PREFACE

fta1 As regards the regnal years of Jewish Kings, however, Fynes Clinton’s month dates are here modified in accordance with the Hebrew Mishna , which was a sealed book to English readers when the Fasti Hellenici was written. With reference to one date of cardinal importance I am specially indebted to the late Canon Rawlinson and the late Sir George Airey. fta2 One point may be worth notice in a footnote. The R. V. reading of Acts 13:20 seems to dispose of my solution of the perplexing problem of the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1. But here, in accordance with their usual practice, and in neglect of the principles by which experts are guided in dealing with conflicting evidence, the Revisers slavishly followed certain of the oldest MSS. And the effect on this passage is disastrous. For it is certain that neither the Apostle said, nor the Evangelist wrote, that Israel’s enjoyment of the land was limited to 450 years, or that 450 years elapsed before the era of the Judges. The text adopted by the Revisers is, therefore, clearly wrong. Dean Alford regards it “as an attempt at correcting the difficult chronology of the verse”; and, he adds, “taking the words as they stand, no other sense can be given to them than that the time of the Judges lasted 450 years.”

That is, as he goes on to explain, the era within which occurred the rule of the Judges. It is not that the Judges ruled for 450 years — in which case the accusative would be used, as in verse 18 — but, as the use of the dative implies, that the period until Saul, characterized by the rule of the Judges, lasted 450 years. I need scarcely notice the objection that I fail to take account of the servitude mentioned in Judges 10:7,8.

That servitude affected only the tribes beyond Jordan. fta3 Alford’s Greek Test., Prol. to 2 Thessalonians Chapter 5.

PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION

ftb1 An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament , by S. R. Driver, D. D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. Third edition. (T. & T. Clark, 1892.) I wish here to acknowledge Professor Driver’s courtesy in replying to various inquiries I have ventured to address to him. ftb2 In accordance with the plan of the work, Chapter 11. opens with a precis of the contents of Daniel, together with exegetical notes. With these notes I am not concerned, though they seem designed to prepare the reader for the sequel. I will dismiss them with two remarks. First, in his criticisms upon chap. 9:24-27 he ignores the scheme of interpretation which I have followed, albeit it is adopted by some writers of more eminence than several of those he quotes; and the four points he enumerates against the “commonly understood” Messianic interpretation are amply dealt with in these pages. And secondly, his comment on chap. 11., that “it can hardly be legitimate, in a continuous description, with no apparent change of subject, to refer part to the type and part to the antitype,” disposes with extraordinary naivete of a canon of prophetic interpretation accepted almost universally from the days of the post-Apostolic Fathers down to the present hour! ftb3 The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments , by the Rev. A.

H. Sayce. ftb4 Page 479, note . But the author’s appeal under (f ) to “all other authorities” is scarcely fair, as Daniel is the only contemporary historian, and the exploration of the ruins of Babylon has yet to be accomplished. And as regards (h ) but little need be said. Professor Driver candidly owns that “there are good reasons for supposing that Nebuchadnezzar’s lycanthropy rests upon a basis of fact.” No student of human nature will find anything strange in the recorded action of these heathen kings when confronted with proofs of the presence and power of God We see its counterpart every day in the conduct of ungodly men when events which they regard as Divine judgments befall them. And no one accustomed to deal with evidence will entertain the suggestion that the story of Daniel’s becoming a “Chaldean” would be invented by a Jew trained under the strict ritual of post-exilic days. The suggestion that Daniel would have been refused admission to the college in the face of the great king’s order to admit him really deserves no answer. ftb5 As the Psalms came first in the Kelhuvim they gave their name to the whole; as ex . gr . when our Lord spoke of “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms” ( Luke 24:44) He meant the entire Scriptures. ftb6 Against Apion , 1. 8. ftb7 This section of Ecclesiasticus begins with chap. 44., but the passage here in question is chap. 49: vv. 6-16. ftb8 Possibly the critic means to question whether Jerusalem was actually captured, i. e. carried by storm, at this time. I have, I admit, assumed this in these pages. But Scripture nowhere says so. Taking all accounts together, we can only aver that Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem, and laid siege to it, that, in some way, Jehoiakim fell into his hands and was put in chains to carry him to Babylon, and that Nebuchadnezzar changed his purpose and left him as a vassal king in Judaea. He may have gone out to the Chaldean king, as his son and successor afterwards did ( 2 Kings 24:12); and it is very probable that Jehoiachin’s action in this respect was suggested by the leniency shown to his father. ftb9 The words “as it is this day,” in ver. 18, appear to be an allusion to the accomplished subjugation of Judaea. According to ver. 19, Egypt was next to fall before Nebuchadnezzar; and chap. 46:2 records Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the Egyptian army in this same year. ftb10 Professor Bevan’s suggestion on this point is, in my opinion, untenable.

But I refer to it to show how an advanced exponent of the Higher Criticism can dispose of (g ). Commentary on Daniel , p. 146. I have no doubt whatever that if Leviticus was before Daniel, as well it might be, it was the law of the Sabbatical years he had in view and not 26:18, etc . ftb11 I speak of two Greek words only, for kitharos is practically given up.

