Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Observations on the

CHAP. III.

genealogy of our Lord.

25. Elmodam. 26. Er. 27. Jose. 28. Eliezer. 30. Matthat. 31. Levi. 32. Simeon. $3. Juda. 34. Jo-into captivity, B. C. 599. (Jer. xxix. 20, 21.) and none of seph. 35. Jonan. 36. Eliakim. 37. Mattatha. 38. Nathan. his children are recorded, whence it is inferred that then he 39. David. 40. Jesse. 41. Obed. 42. Booz. 43. Salmon. had none; Salathiel, therefore, could not be born before the 44. Naasson. 45. Aminadab. 46. Aram. 47. Esrom. 48. year 598. Supposing him to have been born at this time, Pharez. 49. Judah. 50. Jacob. 51. Isaac. 52. Abraham. ||and, at the age of twenty, to have had a son born, Pedaiah, 53. Terah. 54. Nahor. 55. Serug. 56. Ragau. 57. Pe-who also shall be supposed, at the same age, to have had a leg. 58. Eber. 59. Sala. 60. Cainan. 61. Arphaxed. 62. son born; even then Zerubbabel could not have been born Shem. 63. Noah. 64. Lamech. 65. Methusala. 66. E- before 558: and yet he was superintendant of the Israelites noch. 67. Jona. 68. Mahalaleel. 69. Cainan. 70. Enos. on their return from the Babylonish captivity in 536; i. e. 71. Seth. 72. Adam. when he would be only twenty-two years old. On the contrary it is evident, from 1 Esdras v. 5. that he had a son named Joachin, who was one of the chief men that conducted the returning Israelites; therefore he must be more than twenty-two years old. Besides, it will be manifest that only two generations had intervened, if we compare the sacerdotal with the regal line. with Seraiah; their sons were Salathiel and Josedek; therefore Salathiel and Josedek were contemporaries. Jeshua, the son of Josedek, was co-eval with Zerubbabel; who was therefore the son, not the grandson, of Salathiel. St. Jerom himself, while he endeavours to prove, that Salathiel and Pedaiah were the same person (Quæst. Heb. in Lib. Paral.)

29. Jorim. is considered that Jechonias and his queen were both led

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.

Jechonias was contemporary

Dr. B. endeavours to solve the principal difficulty by adopt-evidently grants, that he considered Zerubbabel as the grandson of Jechonias, and that only two generations had intervened.

ing the genealogy of David as delivered in 1 Chron. iii. 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.

there are only five sons of Shemaiah numbered in ver. 22. and yet there are said to be six.

5thly. There are manifest errors in verses 18-22. for

1st. Because what is recorded ver. 19. is repugnant to 6thly. The enumeration of the children of Zerubbabel, other parts of scripture: viz. Pedaiah is said to be the father 1 Chron. iii. 19, 20. is imperfect, as it is evident, from 1 Esdr. of Zerubbabel, whereas Salathiel is reckoned to be the fatherv. 5. that Zerubbabel had a son named Joachim, of whom no of Zerubbabel according to Ezra iii. 8. v. 2. Neh. xii. 1. Haggai i. 1, 12, 14. ii. 2, 23. 1 Esdr. v. 5. see also Josephus,

Ant. book xi. 4.

bel, mentioned in the 19th verse. 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.

[ocr errors]

mention is made, 1.Chron. iii. 19, 20. but Jechamiah, a name very similar to this, is found in ver. 18. Nor are Rhesa or Abiud mentioned among his children, although Luke mentions the former, and Matthew the latter.

