Page images
PDF
EPUB

Observations on the

ST. LUKE.

yenealogy of our Lord.

zen.

there are four names in the three succeeding classes to be Verse 25. Mattobos is omitted by several of the Antehieroexpunged. In the first division therefore, there is no inter-nymian versions, and by the Vulgate. polation. As to the second division, from Abraham to Da- - Auws, is omitted also by the same. vid, it is evident, from the consent of the Fathers, from the - Naoup, is read Nauum by some, and Anum by others. consent of MSS. and Versions, and from the books of the -Εσλι, is read Εσλιμ, Εσσαι, and Eλσι, in different MSS. and Old Testament, Ruth iv. 18. 1 Chron. ii. 9, 12. that neither | Sedi by four of the Antehieronymjan. of the Evangelists has suffered any interpolation in this part --Nagyou, in many MSS. Ayyou, in the Vulgate Magge, of the genealogy; though in Luke iii. 33. some MSS. and and in the Cod. Vercellensis, Nance: instead of Nayyou, one Versions insert another name between Aram and Esrom. I of Matthai's MSS. has Edipzov. Thas the Coptic ; φα Αμιναδαβ, φα Αδμων, φα Αρι, φα Εσρωμ. Verse 26. Maat, is omitted by the Vulgate, and some of Having accounted for this error, and finding no evidence, in the Antehieronymian versions. The Cod. Forojuliensis has the received text, of an interpolation in this second part of Manat. the genealogy, Dr. B. examines whether the four names be -Mattabou, the Cod. Leicestr. reads Martiov, and some of not found in the two parts of the genealogy between David the Antehier. Mathiani, Matthiæ, and Mathath ; and one adds and Christ, or, which is more likely, in that which follows | Jae after Mortalsv. the Babylonish captivity; as previously, the Jews were both -Expe=, in one of Matthai's MSS. Arvi.Semeja and Semein punctual and correct, in keeping their genealogical records, in the Vercell, and Veronensis.

Recent interpreters have asserted, that two names, Matthat -Iwong, the Cod. Vatic. and Cod. L. in Griesbach read and Levi have been interpolated, ver. 24. because Africanus, I wonx: several others agree in the same reading, and with endeavouring to reconcile the Evangelists, places Melchi the them the Coptic and Armenian versions, and Greg. Nazianthird from the end, and making him the father of Heli, leaves

Some also read Osech, Osche, Joseth, and Joseph Osse. no room for Matthat and Levi. This method of reconciling

-Iouda, read Iwda in Cod. Vat. L. Cod. Leicestr. and Idda the Evangelists is followed by Ambrose, lib. 3. in Luc. Hi- and Joiade by some' Latin MSS. ti'on. Com. in Matthew, Nazianzen in his genealogical verses, Verse 27. laana, read Iwarov by the Cod. Alexandr. Vatic. and Augustin Retr. ii. 7. But on the other hand, it is ob- and several others, Izuvar and Jonæ by some others. jected, 1. That the testimony of these Fathers is worthy of Verses 30, 31. Eλειακειμ, Μελεα, Μαιναν, are omitted in some little credit, because inconsistent with itself. Austin himself of the Latin MSS. Merex only is omitted in one of the Anmentions forty-three generations from David to Christ, seven

tehieron. Mavdy in the Cod. Alexandr. and two others. ty-seven persons in the whole genealogy; he therefore could From this collation of authorities, Dr. B. concludes, 1. that omit none. 2. Though Africanus does omit some, it is not the omission of Melchi, in the Codex Vaticanus is an error, certain which they are; it is possible he transposed Matthat as it contradicts Africanus, and all the Fathers, Versions, and and Levi ; for it does not appear whom he makes the father MSS. 2. That three names have been omitted in the Anteof Melchi. Damascenus, who endeavours to reconcile Afri-hieronymian version by Sabatier; and also in the Cod. Vercell. canus, transposes these names, and makes Levi the father of and Cod. Veron. viz. ver. 25. Mattathias and Amos; and in Melchi, not his son; as does also Epiphanius in a hitherto ver. 26. Maath. inedited fragment produced by Dr. B. in this publication, Of these, two, viz. Mattathias ver. 25. and Maath ver. 26. p. 46. In the Cod. A. of Matthaī, instead of Matthat the are omitted in Dr. B.'s MS. Z. which contains a copy of the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna ; we real, Antehieronymian version; and which also reads Mattathias Melchi, the son of Mutthut-of Janna--of Levi : it does not for Matthat. Hence ari-es a suspicion that Maath is an infollow, therefore, that Africanus omitted Marthat and Levi. || terpolation, and should be omitted, and that Mattathias ver. 3. These names are not onitted in any of the ancient Ver- | 26. although omiited in many MSS. is that which occurs sions, nor in any MS. yet discorered.