Dr. Pusey denies that these words are of Greek origin. (Daniel , pp. 27- 30.) Dr. Driver urges that in the fifth century B. C. “the arts and inventions of civilized life streamed then into Greece from the East, and not from Greece Eastwards.” But surely the figure he uses here distorts his judgment. The influences of civilization do not “stream” in the sense in which water streams. There is and always must be an interchange; and arts and inventions carried from one country to another carry their names with them. I am compelled to pass by these philological questions thus rapidly, but the reader will find them fully discussed by Pusey and others. Dr. Pusey remarks, “Aramaic as well as Aryan words suit his real age,” and “his Hebrew is just what one would expect at the age in which he lived” (p. 578). ftb12 Higher Criticism and the Monuments , pp. 424 and 494. ftb13 On this subject see the Bishop of Durham’s article in Smith’s Bible Dictionary . ftb14 1 Maccabees 2:60; see also chap. 1:54. The First Book of Maccabees is a history of the highest repute, and the accuracy of it is universally acknowledged. ftb15 The Sanhedrin, though scattered during the Maccabean revolt, was reconstituted at its close. See Dr. Ginsburg’s articles “Sanhedrin” and “Synagogue” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia . ftb16 The ruins of Borsippa are practically unexplored; and considering the character of the inscriptions found on other Chaldean sites, we may expect to obtain hereafter very full State records of the capital. ftb17 I follow the marginal reading of the R. V., which was the reading adopted by the American Company. ftb18 See chaps. 5-10. ftb19 As I have taken up this as a test question I have investigated it closely. ftb20 His chapter on The Seventy Weeks provokes the exclamation, Is this what English theology has come to! I do not allude to such vulgar blunders as calling Gabriel “the Archangel” (p. 275), or confounding the era of the Servitude with that of the Desolations (p. 289), but to the style and spirit of the excursus as a whole. For “immense manipulations” and “crudely impossible hypotheses” no recent English treatise can compare with it. ftb21 I allude to his attempt to fix the date of the Book by the character of its Hebrew and Aramaic. This, moreover, is a point on which scholars differ. I have already quoted Dr. Pusey’s dictum . Professor Cheyne says: “From the Hebrew of the Book of Daniel no important inference as to its date can be safely drawn” (Encyc . Brit ., “Daniel,” p. 804); and one of the greatest authorities in England, who has been quoted in favor of fixing a late date for Daniel, writes, in answer to an inquiry I have addressed to him: “I am now of opinion that it is a very difficult task to settle the age of any portion of that Book from its language. I do not think, therefore, that my name should be quoted any more in the contest.” ftb22 See ex . gr . Pp. 36, 37, 90, 118, 125. ftb23 Smith’s Bible Dict ., “Daniel.” ftb24 Com . Daniel, p. 15. ftb25 A Doubter ’s Doubts , p. ftb26 Professor Driver has since called my attention to a note in the “Addends” to the third edition of his Introduction , qualifying his admissions respecting Belshazzar. He has also informed me that Professor Sayce is the “high Assyrio-logical authority” there referred to. This enables us to discount his retractation. When writing on (e ) in the above Preface, I had before me pp. 524-9 of the Higher Criticism and the Monuments , and I was impressed by the force of the objections there urged against the Daniel story of Belshazzar. Great was my revulsion of feeling when I discovered that Professor Sayce’s argument depends upon his misreading of the Annalistic tablet of Cyrus. That tablet admittedly refers throughout to Belshazzar as “the son of the King”; but when it records his death at the taking of Babylon, Professor Sayce reads “wife of the King” instead of” son of the King,” and goes on to argue that, as Belshazzar is not mentioned in the passage, he cannot have been in Babylon at the time! That “contract tablets” would be dated with reference to the reign of the King , and not of the Regent, is precisely what we should expect.

I have dealt fully with the Belshazzar question in my Daniel in the Critics ’ Den , to which I would refer also for a fuller reply to Dean Farrar’s book. Having regard to the testimony of the Annalistic tablet, that question may be looked upon as settled. And if, when writing that work, I had had before me what the Rev. J. Urquhart brings to light about Darius the Mede, in his Inspiration and Accuracy of Holy Scripture , I should have considered that this, the only remaining difficulty in the Daniel controversy, was no longer a serious one.

