one hundred and two years old, B. C. 433; but B. C. 375. he would be one hundred and sixty: the first of these suppositions is possible; but the latter, if not impossible, is highly incredible. Moreover, besides Joiadaa, who afterwards succeeded him in the priesthood, he had a son called Johanan, who also was arrived at man's estate-and both before the seventh of Artaxerxes. This is very possible of the seventh of Artaxerxes Longimanus, B. C. 458. seventy-seven years after B. C. 535—and just what we might have expected; for Johanan, though younger than Joiada, might yet be more than thirty when his father was seventy-seven. But there is no mention in Ezra of more than the sons of Eliashib, as neither in Nehemiah of more than his grandsons; had all these parties, however, lived in the time of Artaxerxes Mnemon, it is to be presumed that allusions would have occurred to the sons of his grandchildren also. Between the seventh and the thirty-second of Artaxerxes Mnemon, that is, between B. C. 399. and B. C. 374. Jaddua, the great-grandson of Eliashib, and grandson of Joiada, who was high-priest and an old man, B. C. 332. the year when Alexander besieged Tyreb, must have been not only born, but of mature age; and yet neither in Ezra nor in Nehemiah is there any mention of him. I will conclude this subject with one more remark. It is clear from Nehemiah v. 1-6. which belongs to the twentieth of Artaxerxes, that Nehemiah came into Judæa in a period of great dearth and scarcity, which appears to have lasted as long even as his thirty-second c. Now it is attested by Strabo, on the authority of Xanthus the Lydiand, that there was in the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus a very great drought, so that rivers, lakes, and wells, alike were dried up. The period during which Xanthus was writing history is necessarily to be restricted between the first and the twentieth of Artaxerxes; so that any drought of which he could make mention must have come within this time. a Neh. xii. 10. 11. i. 71. v. 14. Ezra x. 6. b Ant. Jud. xi. viii. 4—7. • Vide Clinton's Fasti Hellenici. B. C. 463. Neh. But if some such thing did so take place, it is needless to argue that Judæa would be affected by it, as well as any other part of the Persian empire; still less that if it was so, it would necessarily be subject to a scarcity. The effect of this scarcity seems to have been that, by the twentieth of Artaxerxes, the people had mortgaged their lands and houses, and even their own persons, either to pay the King's tribute, or to maintain themselves and their families, and were very much in debt and distressed. This must have been going on some time to arrive at such an height; and as there is no allusion to it in Ezra, we may infer that it had begun between the seventh and the twentieth of Artaxerxes, and, perhaps, as near to the latter as to the former; for, from the measures adopted by Nehemiah, in consequence of the complaints of the people, we may infer that a year of release for property or bondsmen, which was properly every seven years, was either lately past or just at hand. And this, I shall prove elsewhere, would be the case about the twentieth of Artaxerxes, DISSERTATION III. Upon the question, who are meant in the Gospels by the Αδελφοί of Christ. THAT Joseph, before his marriage with the Virgin, had either been married, or had any children, is no where affirmed in the Gospels, nor implicitly to be collected from any intimations which they supply. Upon this point, therefore, it would become us to suspend our judgment, and not to undertake to decide; though, perhaps, the negative-on every account-may be more probable than the affirmative. But that, after his marriage, he continued still childless, or in other words, that the Virgin Mary, as the Romish, and as the modern Greek, Church maintains, after her union with Joseph and the birth of Christ, remained a virgin as much as before, is a tradition which, both as superstitious, and as untenable, may justly be called into question. It is superstitious, because it can serve no good purpose-and it is untenable, because it is repugnant to the scriptural narrative, or to the plain inference deducible from its testimony. It might be essential to the fulfilment of prophecy that the Messias should be born of a pure and an immaculate virgin-it might be indispensable to the end of the Incarnation itself—but when these purposes had once been answered, it was clearly indifferent whether his mother remained still in her former condition, or not. The estate of matrimony, which God's word had sanctioned from the first, and every where pronounces to be becoming in all, was as open to her as to any one else; and what crime she could commit by entering into it, even after the nativity of Christ, it would be difficult to say. It is probable that her orphan condition, and it is more than probable that the reduced circumstances of her family, would render this not merely lawful, but even a prudential, expedient. She was con tracted to Joseph before the conception of Christ-she was united to him at the time of his birth-and she continued to live with him, under the name, and in the relation, of his wife, long afterwards. Even after the conception, and before the nativity, Joseph was admonished by God to complete the espousals, between himself and Mary, in the usual manner, as if nothing had occurred to prevent it. It was plainly intended by Providence, then, that they should live together, even after the birth of Christ, in the marriage state; and if they so lived together, it was equally possible that, even after the birth of Christ, they might have children. To suppose that they would be commanded to complete their union-and yet not be intended to live in the relation of husband and wife-would be to suppose an effect without a cause; or a special interposition of Providence, without a special reason to produce it. It was rather to be expected that, after the conception of Christ, Mary would have remained, as she had remained before it, in her unmarried and single estate. The denomination of Mary the Virgin, except at the time when she was really so, before not merely her marriage with Joseph, but also the conception of Christ, is no where in Scripture ascribed to her. It is predicted that all generations should call her blessed—and the event has fulfilled that prediction-it is not predicted that she could be called the Virgin, and this addition to the name of the blessed is one of the inventions of men. But it would not be said, as at Matt. i. 25. even after Joseph had taken her home, that he abstained from the knowledge of his wife, until she had been delivered of Christ, if he had abstained from the same knowledge afterwards-nor would our Lord be called, as at Matt. i. 25. and Luke ii. 7. the firstborn of Mary, if it were not as certain that she had other children after him, as that she had none before him. I admit that the name of a firstborn may possibly be given even to an only child. But if an only child must be the first, he must also be the last-and had that been the nature of the relation here, both the reason of the thing, and the matter of fact, would have required the Evangelist to say, śws oʊ ἔτεκε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν μονογενῆ, not τὸν πρωτότοκον—and to have dropt the other part of the assertion—καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν auraltogether. John ii. 12. Matt. xii. 46. Mark iii. 31. Luke viii. 19. John vii. 3. 5. 10. Acts i. 14. mention occurs of the brethren -oi àdeλpoì—of our Lord; and Matt. xiii. 55. 56. Mark vi. 3. of his brethren and of his sisters both; and this, at times, and on occasions, which, it will be seen hereafter, synchronize with the beginning, with the middle, and with the very end, of his ministry. The parties alluded to, in all these instances, were obviously persons, whether male or female, arrived at maturity; as, though born of the same parents, and yet younger than our Saviour, they might still be, thirty, or thirty-two, years after the birth of Christ. What kind of relationship would be thus implied, except the natural one in the ordinary sense of the terms, it would not be easy to say. The use of the terms anλs leads directly to that one conclusion. They could not be the children of any other Mary, distinct from the mother of our Lord at least exclusively-because it is always Mary the mother of our Lord, and not any other Mary, who is mentioned along with them-who was obviously living with them—and making one of some family with them—which, it is not probable, she would make with any family but her own. It may be said, however, that these might be the children of Joseph, but by some former, or, at least, some different, wife; in which case, they might still be called the άdeλpol, or adλçaì, of our Lord-and Mary might possibly be living with them. But the fact of this double marriage of Joseph, as I have observed, is purely a gratuitous assumption -without countenance from any authentic historical testimony-or even any traditionary, which does not contradict itself. Nor, except upon one supposition, which would ob viously beg the question, viz. that Joseph never could have had children, either sons or daughters, by Mary, the mother of Jesus, his actual wife, is it more gratuitous, than |
