תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

John the Baptist's preaching,

ST. LUKE.

Christ is baptized.

[ocr errors]

A. D. 26.

A.M.4050. unto them, Do violence to no man, 19 1 But Herod the tetrarch, be. A. 11.9031.

A. D. 26. An.Olymp. b neither accuse any falsely; and being reproved by him for Herodias his An.Olymp. content with your wages.

brother Philip's wife, and for all the 15 T And as the people were din expecta- evils which Herod had done, tion, and all menmused in their hearts of 20 Added yet this above all, that he shut up John, whether he were the Christ, or not; John in prison.

16 John answered, saying unto them all, I 21 | Now when all the people were 4. M. 1030, indeed baptize you with water; but one might-|| baptized, 'it came to pass, that Jesus An. Olymp, ier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes also being baptized, and praying, the I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize heaven was opened, you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: 11 22. And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily

17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came throughly purge his floor, and will gather the from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved wheat into his garner ; but the chaff he will Son; in thee I am well pleased. burn with fire unquenchable.

23 And Jesus himself began to be about 18 And many other things in his exhortation, thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) 'the preached he unto the people.

son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

[ocr errors]

* Or, Put no man in fear.-- Exod. 23. 1. Lev. 19. 11.-- Or, allmvance.

d Or, in suspence.- Or, reasoned, or, debated. Matt. 3. 11.

& Mic. 4. 12. Matt. 13. 50. Matt. 14. 3. Mark 6. 17. Matt. 3. 13. Jobn 1. 32.- k See Numb. 4.3, 35, 39, 13, 47. Matt. 13. 05. John 6. 4%.

by the be installeres supoprodotus

or violence from any. This is the import of the words nemi Verse 21. Jesusbeing baptized] See on Matt. ii. 16, 17. nem concutite, used here by the Vulgate, and points out all Verse 23. Thirty years of age] This was the age required Crime, of which the Roman soldiers were notoriously guilty, by the law, to which the priests must arrive before they their own writers being witnesses. Concussio has the above could be installed in their office; see Numb. iv. 3. meaning in the Roman law. See Raphelius in loco.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph] This same Neither accuse'any falsely] Or, on a frivolous pretencem || phrase is used by Herodotus to signify one who was only re. pende ouxoQAYTNONTE, be not sycophants, like those who are base puted to be the son of a particular person: TOUTOU TOUS Powerling flatterers of their masters, who, to ingratiate themselves into | he was SUPPOSED to be this man's son. their esteem, malign, accuse, and impeach the innocent. || Much learned labour has been used to reconcile this gene. Bishop Pearce observes, that when the concussio above re-|| alogy with that in St. Matthew, chap. i. and there are several ferred to, did not produce the effect they wished, they often | ways of doing it: the following which appears to me to be falsely accused the persons, which is the reason why this ad- the best, is also the most simple and easy. For a more elabo.vice is added. See the note on chap. xix. 7.

rate discussion of the subject, the Reader is referred to the Be content with your wages.] Ofwriais. The word signifies additional observations at the end of the chapter. not only the money which was allotted to a Roman soldier, Matthew in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the which was two oboli, about three half-pence per day, but spouse of the blessed Virgin, speaks of sons properly suck, also the necessary supply of wheat, barley, &c. See Raphelius. | by way of natural generation : Abraham begat Isaac, and

Verse 15. Whether he were the Christ] So general was the Isaac begat Jacob, &c. But Luke in ascending from the Sareformation which was produced by the Baptist's preaching, viour of the world, to God himself, speaks of sons either that the people were ready to consider him as the promised properly or improperly such : on this account he uses an is. Messiah. Thus John came in the spirit and power of Elijah, determinate mode of expression, which may be applied to and reformed all things; shewed the people, the tar-gatherers, sons either putatively or really such. And Jesus himself began and the soldiers, their respective duties; and persuaded them to be about thirty years of age, being as was SUPPOSED, the to put away the evil of their doings. See the note on Matt. son of Joseph-of Heli-of Matthat, &c. This receives conxrü. 11.

siderable support from Ruphelius's method of reading the Verses 16, 17. On these verses see Matt. iii. 11, 12. and original wy (ws Evous SETO Vios Iwono) Tou Hau, being, (when reMark i. 7; 8. and particularly the note on John iii. 5. | puted the son of Joseph) the son of Heli, &c. That St. Luke

Verse 19. Herod the tetrarch] See this subject explained does not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from at large Matt. xiv. 1, &c. and Mark vi. 21, 23.