ver. 25. As to the pames Melea and Mainan, both appear In order to give a satisfactory view of this part of the to be interpolated. Excluding these four names, Mattathias, subject, Dr. B. introduces a synopsis of the principal various Mauth, Melen, and Mainan, (unless, for one of these, Amos readings of MSS. Versions, &c. on Luke iii. 21—31; from should be rejected) the genealogy will consist of seventy-two which I judge it necessary to make the following extract. generations,

Verse 24. Mengo is omitted by the Cod. Vaticanus-Instead! These generations Dr. B. following Irenæus, thinks, should of Ματθατ, του Λευι, του Μελχι, του Παννα, one of the Bodleian Ice laid down in the following order. MSS. reads Μελχι, του Ματθατ, του Ιαννα, του Λευι.

1. Jesus. 2. Joseph, (or Mary the daughter of Heli.) 3. - Mærbar, many MSS. read Matlay, and the Antehieroi. y. Il vi the grandfather of Christ. 4. Matthat. 5. Leri. 6. mian versions read, some Matthiæ~Mathei—Mathi-Mati, lieichi. 7. Janna. 8. Joseph. 9. Mattathias. 10. Amos. --Mathæand Matthatiæ.

11. Naum. 12. Esli. 13. Nagge. 14. Semei.

14. Semei. 15. Joseph. Instead of Iwon, Iwano is read in one of Iathaï's-16. Juda. 17. Joanna. 18. Rhesa. 19. Zerubbabel. 20. MSS.

Salathiel. 21. Neri. 22. Melchi. 23. Addi. 24. Cosam.

Observations on the

CHAP. III.

genealogy of our Lord.

25. Elmodam. 26. Er. 27. Jose. 28. Eliezer. 29. Jorim.llis considered that Jechonias and his queen were both led 30. Matthat... 31. Levi. 32. Simeon. 33. 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. 12. Booz. 43. Salmon. I had none; Salathiel, therefore, could not be born before the 44. Naasson. 45. Aminadab. 46. Aram. 47. Esron. 48. 1 year 598. Supposing him to have been born at this time, Pharez. 49. Judah. 50. Jacob. 51. Isaac. 5.2. 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. Arphaxad. 62. son horn; 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 conFrom the generations thus laid down, there will be found trary it is evident, from 1 Esdras v. 5. that he had a son fifty-one names between Christ and Abraham, excluding the named Joachin, who was one of the chief men that conlatter, which agrees both with Africanus and Ambrosius. | ducted the returning Israelites; therefore he must be more Now let thirty years be reckoned to each generation between than twenty-two years old. Besides, it will be manifest that Christ and David ; Salathiel will then appear to have been only two generations had intervened, if we compare the saborn anno 570 before Christ, which will be found near the cerdotal with the regal line. Jechonias was contemporary truth; and David 1140. David, in fact, was born 1085 B.C. // with Seraiah ; their sons were Salathiel and Josedek; therewhence there appears an error of fifty-five years, or about | fore Salathiel and Josedek were contemporaries. Jeshua, the twentieth part of the whole time in so many generations. the son of Josedek, was co-eval with Zerubbabel; who was But according to the received text of Luke, Salathiel must

therefore the son, not the grandson, of Salathiel. St. Jerom be born B.C. 630, and David 1260; this would be an error

himself, while he endeavours to prove that Salathiel and Peof 175 years, or one sixth part of the whole interval.

daiah were the same person ( Quæst. Heb. in Lib. Paral.) Dr. B. endeavours to solve the principal difficulty by adopt- | evidently grants, that he considered Zerubbabel as the grand

son of Jechonias, and that only two generations bad intering the genealogy of David as delivered in 1 Chron. iï. · In

vened. this chapter, and in the books of Kings, the whole is laid down in the most accurate manner, till the reign of Jechonias ; | there are only five sons of Shemaiah numbered in ver. 22.

