of the two which follow, from the first building to the Return being 536 years, and from the Return to the Asmonæan High Priesthood and independence 536 years. The third item is the septuagintal period, the fourth the 414, the fifth rd of the shortest duration between the Deluge and the Call (368), and the sixth th of the next shortest (428). The sum of the third, fourth, and fifth is a 606 period. That of the five last items is 1180 (=590 × 2), which, by adopting one Various Reading, will become 1080 (=216×5), and a second will reduce it to 980 ( = 490 x 2).

776. Prefixed to the several items is the number of the High Priests in each period. And these give indications of the same character. The number of the Priests is represented to have been as follows. From the Exode to the building of the Temple or those who officiated in the Tabernacle, 13; being 1 (Aaron) during the wanderings in the Wilderness, and 12 during the subsequent time. From the Exode to the Asmonæan dynasty, or those of lawful and lineal succession, (the rightful High Priest Onias having at the latter epoch been driven into Egypt, and built a Temple there) 46, which is evidently a mystical number, being that of the years in 100 Sacerdotal cycles. From the building of the Temple to the Herodian High Priests, or those who officiated in the first and second Temples, (if 3 are reckoned), or who succeeded in the appointed order, (the High Priests subsequently being installed or removed at the will of the Civil power, without any regard to the Law), the number of these was 42 (=7x6=the number of generations from Abram to Christ according to St. Matthew). From the building of Herod's Temple to "the day when Titus took and burnt the city," that is, of those who were of the seed of Aaron, but not lawfully appointed, "there were in all 28," (=7 × 4). From the building of the first Temple to the conflagration of the last, there were 70 High Priests. This is a remarkable correspondence with the 70 years of Captivity. It might be suspected that the one number was taken as the measure of the other, a year being reckoned for a Priest, or a Priest for a year. Taking in the whole, we find that, besides the Wilderness High Priest Aaron, the root and progenitor of the whole, there were of "the seed of Aaron" 12 High Priests who officiated in the Tabernacle and 70 in the Temple. The conjunction of 12 and 70 forcibly reminds us of the 12 sons of Jacob and 70 souls that came from his loins (Ex. i. 5), of the 12 wells and 70 palm trees of Elim,— of

IV. THE GENEALOGIES.

789. It were reasonable before examination to expect that the many Genealogical Tables contained in the Jewish Writings would furnish invaluable checks upon the Chronology. And indeed there have not been wanting Writers of the highest reputation, who, casting aside as mythical those portions of the history from which the early chronology is ordinarily derived, have sought to approximate to the true time by means of the Genealogies. But when it is considered that the Jews were unquestionably in the habit of abridging, if not of expanding their genealogies, it will evidently appear that this must be a most unsafe, not to say worthless, means of measuring time. One of the highest authorities of the present day (Lepsius) has, however, given the preference to this source of Chronology; and it is therefore proper that we should inquire into its value, so far as our limited space will permit. But we shall not be able to do more than advert to a few of the principal Tables, and most striking discrepancies; -in fact, we must limit ourselves to the two longest series, the Genealogical Tables of Matthew and Luke, and the Sacerdotal list of Josephus, adding only a few brief notices of others, and summing up the whole in a general comparison of the chronological and genealogical results.

1. GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST ACCORDING TO MATTHEW AND LUKE.

790. "The books of the generation of Jesus Christ " contained in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, having been taken from the ancient Jewish records, may

The phrase, used by St. Paul in 1 Tim. i. 4, is pregnant with meaning. "Neither give heed," says he, "to fables and endless genealogies." And again to Titus (iii. 9). "Avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." That such an injunction should have been given to both the primitive Bishops clearly shews what kind of questions most engaged the attention of Jewish Rabbis in St.

reasonably be supposed to furnish us with those views of the genealogy which were most generally received and esteemed in the time of the Evangelists. These two, after a few remarks upon St. Matthew's separately, we shall proceed to compare together.

791. The Genealogy contained in St. Matthew's first Chapter might alone suffice to establish the theory propounded in this Essay. For in it are found proofs of the first principles of that theory. We may learn thence that the Jews regarded certain numbers as having a sacred or mystical character,- that they deemed it to be of paramount importance to bring great events into coincidence with such numbers, and that they did not scruple in order to effect such coincidences to give garbled versions even of those national documents, which were held to be of the most sacred character, and were indeed of the highest public as well as private importance. These are in fact the hypotheses on which our theory rests. If these be granted, or if they be proved (as they are in this one Chapter alone), it cannot be denied to be very possible that all the coincidences, periods, and cycles hitherto pointed out, may have been devised by Jewish Chronologers, nor that it is highly probable that the great bulk actually have been. If the practice of omitting names was SO common and so unscrupulously adopted as it evidently was, can any difficulty be felt in supposing that periods of years would in like manner be omitted or inserted (probably according to definite and known rules) with the view to attain the same end? This would seem to be a less objectionable practice than the other; especially considering that the demonstration of the fulfilment of those prophecies, which foretold that the Messiah should be "the seed of Abraham" and "the Son of David," depended upon the uncorrupted preservation of the genealogies; while nothing of any religious importance rested upon an accurate knowledge of the Chronology.

792. So much for general inferences. To advert now to

And

Paul's days; and the way in which he speaks of them manifests how much of truth and value they had in his estimation. Such numerical and chronological systems as it is the aim of this Essay to bring to light are manifestly cognate to the genealogical. They would be the product of the same turn of mind. certainly, if not expressly intended by one or other of the terms made use of, they would be included by St. Paul in the same category. It might be supposed from the mention of Treatises "concerning genealogies" so early as the time of Rehoboam (2 Chron. xii. 15), that this sort of "questions" formed the favourite study of the Jews from very early times: indeed this is generally supposed to have been the case.

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

- 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 Μαριας 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 tws "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. Wieseler, 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.

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, from 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