CHAP. VI. ON THE GENEALOGICAL TABLES OF THE HEBREWS, AND PUBLIC MEMORIALS OF EVENTS. I. THE Hebrews were very careful in preserving their GENEALOGIES, or the history of the successions of families. Vestiges of these histories of families appear in Gen. v. and x. In proportion as the Hebrews increased in numbers during their residence in Egypt, it became an object of growing importance carefully to preserve the genealogical tables of the whole nation, in order that each tribe might be kept perfectly distinct. The charge of these genealogies was, most probably, confided, in the first instance, to the shoterim, or scribes, of whom a short account is given in p. 97. supra, and afterwards to the Levites: at least in the time of the kings, we find that the scribes were generally taken from the tribe of Levi. (1 Chron. xxiii. 4.; 2 Chron. xix. 8-11., xxxiv. 13.) "This was a very ra tional procedure, as the Levites devoted themselves particularly to study; and, among husbandmen and unlearned people, few were likely to be so expert in writing, as to be intrusted with keeping registers so important. In later times the genealogical tables were kept in the temple." 1 Whatever injury the public genealogies might have sustained in consequence of the Babylonish captivity, it was repaired on the restoration of the Jewish polity, as far at least as was practicable. (Ezra ii. viii. 1-14.; Nehem. vii. xii.) Hence it is, that a very considerable portion of the first book of Chronicles is composed of genealogical tables: the comparison of which, as well as of the genealogy recorded in Gen. v. with the tables in Matt. i. and Luke iii., will contribute materially to show the fulfilment of the prophecies relative to the advent of the Messiah. Josephus states that the Jews had an uninterrupted succession of their high-priests preserved in their records for the space of nearly two thousand years; and that the priests in Judæa, and even in Egypt and Babylon, or in any other place whithersoever their priests were carried, were careful to preserve their genealogies.2 Such priests after the captivity as could not produce their genealogies, were excluded from the sacerdotal office. Hence, when in Heb. vii. 3. Melchizedek is said to have been without descent, (ayevɛaλóynTos, that is, without genealogy,) the meaning is, that his name was not found in the public genealogical registers: his father and mother, and ancestors, were unknown, whence his priesthood was of a different kind, and to be regarded differently from that of Aaron and his sons. From similar public registers Matthew and Luke derived the genealogies of our Saviour; the former of which, from Abraham to Jesus Christ, embraces a period of nearly two thousand years, while the genealogy of Luke, from Adam to Christ, comprises a period of Josephus against Apion, book i. § 7. Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. i. p. 250. about four thousand years. It is well known that the Jews carried their fondness for genealogies to great excess, and prided themselves on tracing their pedigrees up to Abraham. Jerome says that they were as well acquainted with genealogies from Adam to Zerubbabel as they were with their own names. Against such unprofitable genealogies Paul cautions Timothy (1 Tim. i. 4.) and Titus (iii. 9.). Since the total dispersion of the Jews in the reign of Adrian, the Jews have utterly lost their ancient genealogies. In exhibiting genealogical tables with any specific design, some of the sacred writers, for the sake of brevity, omitted names which were of less importance, and distributed the genealogies into certain equal classes. Examples of this kind occur in Exod. vi. 14-24.; 1 Chron. vi. 12-15. compared with Ezra i. 5.; and in Matt. i. 17. The Arabs have not unfrequently taken a similar liberty in their genealogies.2 II. From the remotest ages, mankind have been desirous of perpetuating the memory of remarkable events, not only for their own benefit, but also in order to transmit them to posterity; and in proportion to the antiquity of such events has been the simplicity of the PUBLIC MEMORIALS employed to preserve the remembrance of them. When, therefore, any remarkable event befell the patriarchs, they raised either a rude stone or a heap of stones in the very place where such event had happened. (Gen. xxviii. 18., xxxi. 45, 46.) Sometimes, also, they gave names to places importing the nature of the transactions which had taken place (Gen. xvi. 14., xxi. 31., xxii. 14., xxviii. 19., xxxi. 47-49.): and symbolical names were sometimes given by them to individuals. (Gen. xxv. 26. 30.) To this usage the Almighty is represented as vouchsafing to accommodate himself, in Gen. xvii. 5. 15. and xxxii. 28, 29. Conformably to this custom, Moses enjoined the Israelites to erect an altar of great stones on which the law was to be inscribed, after they had crossed the river Jordan (Deut. xxvii. 