of the Old Testament, and while, as we shall see, the two following generations which embrace Salathiel and Zerubbabel agree also, yet as regards the generations following Zerubbabel till the close of the canon of the Old Testament, no interpreter of Scripture, from the earliest times down to the present day, has ever been able to identify the ancestors of Christ mentioned by St Matthew or St Luke with any of the descendants of Zerubbabel, or other members of the house of David, whose names are recorded in the Old Testament. And yet how strange and almost incredible it would be, that the Holy Ghost should have recorded and providentially preserved the names of the house of David down to the time when the sacred canon closed, and yet should have omitted those very names which it was most important to have preserved, the names of the ancestors of Messiah. We have confessedly, in the Old Testament, the line of David upwards to Adam, and downwards to Hodaiah (1 Chron. iii. 24), and we have the line of Messiah in the New Testament, corresponding accurately with that long line from Adam and Abraham down to Zerubbabel; how perplexing then it would be, and how contrary to all probability, that the generations following Zerubbabel in the Gospel genealogies should exhibit no agreement whatever with the corresponding generations in the Old Testament, from Zerubbabel to the last-mentioned member of the house of David. It certainly does appear incredible that the writer

6

of 1 Chron. iii. should have enumerated so many descendants of the house of David, of whom we know nothing but their names, and yet should have omitted from his list of the sons of David' those very persons from whom that 'Son of David' was to spring who should reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And, as for the contrivance of double names for the same individuals, without the slightest clue to connect or to identify them, and repeated moreover for several generations, it is surely too clumsy to satisfy the most credulous, or to impose upon the most ignorant'. Obviously then the matter now before us is one of very considerable importance. Not the slightest help is to be obtained from any preceding writer, ancient or modern. And if the solution now to be proposed should seem to be too rash and bold, and to involve an unjustifiable interference with the sacred text,

1 Even Annius of Viterbo in the 15th century thought this binomial theory required some extraneous support, and therefore forged an historical statement, as from Philo, that the kings of Judah from Joash downwards had all either two or three names. Ab isto Joas atque deinceps in rememorationem reges semper binomii atque trinomii fuerunt. Nam iste primus dictus Elyh, Joas, Simeon. Item Her, Manasses; Ezechias, Jesus (i. e. Joses).' By the same convenient process he identifies Rhesa and Meshullam, Abner (a name interpolated in the Hebrew Gospel of St Matthew) and Semei, Eliakim and Mattathias, Azor and Maat, and others in St Luke's list with persons mentioned by Josephus (Antiq. Variar. Volum. xvII. a Jo. Annio declarata). Hottinger's escape from the difficulty is scarcely less absurd. He supposes two different Salathiels, and three Zerubbabels! De Gen. J. C. Dissert. Poster. pp. 92, 93.

the reader is requested to bear in mind the exigencies of the case, the utter failure of all past attempts at explanation', and to weigh fairly and

1 Since this was written, I have had an opportunity, through the kindness of a friend, of consulting Dr Adam Clarke's commentary on Luke, in which he gives, as one of the best elucidations that have been offered to the public, a copious analysis of Dr Barrett's work, containing, says Dr Clarke, an 'unusual measure of general knowledge, correct criticism, and sound learning." With the help of a free use of conjectural alteration of names, and transposition of whole verses in 1 Chron. iii., Dr Barrett gives the following tabular arrangement of the royal ancestors of Christ, to shew the agreement of the Evangelists with 1 Chron., in the names of the successors of Salathiel.

Whether the expression in the text should be qualified in favour of the above solution, shall be left to the judgment of the reader. But I may add, that Dr Barrett's general scheme seems to me to be entirely wrong.

impartially the probabilities on different sides of the question.

Let us first place the different accounts side by side as the text now stands, in 1 Chron. iii. 17-24; Matt. i. 12, 13; Luke iii. 27-26.

Matt. i. 12, 13. Μετὰ δὲ τὴν μετοικεσίαν Βαβυλῶνος, Ιεχονίας ἐγέννησε τὸν Σαλαθιήλ Σαλαθιὴλ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ζοροβάβελ. Ζοροβάβελ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἀβιούδ. Αβιοὺδ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἐλιακείμ. Ελιακεὶμ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Αζώρ. Αζώρ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Σαδώκ Σαδώκ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Αχείμ. Ἀχεὶμ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἐλιούδ.

Luke iii. 27-26.
Νηρὶ

Σαλαθιήλ

Ρησὰ

Ιωαννᾶς

Ἰούδα

1 Ιωσήφ

Σεμεί

1 Chron. iii. 17-24. And the sons of Jeconiah ; Assir, Salathiel bis son, Malchiram also, and Pedaiah, and Shenazar, JeΖοροβάβελ camiah, Hoshama, and Ne dabiah. And the sons of Pedaiah were, Zerubbabel, and Shimei: and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister: and Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushab-hesed, five. And the sons of Hananiah; Pelatiah, and Jesaiah: the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah, the sons of Shechaniah. And the sons of Shechaniah; Shemaiah: and the sons of Shemaiah; Hattush, and Igeal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and Shaphat, six. And the sons of Neariah; Elioenai, and Hezekiah, and Azrikanı, three. And the sons of Elioenai were, Hodaiah, and Eliashib, and Pelaiah, and Akkub, and Johanan, and Dalaiah, and Anani,

Ματταθίας.

seven.

On comparing these lists it appears,

First, that whereas the writer of Chronicles and St Matthew agree in calling Salathiel the son of Jechonias, St Luke calls him the son of Neri. How this is, has been already explained at pp. 12-22, where we saw that both from the fact of two lines being given, and from the distinct prophecy that Jechonias should be childless, it was certain that St Matthew's was not the lineal descent, but the succession to the throne. Applying those observations to the verses before us, we readily understand that Salathiel, or Shealtiel, was truly the son of Neri, as St Luke says, but that on the failure of Solomon's line in Jeconiah who died childless, according to the word of the Lord by Jeremiah, he became Jeconiah's heir, and as such is said by the author of Chronicles to be his son, and by St Matthew to have been begotten by him. It seems also that Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah, were brothers of Salathiel, and, perhaps in consequence of Salathiel having no family, were adopted with him to become the sons of Jeconiah.' From one of them, viz. Pedaiah', Messiah actually sprang. But who was Assir? Many commentators of note (see South's sermon on the lineal descent of Christ) have held that it is not a proper name at all, but an epithet or surname of Jeconiah; for TON

'Pedaiah, whose daughter Zebudah was mother to Jehoiakim (2 Kings xxiii. 36), may have been of the same family. Zabud was a name in Nathan's house, 1 Kings iv. 5.