Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of

Dr. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary, has devoted much attention to this subject, and his conclusions appear so satisfactory, that I shall here lay them before the reader.

1. “ Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph." This phrase is used by Herodotus, to signify one who was only reputed to be the son of a particular person, TOÚTOV mais vouixeral, “ He was supposed to be this man's son."

2. Much learned labour has been used to reconcile this genealogy with that of St. Matthew, chap. i. and there are several ways of doing it: the following, which appears to me to be the best, is also the most simple and easy.

3. Matthew, in descending from Abraham to Joseph the spouse of the blessed Virgin, speaks of sons properly such by way of natural generation : Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, &c. But Luke, in ascending from the Saviour of the world to God himself, speaks of sons either properly or improperly such ; on that account he uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons putatively or really such. “ And Jesus began to be about thirty years of age, being as was supposed the son of Joseph-of Heli --of Matthat," &c. This receives considerable support from Raphelius's method of reading the original, Dv (@c #vouiero vioc Isolo) Toũ 'Hai, “ being, (when reputed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli,” &c. That St. Luke does not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person whom he names : Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary; and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After this observation, it is next necessary to consider that, in the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons-in-law, instead of two sons.

4. As the Hebrews never permitted the names of women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband as the son of him, who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, Bishop Pearce has fully shewn, vouileodai bears, in a variety of places. Jesus was “considered according to law," or " allowed custom,” to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli.

5. The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy are Joseph the son-in-law of Heli, whose own father was Jacob, Matt. i. 16.; and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias, i Chron. iii. 17. and Matt. i. 12. this remark alone is sufficient to remove every difficulty. Thus, it appears, that Joseph, the son of Jacob, according to St. Matthew, was sonin-law of Heli, according to St. Luke. And Salathiel, son of Jechonias, according to the former, was son-in-law of Neri, according to the latter.

6. Mary, therefore, appears to have been the daughter of Heli, so called by abbreviation for Heliachim, which is the same in Hebrew as Joachim.

7. Joseph son of Jacob, and Mary daughter of Heli, were of the same family: both came from Zerobabel; Joseph from Abiud, his eldest son, Matt. i. 13. and Mary by Rhesa, the youngest. See ver. 27.

8. Salathiel and Zerobabel, from whom St. Matthew and St. Luke cause Christ to proceed, were themselves descended from Solomon in a right line : and though St. Luke says that Salathiel was the son of Neri, who was de

Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

scended from Nathan, Solomon's eldest brother, 1 Chron. iii. 5. this is only to be understood of his having espoused Nathan's daughter ; and that Neri dying probably without male issue, the two branches of the family of David, that of Nathan and Solomon, were both united in the person of Zerobabel, by the marriage of Salathiel, chief of the regal family of Solomon, with the daughter of Neri, chief and heretrix of the family of Nathan. So that Jesus, the son of Mary, re-united in himself, all the blood, privileges, and rights, of the whole family of David, in consequence of which He is emphatically called, the Son of David, It is worthy of remark, that Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, carries his genealogy to Abraham, through whom the promise of the Messiah was given to the Jews : but St. Luke, who wrote for the Gentiles, ex tends his genealogy to Adam, to whom the promise of the Saviour was in behalf of all his posterity.

v. 36. The insertion of the word Cainan has occasioned much difficulty ; as Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, and father of Sala, is not found in any other Scripture genealogy. The best solution, because it does not violate the text, is that Cainan was a surname of Sala, and that the names should be read together, thus the son of Heber—the son of Sala Cainan-the son of Arphaxad.

The opinion of Africanus, long received by the Church, as the only legitimate mode of reconciling these difficulties, is as follows.

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 successively married the same wife, the latter begat children, who were brethren by the mother. Matthan, descending from Solomon, begat Jacob of Estha. After the death of Matthan, Melchi, who descended from Nathan, being of the same tribe, but of another race, took his widow to wife, and begat Heli : thus Jacob and Heli were brethren by the mother. Heli dying without issue, Jacob married bis widow, and begat Joseph, who, by law, was accounted the son of Heli; because the law required the seed to be raised up to the deceased brother. Matthew therefore says, very properly, Jacob

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son

begat Joseph, but Luke says Joseph was the son of Heli; and, it is worthy of remark, that St. Luke does not use the term begot or begetting, but traces this genealogy by putative, and not by natural sons.

