ministry was three and a half years, then, as before, the year of his birth would be carried back to the autumn of A. u. 748.

Some modern writers, taking into account the abode in Egypt and also the diɛrns," two years," of Matt. 2. 16, have supposed that Jesus must have been from two to three years old at Herod's death; and hence they assume that he was born in A. u. 747. So Sanclemente de vulgaris Æræ emendatione libb. IV. Rom. 1793. fol. Münter Stern der Weisen, &c. The same year, A. U. 747, is also fixed upon as the date of Christ's birth, by those who regard the star in the east as having been the conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn, which occurred in that year. So Keppler, Münter 1. c. Ideler, Handb. der Chronol. Berlin, 1826.

From all these data it would appear, that while our Lord's birth cannot have taken place later than A. U. 749, it may nevertheless have occurred one or two years earlier.

The present Christian era, which was fixed by the abbot Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century, assumes the year of Christ's birth as coincident with A. U. 754. It follows then from the preceding statements, that this our common era begins in any case more than four years too late; that is, from four to five years, at the least, after the actual birth of Christ. This era was first used in historical works by the Venerable Bede, early in the eighth century; and was not long after introduced in public transactions by the Frank kings Pepin and Charlemagne.

In respect to the time of the year when Jesus was born, there is still less certainty. John the Baptist would seem to have entered upon his ministry in the spring; perhaps when the multitudes were collected in Jerusalem at the passover. The crowds which followed him imply that it was not winter. The baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, probably six months later, would then have occurred in autumn. It could not well have been in the winter; nor does a winter seem to have intervened. If now we may assume, as is most probable, that John entered on his office when he had completed his thirtieth year; then the time of his birth was also the spring; and that of our Lord, six months later, was the autumn. Archbishop Newcome, quoting from Lardner, has the following remark: "Jesus was born, says Lardner, between the middle of August and the middle of November, A. U. 748 or 749. We will take the mean time, October 1." See Lardner's Works, vol. i. p. 370, 372. Lond. 1835.-There is, on this point, no valid tradition. According to the earliest accounts, the sixth of January, or Epiphany, was celebrated by the oriental church, in the third and fourth centuries, as the festival of the birth and baptism of Jesus; Cassian. Collat. X. c. 2. In the occidental church, after the middle of the fourth century, the twenty-fifth of December (Christmas) began to be kept as the festival of Christ's nativity; this day having been fixed upon, partly at least, as being the then current winter solstice. Thus, as late as the time of Leo the Great, (who died 461,) there were many in Rome, " by whom this day of solemnity was regarded as honourable, not so much on account of the nativity of Christ, as because of the rising of the new sun, as they call it." Leon. Magn. Serm. XXI. c. 6. The observance of this latter festival (Christmas) spread into the East; while that of the Epiphany, as the baptismal day, was adopted in the West.

See, generally, Lardner's Works, vol. i. Book II. 3. p. 356, sq. Lond. 1835. Gieseler's Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p. 53, Edinburgh, 1846. See also Greswell's Dissert. x. vol. i., where it is ably maintained that April 5, a. u. 750, b. c. 4, is the precise date of our Lord's birth.

NOTE TO § 13.

THE GENEALOGIES.

I. In the genealogy given by Matthew, considered by itself, some difficulties present themselves.

1. There is some diversity among commentators in making out the three divisions, each of fourteen generations, ver. 17. It is, however, obvious, that the first division begins with Abraham and ends with David. But does the second begin with David, or with Solomon? Assuredly with the former; because, just as the first begins from Abraham, so the second also is said to begin from David. The first extends to David, and includes him; the second extends until the carrying away into Babylon, that is, to an epoch, and not to a person; and therefore the persons who are mentioned as coeval with this epoch, about the time of the carrying away (ver. 11), are not reckoned before it. After the epoch the enumeration begins again with Jechoniah, and ends with Jesus. In this way the three divisions are made out thus:

2. Another difficulty arises from the fact, that between Joram and Ozias, in ver. 8, three names of Jewish kings are omitted, namely, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. See 2 Kings 8. 25 and 2 Chr. 22. 1; 2 Kings 11. 2, 21 and 2 Chr. 22. 11; 2 Kings 12. 21, 14. 1, and 2 Chr. 24. 27. Further, between Josiah and Jechoniah, in ver. 11, the name of Jehoiakim is also omitted. See 2 Kings 23. 34; 2 Chr. 36. 4. Comp. 1 Chr. 3. 15, 16. If these four names are to be reckoned, then the second division, instead of fourteen generations, will contain eighteen, in contradiction to ver. 17. To avoid this difficulty, Newcome and some others have regarded ver. 17 as a mere gloss, " a marginal note taken into the text." This indeed is in itself possible; yet all the external testimony of manuscripts and versions is in favour of the genuineness of that verse. It is better therefore to regard these names as having been customarily omitted in the current genealogical tables, from which Matthew copied. Such omissions of particular generations did sometimes actually occur, "because they were wicked and impious," according to the Rabbins. See Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Matt. 1. 8. A striking example of an omission of this kind, apparently without any such reason, is found in Ezra 7. 1-5, compared with 1 Chr. 6. 3-15. This latter passage contains the lineal descent of the high priests from Aaron to the captivity; while Ezra, in the place cited, in tracing back his own genealogy through the very same line of descent, omits at least six generations. The two accounts stand thus:

A similar omission is necessarily implied in the genealogy of David, as given Ruth 4. 20-22; 1 Chr. 2. 10-12; Matt. 1. 5, 6. Salmon was contemporary with the capture of Jericho by Joshua, and married Rahab. But from that time until David, an interval of at least four hundred and fifty years (Acts 13. 20), there intervened, according to the list, only four generations, averaging of course more than one hundred years to each. But the highest average in point of fact is three generations to a century; and if reckoned by the eldest sons they are usually shorter, or three generations for every seventy-five or eighty years. See Sir I. Newton's Chronol. p. 53. Lond. 1728.

We may therefore rest in the necessary conclusion, that as our Lord's regular descent from David was always asserted, and was never denied even by the Jews; so Matthew, in tracing this admitted descent, appealed to genealogical tables, which were public and acknowledged in the family and tribe from which Christ sprang. He could not indeed do otherwise. How much stress was laid by the Jews upon lineage in general, and how much care and attention were bestowed upon such tables, is well known. See Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Matt. 1. 1. In the N. T. also, see Phil. 3. 4, 5.

II. Other questions of some difficulty present themselves, when we compare together the two genealogies.

1. Both tables at first view purport to give the lineage of our Lord through Joseph. But Joseph cannot have been the son by natural descent of both Jacob and Heli (Eli), Matt. 1. 16; Luke 3. 23. Only one of the tables therefore can give his true lineage by generation. This is done apparently in that of Matthew; because, beginning at Abraham, it proceeds by natural descent, as we know from history, until after the exile; and then continues on in the same mode of expression until Joseph. Here the phrase is changed; and it is no longer Joseph who "begat" Jesus, but Joseph "the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ."

2. To whom then does the genealogy in Luke chiefly relate? If in any way to Joseph, as the language purports, then it must be because he in some way bore the legal relation of son to Heli, either by adoption or by marriage. If the former simply, it is difficult to comprehend, why, along with his true personal lineage as traced by Matthew up through the royal line of Jewish kings to David, there should be given also another subordinate genealogy, not personally his own, and running back through a different and inferior line to the same great ancestor. If, on the other hand, as is most probable, this relation to Heli came by marriage with his daughter, so that Joseph was truly his son-inlaw (comp. Ruth 1. 8, 11, 12); then it follows, that the genealogy in Luke is in fact that of Mary the mother of Jesus. This being so, we can perceive a sufficient reason why this genealogy should be thus given, viz. in order to show definitely, that Jesus was in the most full and perfect sense a descendant of David; not only by law in the royal line of kings through his reputed father, but also in fact by direct personal descent through his mother.

That Mary, like Joseph, was a descendant of David, is not perhaps expressly said in the New Testament. Yet a very strong presumption to that effect is to be drawn from Luke 1. 27 (see the Note on §3), and from the address of the angel in Luke 1. 32; as also from the language of Luke 2. 5, where Joseph, as one of the posterity of David, is said to have gone up to Bethlehem, to enrol himself with Mary his espoused wife, for this is the meaning of the Greek. The ground and circumstances of Mary's enrolment must obviously have been the same as in the case of Joseph himself. Whether all this arose from her having been an only child and heiress, as some suppose, so that she was espoused to Joseph in accordance with Num. 36. 8, 9, it is not necessary here to inquire. It is indeed objected, that it was not customary among the Jews to trace back descent through the female line, that is, on the mother's side. There are however examples to show that this was sometimes done; and in the case of Jesus, as we have seen, there was a sufficient reason for it. Thus in 1 Chr. 2. 22, Jair is enumerated among the posterity of Judah by regular descent. But the grandfather of Jair had married the daughter of Machir, one of the heads of Manasseh, 1 Chr. 2. 21; 7. 14; and therefore, in Num. 32. 40, 41, Jair is called the son (descendant) of Manasseh. In like manner, in Ezra 2. 61, and Neh. 7. 63, a certain family is spoken of as "the children of Barzillai ;" because their ancestor "took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name."