2dly. Although the obvious design of the writer is to bring down the regal family through Zerubbabel, yet the names 7thly. If we have recourse to the hypothesis of St. Jerom, which he mentions in the 22d, 23d and 24th verses cannot be which supposes that those who are mentioned, I Chron. iii. connected (by the assistance of the 21st verse) with Zerubba-18 are the children of Jechonias, and that Pedaiah, one of them, is the same with Salathiel; and that Zerubbabel was the grandson of Jechonias, and the son of Salathiel, alias Pedaiah-it may be objected, that it is not at all likely that he who is called Salathiel, ver. 17. should be called by a different name, ver. 18. nor will the difficulty be removed if 3dly. Many names occur in these verses, such as Delaiah, it be granted that Salathiel and Pedaiah were brothers, and Pelaiah, Rephaiah, Pedaiah, or Pheraiah, which very nearly that Zerubbabel was the actual son of the one, and the legal resemble each other, not only in the sound, but also in their son of the other, according to the law (Deut. xxv. 6.) Let it constituent letters. This very similitude is a ground of sus- be supposed that one of these, e. g. Pedaiah, died childless, picion, as in such names it was impossible to prevent con- and that his brother took his wife; from this marriage Zerubfusion. babel and Shimei are mentioned as sons of Pedaiah: but ae4thly. Nor is the opinion of the Rabbins exempt from si-cording to the law, the first-born only succeeded in the name milar chronological difficulties; they assert that Salathiel, the of the deceased, and was accounted the legal child. Let Zeson of Jechonias, was the father of Pedaiah, and grandfather rubbabel be the first-born; as Shimei, therefore, was not the of Zerubbabel. This will appear to be impossible, when it || legal son of Pedaiah, he must have been his real son; there

Observations on the

ST. LUKE.

genealogy of our Lord.

fore Pedaiah did not die childless,-which is contrary to the of 1 Chron. iii. 18-22. should be read, as Dr. B. contends, hypothesis. in the following order:

8thly. The versions do not agree in the name of the fa.ther of Zerubbabel: instead of Pedaiah, the Arabic and Syriac bring in Nedubiah, and some MSS. of the LXX. read Salathiel, in the place of Pedaiah; and those which agree in Inaking Pedaiah the father of Zerubbabel, express the name differently. For instance, Kennicott's MS. No. 1. both in ver. 18, and 19. reads Peraiah for Pedaiah, which is the reading of the Syriac and Arabic, in ver. 18. This is worthy of remark, because the name of Rephaiah occurs, ver. 21. which by the transposition of the two first letters, might be

פריה or פריה רפיה,easily converted into Peraiah, or Pedaiah

66

[ocr errors]

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

Verse 19. Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushub-hesed.

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

Verse 21. And the sons of Hananiah, Pelatiuh, and Jesiak; the sons of Rephaiah; Arnan his son; Obadiah his son; Shecaniah his son; (reading according to Houbigant, 3 beno, for 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 15 beno, his son, for beni, sons, in ver. 21. I cannot but agree with Dr. B. That the latter is a corruption, appears to me self-evident; the mistake might easily be made, from the great similarity between yod, and ↑ rau; and numerous mistakes of this kind in the sacred text, have long been the perplexity and the complaint of critics. Houbigant's note on this verse is worthy of serious regard: "Illud quod hoc versu quater

se pagina sacra. Nec aliter legunt omnes Veteres, sed in fine post 5 addendum 13ɔ filius ejus, quod etiam legebant Veteres, et quod scriba omisit deceptus similitudine ejus " quod sequitur initio versus 22." Houbigant in loco.

