p. 27o, ed. Belied.), Tofi 8' dro, EaXaS-S7X, Zopopdp€X, 'Pno-d, 'Twat, ; and in the Syriac ver „ : 7 ., : sion thus— \\ n•-)501f_apj, Resa filli ZO9V babel ; and so in the old Gothic, Refins, funaus Massmann's p. zoo. If Pncrel be a late form [titp7) or tfii-a] of the He brew word jt4-1, which occurs as a proper name in Gen. xlvi. 21, it may possibly indicate here that the bearer of this name was the eldest son of Zorobabel, the head of the family, which was now to be divided. (In Simonis Onomast. the word is defined by caput, i.e., primarins). If so, he fitly hands on to his posterity and to the last of them, Mary's blessed Son,' the inheritance of David's elder son Nathan (1 Chron. 5) ; leav ing to his younger brother Abiud the function of transferring the younger Solomon's heritage to Mary's husband Joseph. According to a recent scheme (Smith's Diet. of Bible, i. 668) the genealo gies converge in Me third nanze above 7oseph, which occurs in St. Matthew (i. 15) as Matthan, and in St. Luke (iii. 24) as Matthat, who are sup posed to be from the similarity of the names one and the same person. We dismiss so precarious an hypothesis without discussion, and observe that Africanus (in Epist. ad Arista. I. c.) and Euse bius (Hist. Eccl. i. 7) omit both Matthat's name and that of his father Levi, and make Melchi the father of Heli and grandfather of Joseph (Kard AOUlial, OW11475 77:ILT03 art, TeNovs MExxl, a tar 6 'LW 6 roil '14e0-N, wari7p).'* St. Ambrose agrees with Africanus, it would seem, in omitting these names ; for he says (lib. iii. Luc.), Lucas vero Joseph filium Heli, Heli autem filium Melchi esse descripsit.' Under this section of the convergence of the two Genealogies, we cannot but mention the addition to the two genealogies of SS. Nlatthew and Luke made by John Damascene (Orthoa'. Fid. iv. 15) in the first instance, and long afterwards modified by Grotius (Anna. in Luc. iii.) Damascene, omitting Mattliat, and putting Melchi in his place, gives to this last a brother called Panther, whose son Bar-Pantlzer begat 7oakinz, the father of the blessed Virgin Mary, second cousin, according to this view, of Joseph. The scheme includes the name Levi (omitted by Africanus) only as the father of Melchi, thus— Grotius makes Matthan, Estha's first husband, die childless ; Melchi, the second husband of Estha, is represented as the father of Jacob, Heli and Levi. Jacob the eldest is reckoned by levirate law as the son of Matthan, while the second Heli becomes the father of Joseph, who is transferred to Jacob (childless) as his legal son and heir. Levi, the third son of Melchi, has a son called Barpanther, who is the father of Panther [strange perversion of names !], whose son yoakim is the father of the Virgin Mary. Notwithstanding the high authority of Grotius with the promoters of the theory we have throughout been opposing, and in spite of our respect for his learning, we cannot help cen suring this genealogical scheme of his as a fantastic conceit. We derive, however, from both it and that of which it is a parody (Damascene's) a confir mation of our theory, that one of the lines is un doubtedly Mary's—these writers prove the necessity of such an interpretation by actually devising a supplemental branch-genealogy, in order to include the mother of our Lord. How much more simple and congruous to apply to her at once one of the sacred originals ! Structure of the Genealogies.—St. Matthew for mally divides his table into three sections, each containing fourteen names (i. 17). These sections are really chronological marizs of tbe growth, power, and a'ecline of the Jewish nation ; progress ing (i). from the great patriarch Abraham, to whom the promises were first made, to the great king David, to whom they were renewed ; (2) from the consolidation of the royal power in David and Solomon, and its being put on its trial, to its overthrow by the Babylonians in the days of Jechonias (Jehoiachin) ; and (3) from the removal of the captive king to Babylon, to Jesus the Messiah, the fulfiller of the promises and the re storer of the kingdom. There are two ways of making up the three fourteens. The first (see the table in Dr. Robinson, Harm. af Gosp. [Tract Soc. ed.], p. 197) traces the first fourteen from Abra ham to David inclusive, the second fourteen from David to Josiah inclusive, and the third fourteen from Jechonias to Jesus. The second method traces the first fourteen as before, but heads the second fourteen with Solomon, and ends it with the Jechonias of the rith verse (whom some sup pose to be Jehoiakim*), making the third fourteen commence with the Jechonias of the 12th verse and terminate in our Lord (For the list, see Dr. A. Clarke's Camino:lazy, vol. v. p. 3S). 'Because from Abraham to David inclusive the number of recorded names in the O. T. genealogies is exactly fourteen, the sacred author, parting from this main purpose of his genealog,y, adopts a very common Hebrew usage . . . in making this remarkable double hebdomad of generations the measure of the period that follows from David to Christ—an interval which is twice as long as the other, and which divides itself into two periods, each equal to it.' Dr. W. H. Mill, from whom this last sentence is quoted, has a masterly vindication of this structural character of St. Matthew's genealogy from the aspersions of Strauss. He adduces instances of the Jewish usage of abridging and regulating pedi grees from the Scriptures and other works ; and well arg-ues that, as the omissions in genealogical lines have no tendency to deceive or to presume on the reader's ignorance,' they cannot be objec tionable when resorted to for convenience, symme try, or even graver reasons* [Panth. Prin. pp.
105-231 Of the instances he adduces, we will only mention the abridged table of his own descent which Ezra gives [comp. Ezra vii. 1-5 with r Chron. vi. 3-15], in which he contracts the twenty two generations intervening between Aaron and himself into sixteen ; and the example produced by Schcettgen [Horo Ifebr. et Taint. vol. i. p. 1] thus : Synopsis Sohar, p. r32, n. IS, Ab Abrahamo usque ad Salomonem xv sunt generationes ; atque tunc luna fuit in plenilunio. A Salomone usque ad Zedekiam iterum stint xv generationes, et tunc luna defecit, et Zedekim effossi sunt oculi.' Here we have the compression of actual generations into symmetrical sections, and a reason alleged, which, though fanciful, was meant to express (his torically) a moral purpose. St. Matthew's genea logy being meant only to indicate Christ's legal descent, is not compromised by any omissions— the salient points of the line as developed in the history are carefully given, and guy suffice to trace the legal connection of our Lord with his ances tors. St. Luke's purpose being to illustrate Christ's natural descent, omissions wpuld have been fatal. This evangelist, therefore, supplies us with every generation in the ancestry of Jesus Christ, not only up to the primordial sources of the Jewish nation and its royal glory in Abraham and David, but up to the very origin of mankind, thus indicating the common interest of all in Him who came as a light to lighten the Gentiles, and to be the glory of His people Israel' (as Luke himself records His style, ii. 32). On the principle of this compiete enumeration required in the third gospel, we prefer [with Lord A. Hervey] to obviate the great difficulty of the period between the Exodus and David containing but four generations, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse (comp. our Geneal. with Ruth iv. 18-22), by supposing the common chronology to be at fault, rather than [with Drs. Mill, Hales, and Kennicott and other writers] by assuming that the genealogies are defective, —defectiveness not being characteristic of St. Luke's register, which, in this period of more than 400 years (according to the ordinary chronology), contains no more names than St. Matthew's list. (See Lord A. H.'s Gene alogies, chap. ix. pp. 204-276, a valuable portion of his learned work ; comp. therewith Dr. W. H. Mill, pp. 123-137.) The following scheme repre sents the genealogy of our blessed Lord from David, after whom the divergence first begins :— The descendbrg mode of St. Matthew, and the ascending- mode of St. Luke, have parallels in the genealogies of the O. T., which are largely enumerated by Surenhusius (BigNos KaraXXa-riir, 77zesis xxx., pp. 109, Ho) ; one instance of each has been already adverted to above. The sacer dotal line in Chron. vi. 3-15 is given in the de scending form ; whilst that in Ezra vii. 1-5 is recorded in the ascending method. Surenhusius' concluding words are worth quoting here : Se cundum duplicem huncce modum genealogia Jesu Christi quoque recensetur in Nov. Test. a. Matthxo deorsum, a Luca autem sursum. Matthaeus qui dem deorsuni recensuit, ut Judoeis ad qumstionem responderet, qua illi quxrebant an Jesus esset ex familia Davidis cui promissiones factx erant, quique propterea erat veluti basis : Lucas vero surszinz, quia persona Christi erat subjechem a'e cujzts splePz dere, cap. ii. vers. 21-23, magnifice locutus erat.' On the import (in a theological sense) of the posi tion of the Genealogy [in St. Matthew, before Christ's nativity ; in St. Luke, at the threshold of his ministry], the reader is referred to Origen, Homil. 28 i;z Luc. (Opera [ed. Beni, vol. iii. pp. 965, 966), among the ancients, and Bp. Cowper, Genealogie of Christ (IVorks, pp. 5S7-594), among the moderns. The unique word eryeveaXo-pyros (Heb. vii. 3), and the equivalent phrase, -yepe aXoyoti,uevos (ver. 6), describe a point in the sacer dotal order of Melchisedec,' which is intended to illustrate one element of the superiority of Christ's priesthood over that of Aaron. These phrases mean without a pedigree [see margin of A. V.] ; q. d., not standing in the public genealo ;Leal registers of the Levitical priests. Hence it is added (ver. 14) : It is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah ; of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood." The Messiah is high priest, and yet not of the tribe of Levi ; conse quently the Messianic idea as such [and so far] involves a g,oing beyond the law.' Ebrard on the Hebrews [Clark], p. 224. Among the more eminent writers of recent times who have treated on this im portant subject, are-(1.) on the side of the theory that both genealogies belong to .7oseph, Calvin, Gro tius, Schleiermacher, Hug, Meyer, Patritius, De Costa, Mill, Alford, Ellicott, Lord A. Hervey ; while (2.) in favour of the opinion which we have advocated, as most consistent with Holy Scripture, and with primitive opinion [Dr. Mill's reprobation of it, as a modem gloss,' is a blot in his valuable treatise], are Luther, J. J. Hottinger, Calmet, Spanheim, G. J. Vossius, South, Lightfoot, Suren husius, Kidder, Michaelis, Kuinoel, Bengel, Ols hausen, Wieseler, Ebrard, Kurtz, Lange, Auberlen (in Herzog), Hales, Greswell, Kitto, Robinson. P. H.