solution is plausible and may be true, yet it wants
evidence._"

Barnes furthermore admits the fallibility of the Bible in his remarks
upon the genealogies; 1st, by comparing them to _our_ fallible family
records; and 2d, by the remark that "the only inquiry which can now be
fairly made _is whether they copied these tables correctly_."

Alford, Ellicott, Hervey, Meyer, Mill, Patritius and Wordsworth hold
that both genealogies are Joseph's; and Aubertin, Ebrard, Greswell,
Kurtz, Lange, Lightfoot and others, hold that one is Joseph's, and the
other Mary's.

When the genealogy contained in _Matthew_ is compared with the Old
Testament _they are found to disagree_; there are omissions which any
writer with the least claim to historical sense would never have made.

When the genealogy of the _third_ Gospel is turned to, the difficulties
greatly increase, instead of diminish. It not only contradicts the
statements made by the _Matthew_ narrator, but it does not agree with
the Old Testament.

What, _according to the three first evangelists_, did Jesus think of
himself? In the first place he made no allusion to any miraculous
circumstances connected with his birth. He looked upon himself as
belonging to _Nazareth_, not as the child of Bethlehem;[162:1] _he
reproved the scribes for teaching that the Messiah must necessarily be a
descendant of David,[162:2] and did not himself make any express claim
to such descent_.[162:3]

As we cannot go into an extended inquiry concerning the genealogies, and
as there is no real necessity for so doing, as many others have already
done so in a masterly manner,[162:4] we will continue our investigations
in another direction, and show that Jesus was not the only Messiah who
was claimed to be of royal descent.

To commence with _Crishna_, the Hindoo Saviour, he was of _royal
descent_, although born in a state the most abject and humiliating.[163:1]
Thomas Maurice says of him:

"Crishna, in the _male_ line, was of royal descent, being of
the Yadava line, the oldest and noblest of India; and nephew,
by his _mother's_ side, to the reigning sovereign; but, though
royally descended, he was actually born in a state the most
abject and humiliating; and, though not in a stable, yet in a
dungeon."[163:2]

_Buddha_ was of _royal descent_, having descended from the house of
Sakya, the most illustrious of the caste of Brahmans, which reigned in
India over th