U the first and last person which he naires : Jesus Christ was

[graphic]

A. M. 4030. 24 Which was the son of Matthat, I 30 Which was the son of Simeon, A.M. 4036). A. D. 26.

19 A. D. 26. An. Olymp. which was the son of Levi, which was which was the son of Juda, which was An. Olymp

CCI. 2. Cl. 2. the son of Melchi, which was the son the son of Joseph, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was was the son of Amos, which was the son of Na- the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattaum, which was the son of Esli, which was thetha, which was the son of a Nathan, which was son of Nagge,

the son of David, 26 Which was the son of Maath, which was 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Se- the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, mei, which was the son of Joseph, which was which was the son of Salmon, which was the son the son of Juda,

of Naasson, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zoroba- was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esbel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was rom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Neri,

the son of Juda, 28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abrawhich was the son of Elmodam, which was the ham, which was the son of Thara, which was son of Er,

the son of Nachor, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Matthat, which was the which was the son of Heber, which was the son son of Levit

r all of Sala.

[ocr errors]

only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the And Salathiel, son of Jechonias, according to the former, was Husband of his mother Mary: and Adam who is said to be son-in-law of Neri, according to the latter. the son of God, was such, only by creation. After this ob- Mary therefore appears to have been the daughter of Heli, servation it is next necessary to consider, that in the genea- so called by abbreviation for Heliachim, which is the same in logy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly Hebrew with Joachim. such: i. e, two sons-in-law, instead of two sons.

Joseph son of Jacob, and Mary daughter of Heli, were As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their of the same family: both came from Zerubbabel ; Joseph from genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with Abiud, his eldest son, Matt. i. 13. and Mary by Rhesa, the a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they in-youngest. See ver. 27. serted her husband as the son of him, who was in reality, but Saluthiel and Zorobabel, from whom St. Matthew and St. his father-in-law. This import, Bishep Pearce has fully shewn Luke cause Christ to proceed, were themselves descended som ktobat bears, in a variety of places-Jesus was considered from Solomon in a direct line: and though St. Luke says that according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, Salathiel was son of Neri, who was descended from Nathan, as he was of Heli.

Solomon's eldest brother, 1 Chron. iii. 5. this is only to be The two sons-in-lar who are to be noticed in this genea understood of his having espoused Nathan's daughter, and logy are Joseph the son-in-law of Heli; whose own father that Neri dying, probably without male issue, the two branches was Jacob, Matt. i. 16. and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri; 1 of the family of David, that of Nathan, and that of Solomon, whose own father was Jechonias, 1 Chron. iii. 17. and Matt. were both united in the person of Zerubbabel, by the marriage 1. 12. This remark alone, is sufficient to remove every diffi- of Salathiel chief of the regal family of Solomon, with the

culty. Thus it appears that Joseph son of Jacob, according | daughter of Neri, chief and heretrix of the family of Nathan. 'to St. Matthew, was son-in-lary of Heli, according to St. Luke. || Thus it appears, that Jesus son of Mary re-united in himself

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

A. M. 40.00. 36 - Which was the son of Cainan, || Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, A. M. 4050. A. D. 20.

A.D. 26. An Olynp. which was the son of Arphaxad, which which was the son of Cainan,

An. Olymp. CCI. 2.

W was the son of Sem, which was the son | 38 Which was the son of Enos, which cca. of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

I was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which which was the son of God. was the son of Enoch, which was the son of

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

all the blood, privileges, and rights of the whole family of and father of Sala, is not found in any other Scripture geneDavid; in consequence of which he is emphatically called alogy. See Gen. x. 24. xi. 12. 1 Chron. i. 18, 24. where The Son of David. It is worthy of being remarked that St. Arpharad is made the father of Sala, and no mention at all Matthew who wrote principally for the Jews, extends his ge- | made of Cainan. Some suppose that Cainan was a surname nealogy to Abraham, through whom the promise of the Mes- || of Saln; and that the names should be read together thus, siah was given to the Jews : but St. Luke who wrote his || The son of Heber, the son of Salacainan, the son of Arpharad, history for the instruction of the Gentiles, extends his gene- || &c. If this does not untie the knot, it certainly cuts it; and alogy to Adam, to whom the promise of the Redeemer was the Reader may pass on without any great scruple or emgiven in behalf of himself and of all his posterity. See the barrassment. There are many sensible observations on this potes on Matt. i. 1, &c.

genealogy, in the notes at the end of Bishop Newcome's Verse 36. Of Cainan] This Cainan, the son of Arpharad, || Harmony,

