Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the construction of St. Matthew's Table. To lay this open, it may suffice to quote v. 17.

"So all the generations from Abraham to David (inclusive) are

[ocr errors]

- 14 generations,

and from David until the carrying away into Babylon (inclusive) are

- 14 generations,

and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ (inclusive) are

- 14 generations."

42

Why has a forced distribution into 14's been made? Mark, first, the stress laid in v. 1 (comp. xxii. 42) upon the circumstance that Christ was the Son of David, David's name being placed as the middle term between the Messiah and "the Father of the faithful?" Then, note that the Hebrew letters composing David, reckoned as numerals, amount to 14; and the reason of the distribution will become apparent. Further, "David" in Greek letters =21, which is the half of the sum-total 42. And, again, the sum of the numeral letters in the 3 names standing at the head of the list is 2534 = 14 x 181.

793. Hitherto we have assumed the correctness of the statements in v. 17. But it is well known that there are only 13 generations specified in the 3rd division. How is this discrepancy to be accounted for? After briefly alluding to the solutions that have been offered, we shall suggest one, which, we think, will be found to be both novel and true.

794. It has been contended that Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας may be rendered "Joseph the father of Mary." But, without entering into the question whether this is a legitimate rendering, it may be observed that there are two fatal objections to it: 1st. the first clause in v. 19 forbids it, and 2ndly, it was not customary to introduce a woman's name into a genealogy. The "Jeconias" of v. 12, it has been said, is a different person from the Jeconias of v. 11. To this we shall only say, Let him who can receive the assertion receive it. Ebrard would reckon Mary as a generation. But in so doing he must reckon the father and the mother of Jesus as two generations! "Olshausen and others count both concluding members of the first two divisions double. This method is inadmissible, inasmuch as while the os "to" (v. 17) always includes the member

* In this sum-total an allusion was seen by Origen to the "42 encampments" in the wilderness.

which it introduces, Christ, being made the 43rd member, is excluded and stands alone, beginning a new series." Or, rather, it would be more correct to say that Christ would stand in the 44th place; since, in conformity with the rule laid down, Joseph also must be counted twice. Wiese

ler, rejecting the hypothesis which would reckon David twice, chooses rather to double Jehoiachin's name, and to consider "the removal to Babylon as a component member of the series." But surely to consider a migration=a generation is the most strange notion of any. Lastly, some few

copies have "Josias begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim Jeconias." But this reading is not well accredited, and would not, if it were, make up the predicated number of generations. The point of division is "the carrying into Babylon;" which took place after Jeconias's birth. Consequently his name must belong to the 2nd division; and the only effect of this addition would be to add another discrepancy, and one not to be accounted for. The reading of these "few copies " probably arose from a bungling attempt to remove the discrepancy. Porphyry appears to have been the first who made it an objection; and St. Jerome in answer to him offered a solution to the above effect, though only as a conjecture and not as authorized by any copies. It is not, as St. Jerome represents, merely a question of the corruption. of two letters. Another clause would be required. This, as well as the reason assigned above, must be deemed fatal to his mode of solution.

from

795. The following we take to be the true way of accounting for this discrepancy. As there are only 13 generations in Matthew's 3rd division, so also there are, in point of fact, only 13 in his 1st division. For there are 14 names from Abram to David, both inclusive, and 14 names are required in a first division to give 13 intervals or generations, Abram to David meaning from the birth of Abram to the birth of David. That Abram cannot be counted as the first generation in Matthew's list is shewn by the fact that his name is required in the preceding division to make up a score of generations. Hence we suppose that this is a parallel (though inverted) instance to that in Josephus, in which 6 elders from each one of the 12 Tribes are said to amount to 70 persons. So here also, invertendo, (13+14+ 13) 40 are reckoned as 42; for they are called three 14's (=42); the object of this double mode of reckoning doubtless being to bring in two numbers of pre-eminent sanctity, the 40, shewing the decimal scale proper to Genealogies, and

N N

the 42, the product of the two primary numbers of highest mystical import. This solution has the great recommendation of not resting on the supposition of error or omission, which, in such a case, is in the highest degree improbable. That it supposes the use of the term yevɛat in a double sense is not, in computations framed on such a principle, an objection of any weight.

796. It must be unnecessary to enlarge upon a point so obvious and unquestionable as the artificial construction of St. Matthew's Table; and therefore we will add to our special consideration of it only a few miscellaneous remarks.

797. Pharez, (v. 3) though the natural son of Judah, would properly be reckoned genealogically, as he was legally, the grandson of Judah.

798. In the Kings, between Joram and Ozias (Uzziah), Ahaziah, (Athaliah, widow of Joram), Jehoash, and Amaziah are left out. Also, after Josiah, Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim but the latter would not add a generation, having been brother of Jehoahaz.

799. Jeconias (v. 11) was grandson, not son of Josiah; and great latitude must be given to the statement that he and his brethren were born "about the time they were carried away to Babylon;" unless it could be supposed that "they" means "the Jews," and that the reading which makes Jehoiachin to have been only 8 years of age is correct. In this case, his birth would exactly coincide with the 3rd of Jehoiakim, Daniel's date of the captivity. But on this view 3 generations must be allowed to the 70 years ending 1st of Cyrus, which would tend to increase other difficulties. 800. The large omissions in the 3rd division will be noticed presently.