Rephaiah: and it is further 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 ver. 21. with the names of Rephaiah and his posterity, if, with Houbigant, we read beno, his son, for beni, sons, it will not appear improbable, that this Rephaiah was the son of Zerubbabel. Among those who were employed in repairing Jerusalem, Rephaiah, the son of Hur, who is said to have been prince of the half part of the city, is mentioned, Nehem. iii. 9. Hur," Dr. B. thinks, was probably the same with Zerubbabel; the Septuagint call him Zoug, and one of the Kennicott MSS. ." In this place it is diffi-legitur, quater esse legendum 15 filius ejus, docet ipsa per cult to comprehend Dr. B.'s meaning: Pafaia vio; Zoug is certainly found in the Codex Vaticanus of the LXX. but in the Codex Alexandrinus og Lovg is omitted. No MS. of Kennicott's has ben sar, for vios Zoug. Two MSS. omit the whole verse; two the word Hur; and one the fulFrom these observations, Dr. B. concludes, that by an lowing word sar; this last word cannot possibly be put error of the transcriber, Pedaiah is put for Rephaiah or Pein the place of Hur, for it is properly the first word of raiah in ver. 18. whilst in ver. 21. the proper name Rephathe following clause: sn sar chatsi pelec yeru-iah is retained; hence those whose names are mentioned in -shalam, prince of the half part (or, the region) of Jerusalem. ver. 18. were supposed not to be the sons of Zerubbabel, and Among those who were employed in repairing the city, in so the whole verse in which they were contained, was transNeh. iii. 12. is Shallum, the son of Hallopesh, perhaps Me-posed, and put before the 19th verse, where the name of shallum, the son of the eloquent, 1 Chron. iii. 19. viz. Zerub-Zerubbabel occurs; and as the last word of this verse, viz. babel, whose eloquence and doctrine are celebrated, 1 Esd. Nedabiah, or Nebadiah, according to the Septuagint, iii. 4. Jos. Ant. xi. 4. It must, however, be acknowledged, (who omitted the word sir, in this place, and added it to ver. that the Syriac verse reads it differently, Neh. iii. 9. and Je- 22.) contains almost all the letters of the words beni remiah the son of Hur, ver. 12. and Shallum the son of Pedaiah; this word by a mistake of the transcriber, was Hatush. changed into 5 ♫ beni Peruiah, 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 xl. 1-14. which ought to be placed, as both Kennicott and Heath have observed, between what is related, chap. xl. 2, 6, and 7. see also Exod. xxx. 1, 10. also Job xxxi. 38, 39, 40. which should follow chap. xxxi. 25. A similar transposition may be seen 1Chron. ix. 2, 17. where the whole clause appears to be taken from Neh. ix. 2, 19. Many other instances appear in Kennicott's Dissertations on the state of the printed IIebrew text.

From these considerations Dr. B. concludes, that those who are mentioned, ver. 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 ver. 21. is called Rephaiah, and who is mentioned, Neh. iii. 9. and that Jechaniah is no other than Joachim, who, - according to Esdr. v. 5. was the son of Zerubbabel. Both 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. The text, therefore,

Observations on the

CHAP. III.

genealogy of our Lord.

Ιωαναν, Ιωναμ, Ιωνία, Ιωνα, and some Ιωναν, between which and Onan there is but little difference.

Dr. Barrett, having thus far made his way plain, proceeds: Luke write the name in a great diversity of forms, viz. Ixx, to lay down a table of the regal line, taken from 1 Chron. iii. 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.

[blocks in formation]

4. Obadiah in 1 Chron. is the same as Juda in Luke. In this name may be found that of Abiud mentioned Matth. 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, Iwadz, which answers to the Hebrew Joida, or even y Obadiah. Obadiah was one of the priests who signed and sealed the same covenant, Neh. x. 5. and seems to be the same with Iddo, Neh. xii. 4. who returned with Zerubbabel. See Newton, Chronol. p. 361.

5. Shecaniah 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 preceding hypothesis is perfectly correct; and that Salathiel in Luke is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chron. iii. especially, when we consider that the time which elapsed between David and Christ was nearly bisected by the captivity; so that the number of generations between them, was divided into two almost equal parts by Salathiel. The two generations which occur after Semei in Luke, Mattathias and Maath, of

Dr. Barrett then proceeds to lay down the two following which no trace is found in 1 Chron. iii. are already rejected propositions. from the text of Luke, as interpolations, according to the proofs advanced in Dr. Barrett's second section. Imme

1. That Salathiel in Matthew is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chron. iii. This admits of no doubt, and therefore he dis-diately after Shemaiah, the writer of 1 Chron. iii. subjoins patches it in a single sentence: both were descended from David through the same ancestors; both lived at the same time, viz. of the captivity: and both were born of the same father.