5thly. There are manifest errors in verses 18–22. for after which, he supposes, some errors have been admitted into the text.

and yet there are said to be sir. Ist. 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. iji. 19, 20. is imperfect, as it is evident, from 1 Esdr. of Zerubbabel, whereas Salathiel is reckoned to be the father v. 5. that Zerubbabel had a son named Joachim, of whom no of Zerubbabel according to Ezra iii. 8. v. 2. Neh. xii. 1. I mention is made, 1 Chron. iil 19, 20. but Jechamiah, a name. Haggai i. 1, 12, 14. ii. 2, 23. 1 Esdr. v. 5. see also Josephus, I very similar to this

, is found in ver. 18. Nor are Rhesa or Ant. book xi. 4.

Abiud mentioned among his children, although Luke nienAdly. Although the obvious design of the writer is to bring |tions the former, and Matthew the latter. 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 22, 23d and 24th verses cannot be which supposes that those who are mentioned, I Chron. iji. connected (by the assistance of the 21st verse) with Zerubba- || 18. are the children of Jechonias, and that Pedaiah, one of bel, mentioned in the 19th verse. The Lreach in the con- | them, is the same with Salathiel; and that Zerubabel was nection renders it impossible to construct the genealogical the grandson of Jechonias, and the son of Salathiel, alias tree downward from Jechonias; for although some copies Pedaiah-it may be objected, that it is not at alt likely that mention the sons of Rephaiah, yet it no where appears who he who is called Salathiel, ver. 17. should be called by a difwas his father.

ferent name, ver. 18. nor will the difficulty be removed if 3dly. Many names occur in these verses, such as Dclaiah, Is it be granted that Salathiel and Pedaiah were brothers, and Pelaiah, Rephaiah, Pedaiuh, 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 lois brother took his wife; from this marriage Zerubfusion.

babel and Shimei are mentioned as sons of Pedaiah: but aeAthly. Nor is the opinioa 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.

.(bent בני for |פריה or פריה רפיה ,easily converted into Peraiah

,
or Pedaiah

fore Pedaiah did not die childless,—which is contrary to the lof i 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- Verse 18. And the sons of Salathiel, Zerubbabel, and Shinei, ther of Zerubbabel : instead of Pedaiah, the Arabic and Sy- and the sons of Zerubbabel, Meshullam, Hannuniah; and She. riac bring in Nedabiah, and some MSS. of the LXX. readlomith, their sister.

Salathiel, in the place of Pedaiah ; and those which agree in Verse 19. Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiinaking Pedaiah the father of Zerubbabel, express the name ah, Jushuh-hesed. differently. For instance, Kennicott's MS. No. 1. both in Verse 20. And Malchiram, and Rephaiah, and Shenazar, ver. 18, and 19. reads Peraiah for Pedaiah, which is the Jechamiah, Hoshaman, and Nedabiah: sir. reading of the Syriac and Arabic, in ver. 18. This is worthy Verse 21. And the sons of Hananiah, Pelatiuh, and Jesiak ; of remark, because the name of Rephaiah occurs, ver. 21. the sons of Rephaiah ; Arnan his son; Obadiah his son; Skewhich by the transposition of the two first letters, might be caniah his son ; (reading according to Houbigant, ua bero,

, , o . Rephaiah : and it is further necessary to remark, that the father of Verse 22. The sons of Shechaniah ; Shemaiahthe sons of this Rephaiah is not mentioned. As the names of the posterity Shemaiah; Hattush, and Igeal, and Bariah, and Neariah, end of Hananiah, the son of Zerubbabel, are mentioned in ver. Shaphat, five. 21. with the names of Rephaiah and his posterity, if, with On the propriety of the substitution of us beno, his son, Houbigant, we read ja beno, his son, for ua beni, sons, it for a beni, sons; in ver. 21. I cannot but agree with Dr. B. will not appear improbable, that this Rephaiah was the son That the latter is a corruption, appears to me self-evident; of Zerubbabel. Among those who were employed in re- the mistake might easily be made, from the great similarity pairing Jerusalem, Rephaiah, the son of Hur, who is said between yod; and i vau; and numerous mistakes of this to have been prince of the half part of the city, is mentioned, kind in the sacred text, have long been the perplexity and

