substance of whose deep and learned investigations are given by Adam Clarke, in an Appendix to Luke iii. has examined the difficulties of this hypothesis, and gives it up on the principle, that it leaves us entirely in the dark, as to the lineage of Mary, from whom alone Christ really sprung; and proves nothing more of his relation to David, than that his mother was married to one of the descendants of that prince. It is evident to the most cursory observer, that this can never come up to the import of the passages of Scripture, which tell us that Christ was made of the seed of David, Rom. i. 3. and that according to the flesh he was made of the fruit of his loins, Acts ii. 30. The best solution of the difficulty is that of Lightfoot, who supposes that Matthew, writing more immediately for the Jews, proves Christ to be their Messiah, and heir to the throne of David, by legal descent from Abraham and David; whereas the object of Luke, in writing for the Gentiles, to whom the promise was given before the Mosaic dispensation, was to prove the same Christ to be the predicted seed of the woman, who was to bruise the serpent's head; for which purpose it was necessary to trace the descent from Adam. In St. Luke's genealogy, therefore, Joseph, whom Matthew expressly states to be the son of Jacob, is represented as the son of Heli, by virtue of his marriage with Mary; since the Jews excluded the names of women from their tables of descent. Or it may be, that Jesus himself is called the son of Heli, being really his grandson; in which case we have a parallel example in Gen. xxxvi. 2. where Aholibamah's pedigree is thus deduced: Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon. Now it appears by vv. 24, 25. that Anah was the son, not the daughter of Zibeon; so that Moses calls Aholibamah the daughter both of Anah and Zibeon, precisely as Luke calls Jesus, the son both of Joseph and Heli. In confirmation of this theory, it may be remarked, that the Talmudists speak of Mary as the daughter of Heli; and though she is also represented as the daughter of Joachim and Anna, there is little doubt that Joachim is a name of like import with Heli, Luke iii. 23. or Heliakim, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 4. each being derived from Hebrew names of the Deity. There is reason to suppose also, that had Luke intended to give the pedigree of Joseph, and not of Mary, the two tables, which correspond exactly between Abraham and David, would not have varied from David to Christ.

One point at least, with respect to these genealogies, is indisputable; viz. the accuracy of the Evangelists. Tables of pedigree were kept among the Jews with the greatest punctuality and exactness, and laid up in the secret archives of the temple. See Euseb. Eccl. Hist. I. 6. It was, doubtless, from these registers that St. Matthew and St. Luke compiled their genealogies; for Josephus, after a recital of his own pedigree, informs us that he derived it from the same source: De Vita Sua, p, 998. τǹv μèv

οὖν τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν διαδόχην, ὡς ἐν ταῖς δημοσίαις δέλτοις ἀναγεγραμμένην εὗρον, οὕτως παρατίθεμαι. Hence any faw in the documents themselves cannot be attributed to the Evangelists; and as no charge of infidelity in the transcription was brought against them either by the Jews, who would have anxiously detected any inaccuracy, as impugning the title of Christ to the Messiahship; or by any of the early enemies of the Gospel; we may fairly conclude that their honesty could not be questioned. In preserving the line of David, indeed, the Jews were more especially careful, as upon this their hopes of tracing the Messiah depended; so that St. Paul confidently appeals to the lineage of Christ in Heb. vii. 14. Compare 2 Tim. ii. 8. The insertion, therefore, of these tables proves, beyond all doubt, the belief of the writers that the Messiah was to be of the lineage of David; and that Jesus, in fulfilling this particular, was the expected Redeemer.

Several genealogies, similar to those of the Evangelists, are to be found in the O. T. Among others also, quoted by Wetstein, there are three in Herod. ÏV. 147. VII. 204. VIII. 131. remarkably parallel with that of St. Luke. An inscription, found at Palmyra, and supposed to be nearly cotemporary with the Apostolic age, is cited by Harmer from Mr. Wood's work, which rendered literally into Latin runs thus: Senatus Populusque Abialamenem, Puri filium, Mocimi nepotem, Æranis pronepotem, Matthæ abnepotem, et Eranem patrem ejus, viros pios et patriæ amicos, et omni modo placentes patriæ patriisque Diis, Honoris gratia. Anno 450, mense Aprili. LIGHTFoot, Clarke, MACKNIGHT. [WHITBY.]

Ibid. 'Inoou Xolarou. See on v. 16.

Χριστοῦ.

