ページの画像
PDF
ePub

the completion of the canon of Scripture, closes the Old Testament list of the sons of David, and consequently, our task of comparing with that list the ancestors of Christ recorded by the Evangelists, and shewing, as we trust has been done, the perfect harmony between them: a harmony, it may be added, the solidity of whose foundations as laid deep in truth, is only the more apparent, from their having been for a time bedded under the obscurity of corruptions laid over them by the lapse of ages, but, when these corruptions are cleared away, being still found to subsist in all their original integrity.

has the sanction of some great names. The occurrence of two such names (both anа λeyóμeva) at exactly the same period, and in the same genealogical sequence, in the genealogy of the same person, is to my mind conclusive; and any scheme which requires us to consider two distinct Zerubbabels, sons of Salathiel, must by that circumstance fall to the ground. It may however be well just to note that the identification of a third and fourth generation makes assurance on this point trebly and quadruply sure. See above, note p. 95.

CHAPTER V.

Harmony of the Genealogies of St Matthew and St Luke for the times subsequent to the closing of the Canon of the Old Testament.

WE

E have seen in the preceding chapters how the two Gospel genealogies, after running in one line from Abraham to David, separate after David, the one being continued through Solomon, the other through David's other son Nathan. We have seen also how these genealogies, in consequence of the failure of the line of Solomon in Jehoiachin, meet again in Salathiel of the house of Nathan, who became, on the above-named failure, the heir also of the line of Solomon. We have seen further how these genealogies run in one line again from Salathiel to the person who is called Hodaiah, Judah, or Abiud, viz. for four generations. But if we compare the two Gospels together, we shall find that after the above-named grandson of Zerubbabel the genealogies again diverge. For while St Matthew gives Eliakim, Azor, Sadoc, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, as the successive chiefs of the house of David, between Abiud and Matthan, St Luke, after Juda, gives Joseph, Semei, Mattathias, Maath, Nagge, Esli, Naum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Janna, Melchi, Levi, as the successive predecessors of Matthat, who, like the Matthan of St Matthew, is the third generation above Joseph the husband

of Mary. A comparison of these names will shew at once that they are all different, and that no two in the several lists have anything in common. It is obvious therefore to conclude, that from Abiud or Juda downwards the lines diverge again, and that St Matthew gives us the elder branch of the house of Abiud, whose eldest son probably Eliakim was (for we cannot speak positively, having no clue to guide us as to where Matthew omits one or more generations), while St Luke traces a younger branch through a younger son of Abiud or Judah, as it should seem, named Joseph, who was the lineal progenitor of Matthat. But after thus remaining distinct for 13 generations, the two genealogies meet again in the person of Matthan or Matthat, the son of Levi, who, on the failure of Eliakim's line in Eleazar, became Abiud's heir, and head of the house of David. For this is the natural conclusion to be drawn from finding names all but identical in the third generation above Joseph in the two Gospels: just as the same thing was brought about by the same cause in the case of Salathiel. And that the two names may be considered as indicating the same person is assumed, not merely from their close resemblance in sound, and identity of position, and their common etymology, (one being the masculine noun Matthan a gift, the other the very same noun with a feminine termination, n, contracted Matthat), but also from their being absolutely the same in many MSS., and as quoted by some of the fathers.

Thus Epiphanius (Adversus Hæres. LI. Tŵv avontŵv, Vol. I. Edit. Petav. p. 433) has υἱὸς τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, τοῦ 'HAI, TOÙ MATOáv. And Gregory Nazianzen, in the line quoted by Dr Mill, (p. 189), has Meλxi Kai Λευὶ καὶ Ματθάν. Ηλεὶ, Ιωσήφ. And a few lines before, in the paraphrase of Luke iii. 29, he has Mar av again. Dr Mill also, (pp. 191, 192), seems to consider them identical, and tells us that Luther and Junius do so too. This Matthan then, or Matthat, the that, the son of Levi and heir of Eleazar, had two sons, Jacob and Heli, of whom Jacob was the elder, and, consequently, his successor. Jacob I suppose to have had no son, but to have been the father of the Virgin Mary: Heli, the father of Joseph. Joseph, according to universal Jewish custom, took Mary his cousin to wife, and was thus on every account Jacob's successor and heir. Hence St Matthew says, 'Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary,' and St Luke, that Joseph was the son of Eli.' Thus all is clear. And all that we have to do further in respect of these lists is, to see whether the number of generations corresponds to the time to be covered by them, and whether there is anything in the names themselves which has an air of truth or of fiction about it.

[ocr errors]

As regards the number of generations, it is needless to repeat the remark, that St Matthew omits so many as is necessary in order to reduce the number to fourteen from Jechonias to Christ, in accordance with the two preceding periods. And as regards the number in St Luke, we have already

h!

seen (p. 110) that nineteen generations, from Zerubbabel to Christ inclusive, which is the number found in St Luke, when Rhesa is discarded, is just the number we should expect, reckoning thirty years to a generation. We may proceed then in our enquiries about the names themselves, merely premising that the opinion was broached so early as before the time of Africanus, that the names in the genealogy were fictitious, and only designed to signify the union of the kingly and priestly offices in the person of Christ, by attributing to him some ancestors whose name shews them to be of the house of Aaron, and some whose name is characteristic of the house of David. And that in our own days there is still a school of whose opinions Strauss may be taken as an exponent, who hold that the genealogies bear evident marks of not being historical, but purely mythical.' (See Dr Mill's Vindication of our Lord's Genealogies, p. 101). So that internal proofs of the verity and historical accuracy of the Genealogies drawn from the names themselves are not irrelevant, or without value.

We noticed previously at p. 36, sqq., how the names both in St Matthew and St Luke bear out the hypothesis that St Matthew gives the succession to the throne, and St Luke the strict genealogy of Joseph; inasmuch as both lists have internal evidence of their containing the names of persons

1 See African. Epist. ad Arist.; Routh's Reliq. Sac. Vol. II. pp. 115, 116.

« 前へ次へ »