801. In the Synopsis of Sohar there is an allusion to a similarly-constructed Genealogy. "From Abraham to Solomon there are 15 generations, and at that time the moon was full. From Solomon to Zedekiah there are again 15 generations, and at that time the moon was done, and Zedekiah's eyes were put out." (Jo. Sac. Lit. vi. p. 209. See also Lightfoot for similar instances). Here is a manifest allusion to the 30-day month and the phases of the moon. Each generation answers to a day. day. The Jewish nation, it is implied, like the moon on the Egyptian reckoning, attained to the fulness of its glory in 15 revolutions, and was eclipsed again in 15 more. Perhaps the same idea may have been had in view in the scheme adopted by St. Matthew, only that in it the preference was given, on account of the

coincidence above noticed, to the illuminative month. And if so, we may see a reason for the adoption of a threefold division, where a fourfold might rather have been expected, seeing that it would have been more in accordance with the duration of the interval between the captivity and Christ, and with the number of generations alleged by St. Luke. But four waxings and wanings of the moon would have left it obscured, whereas the contemplated analogy required that it should be made to appear as at the full at the coming of the Messiah.

802. In proceeding to advert to Luke's Genealogy, and at the same time to compare the two family-trees, we observe, in the first place, that St. Luke gives just 20 names previous to the commencement of Matthew's Table. He has then the same 14 names as Matthew. These make 13 generations; a number coinciding with that of the *13 High Priests, who, according to Josephus, officiated in the Tabernacle before the Temple was built. Then follow in Luke 20 names, which fill the same interval as the middle 14 of Matthew; but not one of which is the same in both. Next come 2, Salathiel and Zerubbabel, † representing the generations during the captivity properly-so-called: and these are identical in the two versions. Lastly, Luke gives another 20; only the two last of which, Joseph and Jesus, agree with any in Matthew; unless indeed Matthat be the same name as Matthan, and then the last 4 names in Luke will run Matthan, Heli, Joseph, Jesus, and those in Matthew Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus. The third 14 of St. Matthew fill the same interval as the last 22 of St. Luke. The total number of generations in Luke is 75, or 7 decads, thus appearing to be adjusted to the same scale as was found to have been adopted in the instance of the Civil Rulers. It may be observed that this number coincides with that of "Joseph's kindred" (Acts vii. 14) who went down into Egypt. It is one decad less than the full number of the High Priests according to Josephus: 50 less than the sum of the successions of Civil Rulers during the same period. That portion of this genealogy which is synchronous with Matthew's contains 15 generations more than the latter: or, following Matthew's mode of reckoning, if from Abram to

*Thus, with the same number of generations, the Evangelists' lists extend over a space of (at the least) 430 years more than Josephus's.

† Zerubabbel means "born in Babylon." Would his parents, while in captivity, be likely to have given him such a name?

Jesus be three times 14 generations, then the addition of another 14, together with the 20 which preceded Abram, will make the number of names given by Luke, viz. 76; for Luke gives the same number after David (42) as Matthew predicates from Abraham. If "God" be included there will be 77 names, another sacred number, divided too at the epoch of David into 35 (7 x 5) and 42 (7 × 6). would not, however, seem to us proper to reckon the Deity in a human genealogy; though indeed "God" is counted by Augustine and some other old Writers. On the other hand, Irenæus, Africanus, and Ambrose enumerate only 72 (!) generations from Christ up to Adam. Dr. Barrett has adopted their view, and pointed out as the interpolated names Maath, Mattathias, Melea, and Mainan. For an abstract of his argument Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics. (p. 589 sqq.) may be consulted, where the result is thus stated and checked. "Thus there are 51 names between Christ and Abraham (excluding the latter *), which coincides with the statements of Africanus and Ambrose. Reckoning 30 years to each generation between Christ and David, Salathiel was born about 570 B.C., which is not far from the true date. Thus also David is made to have been born 1140 B.C. (which is only 55 years from the real time of his birth, 1085 B.C.); whereas, according to the received text of Luke, Salathiel was born 630 B.C., and David †1260, making an error of 175 years, or the sixth part of the entire period between Christ and David." In the "Sacred Hermeneutics" will be found as clear a statement of the discrepancies arising out of these genealogies, together with as good solutions, as can be given in a small compass. See also Biblical Cyclopædia v. 1, p. 744.

803. St. Matthew says, "Jeconias begat Salathiel," but St. Luke, "Salathiel was the son of Neri." Both cannot be true. And, similarly, in the other cases. talk about a "legal" as distinct from a "natural" Genealogy §;

*Therefore 52 including Abraham. Descent in the actual Table of Luke.

It is vain to

There are 52 generations from the

† LXX. duration from Deluge to Call. Note that Salathiel is at the point of bisection. The coincidence of more than one of the above sums-total of the generations with those of the numbers of Jacob's posterity who went into Egypt should be borne in mind, and there are about an equal number of variations in the two cases. (See ¶252).

Abram's years were 175.

The opinion of Julius Africanus was, that both Evangelists trace the descent of Joseph from David, the one from a natural father in Solomon, the other from a legal father in Nathan. If this be so, (and it cannot be denied that this view has the text in its favour,) we have no true genealogy of Jesus.

« AnteriorContinuar »