THE COMING PRINCE - ftc1 According to Mill, the course of the world gives proof that both the power and the goodness of God are limited. His Essays on Religion clearly show that skepticism is an attitude of mind which it is practically impossible to maintain. Even with a reasoner so clear and able as Mill, it inevitably degenerates to a degrading form of faith .” The rational attitude of a thinking mind towards the supernatural” (he declares) “is that of skepticism, as distinguished from belief on the one hand, and from atheism on the other;” and yet he immediately proceeds to formulate a creed. It is not that there is a God, for that is only probable, but that if there be a God He is not almighty, and His goodness toward man is limited. (Essays , etc ., pp. 242, 243.) He does not prove his creed, of course. Its truth is obvious to a “thinking mind.” It is equally obvious that the sun moves round the earth. A man only needs to be as ignorant of astronomy as the infidel is of Christianity, and he will find the most indisputable proof of the fact every time he surveys the heavens! ftc2 Prophecy is not given to enable us to prophesy, but as a witness to God when the time comes.” —PUSEY, Daniel , p. 80. ftc3 Elliott, Horae Apoc . (3rd Ed.), 1., 446: and see also ch. 3, pp. 362-376 ftc4 Elliott, 1., 373. Hippolytus predicted A. D. 500. ftc5 I cannot refrain from giving the following extract from an article by Professor Goldwin Smith, in Macmillian’s Magazine for February 1878: “The denial of the existence of God and of the future state, in a word, is the dethronement of conscience; and society will pass, to say the least, through a dangerous interval before social science can fill the vacant throne…But in the meantime mankind, or some portions of it, may be in danger of an anarchy of self-interest, compressed, for the purpose of political order, by a despotism of force. “That science and criticism, acting — thanks to the liberty of opinion won by political effort — with a freedom never known before, have delivered us from a mass of dark and degrading superstitions, we own with heartfelt thankfulness to the deliverers, and in the firm conviction that the removal of false beliefs, and of the authorities or institutions founded on them, cannot prove in the end anything but a blessing to mankind. But at the same time the foundations of general morality have inevitably been shaken, and a crisis has been brought on, the gravity of which nobody can fail to see, and nobody but a fanatic of materialism can see without the most serious misgiving. “There has been nothing in the history of man like the present situation. The decadence of the ancient mythologies is very far from affording a parallel…The Reformation was a tremendous earthquake: it shook down the fabric of mediaeval religion, and as a consequence of the disturbance in the religious sphere, filled the world with revolutions and wars. But it left the authority of the Bible unshaken, and men might feel that the destructive process had its limit, and that adamant was still beneath their feet. But a world which is intellectual and keenly alive to the significance of these questions, reading all that is written about them with almost passionate avidity, finds itself brought to a crisis the character of which any one may realize by distinctly presenting to himself the idea of existence without a God.” ftc6 ta< lo>gia tou~ qeou~ ( Romans 3:2). The old Hebrew Scriptures were thus regarded by those who were the divinely-appointed custodians of them (ib .) Not only by the devout among the Jews, but, as Josephus testifies, by all, they “were justly believed to be Divine,” so that men were willing to endure tortures of all kinds rather than speak against them, and even “willingly to die for them” (Josephus, Apion , 1., 8).

This fact is of immense importance in relation to the Lord’s own teaching on the subject. Dealing with a people who believed in the sanctity and value of every word of Scripture, He never missed an opportunity to confirm them in that belief. The New Testament affords abundant proof how unreservedly He enforced it upon His disciples. (As regards the limits and date of closing of the Canon of Scripture, see Pusey, Daniel , p. 294, etc .) ftc7 Mill, Essays on Religion . ftc8 ajlla< kai< ejn duna>mei kai< en pneu>mati ajgi>w| (1 Thessalonians. 1:5.)” But also in power, even in the Holy Ghost.” There is no contrast intended between God on the one hand, and power on the other, nor yet between different sorts of power. To object that this referred to miracles which accompanied the preaching is to betray ignorance of Scripture. Acts 17 represents the preaching to which the Apostle was alluding. That miraculous power existed in Gentile Churches is clear from 1 Corinthians 12 but the question is, did the gospel which produced those Churches appeal to miracles to confirm it? Can any one read the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians and retain a doubt as to the answer? ftc9 God is omnipresent; but there is a real sense in which the Father and the Son are not on earth but in heaven, and in that same sense the Holy Spirit is not in heaven but on earth. ftc10 Such faith is inseparably connected with salvation, and salvation is the gift of God ( Ephesians 2:8). Hence the solemn words of Christ,” I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” ( Matthew 11:25). ftc11 Pusey, Daniel , Pref . p. 25.

THE COMING PRINCE - ftd1 My belief in the Divine character of the Book of Daniel will, I trust, appear plainly in these pages. The distinction I desire to mark here is between prophecies which men were inspired to utter, and prophecies like those of Daniel and St. John, who were merely the recipients of the revelation. With these, inspiration began in the recording what they had received. ftd2 To quote Daniel 1:12 in opposition to this involves an obvious anachronism. The word “pulse,” moreover, in the Hebrew points generally to vegetable food, and would include a dish as savory as that for which Esau sold his birthright (comp, Genesis 25:34). To eat animal food from the table of Gentiles would have involved a violation of the law; therefore Daniel and his companions became “vegetarians.” ftd3 “Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph’s” ( 1 Chronicles 5:2). ftd4 The disruption was in B. C. 975, the captivity to Assyria about B. C. 721. ftd5 B. C. 625. ftd6 Berosus avers that this expedition was in Nabopolassar’s lifetime (Jos., Apion , 1. 19), and the chronology proves it. See App. I. as to the dates of these events and the chronology of the period. ftd7 2 Kings 24:1,2. According to Josephus (Ant ., 10. 6, Ch. 3) Nebuchadnezzar on his second invasion found Jehoiakim still on the throne, and he it was who put him to death and made Jehoiachin king.

He goes on to say that the king of Babylon soon afterwards became suspicious of Jehoiachin’s fidelity, and again returned to dethrone him, and placed Zedekiah on the throne. These statements, though not absolutely inconsistent with 2 Kings 24, are rendered somewhat improbable by comparison with it. They are adopted by Canon Rawlinson in the Five Great Monarchies (vol. 3, p. 491), but Dr. Pusey adheres to the Scripture narrative (Daniel , p. 403). ftd8 2 Chronicles 5:16. This period is no doubt the forty years of Judah’s sin, specified in Ezekiel 4:6. Jeremiah prophesied from the thirteenth year of Josiah (B. C. 627) until the fall of Jerusalem in the eleventh year of Zedekiah (B. C. 587). See Jeremiah 1:3, and 25:3.