Nehem. iii. 9. " Hur," Dr. B. thinks, " was probably the the complaint of critics. Houbigant's note on this verse is - same with Zerubbabel; the Septuagint call him Esug, and worthy of serious regard : " Illud quod hoc versu quater

one of the Kennicott MSS. 70." In this place it is diffi- legitur, quater esse legendum ua filius ejus, docet ipsa per cult to comprehend Dr. B.'s meaning: Papoua vios Lavę is se pagina sacra. Nec aliter legunt omnes Veteres, sed in certainly found in the Codex Vaticanus of the LXX. but in fine post nyov adılendum 132 filius ejus, quod etiam legebant

the Codex Alexandrinus vios Eoup is omitted. No MS. of Veteres, et quod scriba omisit deceptus similitudine ejus ' Kennicott's has 70 ja ben sar, for vios Eovg. Two MSS. omit quod sequitur initio versus 22.Houbigant in loco. the whole verse; two the word 917 Hur; and one the fol- From these observations, Dr. B. concludes, that by an lowing word nu sar;- this last word cannot possibly be put error of thie transcriber, Pedaiah is put for Rephaiah or Pein the place of W. Hur, for it is properly the first word of ruiah in ver. 18. whilst in ver. 21. the proper name Rephathe following clause: Skunne 750 '89 90 sar chalsi pelec yeru- iuh is retained; hence those whose names are mentioned in shulum, prince of the half part (or, the region) of Jerusalem. ver. 18. were suf poscd not to be the sons of Zerubbabel, and Among those who were employed in repairing the city, in so the whole verse in wbich they were contained, was transNeh. ii. 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 7793 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 77998 va 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 1720 2 beni Peruiah, and thus it was supposed From these considerations Dr. B. concludes, that those that a mistake in a nume twice written, was corrected; hence who are mentioned, ver. 18. were not the sons of Jecho- it was that Zerubbabel was called the son of Pedaiah, whose niah (Obs. 7.) nor the sons of Salathiel, (Obs. 4.) and that name occurred in the preceding verse. Many examples of consequently they must be sons of Zerubbabel, as seems similar permutations occur in the sacred writings, see Job tolerably well ascertained by a collation of the 30, 6th, and xl. 1--14. which ought to be placed, as both Kennicott and 8th observations—that Pedaiuh or Peruiah is the same, who Heath have observed, between what is related, chap. xl. 2, 6, in ver. 21. is called Rephaiah, and who is mentioned, Neh. and 7. see also Exod. xxx. 1, 10. also Job xxxi. 38, 39, 40. iii. 9. and that Jechainjah is no other than Joachim, who, which should follow chap. xxxi. 25. A similar transposition - according to Esdr. v. 5. was the son of Zerubbabel. Both may be seen 1 Chron. ix. 2, 17. where the whole clause apthese names, Pedaiah or Peraiah, and Jechamiah, occur, pears to be taken from Neh. ix. 2, 19. Many other instances 1 Chron. iii. 18. consequently a verse is transposed, a thing appear in Kennicott's Dissertations on the state of the printed not unfrequent in the sacred writings. The text, therefore, IIebrew text.

Observations on the

CHAP. III.

genealogy of our Lord.

.

Dr. Barrett, having thus far made his way plain, proceeds Luke write the name in a great diversity of forms, viz. Iawx, to lay down a table of the regal line, taken from 1 Chron. iii. Iwavev, Iwveep, Iowa, Itero, and some Iwav, between which on each side of which he places the genealogy as given by and Onan there is but little difference. the Evangelists St. Matthew and St. Luke, that the general 4. Obadiah in 1 Chron. is the same as Juda in Luke. In agreement may be the more easily discerned.

this name may be found that of Abiud mentioned Matth. i.

13. who is the third from Zerubbabel ; whence it is evident, Matthew chap. i. | 1 Chron. chap. iii. Luke chap. iii.

that in St. Matthew two generations are omitted. The MSS.

in St. Luke also vary considerably in the name; some write Salathiel Salathiel Salathiel

it, Iwoda, which answers to the Hebrew Joida, or even 7073 y Zerubbabel Zerubbabel Zerubbabel