FARTHER CONSIDERATIONS

ON THE BEST MODE OP RECONCILING AND EXPLAINING

THE GENEALOGY OF OUR LORD,

AS GIVEN BY ST. MATTHEW AND ST. LUKE, CHIEFLY EXTRACTED FROM THE PROLEGOMENA OF THE REV. DR. BARRETT'S

FAC-SIMILE OF A FRAGMENT OF THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW, FROM A MS. IN TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN.

history, and the lu The expression on is not strictl

PERHAPS few questions have occasioned more trouble and even the first century, is itself a sufficient proof that neither perplexity to the learned, than that which concerns the ge inconsistency nor corruption could be then alledged against nealogy of our blessed Lord, as it is given by the Evange this part of the evangelical history. If a charge of this nalists, St. Matthew, and St. Luke. The tables found in these ture could have been supported, it unquestionably would writers are extremely different, or, as some think, contradic have been made. The Jews and Heathens who agreed in tory. Allowing the Divine inspiration of the authors, we | their hostility to the religion of Christ, were equally intermust grant that they could make no mistakes in any point, Il ested in this subject; and could they have proved that a single and especially on a subject where the truth of the gospel flaw existed in these genealogical tables, they might at once history, and the fulfilment of the ancient prophecies are so have set aside the pretensions of our Lord and his disciples; nearly concerned. The expression of Le Clerc, however, for if the lineal descent of Jesus from David were not indisUniversam antiquitatem exercitam habuere, is not strictly true. I putable, he could not possess the character essential to the In later times, the difficulty has certainly excited much discussion; but it is worthy of remark, that while the archives | this respect, were even questionable, it is impossible to supof the Jews remained entire, the accuracy of the Evange- || pose that the Jews would have withheld an allegation which lists was never called in question. Hence it follows, either | must fully vindicate them in denying his Messiahship, and in that some corruptions have since that time crept into the putting him to death as an impostor. We may confidently text, or that the true method of reconciling the seeming assert, therefore, that his regular lineal descent from David inconsistencies was then better understood. The silence of could not be disproved, since it was not even disputed, at a the enemies of the gospel, both Heathen and Jewish, during time when alone it could have been done successfully, and by

one

Observations on the

CHAP. III.

genealogy of our Lord.

[ocr errors]

those persons who were so deeply interested in the event. | Joseph was the son of Ileli, the son of Melchi-Matthan The sincere believer may consequently be assured that what and Melchi having each successively married the same wife, erer difficulties appear at present, had formerly no existence, the latter begat children, who were brethren by the mother. and are even now of such a nature as cannot be allowed to | Matthan descending from Solomon, begat Jacob of Estha--shake the faith of any reasonable man. I would not, however,! After the death of Matthan, Melchi, who descended from be understood to intimate that these difficulties are now insu- | Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another race, took his perable ; on the contrary, I ain satisfied that the real difficulties widow to wife, and begat Heli; thus Jacob and IIeli were are few, and that these have, for the most part, been satisfacto brethren by the mother. Heli dying without issue, Jacob rily explained by most of the Evangelical Harmonists. married his widow, and begat Joseph, who by the law was

Among those who have written on this difficult question, accounted the son of Heli, because the law required the seed few seem to have studied it so deeply as Dr. Barrett; who, to be raised up to the deceased brother. Matthew therefore in his edition of a Fragment of St. Matthew's Gospel, has properly says, Jacov begat Joseph, but Luke says, he was brought an unusual measure of general knowledge, correct |

the son of Heli, and it is worthy of remark, that this Evancriticism, and sound learning, to bear upon this point; and

gelist never uses the term begot or begetting, because he traces though it should not be admitted, that he has entirely cleared up this genealogy by pututive, and not by natural sons.' away the obscurities of the subject, yet by his criticisms, This is the substance of Africanus's account, which he says and even his conjectures, he has cast much light upon it ge- he received from the relatives of our Lord, who, because of nerally, and certainly has lessened the difficulties which some their consanguinity to him, were called SEOROTUVOL. Dr. Barof his predecessors in the discussion, had either left as they rett notices the difficulties of this hypothesis (pp. 18, 19.) found them, or endeavoured to account for in a manner that and gives it up on the following principle, among others, could yield little satisfaction to the intelligent inquirer. As' which I think decisive;—that it refers wholly to the descent the subject is important, and Dr. Barrett's work is not likely of Joseph from David, without attempting to prove that the to come into the hands of many Readers, and is written in a son of Mary was the son of David. language which but few can understand, I shall lay before them | Dr. B. then states his own hypothesis, viz. that Matthew the substance of his elaborate dissertation; abstract his principal relates the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. arguments and illustrations; transcribe his various corrected ta Hence appears a sufficient reason, that after Matthew had bles; and freely intersperse such observations and explanations given his genealogical table, another should be added by Luke, as the different branches of his reasoning may suggest. fully to prove that Christ, according to the flesh, derived