The 390 years of Israel’s sin, according to Ezekiel 4:5, appear to have been reckoned from the date of the covenant of blessing to the ten tribes, made by the prophet Ahijah with Jeroboam, presumably in the second year before the disruption, i. e., B. C. 977 ( 1 Kings 11:29-39). ftd9 The horrors of the siege and capture of Jerusalem by Titus surpass everything which history records of similar events. Josephus, who was himself a witness of them, narrates them in all their awful details. His estimate of the number of Jews who perished in Jerusalem is 1, 100, 000. “The blood runs cold, and the heart sickens, at these unexampled horrors; and we take refuge in a kind of desperate hope that they have been exaggerated by the historian.” “Jerusalem might almost seem to be a place under a peculiar curse; it has probably witnessed a far greater portion of human misery than any other spot upon the THE COMING PRINCE - fte1 “The Chaldee portion of Daniel commences at the fourth verse of the second chapter, and continues to the end of the seventh chapter.” —\parTREGELLES, Daniel , p. 8. fte2 The following analysis of the Book of Daniel may help the study of it:

Chap. 1. The capture of Jerusalem. The captivity of Daniel and his three companions, and their fortunes in Babylon (B. C. 606).

Chap. 2. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of THE GREAT IMAGE (B. C. 6o3-2).

Chap. 3. Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image set up for all his subjects to worship. Daniel’s three companions cast into the fiery furnace.

Chap. 4. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream about his own insanity, and Daniel’s interpretation of it. Its fulfillment.

Chap. 5 Belshazzar’s feast. Babylon taken by Darius the Mede (B. C. 538).

Chap. 6. Daniel is promoted by Darius; refuses to worship him, and is cast into a den of’ lions. His deliverance and subsequent prosperity (? B. C.. 537).

Chap. 7. Daniel’s vision of THE FOUR BEASTS (? B. C. 54I).

Chap. 8. Daniel’s vision of THE RAM AND THE GOAT (? B. C. 539).

Chap. 9. Daniel’s prayer: the prophecy of THE SEVENTY WEEKS (B. C. 538).

Chaps. 10. - 12. Daniel’s LAST VISION (B. C. 534).

fte3 The difficulty connected with the date of this vision (the second year of Nebuchadnezzar) is considered in App. 1. post . fte4 Cf . Daniel 2:38, and Jeremiah 27:6,7. — The statement of Genesis 49:10 may seem at first sight to clash With this: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a law-giver from between his feet, until Shiloh come.” But, as events prove, this cannot mean that royal power was to be exercised by the house of Judah until the advent of Christ. Hengstenberg has rightly interpreted it (Christology , Arnold’s trans., Ch. 78): “Judah shall not cease to exist as a tribe, nor lose its superiority, until it shall be exalted to higher honor and glory through the great Redeemer, who shall spring from it, and whom not only the Jews, but all the nations of the earth shall obey.” As he points out, “until not unfrequently means up to and afterwards .” (See ex . gr . Genesis 28:15.) The meaning of the prophecy, therefore, was not that Judah was to exercise royal power until Christ, and then lose it, which is the lame and unsatisfactory gloss usually adopted; but that the pre-eminence of Judah is to be irrevocably established in Christ — not spiritually, but in fact, in the kingdom of which Daniel prophesies. fte5 To believe that such a prophecy can ever be realized may seem to betoken fanaticism and folly, but at least let us accept the language of Scripture, and not lapse into the blind absurdity of expecting the fulfillment of theories based on what men conjecture the prophets ought to have foretold fte6 This appears from the language of the queen-mother, Daniel 5:10-12. But chap. 8:27 shows that Daniel, even then, held some appointment at the court. fte7 Daniel 6:1,2. Daniel cannot have been less than eighty years of age at this time. See chron. table, App. 1. post , fte8 It is improbable that Daniel was less than twenty-one years of age when placed at the head of the empire in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar.

The age to which he lived makes it equally improbable that he was more. His birth would thus fall, as before suggested, about B. C. 625, the epoch of Nabopolassar’s era, and some three years later was Josiah’s passover, the like of which had never been held in Israel from the days of Samuel ( 2 Chronicles 35:18,19). fte9 The following is the vision as recorded in Daniel 7:2-14:” Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it.

And, behold, another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.

After this I beheld, and, lo, another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. After this I saw in the night visions, and, behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things. I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld then, because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” fte10 Certain writers advocate an interpretation of these visions which allots the “four kingdoms” to Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece. This view, with which Professor Westcott’s name is identified, claims notice merely in order to distinguish it from another with which it has been confounded, even in a work of such pretensions as The Speaker ’s Commentary (Vol. 6., p. 333, Excursus on the Four Kingdoms ). The learned author of the Ordo Saeclorum (Ch. 616, etc .), quoting Maitland, who in turn follows Lacunza (Ben Ezra), argues that the accession of Darius the Mede to the throne of Babylon did not involve a change of empire. These writers further urge that the description of the third kingdom resembles Rome rather than Greece. According to this view, therefore, the kingdoms are 1st Babylon, including Persia, 2nd Greece, 3rd Rome, 4th a future kingdom to arise in the last days.

But as already noticed (p. 32, ante ), the book of Daniel expressly distinguishes Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece as “kingdoms’ within the scope of the prophecy. fte11 Daniel 7:19-27. On this vision see Pusey, Daniel , pp. 78, fte12 The state of Europe at or after the dismemberment of the Roman Empire has been appealed to as a fulfillment of it, ignoring the fact that the territory which Augustus ruled included a considerable district both of Asia and Africa. Nor is this all. There is no presumption against finding in past times a partial accomplishment of such a prophecy, but the fact that twenty-eight different lists, including sixty-five “kingdoms,” have been put forward in the controversy, is a proof how worthless is the evidence of any such fulfillment. In truth the historical school of interpreters have here, as on many other points, brought discredit upon their entire system, containing, as it does, so much that claims attention (see App. 2.) Note C).

