political and territorial divisions, as much as to strict- ly genealogical descent, and it will at once be seen how erroneous a conclusion it may be, that all who are call- ed "sons" of such or such a patriarch, or chief father, must necessarily ])e his very children. Just as in the very first division into tribes Manasseh and Ephraim were numbered with their uncles, as if they had been sons instead of grandsons (Gen. xlviii, 5) of Jacob, so afterwards the names of persons belonging to different generations would often stand side by side as heads of families or houses, and be called the sons of their com- mon ancestor. For example. Gen. xlvi, 21 contains grandsons as well as sons of Benjamin [sec Bei>ah], and Exod. vi, 24 probably enumerates the son and grand- son of Assir as heads, with their father, of the families of the Korhites; and so in innumerable other instances. If any one family or house became extinct, some other would succeed to its place, called after its own chief father. Hence, of course, a census of any tribe drawn up at a later period would exhibit different divisions from one drawn up at an earlier. Compare, e. g. the list of courses of priests in Zerubhabel's time (Neh. xii) with that of those in David's time (1 Chron. xxiv). The same principle must be borne in mind in interpret- ing any particular genealogy. The sequence of gen- erations may represent the succession to such or such an inheritance or headship of tribe or family rather than the relationship of father and son. Again, where a pedigree was abbreviated, it would naturally specify such generations as would indicate from what chief houses the person descended. In cases where a name was common the father's name would be added for dis- tinction onl}'. These reasons would be well under- stood at the time, though it ma_y be difficult now to as- certain them positively. Thus, in the pedigree of Ezra, (Ezra vii, 1-5), it would seem that both Seraiah and Azariah were heads of houses (Neh. x, 2) ; they are both therefore named. Hilkiah is named as having been high-priest, and his identity is established by the addition "the son of Shallum" (1 Chron. vi, 13); the next named is Zadok, the priest in David's time, who was chief of the sixteen courses sprung from Eleazar, and then follows a complete pedigree from this Zadok to Aaron. But then, as regards the chronological use of the Scripture genealogies, it follows from the above view that great caution is necessarj' in using them as measures of time, though they are invaluable for this purpose whenever we can be sure that they are complete. What seems necessary to make them trust- worthy measures of time is, eitiier that they should have special internal marks of being complete, such as where the mother as well as the father is named, or some historical circumstance defines the several rela- tionships, or that there should be several genealogies, all giving the same number of generations within the same termini. When these conditions are found, it is difficult to overrate the value of genealogies for chro- nology. In determining, however, the relation of gen- erations to time, some allowance nu.jf be made for the station in life of the persons in question. From the earh' marriages of the princes, the average of even thirty years to a generation will probably be found too long for the kings.
Another feature in the Scripture genealogies which it is worth while to notice is the recurrence of the same name, or raodificatioif of the same name, such as To- liias, Tobit, Nathan, Mattatha, and even of names of the same signification, in the same family. This is an indication of the carefulness with which the Jews kept their pedigrees (as otherwise they could not have known the names of their remote ancestors) ; it also gives a clew by which to judge of obscure or doubtful genealogies. In some cases, liowever, this repetition seems to have resulted from erroneous transcription.
The Jewish genealogies have two forms, one giving the generations in a descending, the other in an ascend- uig scale. Examples of the descending form may be
GENEALOGY
771
GENEALOGY
seen in Ruth iv, 18-22, or 1 Chron. iii. Of the ascend- in<'- 1 Chron. vi, 33-4o; Ezra vii, 1-5. The descend- ing form is expressed by the formula A begat B, and B be"-at C, etc. ; or, the sons of A, B Iiis son, C his son, etc. • or, tlie sons of A, b, c, d ; and the sons of B, c, D E ; and the sons of C, e, f, g, etc. The ascending is always expressed in the same yfny. Of the two, it is obvious that the descending scale is the one in whicli we are most likely to find collateral descents, inasmuch as it implies that the object is to enumerate the heirs of the person at the head of the stem ; and if direct heirs failed at anj' point, collateral ones would have to be inserted. In all cases, too, where the original docu- ment was preserved, when the direct line failed, the heir would naturally place his own name next to his predecessor, though that predecessor was not his father, but onlj' his kinsman ; whereas in the ascending scale there can be no failure in the nature of things. But neither form is in itself more or less fit than the other to express either proper or imputed filiation.