confounded by the fathers'. Thus for example in the Septuagint of the Vatican, we read in 2 Kings xxxiv. 6, Καὶ ἐκοιμήθη Ιωακίμ μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αυτ τοῦ, καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν Ιωαχὶμ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἀντ ̓ αὐτοῦ· It is obvious how very easily a confusion might arise between two names differing differing by only one letter, and even the differing letter differing so little as a κ and a x, c, or ch.

But, it must be added, the whole difficulty is

1 To the instances given by Dr Mill, may be added a remarkable one in the Epistle of Africanus to Origen. Routh's Rel. Sac. Vol. II. p. 113. καὶ ταῦτα τῇ βασιλέως αὐτῶν γενομένου γυναικὶ (Σωσάννῃ) Ἰωακεὶμ, ὃν σύνθρονον πεποίητο ὁ Βαβυλωνίων Bareus which last expression must refer to what is related of Jehoiachin, Jer. lii. 32. G. Syncellus too (in Routh's note, p. 209), has τὸν υἱὸν Ἰωακεὶμ Ιωαχείμ. Another very remarkable instance is to be found in Epiphanius, Adv. Hæres. Vol. 1. p. 21, and which singularly tallies with the present error in St Matthew. Ἰωσίας (γεννᾷ) τὸν Ἰεχονίαν, τὸν καὶ Σελούμ καλούμενον· ὁ Ἰεχονίας οὗτος γεννᾷ τὸν Ἰεχονίαν τὸν καλούμενον Σεδεκίαν, καὶ 'Iwake, where observe the triple confusion. Jehoiakim is called Ιεχονίας, and Jechoniah is called Ιωακείμ, and father and son are also both called 'lexovías. The mention of Zedekiah as a name of Jechoniah, seems to refer to 1 Chron. iii. 16. So again, in the apocryphal book, 1 Esdras i. 37 and 43, we find the son of Josiah called 'Iwakiu, Joakim; and in the 43d verse, it is said of Jehoiachin, καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν ἀντ ̓ αὐτοῦ Ἰωακὶμ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, where there is not the slightest difference between the two names. Archbishop Usher, in his Chron. Sacr. (Works, Vol. XI. p. 126), remarks also that both father and son were indifferently called Joacim, or Joachim, and quotes from Sulpicius Severus, 'Joachim exactis in regno annis undecim, filio ejusdem nominis locum fecit; and from Theophilus of Antioch, who calls Jehoiachin, 'Iwake Tepоs, and from Clemens Alexandrinus, who calls him, Tάтρι ¿μávμos 'Iwakeiμ, and from a MS. treatise on Easter (Tractatus Paschalis), composed a.d. 243, where it is said that 'Joachim annis XI (regnavit) item Joachim filius ejus... diebus centum.'

not got over by merely understanding the first 'Iexovías to mean Jehoiakim, and the second to mean Jehoiachin, because then Jehoiachin's parentage would not be given at all, and there would be a fatal gap in the genealogy. In every other instance, each person is named twice, first as a son, and then as a father. And it is difficult to imagine any reason for an exception in this case. It seems to me therefore that St Matthew must originally have written, Ιωσίας δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰωακεὶμ καὶ τοὺς ἀδελ φοὺς αὐτοῦ· Ἰωακεὶμ δε ἐγέννησε τὸν Ιωαχεὶμ ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος· Μετὰ δὲ τὴν μετοικεσίαν Βαβυλῶνος, Ἰωαχεὶμ ἐγέννησε τὸν Σαλαθιήλ, κ.τ.λ. exactly after the analogy of the 2nd and 3rd verses. Had a transcriber by mistake written a x in the first name instead of a κ, it is obvious how naturally a subsequent copyist or reviser would have passed his pen through Ιωαχείμ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν 'Iwayein as an accidental repetition; and a MS. with such a mistaken erasure might have laid the foundation for the omission in any number of subsequent MSS. This appears to be a far easier and simpler way of accounting for the present anomaly,