THE COMING PRINCE - ftf1 I allude to the 2, 300 days of verse 14, and to the statement of verse 25, “He shall also stand up against the Prince of Princes, but he shall be broken without hand.” ftf2 “And there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered,” — i. e., the Jews ( Daniel 12:1). ftf3 The following is the vision of the eighth chapter: “And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan, in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai. Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns. And the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great. And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west, on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns; and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. Therefore the he goat waxed very great; and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones, toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake. How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. So he came near where I stood: and’ when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face’ but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man; for at the time of the end shall be the vision. Now, as he was speaking with me I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright. And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be. The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many; he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true; wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.” ftf4 It was the battle of Issus in B. C. 333, not the victory of Granicus in the preceding year, which made Alexander master of Palestine. The decisive battle which brought the Persian empire to an end, was at Arbela in B. C. 331. Alexander died B. C. 323, and the definite distribution of his territories among his four chief generals, followed the battle of Ipsus B. C. 301. In this partition Seleucus’s share included Syria (“the king of the north”), and Ptolemy held the Holy Land with Egypt (“the king of the south”); but Palestine afterwards was conquered and held by the Seleucidae. Cassander had Macedon and Greece; and Lysimachus had Thrace, part of Bithynia, and the territories intervening between these and the Meander. ftf5 The same remark applies to the vision of the second chapter, the rise of the Roman empire, its future division, and its final doom, being presented at a single view. ftf6 i. e., the kingdom as Daniel had prophesied of it. On this see Pusey, Daniel , p. 84. ftf7 Daniel 12:1; Matthew 24:21. To discuss what would have been the course of events had the Jews accepted Christ is mere levity. But it is legitimate to inquire how the believing Jew, intelligent in the prophecies, could have expected the kingdom, seeing that the tenfold division of the Roman empire and the rise of the “little horn” had to take place first. The difficulty will disappear if we notice how suddenly the Grecian empire was dismembered on Alexander’s death. In like manner, the death of Tiberius might have led to the immediate disruption of the territories of Rome, and the rise of the predicted persecutor. In a word, all that remained unfulfilled of Daniel’s prophecy might have been fulfilled in the years which had still to run of the seventy weeks.