Obadiah. Obadiah was one of the priests who signed and First generation

sealed the same covenant, Neh. x. 5. and seems to be the omitted Rephaiah Rhesa

same with Iddo, Neh. xii. 4. who returned with Zerubbabel. Another generation

See Newton, Chronol. p. 361. omitted

Aman, or Onan Joanna or Jonan
Abiud
Obadiah
Juda

5. Shecaniuh in 1 Chron. is the same with Joseph or Osech, Eliakim Shechaniah Joseph or Josech

between which names there is a considerable similitude. A third generation

6. Shemaiah in 1 Chron. is the same with Semei in Luke. omitted Shemiah Semei

In this place the names perfectly agree. Thus, through six No corresponding generation Mattathias

successive generations in the same line, the names either perNo corresponding

fectly agree, or are manifestly similar; each preserving the generation Maath

same order. Hence it may be legitimately concluded, that Fourth generation Neariah Nagge

the preceding hypothesis is perfectly correct; and that Salaomitled Azor who is also..... Azrikam who is Esli (from whom de- | thiel in Luke is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chron. iii. espeFrom the above Elioenai

scended Mary) cially, when we consider that the time which elapsed between descends Joseph

David and Christ was nearly bisected by the captivity; so who espoused Ma- Joanan Joanam...... Naum or Anum

that the number of generations between them, was divided ry

into two almost equal parts by Salathiel. The two generations

which occur after Semei in Luke, Nsattathias 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 1. That Salathiel in Matthew is the same with Salathiel in proofs advanced in Dr. Barrett's second section. Imme1 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 Nearial, in which Dr. B. supposes he has found the person David through the same ancestors; both lived at the same called Nagge in Luke iii. 25. as he thinks the names do not time, viz. of the captivity: and both were born of the same differ widely, for the LXX. whom Luke generally follows, father.

often express the Hebrew v ain, by the Greek r gamma; II. That Salathiel in Luke is the same with Salathiel in and even in this chapter, for the wyn of the Hebrew text, they 1 Chron. iii. 17. the same us in Matthew 1. and consequently write Payov. that Mary the mother of Jesus, descending from Salathiel in To this Neariah, says Dr. B. the book of Chronicles gives Luke, descends lineally from David by Solomon,' a' matter of three children : in Azrikam, the first of these, we discover the vast consequence according to the opinion of Calvin, who us- Azor of St. Matthew, the son of Eliakim. But, according to serts, " if Christ has not descended from Solomon, he cannot the opinion of some critics, Abner should be inserted between be the Messiah.Having taken for granted that Salathiel Eliakim and Azor: (See Le Clerc in Hammond. vol. i. p. 6.) m Matthew is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chron. he pro- or, according to others, between Aliud and Eliakim. (Druceeds to deduce the following consequences from his hypo- sius. Crit. sac. in Matt.) Ilowever this may be, Dr. B. thesis.

thinks he can discover Shecaniah in Eliakim, and either She1. Zerubbabel in 1 Chrou. is the same with Zerubbabel in mich or Neariuh in Abner. Another son of Neariah was Luke: they agree in nume, the time also is the same, and Elioenai, the same probably which Luke calls Esli or Eslim; they had the same fatker.

ner can they be considered as different persons, though their 2. Rephaiak 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.

He thinks also that Elioenai in 1 Chron, iii. and Elisthenai 3. Arnan in 1 Chron. is the same with Joanna in Luke ;' in the LXX. are different, although they certainly may be and here it is worthy of notice, that in one of Kennicott's names of the same person differently written, and signify the MSS. the name was originally written j-1x Onan, a 9 vau being same son of Neariah. As Elioenai and Azrikam are differUsed instead of a n resh. It is well known that the MSS. in ent, the same may be said of Esli and Azor; hence the fun

Observations on the

Sr. LUKE. .

genealogy of our Lord.

A. a.C.

......

old;

mily of Salatbiel became branched out into two families, one MATTHEW.

LUKE. of which is traced by Matthew, the other by Luke. It is

Sadoc .......

Mattathias not therefore surprising if the subsequent names, as far as

260 Achim Joseph...

230) Joseph, should differ, as a different line of descent is de

Eliud...
Janna..

200 scribed. Luke gives to his Esli a son called Naum or Anum; Elcazar...

Melchi

165 and in 1 Chron. iii. among the sons of Elioenai, we meet Matthan

Levi

130 with Jounan, sometimes written Joanan-names which have

Jacob ......
Matthat..

100

Joseph the husband of a considerable similitude to that recorded by Luke.

Mary ...
Heli.........