Ibid. υἱοῦ Δαβίδ, υἱοῦ ̓Αβραάμ. The son of David, the son of Abraham. The Evangelist here states what he is going to prove; viz. that Jesus Christ, in accordance with the prophe-. tical character of the Messiah, was descended from Abraham and David. See Gen. xii. 3. xxii. 18. 2 Sam. vii. 16. Psalm lxxxix. 4. Isaiah ix. 7. Jerem. xxiii. 5. Ezek. xxxvii. 24. Amos ix. 11. and compare Acts iii. 25. Luke i. 33. That the Jews expected their Messiah to answer this character is evident from Matt. xii. 23. xxi. 9. xxii. 42. and from the Talmudic writings. David is mentioned first in order, though last in time, as the promise to him was more explicit, and would naturally be fresher in the memory of the Jews. The word viòs is here applied, after the Hebrew custom, to any descendant, however remote. Hence Grotius observes: Non tantum pater filium, sed pronepotem proavus genuisse dicatur. So also yevvav, v. 8. Compare Gen. xxix. 5. with xxiv. 47. Nepos is used in the same extensive application in Latin. WHITBY, LIGHTFOOT, GROTIUS, MACKNIGHT, &c. Campbell and Wakefield understand vioũ indefinitely, and translate a son of David, a son of Abraham. But, even without considering the passage as a translation from a Hebrew original, the

Greek usage will readily admit vioỡ to be anarthrous. The want of the article before yɛvéσews is nearly similar. MIDDLETON. As we shall have frequent occasion to speak of the use of the article in the Greek text, it may be adviseable to present the reader, in this place, with

[A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE DOCTrine of the greek article.

The Greek article is undoubtedly a definitive. The nature and use, however, of this part of speech was but little ascertained, till it was illustrated and explained by the late learned Bishop of Calcutta, who has shown that it is the pronoun relative ỏ, which together with its adjunct forms a proposition by means of the participle of existence expressed or understood. The pronominal nature of the article is proved at once by the following instance in Homer, Il. Π. 793. ΤΟΥ δ' ἀπὸ μὲν κρατὸς ΚΥΝΕΗΝ βάλε Φοίβος Απόλλων· Ἡ δὲ κυλινδομένη καναχὴν ἔχε ποσσὶν ὑφ ̓ ἵπε Tov. Had the sentence ended here, 'H would be a pronoun relative referring to Kuvenv, exactly as rou refers to Patroclus; but it happens that the poet has added in the next verse αὐλῶπις τρυφάλεια ; so that in fact the difference between the article and pronoun is merely accidental. Hence it appears that the proposition formed by the article and its adjunct differs from ordinary propositions only as assumption differs from assertion, i. e. as the participle v differs from the verb orí. Thus ó ávno must signify he, or the male, being, or assumed to be, a man. Sometimes indeed the participle is expressed, as in Aristot. de Mor. IV. 2. oi μádioτa ἄξιοι ὌΝΤΕΣ ἥκιστα πλουτούσι; where the participle might have been omitted without affecting the author's meaning. Such being the nature of the article, its insertion or omission will in general be found to be regulated by the following rules.

I. The article is inserted, 1. when the same noun is repeated, or a synonymous one is used, in reference to the same person or thing, or even when no such person or thing has been mentioned, provided its existence may be inferred from what has been said. Æschin. in Ctesiph. §. 56. οὗτος ΠΡΟΔΟΥΣ τοῖς πολεμίοις Νύμ φαιον φυγὰς ἐγένετο, ΤΗΝ κρίσιν οὐχ ὑπομείνας. Here τὴν κρίσιν is the trial to which the traitor would have been subjected, and the article is sanctioned by the preceding mention of προδούς. 2. Before nouns employed kar' Eoxny, in reference to some object familiar to the mind of the hearer; and that not only in cases of preeminent worth, but wherever the person or thing spoken of is, for some cause or other, well known. 3. With monadic nouns, i. e. nouns indicating persons or things where one only can be the subject of discourse. Thus Lysias, Orat. Gr. T. V. p. 139. Εκκόψας ΤΑΣ θύρας, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς ΤΗΝ γυναικωνίτιν. This case is nearly allied to the preceding. 4. Where the article is used for a pronoun possessive, as in Theoc. Idyl. III. 52. àλyéw TAN

Kepaλàv, i, e. my head. 5. Before the names of the great objects of nature, as ó oupavòs, n yn, &c. except in some cases "Hλoç, which is considered a proper name. 6. Before adjectives in the neuter gender, used to denote some attribute or quality in its general or abstract idea: thus rò σópov for copía, and the like examples abound. 7. Words in regimen either both take or both reject the article; as λέοντος σκυμνίον, or ΤΟ ΤΟΥ λέοντος σкVμvíοv. So also do, 8. Partitives, between which and their respective wholes a like mutual relation subsists. Upon the same principle depends, 9. The use of the article with μèv and S. 10. In all the preceding instances the article and its adjunct together recall some familiar idea; but cases occur in which the article can refer to nothing in the mind of the reader. Thus Demosth. de Coron. §. 71. πονηρὸν Ὁ συκοφάντης ἀεί. Here the allusion is general, and examples occur continually, especially in the plural number, so often as an affirmative is true alike of all persons or things in question. The reference in these cases, though not familiar to the reader, is undoubtedly perceptible to the mind of the writer.