THE COMING PRINCE - ftg1 “The expression does not in a single case apply to any person .” — TREGELLES, Daniel , p. 98. “These words are applied to the Nazarene, although this expression is never applied to a person throughout the Bible, but invariably denotes part of the temple, the holy of holies”DR.HERMAN ADLER, Sermons (Trubner, 1869). ftg2 “From the issuing of the decree.” —TREGELLES, Daniel , p. 96. ftg3 Not the covenant (as in A. V.: see margin). This word is rendered covenant when Divine things are in question, and league when, as here, an ordinary treaty is intended (C . f . ex . gr ., Joshua 9:6,7,11,15,16). ftg4 If the words of verses 24 and 25 do not themselves carry conviction that Judah and Jerusalem are the subjects of the prophecy, the reader has but to compare them with the preceding verses, especially 2, 7, 12, 16, 18, and 19. ftg5 Literally the “trench” or “scarped rampart.” —TRECELLES, DanieI , p. 90. ftg6 The personage referred to in verse 27 is not the Messiah, but the second prince named in verse 26. The theory which has gained currency, that the Lord made a seven years’ compact with the Jews at the beginning of His ministry, would deserve a prominent place in a cyclopaedia of the vagaries of religious thought. We know of the old covenant, which has been abrogated, and of the new covenant, which is everlasting; but the extraordinary idea of a seven years’ covenant between God and men has not a shadow of foundation in the letter of Scripture, and is utterly opposed to its spirit. ftg7 “The whole period of seventy weeks is divided into three successive periods, — seven, sixty-two, one, and the last week is subdivided into two halves. It is self-evident that since these parts, seven, sixty-two, one, are equal to the whole, viz ., seventy, it was intended that they should be.” —PUSEY, Daniel , p. 170. ftg8 It was foretold in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, i. e., the year after the servitude began ( Jeremiah 25:1,11). ftg9 Scripture thus distinguishes three different eras, all in part concurrent, which have come to be spoken of as “the captivity.” First, the servitude; second, Jehoiachin’s captivity; and third, the desolations. “The servitude” began in the third year of Jehoiakim, i. e., B. C. 606, or before 1st Nisan (April) B. C. 605, and was brought to a close by the decree of Cyrus seventy years later. “The captivity” began in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, according to the Scriptural era of his reign, i. e., in B. C. 598; and the desolations began in his seventeenth year, B. C. 589, and ended in the second year of Darius Hystaspes — again a period of seventy years. See App. 1. upon the chronological questions here involved. ftg10 Daniel 9:2 is explicit on this point: “ I, Daniel, understood by books the number of the years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem .” ftg11 “The law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not” ( Daniel 6:12). Canon Rawlinson assumes that the temple was fifteen or sixteen years in building, before the work was stopped by the decree of the Artaxerxes mentioned in Ezra 4. (Five Great Mon ., vol. 4, p. 398.) But this is entirely opposed to Scripture. The foundation of the temple was laid in the second year of Cyrus ( Ezra 3:8-11), but no progress was made till the second year of Darius, when the foundation was again laid, for not a stone of the house had yet been placed (Haggai 2,10,15,18). The building, once begun, was completed within five years ( Ezra 6:15). It must be borne in mind that the altar was set up, and sacrifice was renewed immediately after the return of the exiles ( Ezra 3:3,6). ftg12 Five Great Mon ., vol. 4., p. 405. But Canon Rawlinson is wholly wrong in inferring that the known religious zeal of Darius was the motive which led to the action of the Jews. See Ezra 5. ftg13 This is the epoch fixed upon by Mr. Bosanquet in Messiah the Prince . ftg14 The temple was begun in the second, and completed in the sixth year of Darius ( Ezra 4:24; 6:15.) ftg15 For a description of the ruins of the great palace at Susa, see Mr. Wm. Kennett Loftus’s Travels and Researches in Chaldea and Susiana , chap. 28. ftg16 Herodotus , 3, 34. ftg17 Pusey, Daniel . p. 171. Dr. Pusey adds, “The little colony which Ezra took with him of 1, 683 males (with women and children some 8, souls) was itself a considerable addition to those who had before returned, and involved a rebuilding of Jerusalem . This rebuilding of the city and reorganization of the polity, begun by Ezra, and carried on and perfected by Nehemiah, corresponds with the words of Daniel, ‘From the going forth of a commandment to restore and build Jerusalem’” (p. 172.) This argument is the feeblest imaginable, and indeed this reference to the decree of the seventh year of Artaxerxes is a great blot on Dr. Pusey’s book. If an immigration of 8, 400 souls involved a rebuilding of the city, and therefore marked the beginning of the seventy weeks, what shall be said of the immigration of 49, souls seventy-eight years before? ( Ezra 2:64,65.) Did this not involve a rebuilding? But, Dr. Pusey goes on to say, “The term also corresponds ,” i. e., the 483 years, to the time of Christ. Here is obviously the real ground for his fixing the date B. C. 457, or more properly B. C. 458, as given by Prideaux, whom unfortunately Dr. Pusey has followed at this point. With more naivete the author of the Connection pleads that the years will not tally if any other date be assigned, and therefore the decree of the seventh of Artaxerxes must be right! (Prid., Con ., 1., 5, B. C. 458.) Such a system of interpretation has done much to discredit the study of prophecy altogether. ftg18 i. e., Euphrates . Ezra 4:16. ftg19 “This last is the only decree which we find recorded in Scripture which relates to the restoring and building of the city. It must be borne in mind that the very existence of a place as a city depended upon such a decree; for before that any who returned from the land of captivity went only in the condition of sojourners; it was the decree that gave them a recognized and distinct political existence.” —TREGELLES, Daniel , p. 98. “On a sudden, however, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah, a man of Jewish descent, cup-bearer to the king, received a commission to rebuild the city with all possible expedition. The cause of this change in the Persian politics is to be sought, not so much in the personal influence of the Jewish cup-bearer, as in the foreign history of the times. The power of Persia had received a fatal blow in the victory obtained at Cnidos by Conon, the Athenian admiral. The great king was obliged to submit to a humiliating peace, among the articles of which were the abandonment of the maritime towns, and a stipulation that the Persian army should not approach within three days’ journey of the sea.

Jerusalem, being about this distance from the coast, and standing so near the line of communication with Egypt, became a post of the utmost importance.” —MILMAN, Hist . Jews (3rd Ed.), 1., 435. ftg20 Artaxerxes I. reigned forty years, from 465 to 425. He is mentioned by Herodotus once (6. 98), by Thucydides frequently. Both writers were his contemporaries. There is every reason to believe that he was the king who sent Ezra and Nehemiah to Jerusalem, and sanctioned the restoration of the fortifications.” —RAWLINSON, Herodotus , vol. 4., p. 217. ftg21 The year in which he is said to have recited his writings at the Olympic games, was the very year of Nehemiah’s mission. ftg22 The era of the Olympiads began B. C. 776; the era of Rome (A. U. C.) B. C. 753; and the era of Nabonassar, B. C. 747. ftg23 The seven months of Artabanus were by some added to the last year of Xerxes, and by others were included in the reign of Artaxerxes.” —\parCLINTON, Fasti Hellenici , vol. 2., p. 42. ftg24 It has been shown already that the accession of Xerxes is determined to the beginning of 485 B. C. His twentieth year was completed in the beginning of 465 B. C., and his death would happen in the beginning of the Archonship of Lysitheus. The seven months of Artabanus, completing the twenty-one years, would bring down the accession of Artaxerxes (after the removal of Artabanus) to the beginning of 464, in the year of Nabonassar 284, where it is placed by the canon. Note b : “We may place the death of Xerxes in the first month of that Archon (i. e., of Lysitheus), July B. C. 465, and the succession of Artaxerxes in the eighth month, February B. C. 464.” —CLINTON, Fasti Hellenici , vol. 2., p. 380. ftg25 See Appendix 2., Note A, on the chronology of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus.