The late learned Dr. Barrett has studied this difficult subject with the deepest attention, and by a new line of argument has reconciled the apparent discrepancies of the two genealogies. After examining the hypothesis of Africanus, he rejects it on the principle that it refers wholly to the descent of Joseph from David, without proving that the son of Mary was the son of David.

Dr. Barrett then states his own solution, viz. that Matthew relates the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. Hence it appears probable, that, after Matthew had given his genealogy to the world, another should be added by Luke, to prove that Christ was fully descended from David, not only by his supposed father Joseph, but by his real mother Mary. Those who agree in this opinion may be divided into two classes. 1. Those who affirm, that the families of Solomon and Nathan met in Salathiel and Zerobabel, and afterwards divaricated, till reunited in the marriage of Joseph and Mary. 2. Those who assert that Salathiel and Zerobabel were distinct individuals, and that no union took place between the families previous to the marriage of Joseph and Mary. To the latter opinion he objects, as being contradictory to the divine promise, 2 Sam. vii. 7-12-16. for, according to this hypothesis, neither Mary nor Christ were descended from David by Solomon. He therefore proposes to support the other hypothesis, and to clear away its difficulties. As Irenæus, Africanus, and Ambrosius, assert that Luke has some names interpolated ; to detect this error, Dr. Barrett 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. He examines these at length, and concludes there have been some interpolations, omissions, and transpositions. To give a satisfactory view of this subject, he introduces a synopsis of the principal various readings of MSS. versions, &c. on Luke ii. 24–31.

From this collation of authorities, after correcting the omissions and interpolations, he concludes with Irenæus, that these generations 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. Matthias. 10. Amos. 11. Naum. 12. Esli. 13. Nagge. 14. Semel. 15. Joseph. 16. Juda 17. Joanna. 18. Rhesa. 19. Zerobabel. 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. 83. Juda. 34. Joseph. 35. Jonan. 36. Eliakim. 37. Mattatha. 38. Nathan. 39. David. 40. Jesse. 41. Obed. 42. Booz. 43. Salmon. 44. Naasson. 45. Aminadab. 46. Aram. 47. Esrom. 48. Pharez. 49. Juda. 50. Jacob. 51. Isaac. 52. Abraham. 53. Terah. 54. Nahor. 55. Serug. 56. Ragau. 57. Peleg. 58. Eber. 59. Sala. 60. Ca. naan. 61. Arphaxad. 62. Shem. 63. Noah. 64. Lamech. 65. Methusaleh. 66. Enoch. 67, Jared. 68. Mahalaleel. 69. Canaan. 70. Enos. 71. Seth. 72. Adam.

From the generations thus laid down, there will be found fifty-one names

of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

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 was in fact born 1085 B.C. whence there appears an error of fifty-five years, or about the twentieth part of the time, in so many generations. But according to the received text of Luke, Salachiel must be born B.C. 630, and David 1260 ; this would be an error of 175 years, or a fifth part of the whole interval.

Dr. Barrett endeavours to solve the principal difficulty by adopting the genealogy of David, as delivered 1 Chron. iii. In this chapter, and in the Book of Kings, the whole is laid down in the most accurate manner, till the reign of Jechonias, after which he supposes some errors have been admitted into the text, on account of many inconsistencies, chronological difficulties, and various readings, which he enumerates.