II. That Salathiel in Luke is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chron. iii. 17. the same as in Matthew 1. 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 Chron. he proceeds to deduce the following consequences from his hypothesis.

[ocr errors]

1. Zerubbabel in 1 Chron. is the same with Serubbabel in Luke: they agree in name, the time also is the same, and they had the same father.

Neariah, in which Dr. B. supposes he has found the person called Nagge in Luke iii. 25. as he thinks the names do not differ widely, for the LXX. whom Luke generally follows, often express the Hebrew ain, by the Greek I gamma; and even in this chapter, for the 1 of the Hebrew text, they write Payav.

To this Neariah, says Dr. B. the hook of Chronicles gives three children: in Azrikum, 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. i. p. 6.) or, according to others, between Abiud and Eliakim. (Drusius. Crit. sac. in Matt.) However this may be, Dr. B. thinks he can discover Shecaniah in Eliakim, and either Shemiah or Neariah in Abner. Another son of Neariah was Elioenai, the saine probably which Luke calls Esli or Eslim; nor can they be considered as different persons, though their

2. Rephaiah in 1 Chron. is the same with Rhesa in Luke, names in Greek and Hebrew do not perfectly correspond. where a notable coincidence occurs in the names.

[merged small][ocr errors]

He thinks also that Elioenai in 1 Chron. iii. and Elisthenan in the IXX. 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 fu

[blocks in formation]

-

[blocks in formation]

Sadoc........
Achim
Eliud.......
Eleazar..
Matthan

Jacob .......

Joseph the husband of

[ocr errors]

Janna...

Melchi

Levi.....
Matthat.....

Heli........

Mary the mother of Christ

A. a. C.

260

230

200

165

130

100

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Dr. B. now proceeds to inquire, whether by the proposition it appears, that Salathiel in Luke, and Salathiel in 1 Chron. 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 shew 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 ii. 61. Who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai, and was called after their name. The truth of this hypothesis is next examined.

Having thus fixed the genealogy, by proving that Salathiel in Matthew and Luke is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chron. iii. 17. Dr. Berrett proceeds to enquire 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 Shemiah the son of Shecaniah, and Rephaiah, who preceded him four generations, were employcd in building the walls of the city. At this time, therefore, Shemiah must have been very young, Dr. B. supposes about twenty years old; he also considers that each of the generations consists of the same number of years; that Rephaiah must consequently be about a hundred years old, to have been born in the year before Christ 545; his father Zerubbabel to have been born about the year 570; and Salathiel in 590, or 595: there is consequently no place for the suppositious Pediah, because Jechonias had not at that time begotten Salathiel, Matt. i. 12. as he was not led away captive till the year 599. 1 It is a received opinion among the Jews, that Susanna was Shemiah above mentioned had a brother, called Hattush, the wife of Jechonias, and mother of Salathiel, which is conson of Shecaniah, who is mentioned Ezra viii. 2, 3. and firmed by Biblioth. Clement. Vatic. tom. i. page 490, where 1 Esdr. viii. 29. as returning to Jerusalem with Ezra; and as it is said that Joachim, the husband of Susanna, was supShemiah had more sons, the last but one of whom was Nea-posed to have been the king whom Nebuchadnezzar shut up riah; this Neariah may be considered as having heen born in 420, when Shemiah was about forty-five years old. We may also suppose, says Dr. B. that in the fortieth year of Neriah, 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 Nuum 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, sur- || namned 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

[blocks in formation]

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. Romæ 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 Sam. xv. 1. 1 Kings i. 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, chap. xxxii. 12, 16. xxxvi. 4, 8, 14, 32. xliii. 3, 6. xlv. 1, 41, 59. and who was the father of Baruch and Seriah. Baruch was certainly of an illustrious family, as we learn from Josephus, (Ant. x. 11.) who calls him the son of Neri. This Dr. B. further establishes, by the following considerations. 1. The title of prince is given to his brother Seraiah, Jer. xli. 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

Observations on the

CHAP. III.

genealogy of our Lord.

