient and modern writers. Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccl. 50. 3. c. 2,) calls him the brother of Joseph. Epiphanius, on the contrary, calls him the brother of Joachim: Chrysostom is of the same opinion. Others make Cleopas and Alpheus the same person: and Grotius, following the Arabic version, understands by h tou klwpa, the daughter, not the wife, of Cleopas. Calmet, in his comment on John 19:25, gives it as the most plausible opinion, that Cleopas was husband of that Mary who was sister to the blessed virgin, and father of James the less. Dr. B. thinks that these apparently discordant systems may be harmonized by the following scheme:—

By this hypothesis it would appear that there were two persons of the name of Cleopas, one the brother of Joachim, the other the brother of Joseph; one the legal father, the other the husband of Mary. Hence James and the others are properly termed the brethren of our Lord, being connected with him by a twofold tie of consanguinity - on their mother’s side, and on the side of their putative father. Secondly, By this hypothesis, the difficulty of regarding these four brothers as the sons of Joseph is quite removed: if this indeed were true, they would not be the sons of Mary, tou klwpa, for Joseph would then have been the husband of the two sisters, contrary to the law, Leviticus 18:18. Cleopas or Alpheus, according to Grotius and Lucas Brugensis, is the same with klwpa, (John 19:25,) who was alive when Christ was crucified. Hence it is improbable that James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, could have been born of his wife, by any marriage of her with Joseph, We have already seen from Hegesippus, that the grandchildren of this very Jude, who was called our Lord’s brother, were alive in the time of Domitian: he expressly says, that “Simon, the son of Cleopas, who was uncle to our Lord, was crucified in the 120th year of his age, under the reign of Trajan, when Atticus, of the consular order, was president of Syria.” See Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 50. 3. c. 32. Simon must therefore have been born before Christ, for Trajan, in whose reign he suffered, died A.D. 117. If therefore Joseph had ever married Mary tou klwpa, it must have been before he espoused the mother of our Lord: and then, as both these sisters were alive at the crucifixion, (John 19:25,) he must have been illicitly the husband of both at the same time. Dr. Barrett having thus finished his laborious investigation of this difficult subject, concludes his work by observing, that his prime object was to prove, by the agreement of the evangelists, that Christ descended from David by the line of Solomon; that on this subject he has not assumed that the explanation given of one or other of these genealogies is the true one, and that the other should be corrected according to it; but that, in the first place, he has considered the number of the generations, and then, by assistance derived from the books of the Old Testament, the rules of sound and temperate criticism, and the collation of MSS., has constructed a genealogical table of the family of David; (see the preceding leaf;) and having compared with this table the genealogies extant in the evangelists, he finds that they agree with it in the main, and consequently that they agree with each other. It cannot be objected against his argument, that he takes for granted what he should have proved, viz. that one or other of the genealogies is true; this he has not asserted, but he infers that both are authentic, from their agreement with that which he has constructed from the best existing authorities: and although he considers the hypothesis of the moderns, which states that Luke sets down the genealogy of Mary, to be the most probable, yet he has not assumed it as true; neither do his conclusions against the hypothesis of Africanus, in the second and third sections, rest on such assumption, but solely on the authority of the Old Testament and a collation of MSS. unconnected with any hypothesis whatever.

All subjects of this kind, both in sacred and profane history, are entangled with difficulties peculiar to themselves, partly through the remoteness of the times to which they refer, and partly through the peculiar manners that prevailed in different nations of reckoning and recording their genealogical successions. I may venture to affirm that similar difficulties, and even greater, are to be found in profane histories of the first importance; the general accuracy and universal authenticity of which, no man who regards his credit will ever call into question.

Dr. B. has certainly proved his main points without recurring to the discreditable shifts which some will adopt, who cut the knots they cannot untie, and because they find it impracticable to reconcile certain seeming difficulties in the sacred history, first affect so doubt the authenticity of those histories, and, afterwards put forth their criminal hands, and lop off whole branches from the tree of life. - a text is too small a portion; difficulties (to them) still remain; another text must follow, and another still, till at last whole chapters are tossed away into the limbo of vanity. Then, to be sure, all is fair and clear; for by this species of criticism any thing may be proved or denied: but God never appointed such a method to discover truth, and sound criticism should hold it disgraceful to resort to it. I have said that the peculiar manner used by some of the eastern nations in recording their genealogies, is one cause of their present obscurity on this subject, the late ingenious Mr. Harmer refers to a case in point, which I shall give in his own words:—