It is perhaps worth noticing, that Beza's Cambridge MS. of the Gospels, which appears to have substituted the names in St Matthew's genealogy for those in St Luke, between David and Christ, reads τοῦ Ἰεχονίου τοῦ ̓Ιωακεὶμ τοῦ Ἐλιακεὶμ τοῦ Ἰως reía. Mill's Greek Testament. And we have the express testimony of Irenæus that the name of Jehoiakim was in his copy of St Matthew, when he says, 'Joseph enim Joacim et Jechonia filius ostenditur, quemadmodum et Matthæus generationem ejus exponit.' Contra Hæres. Lib. III. cap. xxi.

than any other that has been proposed. And if this explanation is correct, it affords another indication that St Matthew did not compile his genealogy from 1 Chron. iii., where the form of the name used is Ιεχονίας and not ̓Ιωαχείμ: the form 'lexovias was doubtless substituted in St Matthew's Gospel much later, to bring it into accordance with 1 Chron. iii. However, on the whole it may safely be affirmed that there is a perfect agreement between St Matthew's genealogy and those of the Old Testament, as far as the second tesseradecade is concerned; and the same having been shewn also as regards the first tesseradecade, we may regard the position as established, that the Gospel of St Matthew agrees with the Old Testament genealogies from Abraham to the time of the captivity.

SECTION II.

THE GENEALOGY OF ST LUKE AGREES WITH THE OLD TESTAMENT GENEALOGIES from adam TO ABRAHAM.

St Luke, who delights in exhibiting the grace of God in its wider extensions, and its adaptation to the Gentile world, traces the genealogy of Jesus not merely to the founders of Jewish royalty, and the Jewish race respectively, as St Matthew does, but to the father of the human family, who derived his being directly from God, and was in this respect a type of the second Adam, the Son of God. But there is no evidence to be drawn from this circumstance, that St Luke's is especially the genealogy

of the Virgin, and that Jesus Christ is hereby shewn to be the seed of the woman who was to bruise the serpent's head. For this He was, as being the Son of Mary, whatever her lineage might be. Tracing the descent of Mary up to Adam does not add one jot to the evidence of the fulfilment of that prophecy. And it may be added reverently, that if it would, and if such additional evidence were needful to the Church, doubtless her genealogy would have been given in a form which would have enabled us to know that it is her genealogy which we possess. But tracing the genealogy of Jesus Christ lineally up to David through Nathan, was necessary to shew the fulfilment of the promise to David. And the same may be said of Abraham and Shem. While the exhibition of Christ's descent as the Son of Man (or Adam) was well calculated to represent Him as the Saviour of the whole human race; a design, as above observed, in exact harmony with the other parts of St Luke's Gospel. But to turn to the matter more immediately in hand.

The genealogy of St Luke agrees exactly with the genealogies of the Old Testament, from Adam to Abraham with one exception, viz. the insertion of Cainan between Sala and Arphaxad (v. 35, 36), in which, however, St Luke is in accordance with the present Septuagint Version', in which both

In the Vatican MS. however the early chapters of Genesis are destroyed; and thirteen verses of 1 Chron. i., among which is v. 18, are left out.

in Gen. x. 24, and in xi. 13, and in 1 Chron. i. 18, the Septuagint, according to all existing copies, differs from the Hebrew in the insertion of Cainan as the son of Arphaxad, and the father of Sala, while Onkelos, the Samaritan Pentateuch and Version', the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Armenian, as well as the copies of the Septuagint used by Theophilus, Africanus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, all follow the Hebrew text, and make Sala the son of Arphaxad. There is this further discrepancy between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint, that whereas the Hebrew makes the age of Arphaxad 35 when he begat Salah, the Septuagint makes it 135 when he begat Cainan, and Cainan's 130 when he begat Salah; and in like manner adds 100 years each to the ages of Salah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, at the time of their begetting their respective sons, 150 to Nahor, besides several minor differences in the numbers.

Reversing the order of St Luke's list so as to begin with Adam, for the sake of making the comparison easier, the three subjoined columns give St Luke's, the Septuagint, and the Hebrew (represented by the authorized English Version) account of our Lord's line from Adam to Abraham, side by side.

'The Samaritan Version agrees for the most part with the Hebrew text, as to the ages at which the antediluvian Patriarchs begat their sons; but agrees with the Septuag. (except in the age of Nahor, which differs from both) as to the ages of the postdiluvian generations to Abraham, where they differ from the Hebrew; and yet, as mentioned above, the Samaritan Version follows the Hebrew in the omission of Cainan.