1-4.), and also gave to those places, which had been signalised by the previous conduct of the Israelites, significant names which would be perpetual memorials of their rebellion against God. (Exod. xvii. 7.) The same custom obtained after their arrival in the land of Canaan. (Josh. iv.) In like manner, Samuel erected a stone at Mizpeh, to commemorate the discomfiture of the Philistines. (1 Sam. vii. 12.) In progress of time more splendid monuments were erected (1 Sam. xv. 12.; 2 Sam. viii. 13., xviii. 18.); and symbolical memorial names were given both to things and persons. Thus, the columns which were erected in the temple of Solomon-Jachin, he shall establish, Boaz, in it is strength,-most probably denoted the devout monarch's hope, that Jehovah would firmly establish that temple in the entrance of which they were placed. To the same practice 1 Valpy's Gr. Test. vol. iii. p. 117. 2 Parcau, Antiq. Hebr. pp. 318-320. Schulzii Archæol. Hebr. p. 41. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, on the authority of Julius Africanus, a writer of the third century, relates that Herod, misnamed the Great, committed to the flames all the records of the Jewish genealogies; but Carpzov has shown that this narrative is not worthy of credit. Antiquitates Gentis Hebrææ, p. 36. Pareau ascribes the origin of the name of Maccabæus with which Judas was first distinguished (1 Macc. ii. 4.), (who was surnamed MacaвA, or the Hammer, on account of his singular valour and success against the enemies of his nation); and also the new name given by our Lord to Peter (Matt. xvi. 18.; John i. 43.), and the name given to the field which was bought with the purchasemoney of Judas's treason. (Matt. xxvii. 8.; Acts i. 19.) The great festivals, prescribed by Moses to the Jews, as well as the feasts and fasts instituted by them in later times, and the tables of the law which were to be most religiously preserved in the ark, were so many memorials of important national transactions. In more ancient times proverbs sometimes originated from some remarkable occurrence. (Gen. x. 9., xxii. 14.; 1 Sam. x. 12., xix. 24.)2 CHAP. VII. ON THE TREATIES OR COVENANTS, CONTRACTS, AND OATHS OF THE JEWS, I. A TREATY is a pact or covenant made with a view to the public welfare by the superior power. It is a common mistake, that the Israelites were prohibited from forming alliances with Heathens: this would in effect have amounted to a general prohibition of alliance with any nation whatever, because at that time all the world were Heathens. In the Mosaic law, not a single statute is enacted, that prohibits the conclusion of treaties with heathen nations in general; although, for the reasons therein specified, Moses either commands them to carry on eternal war against the Canaanites and Amalekites (but not against the Moabites and Ammonites), or else forbids all friendship with these particular nations. It is however clear, from Deut. xxiii. 4-9., that he did not entertain the same opinion with regard to all foreign nations: for in that passage, though the Moabites are pronounced to be an abomination to the Israelites, no such declaration is made respecting the Edomites. Further, it is evident that they felt themselves bound religiously to observe treaties when actually concluded; though one of the contracting parties had been guilty of fraud in the transaction, as in the case of the treaty with the Gibeonites. (Josh. ix.) David and Solomon lived in alliance with the king of Tyre; and the former with the King of Hamath (2 Sam. viii. 9, 10.); and the Queen of Sheba cannot be regarded in any other light than as an ally of Solomon. Even the Maccabees, who were so laudably zealous for the law of Moses, did not hesitate to enter into a compact with the Romans. The only treaties condemned by the prophets are those with the Egyptians, Babylonians, and In like manner Charles, mayor of the palace to the King of France, received the name of Martel, or the Hammer, from the irresistible blows he is said to have given to the Saracens or Moors, who were utterly discomfited in the memorable battle fought near Poictiers, in 733.- Another, and more generally received origin of the appellation Mac cabees, has been given in p. 122. supra. * Pareau, Antiq. Hebr. pp. 320–322. VOL. III. Р Assyrians, which were extremely prejudicial to the nation, by involving it continually in quarrels with sovereigns more powerful than the Jewish monarchs; and the event always showed, in a most striking manner, the propriety of their reproofs. II. Various solemnities were used in the conclusion of treaties; sometimes it was done by a simple junction of the hands. (Prov. xi. 21.; Ezek. xvii. 18.) The Hindoos to this day ratify an engagement by one person laying his right hand on the hand of the other. Sometimes, also, the covenant was ratified by erecting a heap of stones, to which a suitable name was given, referring to the subject-matter of the covenant (Gen. xxxi. 44-54.); that made between Abraham and the king of Gerar was ratified by the oath of both parties, by a present from Abraham to the latter of seven ewe-lambs, and by giving a name to the well which had given occasion to the transaction. (Gen. xxi. 22-32.) It was, moreover, customary to cut the victim (which was to be offered as a sacrifice upon the occasion) into two parts, and so placing each half upon two different altars, to cause those who contracted the covenant to pass between both. (Gen. xv. 9, 10. 