« PreviousContinue »
Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
ing hypothesis is perfectly correct; and that Salathiel in Luke is the same with Salathiel 1 Chron. iii. especially when we consider that the time which elapsed between David and Christ was nearly bisected by the captivity ; so that the number of generations between them, was divided into almost two equal parts by Salathiel. The two generations which occur after Semei, in Luke, after Mattathias and Maath, of which no trace is found, 1 Chron. iii. are rejected from the text of Luke as interpolations. Immediately after Shemaiah, the writer of 1 Chron. iii, subjoins Neariah, in which Dr. Barrett supposes he has found the person called Nagge in Luke iii. 25. as the names in the original languages do not materially differ.
In some following observations Dr. Barrett thinks that the family of Salathiel divided into two branches, one of which is traced by Matthew, the other by Luke. It is therefore not surprising that the genealogies of the two Evangelists should differ from this period. The Esli mentioned by Luke had a son called Naum, or Anum ; among the sons of Elioenai, mentioned in 1 Chron. iii. was Joamam, or Joanam-names which considerably resemble those recorded by St. Luke.
Having thus fixed the genealogy, by proving that Salathiel in Matthew and Luke, is the same with Salathiel in 1 Chron. iii. 17. he proceeds to enquire whether chronology will support him in the times of these generations,
From examining the chronology, it appears that there is no place for the supposititious Pedaiah, and that Naum begat Amos B.C. 290, himself being fifty years old. After Amos let thirty years be computed for each generation, or an hundred years for three, the dates will then appear thus :
Azor born B.C. 380. Elioenai, or Esli born
Mary, mother of Christ
380 340 290 260 230 200 165 130 100 65 25
Dr. Barrett then enquires, whether by the proposition it appears that Salathiel in Luke and Salathiel in 1 Chron. are the same person, provided the generations be traced up to David; he acknowledges the difficulties of the enquiry, and that the utmost to be expected is, to shew the invalidity of the arguments against it.
Matthew states that Jechonias was the father of Salathiel : but Luke says, that Neri was his father ; this may be reconciled by supposing that Neri was the maternal grandfather of Salathiel, and hence, according to the custom of the Hebrews, put down for his father The truth of this hypothesis is next examined.
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of
It is a received opinion of the Jews, that Susanna was the wife of Jechonias, and mother of Salathiel, which is confirmed by Biblioth. Clement. Vatic. tom. i. p. 290. and she was undoubtedly nearly allied to the throne, from the magnificence in which she lived. (See the account in the Septuagint version of Daniel, compared with 2 Sam. xv. 1. 1 Kings i. 5.)
He next enquires into the genealogy of Neri, whom he supposes to be the same with Neariah, mentioned so frequently by Jeremiah, and who was the father of Baruch and Seraiah. Baruch was certainly of an illustrious family, as we learn from Josephus, who calls him the son of Neri ; which Dr. Barrett establishes by several considerations, shewing that Baruch, and consequently Neariah, sprang from Nathan the son of David.
As nothing is related of the ancestors of Neriah, he again recurs to conjectures, which are chiefly the following: Masseiah, or Melchi, the father of Neriah, was probably the same mentioned in 2 Chron. xxxiv. 8. as governor of the city. It is also probable Simeon, the son of Juda, mentioned Luke iii. 30. is the same person called Maaseiah, the son of Adaiah, in 2 Chron. xxiii. 1. The two names being written with the same letters, and differing scarcely except in situation. It is well known to all biblical critics, that the names of the Old Testament have been much corrupted, not only in different translations, but in different copies of the original.
Admitting the above hypothesis, Dr. Barrett shews that the family of Nathan was concealed in an obscure situation, till the greater part of the family of Solomon was destroyed by the treachery of Athaliah ; when Maaseiah, or Simeon, moved with pity towards his relative Joash, by the assistance of Jehoiada, removed Athaliah out of the way, and set Joash upon the throne ; from which time the dignity of the family increased, till the line of Solomon becoming extinct, Jechonias, his only remaining heir, took to wife Susanna the daughter of Neariah. Supposing this hypothesis to be true, Dr. Barrett thus constructs his genealogical table, beginning at the division of the line of Solomon, omitting Melea and Mainan as interpolations.
2 Mattatha 3 Abiah
3 Eliakim 4 Asa
4 Jonan 5 Jehosaphat
5 Joseph 6 Jehoram
6 Judah, or Adaiah 7 Ahaziah
7 Simeon, or Masseiah 8 Joash
8 Levi 9 Amaziah
9 Matthat 10 Uzziah
10 Jorim 11 Jotham
11 Eliezer 12 Ahaz
12 Jose 13 Hezekiah
13 Er 14 Manasses
14 Elmodam 15 Amon
15 Cosam 16 Josias
16 Addi 17 Jehoiakim
17 Melchi, or Maaseias 18 Jehoiachin, or Jechonias 18 Neri
Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
In treating of the ancestors of Mary, and the consanguinity between her and Joseph, Dr. Barrett shews that the Virgin was not, (as was formerly supposed) descended from the tribe of Levi, but from the family of David ; and brings several additional arguments to prove that St. Luke traces the genealogy of Mary, and St. Matthew that of Joseph.