The opinion of Africanus in his Epistle to Aristides, (pre his descent from David, not only by his supposed father Jo-. served by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 1. i. c. 7.) which was received seph, but also by his real mother Mary. The writers who by the Church for many centuries as the only legitimate agree in this opinion, Dr. B. divides into two classes. 1. mode of reconciling the Evangelists St. Matthew and St. Luke, Those who affirm that the families of Solomon and Nathan : is the following;

coalesced in Salathiel and Zerubbabel, after which they be• The names of kindred among the Jews, were reckoned came divaricated, till they were at last re-united in the marin two ways. 1. According to nature, as in the case of na- riage of Joseph and Mary. 2. Those who assert, that Satural generation. 2. According to law, as when a man died lathiel and Zerubbabel were distinct individuals, and deny childless, his brother was obliged to take his wife, and the that any coalition took place between the families previously issue of that marriage was accounted to the deceased brother. il to the marriage of Joseph and Mary. Dr. B. rejects this In this genealogy, some succeeded their fathers as natural latler opinion, because it appears to contradict the divine sons, but others succeeded who bore their names only. promise, 2 Sam. vii. 12-16. for according to this hypothesis Thus, neither of the gospels is false; the one reckoning the it would be evident, that Mary, and consequently Christ, pedigree by the natural, the other by the legal line. The did not descend from David by Solomon. He therefore prorace both of Solomon and Nathan is so interwoven by those poses to support the other hypothesis, and to clear away, its second marriages, which raised up issue in the name of a difficulties. deceased brother, that some appear to have two fathers-1 As Irenæus, Africanus, and Ambrosius assert, that Luke. him, whose natural issue they were, though they did not has some names interpolated; to detect this error, Dr. B. dibear his name; and him, to whom, having died childless, the vides the genealogy into 4 classes. 1. From God to Abraham. children of his wife and brother were accounted for a seed, 2. From Abraham to David. 3. From David to Salathiel. assuming his name. If we reckon the generations according || 4. From Salathiel to Christ. From Abraham to Christ, Ambroto Matthew, from David by Solomon, Mattban will be found sius reckons fifty generations, i. e. fifty-one names ; Africanus the third from the end, who begat Jacob, the father of Jo- reckons from Abraham to Joseph, fifty persons, i.e. to Christ, seph; but if we reckon according to Luke, from Nathan fifty-one names : but the present text contains fifty-six names. the son of David, then the third person from the end will Hence it is probable, five names are interpolated, unless we be Melchi, whose son was Heli, the father of Joseph; for suppose the name of Abraham to be excluded, and then.. Observations on the

St. LUKE.

yenealogy of our Lord.

there are four names in the three succeeding classes to bell Verse 25. MattacGreg is omitted by several of the Antebieroexpunged. In the first division therefore, there is no inter- | nymian versions, and by the Vulgate. polation. As to the second division, from Abraham to Da-| -- Auws, is omitted also by the same. vid, it is evident, from the consent of the Fathers, from the - Naouf, is read Nauum by some, and Anum by others. consent of MSS. and Versions, and from the books of the Evro, is read Erlu, Ersa, and Eros, in different MSS. and Old Testament, Ruth iv. 18. 1 Chron. ii. 9, 12. that neither Sedi by four of the Antehieronymjan. of the Evangelists has suffered any interpolation in this part -Nagyou, in many MSS. Aygas, in the Vulgate Magge, of the genealogy; though in Luke jii. 33. some MSS. and and in the Cod. Vercellensis, Nance: instead of Neyyos, one Versions insert another name between Aram and Esrom. of Matthai's MSS. has Earpior. Thus the Coptic; Qa Apsvadaß, ça Adue, Qa Apt, Qu Eczw. Verse 26. Maat, is omitted by the Vulgate, and some of Having accounted for this error, and finding no evidence, in the Antehieronymian versions. The Cod. Forojuliensis has the received text, of an interpolation in this second part of Manat. the genealogy, Dr. B. examines whether the four names bell ----Mattablou, the Cod. Leicestr. reads Marliov, and some of not found in the two parts of the genealogy between David the Antehier. Muthiani, Matthiæ, and Mathath; and one adds and Christ, or, which is more likely, in that which follows|| Jae after Mottolov. the Babylonish captivity; as previously, the Jews were both - Etyess, in one of Matthei's MSS. Asvi. Semeja and Semeix punctual and correct, in keeping their genealogical records, ll in the Vercell. and Veronensis.