17.; Jer. xxxiv. 18.) This rite was practised both by believers and heathens at their solemn leagues; at first, doubtless, with a view to the great Sacrifice, who was to purge our sins in his own blood; and the offering of these sacrifices, and passing between the parts of the divided victim, was symbolically staking their hopes of purification and salvation on their performance of the conditions on which it was offered.2 The editor of the Fragments supplementary to Calmet is of opinion that what is yet practised of this ceremony may elucidate that passage in Isa. xxviii. 15.:- We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us, for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves. As if it had been said:-We have cut off a covenant Sacrifice, a purification offering with death, and with the grave we have settled, so that the scourge shall not injure us. May not such a custom have been the origin of the following superstition related by Pitts? "If they (the Algerine corsairs) at any time happen to be in a very great strait or distress, as being chased, or in a storm, they will gather money, light up candles in remembrance of some dead marrabot (saint) or other, calling upon him with heavy sighs and groans. If they find no succour from their before-mentioned rites and superstitions, but that the danger rather increases, then they go to sacrificing a sheep, (two or three upon occasion, as they think needful,) which is done after this manner: 1 Ward's View of the History, &c. of the Hindoos, vol. ii. p. 328. 2 This remarkable practice may be clearly traced in the Greek and Latin writers. Homer has the following expression: · Eustathius explains the passage by saying, they were oaths relating to important matters, and were made by the division of the victim. See also Virgil, Æn. viii. ver. 640. 9 No. 129. having cut off the head with a knife, they immediately take out the entrails, and throw them and the head overboard; and then, with all the speed they can (without skinning), they cut the body into two parts by the middle, and throw one part over the right side of the ship, and the other over the left, into the sea, as a kind of propitiation. Thus those blind infidels apply themselves to imaginary intercessors, instead of the living and true God." In the case here referred to, the ship passes between the parts thus thrown on each side of it. This behaviour of the Algerines may be taken as a pretty accurate counterpart to that of making a covenant with death and with imminent danger of destruction, by appeasing the angry gods. Festivities always accompanied the ceremonies attending covenants. Isaac and Abimelech feasted at making their covenant (Gen. xxvi. 30.), And he made them a feast, and they did eat and drink. (Gen. xxxi. 54.) Jacob offered sacrifice upon the mount, and called his brethren to eat bread. This practice was also usual amongst the heathen nations.2 Afterwards, when the Mosaic law was established, and the people were settled in the land of Canaan, the people feasted, in their peace offerings, on a part of the sacrifice, in token of their reconciliation with God (Deut. xii. 6, 7.): and thus, in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, we renew our covenant with God, and (in the beautiful language of the communion office of the Church of England) " we offer and present ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice" unto Him, being at His table feasted with the bread and wine, the representation of the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood; who by himself once offered upon the cross has made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and atonement for the sin of the whole world. Sometimes the parties to the covenant were sprinkled with the blood of the victim. Thus Moses, after sprinkling part of the blood on the altar, to show that Jehovah was a party to the covenant, sprinkled part of it on the Israelites, and said unto them, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you. (Exod. xxiv. 6. 8.) To this transaction Saint Paul alludes in his Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 20.), and explains its evangelical meaning. The Scythians are said to have first poured wine into an earthen vessel, and then the contracting parties, cutting their arms with a knife, let some of the blood run into the wine, with which they stained their armour. After which they themselves, together with the other persons present, drank of the mixture, uttering the direst maledictions on the party who should violate the treaty.3 Another mode of ratifying covenants was by the superior contracting party presenting to the other some article of his own dress or arms. Thus, Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon 1 Travels, p. 18. 2 Burder's Oriental Customs, vol. ii. p. 84. cient mode of ratifying covenants, in Homer. Virgil, En. lib. viii. 641., xii. 169. et seq. Hooke's Roman History, vol. i. p 67. Fifth edition. See examples of the an- 'Herodotus, lib. iv. c. 70. vol. i. p. 273. Oxon. 1809. Doughtai Analecta, 1. p. 69. |