Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

for there can be but one kind of descent. To say that Christ was "the son of David," if he was not so by blood or natural lineage, is only practising a deceit upon others, and cultivating a delusion in ourselves. And any pedigree which does not trace a descent of blood, whatever might be thought of it according to Jewish notions, cannot be deemed valid according to ordinary ideas of what a genealogy is. In the example cited above, unless we think proper to warp and twist the prediction in Jeremiah xxii. 30 from its natural meaning, and thus virtually, if we do not actually deny its fulfilment, we must believe that Jeconias died "childless; or at the least, that none of his seed could "prosper," which in reference to the Messiah, comes to much the same thing. Hence the preference may be given to Luke's pedigree in this instance.

[ocr errors]

804. Joseph, who was "supposed" to be the father of Jesus, is said by St. Luke to have been "the son of Heli,". by St. Matthew to have been "begotten" by Jacob. The discrepancy is commonly reconciled by supposing him to have been only the son-in-law of Heli, as having espoused his daughter Mary, the mother of Jesus. It is obvious that this view is only hypothetical and contrary to the literal interpretation of the statement. But it also is in favour of the opinion that the Table of Luke contains the real genealogy of Jesus.

805. The birth of Pharez may be reckoned equal the Descent into Egypt, B. c. 1706 Usher. That of Boaz = (at the earliest) the entrance into Canaan, B. c. 1451; following the common hypothesis that his mother Rachab was "Rahab the harlot." That of David B.c. 1085. The intervals are 255 and 366 years: the number of generations 6 and 3 respectively :- the averages thence arising 42 and 122 years: and the time that would be given at a uniform rate of 30 years to a generation 180 and 90 years respectively. Hence either the time must be reduced, or it must be assumed that many generations have been omitted. The former cannot be done for many reasons. If the latter be, what is the worth of the genealogies chronologically, or indeed genealogically? The important facts, for the sake of which they have been adduced, may be perfectly true; but the genealogies cannot be regarded as proofs of the facts. We must look upon them in the light in which they are viewed by Scott, (See his Note on Acts xiii. 20).

806. Some remarkable repetitions of names in St. Luke's

[blocks in formation]

807. The occurrence in succession of so many names as are shewn in the 1st and 3rd columns, being apparently identical, and 4 in the former being names of the most distinguished of Jacob's sons, may well excite a suspicion that some have been borrowed. And it may be observed that if Nos. 58 and 61 be excluded, as not being precisely the same with 40 and 43, the number of the names twice repeated is 14, which is the number by which St. Luke's list after David exceeds St. Matthew's last two 14's. The place (40) at which the apparent insertion begins should not be overlooked, nor yet the circumstance that Joanna is the 18th (72) name from Jonan, as Semei also from Simeon, Melchi (71) from Melchi (53). Again, the 3rd score begins and ends with Joseph. Juda is 42nd from Adam, (from Judah Shiloh was to come ;) and Jesus (the "son of David") is 42nd from David. The first and last Josephs occupy the 7th and 35th (7 x 5) places from David. Levi, No. 72, is 28th from Levi, No. 44, and Matthat, No. 73, from Matthat No. 45. The first Mattathias is 28th from David. Matthew gives 14 names to the Captivity or Salathiel: Luke has 20 to Salathiel. So that the 6 consecutive names in our 1st column would just make the difference. Taking Matthew's statement that his last division contains 14 yevɛal, it would have 8 less than Luke's, and we observe that the first 5 and the last 3 of the names selected from the same period follow one another in unbroken series, and would make 8. Matthew bisects his list of 28 names at the Captivity, and Luke does the same by his of 42; the only difference being that the former takes the beginning of the Exile, the latter the middle of it (i. e. between Salathiel and Zerubbabel) for the point of bisection. In the list of each, names notable (more or less), on some account or other, occur at every 7th place:-in Matthew, Uzziah (who was struck with leprosy for intruding into the priests' office), Jeconiah, (carried into Captivity), Zadoc (a name of repeated and notable occurrence among the High Priests), and Jesus; -- in Luke, Joseph, Jose (per

haps another, making a 4th Joseph in this division), Salathiel, Mattathias, Joseph, Jesus. Most of the latter however are only notable as being among the selected names above; yet, as nothing is known of any of the individuals, this is the only distinction they could have.