Recent interpreters have asserted, that two names, Matthat!) -Iwono, the Cod. Vatic. and Cod. L. in Griesbach read and Levi have been interpolated, ver. 24. because Africanus, ll Iwonx: several others agree in the same reading, and with endeavouring to reconcile the Evangelists, places Melchi thell them the Coptic and Armenian versions, and Greg. Nazianthird from the end, and making him the father of Heli, leaves zen. Some also read Osech, Osche, Joseth, and Joseph Osse. no room for Matthat and Levi. This method of reconciling ll -louda, read Iwda in Cod. Vat. L. Cod. Leicestr. and Idda the Evangelists is followed by Ambrose, lib. 3. in Luc. Hi- || and Joiade by some Latin MSS. eron. Com. in Matthew, Nazianzen in his genealogical verses, ll Verse 27. laawa, read Iwórov by the Cod. Alexandr. Vatic. and Augustin Retr. ii. 7. But on the other hand, it is ob- and several others, Iduvar and Jona by some others. jected, 1. That the testimony of these Fathers is worthy of

timing of these Fathers is worthy ofll Verses 30, 31. EXELCXFU, Mesa, Marvay, are omitted in some little credit, because inconsistent with itself. Austin himself of the Latin MSS. Mered only is omitted in one of the Anmentions forty-three generations from David to Christ, seven- tehieron. Marvey in the Cod. Alexandr. and two others. ty-seven persons in the whole genealogy; he therefore could From this collation of authorities, Dr. B. concludes, 1. that omit none. 2. Though Africanus does omit some, it is not the omission of Melchi, in the Codex Vaticanus is an error, certain which they are; it is possible he transposed Matthat as it contradicts Africanus, and all the Fathers, Versions, and and Levi ; for it does not appear whom he makes the father | MSS. 2. That three names have been omitted in the Anteof Melchi. Damascenus, who endeavours to reconcile Afri-hieronymian version by Sabatier; and also in the Cod. Vercell. canus, transposes these names, and makes Levi the father of and Cod. Veron. viz. ver. 25. Mattathias and Amos; and in Melchi, not his son ; as does also Epiphanius in a hitherto | ver. 26. Maath. inedited fragment produced by Dr. B. in this publication, of thèse, two, viz. Mattathias ver. 25. and Maath ver. 26. p. 46. In the Cod. A. of Matthaï, instead of Matthat the are omitted in Dr. B.'s MS. Z. which contains a copy of the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna ; we real, | Antehieronymian version; and which also reads Mattathias Melchi, the son of Mutthat--of Janna--of Levi : it does not for Matthat. Hence ari-es a suspicion that Maath is an infollow, therefore, that Africanus omitted Marthat and Levi. I terpolation, and should be omitted, and that Mattathias ver. 3. These names are not oniitted in any of the ancient Ver- || 26. although omitted in many MSS. is that which occurs sions, nor in any MS. yet discovered.

| ver. 25. As to the names Melea and Mainan, both appear In order to give a satisfactory view of this part of the to be interpolated. Excluding these four names, Mattathias, subject, Dr. B. introduces a synopsis of the principal various || Mauth, Melen, and Mainan, (unless, for one of these, Amos readings of MSS. Versions, &c. on Luke iii. 24–31; from should be rejected) the genealogy will consist of seventy-two which I judge it necessary to make the following extract. ll generations.

Verse 24. Mixt is omitted by the Cod. Vaticanus--Instead!! These generations Dr. B. following Irenæus, thinks, should of Marlat, Tou Deus, Tou MAX+, Tou Tayyo, one of the Bodleianlle laid down in the following order. DISS. reads Mexi, Tou Marbat, pou lavia, Tou Atus. 1 1. Jesus. 2. Joseph, (or Mary the daughter of Heli.) 3.

-Merbar, many MSS. read Matlar, and the Antehieros. Ili ii the grandfather of Christ. 4. Matthat. 5. Leri. 6. mian versions read, some Matthiæ-Mathej—Mathi-lariilicichi. 7. Janna. 8. Joseph. 9. Mattathias. 10. Amos. -Mathæ---and Matthatiæ.

11. Naum. 12. Esli. 13. Nagge. 14. Semei. 15. Joseph. Instead of Iwonę, Iwanax is read in one of Manilaï's 1-16. Juda. 17. Joanna. 18. Rhesa. 19. Zerubbabel. 20. MSS.

Salathiel. 21. Neri. 22. Melchi. 23. Addi. 24. Cosam.

lavia, su Ae Antehieroi - sachi: 7. Janna: le

« הקודםהמשך »