3. A question is raised as to the identity, in the two genealogies, of the Salathiel and Zorobabel named as father and son, Matt. 1.12; Luke 3. 27. The Zorobabel of Matthew is no doubt the chief, who led back the first band of captives from Babylon, and rebuilt the temple, Ezra c. 2.-6. He is also called the son of Salathiel in Ezra 3. 2'; Neh. 12. 1; Hag. 1.1; 2. 2, 23. Were then the Salathiel and Zorobabel of Luke the same persons? Those who assume this must rest solely on the identity of the names; for there is no other possible evidence to prove, either that they were contemporary, or that they were not different persons. On the other hand, there are one or two considerations, of some force, which go to show that they were probably not the same persons.

First, if Salathiel and Zorobabel are indeed the same in both genealogies, then Salathiel, who according to Matthew was the son of Jechoniah by natural descent, must have been called the son of Neri in Luke either from adoption or marriage. In that case, his connexion with David through Nathan, as given by Luke, was not his own personal genealogy. It is difficult therefore to see, why Luke, after tracing back the descent of Jesus to Salathiel, should abandon the true personal lineage in the royal line of kings, and turn aside again to a merely collateral and humbler line. If the mother of Jesus was in fact descended from the Zorobabel and Salathiel of Matthew, she, like them, was descended also from David through the royal line. Why rob her of this dignity, and ascribe to her only a descent through an inferior lineage?

Again, the mere identity of names under these circumstances affords no proof; for

nothing is more common in Scripture, even among contemporaries. Thus we have two Ezras; one in Neh. 12. 1, 13, 33; from whom Ezra the scribe is expressly distinguished in ver. 36. We have likewise two Nehemiahs; one who went up with Zorobabel, Ezra 2. 3; and the other the governor who went later to Jerusalem, Neh. 2. 9, sq. So too, as contemporaries, Joram son of Ahab king of Israel, and Joram (Jehoram) son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; 2 Kings 8. 16; comp. ver. 23, 24. Also, Joash king of Judah and Joash king of Israel; 2 Kings 13. 9, 10. Further, we find in succession among the descendants of Cain the following names: Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methusael, Lamech, Gen. 4. 17, 18; and later, among the descendants of Seth, these similar ones: Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Gen. 5. 21-25.

Greswell's views on the Genealogies are given in Dissert. ii. vol. ii. Wieseler, whose views generally agree with Robinson's in the above Note, has published an article on the same subject in the Studien und Kritiken for 1845, p. 361.

NOTE TO § 36.

OUR LORD'S SECOND PASSOVER.

On the phrase feast of the Jews (optη Twv 'Iovdaíwv), John 5. 1, turns mainly the question as to the duration of our Lord's public ministry. John notes distinctly three passovers; John 2. 13; 6. 4; 12. 1. If now this feast be another passover, then our Lord's public labours continued during three and a half years; if not, then the time of his ministry must in all probability be reckoned one year less.

The only reasonable ground of doubt in this case, is the absence of the definite article before feast. But, even as the text now stands, it may assuredly in itself just as well denote the great Jewish festival as any other. The following considerations seem to show, that it does most probably thus stand for a passover, viz. the second in our Lord's public ministry.

1. The word feast (oprń) without the article is put definitely for the passover, in the phrase KaTà LoρTýv, Matt. 27. 15; Mark 15. 6; Luke 23. 17. Comp. John 18. 39.

2. In Hebrew a noun before a genitive is made definite by prefixing the article, not to the noun itself, but to the genitive; see Davies's translation of Gesenius's Heb. Gr. § 109. 1. Nordheim. Heb. Gr. II. p. 14. y. This idiom is transferred by the LXX. into Greek; e. g. Deut. 16. 13, ¿оPTηV TŴV OKNVWV TOιýGels σeauty, Heb. i, i. e. the festival of tabernacles. So too in the New Testament; Matt. 12. 24, Ev T BEελ【εBOÙλ åрXOVTI Tov da povíwv, i. e. the prince of demons. Hence, in the passage before us, according to the analogous English idiom, we may render the phrase by the Jews' festival; which marks it definitely as the passover.

3. It is not probable, that John means here to imply that the festival was indefinite or uncertain. Such is not his usual manner. The Jewish festivals were to him the measures of time; and in every other instance they are definitely specified. So the passover, John 2. 23; 12. 1; even when Jesus does not visit it, 6. 4; and also when it is expressed only by the feast, 4. 45; 11. 56; 12. 12, 20, al. So too the festival of tabernacles, 7. 2; and of the dedication, 10. 22. This is all natural in him; for an indefinite festival could afford no note of time.

4. The plucking of the ears of grain by the disciples (§37 and Note), shows that a passover had just been kept; which tallies accurately with this visit of our Lord to Jerusalem.

5. This feast could not have been the festival either of Pentecost or of tabernacles next following our Lord's first passover. He returned from Judea to Galilee not until eight months after that passover, when both these festivals were already past; see Note on § 25.-That it might by possibility have been the Pentecost after a second passover not mentioned, and before that in John 6. 4, cannot perhaps be fully disproved; but such a view has in itself no probability, and is apparently entertained by no one. At any rate, it also would give the same duration of three and a half years to our Lord's ministry.

