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 the powerful empire of Mogadha, in the Southern Bahr.[163:3] R. Spence Hardy says, in his "Manual of Buddhism:"