II. The article is omitted, 1. In propositions which merely affirm or deny existence, in which, from the nature of the article, it would be superfluous. Esch. c. Ctes. §. 26. σraι μèv siρývη. 2. Before nouns preceded by verbs or participles, substantive or nuncupative; in which case the verb or participle in question precludes its being again expressed or understood, which is essential to the nature of the article. Demosth. de Cor. §. 23. aŭrios tμ Tov Toλεμou. 3. After verbs of appointing, choosing, creating, &c. Demosth. de Cor. §. 59. ńyéμwv kaì KÚριos ηρéðŋ PíλITTоç áπáνTwv. This case is nearly analogous to the last. 4. With nouns in apposition, denoting the object of the preceding noun. Demosth. de Cor. §. 69. δύναμιν εἶχεν ἡ πόλις τοὺς νησιώTaç. 5. In negative propositions, involving universal exclusion in the objects spoken of. Demosth. de Cor. §. 28. où vauç, où тεíxn, τῆς πόλεως τότε κεκτημένης. Here the orator could not have said Tàç vauç, since the article necessarily implies an existence, which is inconsistent with the nature of the proposition. 6. Before nouns in regimen, of which the former is indefinite, and consequently the latter, philosophically speaking, must be indefinite also: for instance, in the example given in art. 7. of the last section, of an indefinite λέοντος, there can be no definite σκυμνίον. The converse is also true.

III. Besides the above instances of insertion and omission, the two are sometimes combined; for instance: 1. The subject is generally found with the article, the predicate without it; as in Aristot. Anal. Post. II. 3. οὐ γάρ ἐστι Τὸ ἐπίπεδον σχῆμα, οὐδὲ TO σxnμа Éπíπεdov. 2. When two or more attributives, such as σχῆμα ἐπίπεδον. adjectives, participles, and nouns expressive of character, relation, and dignity, joined by a copulative or copulatives, are assumed of the same person or thing; before the first the article is

inserted, before the others omitted. This is Mr. G. Sharpe's rule, and it is illustrated in Mr. Horne's Introduction, Vol. II. p. 538. It is not, however, without three exceptions,-of names of substances considered as substances-of proper names-and of abstract ideas: such as 'O Xíloç kaì Xovσós. Æsch. c. Ctes. §. 81. τὸν Αλέξανδρον καὶ Φίλιππον. Plato, τὴν ἀπειρίαν καὶ ἀπαιδευσίαν. In these cases the substances, persons, and qualities are evidently distinct, so that the repetition of the article is unnecessary.

IV. The principal difficulty with respect to the Greek article relates to its use with proper names, and before abstract nouns. 1. In the former case it appears that the article is frequently used before proper names of celebrity, before those which have been previously mentioned, and those which are familiar to the hearer; generally also before the names of Deities and places. 2. The use of abstract nouns in Homer is extremely rare. Where, however, they do occur, it is always without the article. There is considerable doubt as to the principles upon which it is used before these nouns in other writers; it seems, however, to be usually prefixed when the noun is used in its most abstract sense-when it is personified-when the article is employed as a possessive pronoun-when there is any reference, either anticipative or retrospective. There are, of course, anomalies to be met with in every application of the rules which have been laid down; particularly in the occasional insertion or rejection of the article after prepositions: and there are some other minutia which it is here impossible to investigate. Such as occur in the N. T. of any material importance will be noticed in their places. MIDDLETON.]

Ver. 2. Toùs adeλpoùs aurou. The brethren of Judas are mentioned, because, though they were not the Messiah's progenitors, they were on an equal footing with Judas in respect of religious privileges. Their names may also have been added to comfort the dispersed tribes, who were not yet so fully returned out of captivity as Judah was, with an assurance of their interest in the promised blessing. The case was otherwise with Ishmael and Esau, whose posterity were excluded from the privileges of the covenant; and therefore, though the sons of Abraham and Isaac respectively, their names are omitted in the Genealogy. LIGHTFOOT, MACKNIGHT, WHITBY. Wetstein is of opinion, that the brethren of Judas are named in consequence of the Jewish prejudice against Christ's being preferred to his brethren. See Matt. xiii. 55. sqq. But in all probability the Apostle transcribed the Genealogy precisely as he found it in the public registers.

Ver. 3. τὸν Φαρὲς καὶ τὸν Ζαρά. Mentioned together as being twin brothers, and striving for primogeniture: Gen. xxxviii. 28.