THE COMING PRINCE - fth1 Smith’s Bib . Dict ., III., 1726, “Week.” Greek and Latin philosophers too have known of ‘weeks of years. ‘“ —PUSEY, Daniel , p. 167. fth2 Encyc . Brit . (6th ed.), title “Chronology .” See also Smith’s Bib . Dict ., title “Chronology ,” p. 314. fth3 Astronomy of the Ancients , chap. 1 § 7. Are not the hundred and eighty days of the great feast of Xerxes intended to be equivalent to six months? ( Esther 1:4.) fth4 Haggai. 2:10, 15-19. The books of Haggai and Zechariah give in full the prophetic utterances which the narrative of Ezra (4:24; 5:1-5) mentions as the sanction and incentive under which the Jews returned to the work of setting up their temple. fth5 The ninth year of Zedekiah. See App. 1. post . fth6 The second year of Darius Hystaspes. fth7 The date of the Paschal new moon, by which the Jewish year is regulated, was the evening of the 14th March in B. C. 589, and about noon on 1st April B. C. 520. According to the phases the 1st Nisan in the former year was probably the 15th or 16th March, and in the latter the 1st or 2nd April. fth8 The temple was dedicated in the eleventh year of Solomon, and the second temple was founded in B. C. 520. The intervening period reckoned exclusively was 483 years = 490 lunisolar years of 360 days.

It is noteworthy that the interval between the dedication of Solomon’s temple and the dedication of the second temple (B. C. 515) was years. A like period had elapsed between the entrance into Canaan and the foundation of the kingdom under Saul. These cycles of 70, and multiples of 70, in Hebrew history are striking and interesting. See App. 1. fth9 Though it is signally confirmed by the undoubted fact that the Jewish Sabbatical year was conterminous, not with the solar, but with the ecclesiastical year. fth10 The division of the 69 weeks into 7 +62 is accounted for by the fact that the first 49 years, during which the restoration of Jerusalem was completed, ended with a great crisis in Jewish history, the close of the prophetic testimony. Forty-nine years from B. C. 445 brings us to the date of Malachi’s prophecy. fth11 “The multitude.” —TREGELLES, Daniel , p. 97. fth12 It is noteworthy that the prophecy was given at Babylon, and the Babylonian year consisted of twelve months of thirty days. That the prophetic year is not the ordinary year is no new discovery. It was noticed sixteen centuries ago by Julius Africanus in his Chronography , wherein he explains the seventy weeks to be weeks of Jewish (lunar) years, beginning with the twentieth of Artaxerxes, the fourth year of the 83rd Olympiad, and ending in the second year of the 202nd Olympiad; 475 Julian years being equal to 490 lunar years.

THE COMING PRINCE - fti1 See pp. 44-47, ante . fti2 All these words point to practical benefits to be conferred in a practical way upon the people, at the second advent of Christ. Isaiah 1:26 is a commentary on “bringing in righteousness.” To take it as synonymous with declaring God’s righteousness ( Romans 3:25) is doctrinally a blunder and an anachronism. To any whose views of” reconciliation” are not based on the use of the word in Scripture, “making reconciliation for iniquity” will seem an exception. The Hebrew verb caphar (to make atonement or reconciliation) means literally “to cover over” sin (see its use in Genesis 6:14), to do away with a charge against a person by means of bloodshedding, or otherwise (ex . gr . by intercession, Exodus 32:30), so as to secure his reception into Divine favor. The following is a list of the passages where the word is used in the first three books of the Bible: Genesis 6:14 (pitch ); 32:20 (appease ); Exodus 29:33,36,37; 30:10, 15, 16; 32:30; Leviticus 1:4; 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:6, 10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7, 30; 7:7; 8:15, 34; 9:7; 10:17; 12:7, 8;14:18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 31, 53; 15:15, 30; 16:6, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20, 24, 27, 32, 33, 34; 17:11; 19:22; 23:28.

It will be seen that caphar is never used of the expiation or bloodshedding considered objectively, but of the results accruing from it to the sinner, sometimes immediately on the victim’s death, sometimes conditional upon the action of the priest who was charged with the function of applying the blood. The sacrifice was not the atonement, but the means by which atonement was made. Therefore “the preposition which marks substitution is never used in connection with the word caphar ” (Girdlestone’s Synonyms O. T., p. 214.)