From these considerations it appears, that those who are mentioned i Chron. iii. 18. were neither the sons of Jechoniah, nor of Salathiel, and consequently were the sons of Zerubbabel, as he has satisfactorily proved—that Pedaiah, or Peraiah, is the same who, in verse 21, is called Rephaiah, who is mentioned Nehemiah iii. 9. and that Jechamiah is the same as Joachim, who, according to Esdras v. 5. was the son of ZerubbabelBoth these names, Pedaiah or Peraiah, and Jechamiah, occur 1 Chron. iii. 18. consequently a verse is transposed; a thing not unfrequent in the sacred writings. He therefore contends that the text of 1 Chron. iii. 18—22. should be read in the following order :

Verse 18. And the sons of Salathiel, Zerubbabel, and Shimei; and the sons of Zerubbabel, Meshullam, Hannaniah, and Shelomith their sister.

Ver. 19. Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushab-hesed.

Ver. 20. And Malchiram, and Rephaiah, and Shenar, Jechamiah, Hoshamah, and Nedabiah ; six.

Ver. 21. And the sons of Hananiah, Pelatiah, and Jesaiah ; the sons of Rephaiah ; Arnan his son ; Obadiah his son ; Shechaniah his son; (reading, according to Houbigant, a, beno, for 42, beni.)

Ver. 22. The sons of Shecaniah ; Shemaiah : the sons of Shemaiah; Hattush, and Igeal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and Shaphat; six.

He then shews the propriety of substituting 1a, beno, his son, for 123, beni, sons, in ver. 21. supposing the latter to be corrupted.

Dr. Barrett, having thus far made his way plain, proceeds to lay down a Table of the regal line, taken from 1 Chron. iii. placing on each side the genealogies given by St. Matthew and St. Luke, that the general agreement may be more easily discerned.

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of

Matt. i.
1 Chron. ii.

Luke iii.
Salathiel.
Salathiel.

Salathiel,
Zerubbabel.
Zerubbabel.

Zerubbabel.
First generation omit-
ted.
Rephaiah.

Rhesa.
Another generation
omitted.
Arnan, or Onon.

Joanna, or Jonan.
Abiud.
Obadiah.

Juda.
Eliakim.
Shechaniah.

Joseph, or Josech.
A third generation omit-
ted.
Shemiah.

Semei.
No corresponding ge-
neration.

Mattathias.
No corresponding gelm

neration.
Pourth generation omit-
ted.
Neariah.

Nagge.
Azor, who is also Azrikam, who is Elio- Esli, from whom
From the above de- enai.

scended Mary. scends Joseph, who Joanan Joanam. Naum, or Anum. | espoused Mary. I

Maath.

de

Dr. Barrett then proceeds to lay down the following propositions.

1. That Salathiel in Matthew is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chron. iii. both being descended from David through the same ancestors; both lived at the same time, viz. of the captivity; and both were born of the same father.

II. That Salathiel in Luke is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chron. iii. 17. the same as in Matthew i. and consequently that Mary the mother of Jesus, descending from Salathiel in Luke, descends lineally from David by Solomon, a matter of vast consequence according to the opinion of Calvin, who asserts "if Christ was not descended from Solomon, he cannot be the Messiah.Taking for granted, then, that Salathiel in Matthew is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chron. Dr. Barrett deduces the following consequences from his hypothesis.

1. Zerubbabel in i Chron, is the same with Zerubbabel in Luke: as they agree in name, time, and in having the same father.

2. Rephaiah in 1 Chron, is the same with Rhesa in Luke, where a notable coincidence occurs in the names.

3. Arnan in 1 Chron. is the same Joanna in Luke; which appears probable from the great diversity of forms in which the name is written in ancient MSS.

4. Obadiah in 1 Chron. is the same as Juda in Luke. In this name may be found that of Abiud, mentioned Matt. i. 13. who is the third from Zerubbabel ; whence it is evident, that in St. Matthew two generations are omitted. The MSS. in St. Luke also vary considerably in the name ; some write it Iwaða, which answers to the Hebrew Joida, or even 7773y, Obadiah ; the same as Iddo, who returned with Zerubbabel.

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

6. Shemaiah in 1 Chron. is the same with Semei in Luke. In this place the names perfectly agree. Thus, through six successive generations in the same line, the names either perfectly agree, or are manifestly similar; each preserving the same order. Hence it may be legitimately concluded, that the preced

« AnteriorContinuar »