Jeremiah the prophet, and Baruch the son of Neriah, Jer. || Jehoiada the priest, removed Athaliah out of the way, set xliii. 5-7. 3. The words of Jer. xlv. 4, 5. "The Lord saith, Joash at last on the throne, according to the particular acBehold that which I have built I will break down, and that count in 2 Chron. xxii. 23. From that time, the wealth and which I have planted will I pluck up; and seekest thou great dignity of this family increased, till the whole line of Solothings for thyself? seek them not, for I will bring evil upon mon becoming extinct, Jechonias, his only remaining heir,/ all flesh, &c." Here it is evident the threatening is directed took Susanna, the daughter of Neriah, to wife: to which against the house of David; (2 Sam. vii. 16. 1 Chron. xvii. circumstance, Dr. B. thinks the author of Psalm cxxxii. 17. 25.) and the great things which Baruch sought for himself, probably alludes: "There will I make the horn of David to were certainly a share in the government of the land, as be- bud: I have ordained a lamp (that is, Neri) for mine anointing nearly allied to the throne; or even the throne itself. ed." Here Dr. B. plays a little on the original word i ner, 4. Add to this, that the Jews alledged as a charge against a lamp; and as Neri signifies my lamp, and Neriah Baruch, that by his instigation, Jeremiah exhorted them ra- the lamp of the Lord, he seems to think this a prophetical dether to continue under the power of the Chaldeans, than claration of the preservation of the seed royal in the person escape to Egypt, Jer. xliii. 3. which seems strongly to inti- of Neriah, the direct ancestor of Christ. Supposing this hy mate, that he expected to exercise the regal power over the pothesis to be true, Dr. B. constructs his genealogical table remaining Jews, by the assistance of the Chaldeans, which in the following manner, beginning at the division of the line he could not expect to maintain in Egypt. From all these of Solomon, and omitting Melea and Mainan, for reasons considerations, Dr. B. infers, that Baruch, and consequently that have been already assigned. Neriah, sprang from Nathan, the son of David.

1

2

SOLOMON

Rehoboam

[blocks in formation]

3

Abiah

4

Asa

5

Jehosaphat

6

Jehoram

7

Ahaziah

[blocks in formation]

Matthat

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

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 Chron. xxxiv. 8. whom the Syriac calls the scribe, and the Arabic the teacher of the city. Probably also, Simeon, the son of Juda, (Luke iii. 30.) is the same as is called Maaseiah, the son of Adaiah, 2 Chron. xxiii. 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 iii. 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. Jerom, to the present hour. The complaint of this father, in his comment on Ezekiel xl. 7. is as follows: Statim mensus est limen portæ quod LXX. Or nominant, pro quo in Hebræo scriptum est Seph; et diligentem et studiosum lectorem admonendum puto-ut sciat omnia propè verba Hebraica et nomina quæ in Græca et Latina translatione sunt posita, nimia vetustate corrupta scriptorumque vitio depravata, et dumthew's that of Joseph. de inemendatis scribuntur inemendatiora, de verbis Hebraicis facta esse sarmatica, imò mullius gentis, dum et Hebræa esse desierint, et aliena esse non caperint. HIERON. Opera, vol. iii.|| 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 a humble and obscure situation, until almost the whole race of Solomon was destroyed by the treachery of Athaliah. Mauseiah or Simeon, the prince of this family, fearing a similar destruction, and being moved with pity to wards his relative Joash, and having, by the assistance of

On the ancestors of Mary, and the consanguinity between her and Joseph, Dr. B. shews 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. Mat

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 iii. 23. or Eliakim, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 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 Mary the daughter of Eli; and though the latter word is written by instead of this does not, in his opinion, tend to invalidate the argument, as & and are frequently interchanged. It may therefore be taken for

« AnteriorContinuar »