“Genealogical tables were kept among the Jews with great exactness. Every person of learning, however, knows that the great difference in this point between St. Matthew and St. Luke, who have each of them given us a genealogy of our Lord, has greatly embarrassed the curious, and did so early; (see Aug. Retract. 50. 2. c. 7 ;) but as in other cases, what was at first thought an objection against the sacred writer has turned out in his favour, so doubly will this, when it shall be thoroughly cleared up. Time may perhaps do it: all I would attempt to show here is, that there has been lately discovered an inscription at Palmyra, which has just the same difficulty. He that clears up the Syrian difficulty will, I presume, clear up the sacred. To which I would add, that it is to be remembered, that Palmyra was in the neighbourhood of Judea, and the inscriptions that are found there are about the apostolic age. As to the inscription I refer to Mr. Wood, the ingenious editor of those ruins, who has observed, that it was more difficult to understand than translate it. This, says he, will appear by rendering it literally, which is easiest done into Latin, thus: Senatus populusque Alialamenem, Pani filium, Mocimi nepotem, AEranis pronepotem, Mathae abnepotem, et AEranem patrem ejust viros pios et patriae amicos, et omni modo placentes patriae patriisque diis, honoris gratia. Anno 450, Mense Aprili. Our difficulty is, continues he, that AEranes is called the father of Alialamenes, who is himself called the son of Panus, just in the same manner as St. Matthew tells us that Jacob begat Joseph; and St. Luke calls Joseph, the son of Heli. There is something without doubt in these affairs peculiar to the east, which, however unknown to us, was common to the Jews and the people of Palmyra; and will, when properly explained, be a proof of the authenticity of these genealogies, instead of an objection.” HARMER’S Observations. To several of my readers it will probably appear that Dr. B. has carried his critical conjectures too far, particularly is respect of several names which occur in these genealogies. Those only will make this objection, who, from a want of acquaintance with ancient MSS., suppose that those names, as they occur in our present copies, are to be considered as invariably genuine and original. But the specimen I have already given, in the preceding sheet, of the different reading of the same name in ancient MSS. will serve to remove this misapprehension. From a very particular acquaintance with this subject, I think I have sufficient ground to state, that, through the ignorance and carelessness of transcribers innumerable mistakes have been made in ancient names. These also have suffered very greatly in their translation from one language to another, till at last the original name is almost totally lost. Examples might be multiplied without end; a very few will suffice: the [vwhy Yehoshua (according to the Masoretic punctuation) of the Hebrew Bible, is changed into Joshua and Jesus; why[vy Yeshayahoo into Isaiah and Esaias; whyla Eliyahoo into Elijah and Elias: the Persian Darab into Darius; Ardsheer into Ahasuerus; Artachshasta into Artaxerxes, and even Darius; and ˆnjhy Yahchanan into iwannhv, Johannes, and John! Besides, neither the Greeks nor Romans could pronounce either the Hebrew or Persian names; and when engaged in the task of transcribing, they did it according to their own manner of pronunciation. It is notorious that all the Greek and Latin historians have committed innumerable blunders of this kind, in their accounts of foreign nations. St. Jerome loudly complains of the ridicule which those Christians, who were accustomed only to a Greek or Latin mode of pronunciation, endured continually from the Jews, because they could not pronounce the Hebrew proper names, particularly the gutturals: “Solent, (says he,) irridere nos imperitiae maxime in aspirationibus & quibusdam cum rasura gulae litteris proferendis; - si igitur a nobis haec nominum & linguae idiomata ut videlicet barbara non ita fuerint expressa ut exprimuntur ab Hebraeis, solent cachinnum attollere, et jurare se penitus nescire quod dicimus.” Com. in Epist. ad. Tit. c. 3. 5:9. This learned father excuses himself and his brethren, on the consideration, that the Hebrews had both sounds and letters which were wholly unknown to the Greeks and Latins; and particularly instances j cheth, and [ ayin, the double aspiration of which (as he terms it) the Septuagint not being able to express, were obliged to represent by the use of additional letters, quia cum duplici aspiratione in Graecam linguam transferre non poterant, aliis litteris additis expresserunt: he adds, that, whereas the Greeks and Romans had only one s, the Hebrews had three, s samech, x sade, and c sin, each of which had a different sound. (Ubi supra.) From these examples, the reader will see the indubitable evidence of corruption in many proper names, and the great probability of it in others.

On the whole of this genealogy, a pious writer makes the following reflections:—

Jesus, the author and principle of the new creation, and the repairer of the world, disdains not to be reckoned among ordinary creatures, and among the children of sinful Adam. He designed hereby to secure us from having the least doubt of his human nature; and to assure us that we have a victim, a saviour, and a high priest, capable of compassionating our infirmities and miseries, and making atonement for our sins; and thus reconciling us to God. Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift!