necessary to bring the Septuagint genealogies into harmony with it, for some one or more of these reasons, or for some other of which we are ignorant, the name of Cainan was introduced into the Septuagint at first, probably, into some codex of note and authority, and thence into all subsequent copies. How the name got into St Luke it is perhaps impossible to discover. It may have been a mere accident arising from the method of writing the genealogy in double columns, either with the names consecutively in the same column, or with the consecutive names opposite to one another, the adoption of which two methods led, as Mill tells us, to infinite confusion, (see Mill's N. T., note on Luke iii.) Or it may have been added on some conjectural ground, to make up the famous number seventy-seven, which is, in point of fact, the connexion in which we have the earliest evidence of its existence. But that it was not always in St Luke's list we may be pretty sure, both from the testimony of Irenæus, and from the improbability of St Luke's introducing a name into his genealogy which was not either in the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures of the Old Testament, as well as from the evidence of Beza's very ancient MS. For in spite of all the arguments used to disparage that MS., it is an invaluable evidence of the non-existence of Cainan in the older copies. For we know of no conceivable motive which should have induced a copyist of that age to leave out the name if it had been there: while the motive for its insertion iuto

all the more modern MSS., from which our present text is derived, is manifest, viz. to bring St Luke into harmony with the received text of the Septuagint, which was, what we may call, the Authorised Version through Christendom, till the Vulgate partially superseded it. And thus much must suffice on this complicated question. We conclude that, at all events, Cainan has no right to a place among the ancestors of Jesus Christ.

CHAPTER IX.

On the discordance between the Genealogy from Salmon to David, and the received chronology of the corresponding period.

IT

T is impossible to overrate the value of authentic genealogies for the purpose of correcting the chronology of the periods of time corresponding with them; and it is apparent that one purpose of God in causing so many and such continuous genealogies to be inserted in the Scriptures, is to supply His Church with the materials of such historical accuracy as is necessary to give consistency to the Scripture narrative, with which Scripture doctrine is so intimately interwoven. But then it is also clear that for genealogies to subserve this important purpose, it is absolutely necessary that they should be considered as subject to some certain law, as in reality the generations in nature are, of which genealogies contain the record. When we have ascertained what is the average length of human life, and the average time of life at which, in any given age of the world, men have children, we then make our calculations accordingly, and are certain that any given number of generations covers about such or such a period of time; or again, that in any given period of time there will have been in any family, that may be under consideration, about such or such a number of generations. To say, It

is possible that a man may generate at the age of 100 years, and what is possible in one case is possible in ten cases, and therefore in one instance ten generations may cover 1000 years: And it is also possible that a man may generate at the age of twelve years, and this may happen ten times consecutively, and therefore in another case ten generations may cover only 120 years, would be to say what is ridiculous and false1; and every approximation to such a mode of reasoning must be discarded in theology as well as every other branch of history or science, if we would not throw an air of ridicule and falsehood over it. Not only, however, on general principles are we quite certain that the genealogical lists in Scripture, when not corrupted, are safe guides to chronology, but we find, in point

1 The following passage from Dr Brett's Chronological Essay, is a specimen of the kind of reasoning here condemned. 'Another objection against lengthening this period... is the long life which must then be attributed to three men in succession, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse, who must each of them beget a son when he was 150 years old or more, if we compute the years of the Judges as I have done. But whoever will look into the abridgement of the Philosophical Transactions, Vol. ш. pp. 306, 307, and see the account there given of Thomas Parr, who died 1635, in the 153rd year of his age, and might have lived much longer if he had not been brought to court and high fed, will not see any reason to think it incredible that there might be three men succeeding one another who might live to a greater age, and who might also get children at that age. So that there is no occasion to shorten this period on that account.' pp. 31, 32. Even Bochart's letter to Carbonellus (Opera, Vol. 1. p. 911), in which he attempts to remove the difficulty as to the age of Ahaz when Hezekiah was born, displays more erudition than of the spirit of sound criticism.

of fact, that they do tally most accurately in general with the periods of time subtended by them, and also with one another when there are two or more genealogies for the same period of time; and hence we are all the more sure, when any strange and glaring discordance occurs between the number of links in a genealogical series, and the number of years over which the chain extends, that there is some defect either in the genealogy or in the chronology; and it is the business of the critic to endeavour to find out where the defect is, and by removing it to restore the harmony between the genealogy and the chronology. Now such is the case before us. Our genealogy in Ruth iv. 18-22, which is repeated by both the Evangelists, tells us that between Nahshon the Prince of Judah at the time of the Exodus, and David, there intervened four generations, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse. Our chronology tells us that from the entrance into Canaan to the birth of David was 486 years'; or, at the very lowest computation, 405 years. Therefore we have to allow 100 or 120 or more years to a generation: and this at a time when human life was about the same length that it is now. But upon the principles above stated this is morally impossible, and we therefore conclude certainly that either the genealogies are defective, or that the chronology is at fault.

1 So Dr Brett. According to Dr Hales, from the birth of Salmon to the birth of Solomon, was 559 years, 112 years to a generation. Vol. I. p. 45.