64
εαραῖη νε. 17. δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰωσίαν: 11. Also in 2 μὲ ο
Kings
xxiv.16; 1
δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Μανασσῆ : Μανασσῆς δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾽Αμών: ᾽Αμὼν ωσίας δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν ᾿Ιεχονίαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ, ἐπὶ τῆς " µετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος.
12. Μετὰ
Chron. ν. δὲ τὴν µετοικεσίαν Βαβυλῶνος, ᾿Ιεχονίας ἐγέννησε τὸν Σαλαθιήλ ” 22. The > verb (µε. Σαλαθιὴλ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ζοροβάβελ" 13. Ζοροβάβελ δὲ ἐγέννησε
οικίζω)
would be to make sure that no name appeared that did not belong to the line, He can hardly have imagined that his list was complete from beginning to end. Thus Nahshon (ver. 4) was the head of the tribe of Judah at the Exodus (Num. i. 7), yet between Hezron and him only two names occur—four names for 400 years. Each name or generation represents a century, in accordance with Genesis xv. 13-16. The genealogist may have had this passage in view, but he must have known that the actual succession em- braced more links than four (vide Schanz on ver. 4). The hypothesis of inadver- tence or error in consulting the text of the O. T., favoured by some modern commentators, is not to be sum- marily negatived on the ground of an a priori theory of inerrancy. It is pos- sible that in reading 1 Chron. iii. rx in the Sept. the eye leapt from ᾿Οχοζίας to ’O{ias, and so led to omission of it and the two following names. (᾿Αζαρίας, not ’OLias, is the reading in Sept., but Weiss assumes that the latter, Azariah’s original name, must have stood in the copy used by the constructor of the genealogy.) The explanation, however, is conjectural. No certainty, indeed, is attainable on the matter. As a curiosity in the history of
exegesis may be mentioned C tom's mode of dealing with this point. Having propounded several prob regarding
the rere τὰ the omission of the three kings included, he leaves this one un- solved on the plea that he must not ex- lain everything to his hearers lest they come listless (ἵνα μὴ & , Hom. iv.). Schanz praises the prudence of the sly Greek orator.
Ver. 11. ᾿Ιωσίας ἐγεν. τὸν ᾿Ιεχονίαν. There is an omission here also: Eliakim, son of Josiah and father of Jeconiah. It was noted and made a ground of reproach to Christians by Porphyry. Maldonatus, pressed by the difficulty, proposed to substitute for Jeconiah, Jeho- :akim, the second of four sons ascribed to Josiah in the genealogist’s source (1 Chron. iii. 14), whereby the expression τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ would retain its natural sense. But, while the two names
are perhaps similar enough to be mis- taken for each other, it is against the hypothesis as a solution of the difficulty that Jehoiakim did not share in the cap- tivity (2 Kings xxiv. 6), while the words of ver. 11 seem to imply that the descen- dant of Josiah referred to was associated with his brethren in exile. The words ἐπὶ τῆς µετοικεσίας Βαβνλῶνος probably supply the key to the solution. Josiah brings us tothe brink of the period of exile. With his name that doleful time comes into the mind of the genealogist. Who is to represent it in the line of succession? Not Jehoiakim, for though the deporta- tion began in his reign he was not himself a captive. It must be Jeconiah (Jehoiakin), his son xt the second re- move, who was among the captives (2 Kings xxiv. 15). His ‘brethren ” are his uncles, sons of Josiah, his grandfather ; brethren in blood, and brethren also as representatives of a calamitous time— (vide Weiss-Meyer). There is a pathos in this second allusion to brother- hood. “ Judah and his brethren,” par- takers in the promise (also in the sojourn in Egypt); ‘‘ Jeconiah and his brethren,” the generation of the promise eclipsed. Royalty in the dust, Dat not without hope. The omission of Eliakim (or Jehoiakim) serves the subordinate pur- pose of keeping the second division of the genealogy within the number fourteen.— Μετοικεσίας: literally change of abode, deportation, ‘carrying away," late Greek for µετοικία or pero λῶνος : genitive, expressing the terminus ad quem (vide Winer, § 30, 2 a, and cf. Matt. iv. 15, ὁδὸν θαλάσσης, x. 5, δδὸν ).—tr 7. p-, “at the time of, during,” the time being of some length; the process of de- portation went on for years. Cf. Mk. ii. 26, ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιάθαρ, under the high priest- hood of Abiathar, and Mk. xii. 26 for a similar use of ἐπὶ in reference to place: ἐπὶ τοῦ Barov—at the place where the story of the bush occurs. Mera τ. p. in ver. 12 means after not during, as some have supposed, misled by taking µετοι- κεσία as denoting the stateofexile. Vide on this Fritzsche.