6. Nor can we well understand here the festival of Purim, which occurred on the fourteenth and fifteenth of the month Adar, or March, one month before the passover; see Esth. 9. 21, 22, 26-28. Against this the following considerations present themselves: (a) The Jews did not go up to Jerusalem to celebrate the festival of Purim. The observance of it among that people throughout the world consisted solely in reading the Book of Esther in their synagogues on those days, and making them "days of feasting

and joy and of sending portions [dishes] one to another and gifts to the poor;" Esth. 9. 22. Jos. Ant. 11. 6. 13. Reland, Antiqq. Heb. IV. 9. But the "multitude," John 5. 13, seems to imply a concourse of strangers at one of the great festivals.-(b) It is very improbable, that Jesus would have gone up to Jerusalem at the Purim, to which the Jews did not go up, rather than at the passover, which occurred only a month later. His being once present at the festival of dedication (John 10. 22) is not a parallel case; since he appears not to have gone up for that purpose, but this festival occurred while he remained in or near Jerusalem after the festival of tabernacles, John 7. 2, sq.-(c) The infirm man was healed on the sabbath, John 5. 9; which sabbath belonged to the festival, as the whole context shows, John 5. 1, 2, 10-13. But the Purim was never celebrated on a sabbath; and, when it happened to fall on that day, was regularly deferred; see Reland 1. c.

7. The main objection urged against taking this feast as a passover, is the circumstance, that in such case, as our Lord did not go up to the passover spoken of in John 6. 4, but only at the subsequent festival of tabernacles in John 7. 2, sq., he would thus have absented himself from Jerusalem for a year and six months; a neglect, it is alleged, inconsistent with his character and with a due observance of the Jewish law. But a sufficient reason is assigned for this omission, namely, "because the Jews sought to kill him,' John 7. 1; comp. 5. 18. It obviously had been our Lord's custom to visit the holy city every year at the passover; and because, for the reason assigned, he once let this occasion pass by, he therefore went up six months afterwards, at the festival of tabernacles. All this presents a view perfectly natural; and covers the whole ground. Nor have we any right to assume, as many do, that our Lord regularly went up to Jerusalem on other occasions besides those specified in the New Testament.

In this instance, the most ancient view is that which takes feast for a passover. So Irenæus in the third century:" Et posthac iterum secunda vice adscendit [Jesus] in diem paschæ in Hierusalem, quando paralyticum, qui juxta natatoriam jacebat xxxviii. annos curavit;" adv. Hær. 2. 39. The same view was adopted by Eusebius, Theodoret, and others; and in later times has been followed by Luther, Scaliger, Grotius, Lightfoot, Le Clerc, Lampe, Hengstenberg, Greswell, &c. Cyril and Chrysostom held to a pentecost, as also the Harmony ascribed to Tatian; and so, in modern times, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, &c. The festival of Purim was first suggested by Keppler (Ecloga Chronica, pp. 72, 129, sq. Francof. 1615); and at the present day this is the only view, aside from the passover, that finds advocates. Those who hold it, as Hug, Neander, Olshausen, Tholuck, Meyer, Wieseler, (Lücke and De Wette leave the question undecided,) regard John 6. 4 as having reference to the second passover during our Lord's ministry; which thus becomes limited to two and a half years.-See, generally, Greswell's Dissert. viii. vol. ii. Neander's Leben Jesu, 3te Ausg. p. 434. Wieseler's Chronol. Synopse der Vier Evangelien, p. 211-222.

NOTE TO § 41.

SERMON ON THE MOUNT.

The sermon on the mount follows here, in accordance with the order of Luke. The correctness of this order, so far as it respects Matthew, depends on the question, Whether the discourse, as reported by the two evangelists, is one and the same, and was delivered on the same occasion? This question is answered at the present day by interpreters, with great unanimity, in the affirmative; and mainly for the following reasons.

1. The choice of the twelve by our Lord, as his ministers and witnesses, furnished an appropriate occasion for this public declaration respecting the spiritual nature of his kingdom, and the life and character required of those who would become his true followers. Luke expressly assigns this as the occasion; and although Matthew is silent here and elsewhere as to the selection of the apostles, yet some passages of the discourse, as reported by him, seem to presuppose their previous appointment as teachers; see Matt. 5. 13, 14; 7. 6.

2. The beginning and the end of both discourses, and the general course of thought in both, exhibit an entire accordance one with the other.

3. The historical circumstances which follow both discourses are the same, namely, the entrance into Capernaum and the healing of the centurion's servant.

The main objection which has been felt and urged against the identity of the two discourses, is the fact, that Matthew's report contains much that is not found in Luke, while,