2. THE GENEALOGIES OF THE HIGH PRIESTS.

808. In no series do more discrepancies occur than in the Genealogies of the High Priests. The divisions adopted by Josephus (Ant. XX. x.), and which are adverted to in another place, (¶ 775), will form the most convenient guide to the orderly adduction of some of these, and will furnish epochs for comparing the genealogical and chronological admeasurement of time.

809. To the first Division, including the interval from the Exode to the first building of the Temple, Josephus assigns 13 High Priests, "who officiated while the Tabernacle was standing, being the descendants of two of the sons of Aaron, and receiving this dignity by succession one after another during 612 years." These numbers give 47

years

years

to each High Priest; but according to the received duration of this interval, viz. 477* years, there would be 36 to each Priest, -a more credible allowance, but still much exceeding probability. It is remarkable that the number of the Civil Rulers during this period is just double that of the Sacerdotal. The average to these, according to the above durations, would consequently be 23 and 18 years.

810. When we come to reckon up the names, we find that neither in Josephus, nor in the other authorities are more than 11 given: and in the series from Aaron to Zadok as given in 1 Chronicles vi., (the former name being included, the latter not), only 10 names are found, while in the Seder Olam 6 High Priests are said to have filled up this interval. There can be no doubt that the next High Priest, Zadok, is properly excluded from this Division, both because in his person the priesthood was restored to the house of Phinehas, and because Zadoc is expressly said to have been "the first High Priest at the Temple which Solomon built." (Ant. X. viii. 6). And there can be no room for inserting a name or names in the genealogical series on the ground of possible

*Note the difference 612-477 = 135 – 33 × 5.

omission, since both in 1 Chron. vi., and in Josephus, each individual in succession is expressly said, in the former to have been "begotten by," in the latter to have been “the son of" the one preceding. The only exception is in Josephus, who says that Bukki, (No. 7. see Table ¶ 811) was "the son of Abishua," though he had not given this name previously. It has been supposed, indeed, that Abiezer (No. 4) is the same name. But if so, one of two incredible suppositions must be made: - either Abiezer had two sons bearing the same name, one of whom would have come into the Sacerdotal succession in the 3rd generation from himself, that is, 80 years after his death, according to the average given when 11 generations and only 436 years are reckoned between the termini; or the two Bukkis (5 and 7) are the names of the same individual, and consequently there were only 9 generations, which, at the lowest computation of the time, will give nearly 49 years to a generation. It seems therefore impossible to adopt this view. And if it could be adopted, it would avail nothing to remove the difficulty, though it might greatly increase it. On the whole, there is no possibility, in consistency with the plain statements of the authorities, of increasing the number of the names so as to make the Genealogies compatible with the shortest scheme of Chronology. On the other hand, the genealogical admeasurement may and ought to be materially curtailed. For, if it be taken into account that Phinehas must have been born previous to the Exode, there will not actually have been so many as 8 generations complete (according to 1 Chron. vi.) between the Exode and the building of the Temple. Allowing even 40 years to a generation, these cannot be reckoned to give more than 300 years for this interval, instead of 480 as in (1 Kings vi. 1), or 612 according to Josephus. His list indeed, on the one hypothesis just made, would be reducible to 7 generations, giving, at 40 years each, 280 years.

811. To save further discussion, and as the most convenient way of exhibiting the discrepancies, we will place the statements of the several authorities side by side.

Table No. 15.

High Priests" in the Wilderness," or the Posterity of Aaron to the building of Solomon's Temple.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

812. It will be seen that the principal discrepancies occur in the last 4 or 5 generations. Calling to mind the arrangement of the secular series in decads, it may be suspected that the same rule has been followed here, at least in one computation. During the time of the Judges (a space of 298 years at the lowest computation), there were only 4 High Priests. So that they must have averaged 74 years each!

813. To his second Sacerdotal Division Josephus assigns "18 High Priests, who took the office at Jerusalem, one in succession to another, from Solomon until Nebuchadnezzar burnt the Temple, and then took Josadek captive." "The time of these High Priests was," he says, " 466 y. 6 m. 10d., the Jews being under the regal government." He appears to say" at Jerusalem" emphatically; because previously the High Priests had exercised their office at other places, Zadok himself having officiated at Gibeon until Abiathar's deposition. In connexion with this statement it is singular that it should be specially mentioned, in 1 Chron. vi. 10, in reference to Azariah II., the 4th after Zadok; "He it is that executed the priest's office in the Temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem." Did not all these High Priests execute their office there? Why then should special mention be made of the fact in the case of Azariah? It may be conjectured that his withstanding Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi.

« AnteriorContinuar »