According to the universal voice of antiquity, the father and mother of the Virgin were called Joachim and Anna. Dr. Barrett thinks it indisputable that Joachim is the same name with Heli, Luke iii. 23. or Eliakim, 2 Chron. XXXVI. 4. which is rendered probable by the Virgin being called by some Jewish writers, Mary, the daughter of Heli. Thus it may be taken for granted, that Heli was the father of Mary, and maternal grandfather of Christ, and that he is considered by St. Luke as the real father of Christ. He next considers the family of Anna, the mother of Mary. It is generally agreed that the father of Anna was named Matthan, and he is supposed by some to have been a priestand as the daughters of the priests might intermarry with any tribe, it accounts for Mary's being the cousin of Elizabeth, (who was really of the tribe of Levi,) though her father Joachim, or Heli, was a descendant of the tribe of Judah.
Dr. Barrett next proceeds to the family of Joachim ; but in this examination he finds very few documents to guide his enquiries. It however seems probable that James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, mentioned in Matt. xiii. 55. and Luke vi. 3. as the brethren of our Lord, were in reality his cousins, being the sons of Mary, the wife of Alpheus, and sister to the Virgin.
Concerning Cleopas, or Klopas, there are various opinions, but that conjecture of Calmet seems the most probable, that Cleopas was the husband of that Mary who was sister to the blessed Virgin, and father of James the less.
Dr. Barrett thinks that these apparently discordant systems may be harmonized into the following scheme ;
Cleopas died, Joachim, or Heli, childless : his married the sebrother Joachim cond time to married his wi- Anna, from dow: the off whom sprang spring of that Mary
Joseph, Alpheus, or Cleopas, marmarriage was
ried Mary, ή του κλωπά, Mary the wife of
John xix. 25. whence Cleopas, or Al
sprang James, Joses, Sipheus, mention
mon, and Juda. ed John xix, 25. and mother of James, who is called the Lord's brother.
Having thus investigated this difficult question, Dr. Barrett concludes by observing, that his principal object was to prove, by the agreement of the Evangelists, that Christ descended from David by the line of Solomon.
To effect this he has formed a genealogical table of the family of David, ac28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God 23.
cording to the principal genealogical tables given in the Old Testament; and to this test, supported by fair criticism and the comparing of MSS. he brings the table of descent given by St. Matthew and St. Luke, and finding that they both agree with his conclusions, he of course concludes that they necessarily agree with each other. From their mutual agreement with the line of descents collected from the Old Testament, without any other collateral evidence, he further concludes, that the genealogies of St. Matthew and St. Luke are genuine, au-. thentic, and accurate.
Vide Dr. Adam Clarke's Comment on Luke iii. (from whose abridgment of Dr. Barrett's work, the above is compiled), Whitby, and the commentators.
23 It is not necessary to enter into the investigation of the question whether these two chapters of St. Luke are genuine ; for the whole Gospels rest upon the same evidence: that is, they are now found in every manuscript and ver
MATT. i. 2-18. 2 * Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; * Gen, xxi. 2 and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren ;
t Gen. xxix. 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and u Gen. * Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
* Ruth iv. 18, 4 And Aram begat Aminadab ; and Aminadab begat f. 5, 9, Sc Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse ;
6 And y Jesse begat David the king; and David the y 1 Sam. xvi. king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 2:2 Sam. xii.
7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat a i Chron. lii. Abia ; and Abia begat Asa;
10, &c. 8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram ; and Joram begat Ozias;
sion extant, and were always received as authentic from the commencement of the Christian æra. A class of writers, however, falsely assuming the name of Christians, have framed to themselves many arguments against the truths contained in these and the two first chapters of St. Matthew; and having persuaded themselves that the doctrines they contain are indefensible, they proceed to attack the authenticity of the chapters which assert them. Their principal reason for this conduct is, that a heretic, named Marcion, used a copy of St. Luke's Gospel, in which these chapters were omitted. The whole question has been fully and most impartially examined by Dr. Loefler, and the conclusions of his careful investigation are these :
1. The Gospel used by Marcion was anonymous.
2. The four Gospels were all alike rejected by Marcion, who maintained the authenticity of his own anonymous Gospel, in place of these inspired compositions.
3. His followers assert that Christ himself, and St. Paul, were the authors of Marcion's Gospel.
4. Irenæus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, had no reason for regarding Marcion's Gospel as an altered edition of St. Luke's; their assertion is mere conjecture (a), resting on absurd and frivolous allegations. The great difference of the two Gospels is inconsistent with this supposition.
5. No reasonable motive can be assigned, which could have induced Marcion to use a garbled copy of St. Luke's Gospel ; the motives assigned by the fathers being inconsistent and self-destructive.
It is supposed, therefore, that he adopted some apocryphal composition, combining much of the matter given by St. Luke with his own ideas of theology and revelation.
Vide J. P. Smith's Testimony to the Messiah, vol. ii. p. 13, 14.- Vindication of the two first chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke, by a Layman-See also Dr. Nares, Archbishop Laurence, and Mr. Rennell, on the Socinian New Tes
(a) Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. p. 159.