65 Having thus fixed the genealogy, by proving that Salathiel

Mary the mother of Christ 25 in Matthew and Luke is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chron. ii. 17. Dr. Barrett proceeds to enquire whether Chrono

Dr. B. now proceeds to inquire, whether by the proposition logy will support him in the times of those generations, the it appears, that Salathiel in Luke, and Sulathiel in 1 Chron. correlative succession of which he has endeavoured to ascer

are the same person, provided the generations be traced up to tain. In the year 445 B.C. Nehemiah returned to Jerusa-, David. This inquiry he acknowledges is pressed with many lem, at which time both Shemiah the son of Shecaniah, and and great difficulties; and the utmost that can be expected Rephaiah, who preceded him four generations, were employ- from it, is, to shew that the objections advanced against it cd in building the walls of the city. At this time, therefore,

At this time, therefore, are destitute of force. Shemiah must have been very young, Dr. B. supposes about Matthew states that Jechonias was the father of Salathiel ; twenty years he also considers that each of the genera- but Luke says that Neri was his father. These two accounts, tions consists of the same number of years; that Rephaiah however, may be reconciled by the hypothesis, that Neri must consequently be about a hundred years old, to have been was the maternal grandfather of Salathiel, and hence, accordborn in the year before Christ 545; his father Zerubbabel toing to the custom of the Hebrews, put down for his father; have been born about the year 570; and Salathiel in 590, or so we read, Ezra ii. 61. Who took a wife of the daughters of 595 : there is consequently no place for the suppositious Pedi- Barzillai, and was called after their name. The truth of this. ah, because Jechonias had not at that time begotten Salathiel, hypothesis is next examined. Matt. i. 12. as he was not led away captive till the year

599.

It is a received opinion among the Jews, that Susanna was Shemiah above mentioned bad a brother, called Hattush, the wife of Jechonias, and mother of Salathiel, which is colison of Shecaniah, who is mentioned Ezra viii. 2, 3. and firmed by Biblioth. Clement. Vatic. tom. i. page 490, where I Esdr. viii. 29. as relurning 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 been born | in prison, whence he was liberated, on the death of that moin 420, when Shemiah was about forty-five years old. Wenarch, by his son and saccessor, Evil-merodach. Of Susanmay also suppose, says Dr. B. that in the fortieth year of

na was born Salathiel : because he was of the regal line, the Neriah, or before Christ 380, Elioenai the youngest son was elders of the people sat in judgment in his house, as in the born. Now as Elioenai begat several sons, the youngest of palace of the king.” That Susanna was nearly allied to the whom was Joanam or Naum, it will not appear improbable, throne, will be readily credited, if it is considered, that when if we consider Nuum to have been begotten in the year 340, || she came to the tribunal, she was accompanied by fifty seror the fortieth year of Elioenai. The line of Naum is carried vants : (see the Septuag. version of Daniel, fol. Romæ 1772.) no farther in the book of Chronicles, whence we may sup- ! this was a proof of the regal state ; for when Absalom and pose, he had reared no children in the time of Simon, sur

Adonijah affected the throne, they prepared fifty men to run nained the Just, who was high priest from 242 to 283, and before them. (2 Sam. xv. I. 1 Kings i. 5.) The Jews also is thought to have put the finishing band to this book. It is affirm that she was of the tribe of Judah. probable, therefore, that Naum begot Amos in 290, when he

Dr. B. next inquires into the genealogy of Neri, whom he himself was in the fiftieth year of his age. After Amos, let supposes to be the same with Neriah, mentioned so frequently thirty years be computed for each generation, or a hundred by Jeremiah, chap. xxxii. 12, 16. xxxvi. 4, 8, 14, 32. xliii. years for three, and the dates of these generations will appear 3,6. xlv. I, 41, 59. and who was the father of Baruch and as under :

Seriah. Baruch was certainly of an illustrious family, as we

learn from Josephus, (Ant. x. 11.) who calls him the son of MATTHEW.

LUKE

A. a. C. Neri. This Dr. B. further establishes, by the following con

siderations. I. The title of prince is given to his brother Azor born before Christ

Seraiah, Jer. xli. 59. 2. When the Jews were conquered by 380 ............ Elioenai, or Esli, born .... 380

the Chaldeans, Johanan, the son of Kareah, took the remA generation omitted ... Naum

340 Apother generation 0

pant of Judah, and all the nobility and persons of distinction, saitted ... Amos... 290 and carried them down into Egypt; and among these were

« PreviousContinue »