Making reconciliation, or atonement, therefore, according to the Scriptural use of the word, implies the removal of the practical estrangement between the sinner and God, the obtaining forgiveness for the sin; and the words in Daniel 9:24 point to the time when this benefit will be secured to Judah. “In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and uncleanness” ( Zechariah 13:1); that is, the blessings of Calvary will be theirs; reconciliation will be accomplished for the people. In keeping with this, transgression will be restrained (see use of the word in Genesis 8:2; Exodus 36:6); i. e., they will cease to transgress; sins will be sealed up, — the ordinary word for securing a letter ( 1 Kings 21:8), or a purse or bag of treasure ( Job 14:17); i. e., sins will be done with and put away in a practical sense; and vision and prophet will likewise be sealed up, i. e., their functions will be at an end, for all will have been fulfilled. fti3 According to Browne (Ordo Saec ., §§. 254 and 268) the Exodus was on Friday the 10th April, B. C. 1586; the passage of Jordan was the 14th April, B. C. 1546; the accession of Solomon was B. C. 1016, and the foundation of the Temple was the 20th April, B. C. 1013. He therefore accepts St. Paul’s statements unreservedly. Clinton conjectures that there was an interval of about twenty-seven years before the time of the Judges, and another of twelve years before the election of Saul, thus fixing on B. C. 1625 as the date of the Exode, extending the whole period to 612 years. Josephus reckons it 621 years, and this is adopted by Hales, who calls the statement in Kings “a forgery.” Other chronologers assign periods varying from the 741 years of Julius Africanus to the 480 years of Usher, whose date for the Exode — B. C. 1491 — has been adopted in our Bible, though clearly wrong by ninety-three years at least. The subject is fully discussed by Clinton in Fasli Hell ., vol. 1., pp. 312-313, and by Browne, reviewing Clinton’s arguments, in Ordo Scec ., §. 6, etc . Browne’s conclusions have much to commend them. But if others are right in inserting conjectural periods, my argument remains the same, for any such periods, if they existed, were obviously excluded from the 480 years on the same principle as were the eras of the servitudes. (This subject is discussed further in App. 1.) fti4 Judges 3:8,14; 4:2, 3; 6:1; 13:1. The servitude of Judges 10:7, affected only the tribes beyond Jordan, and did not suspend Israel’s national position. fti5 The Israelites were nationally God’s people as no other nation ever can be; therefore they were dealt with in some respects on principles similar to those which obtain in the case of individuals. A life without God is death. Righteousness must keep a strict account and sternly judge; or grace may pardon. And if God forgives, He likewise forgets the sin ( Hebrews 10:17); which doubtless means that the record is wiped out, and the period it covers is treated as though it were a blank. The days of our servitude to evil are ignored in the Divine chronology. fti6 qliyiv , Matthew 24:21; Daniel 12:1 (LXX) fti7 kai< ejpi< to< iJerolugma tw~n ejrhmw>sewn, Daniel 9:27; to< bde>lugma ejrhmw>sewv, Daniel 12:11 (LXX.); o [tan ou+n i] dhte to< bde>lugma th~v ejrhmw>sewv to< rJhqetou, eJstwv e>n to>pw| aJgi>w|, Matthew 24:15. Comp . Maccabees 1:54, wj|kodo>mhsan bde>lugma ejrhmw>sewv e>pi to< fusiasth>rion. This passage in Matthew affords an unanswerable proof that all systems of interpretation which make the seventy weeks end with the coming or death of Christ, and therefore before the destruction of Jerusalem by Tiffits , are wholly wrong. And that that event was not in fact the terminus of the era is plain from Matthew 24:21-29, and Daniel 9:24. fti8 Making all allowance for the contemptible time-serving of Josephus and his admiration for Titus, his testimony on this point is too full and explicit. to admit of doubt (Wars , 6., 2, §. 4). fti9 I am aware of systems of interpretation which flitter away the meaning of all such scriptures, but it is idle to attempt to refute them in detail. (See chap 11 post , and App. Note C.) fti10 Such was the belief of the early Church; but the question has been argued at length out of deference to modern writers who have advocated a different interpretation of Daniel 9:27. Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, who wrote at the beginning of the third century, is most definite on the point. Quoting the verse, he says: “By one week he meant the last week, which is to be at the end of the whole world ; of which week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half; for they will preach 1, 260 days, clothed in sackcloth” (Hip. on Christ and Antichrist ). According to Browne (Ordo Saec . p. 386, note ), this was also the view of the father of Christian chronologers, Julius Africanus.

That half of the last week has been fulfilled, but the remaining three and a half years are still future, is maintained by Canon Browne himself (§ 339), who notices, what so many modern writers have missed, that the events belonging to this period are connected with the times of Antichrist. fti11 i. e., the covenant mentioned in Daniel 9:27.

THE COMING PRINCE - ftj1 Bethlehem, “in which Jesus Christ was born, as you may also learn from the lists of the taxing which was made in the time of Cyrenius, the first Governor of yours in Judea.” — Apol ., 1., § 34. “We assert Christ to have been born a hundred and fifty years ago, under Cyrenius.” — Ibid., § 46. “But when there was an enrollment in Judea, which was then made first under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem, of which place he was, to be enrolled,” etc. — Dial.

Trypho, § 78. ftj2 Josephus here leaves a gap in his narrative; and through the loss of MSS., the history of Dion Cassius, the other authority for this period, is not available to supply the omission. ftj3 Dr. Zumpt’s labors in this matter were first made public in a Latin treatise which appeared in 1854. More recently he has published them in his Das Geburtsjahr Christi (Leipzig, 1869). The English reader will find a summary of his arguments in Dean Alford’s Greek Test . (Note on Luke 2:1), and in his article, on Cyrenius in Smith’s Bible Dict .; he describes them as “very striking and satisfactory.” Dr. Farrar remarks, “Zumpt has, with incredible industry and research, all but established in this matter the accuracy of St. Luke, by proving the extreme probability that Quirinus was twice governor of Syria” (Life of Christ , vol. 1. p. 7, note ). See also an article in the Quarterly Review for April 1871, which describes Zumpt’s conclusions as “very nearly certain,” “all but certain.” The question is discussed also in Wieseler’s Chron . Syn . (Venables’s trans.)

In his Roman history, Mr. Merivale adopts these results unreservedly.

He says (vol. 4., p. 457), “A remarkable light has been thrown upon the point by the demonstration, as it seems to be, of Augustus Zumpt in his second volume of Commentationes Epigraphicae , that Quirinus (the Cyrenius of St. Luke 2.) was first governor of Syria from the close of A. U. 750 (B. C. 4), to A. U. 753 (B. C. l).” ftj4 The birth of our Lord is placed in B. C. 1, by Pearson and Hug; B. C. 2, by Scaliger; B. C. 3, by Baronius, Calvisius, Suskind, and Paulus; B. C. 4, by Lamy, Bengel, Anger, Wieseler, and Greswell; B. C. 5, by Usher and Petavius; B. C. 7, by Ideler and Sanclementi (Smith’s Bible Dict ., “Jesus Christ,” p. 1075).

It should be added that Zumpt’s date for the nativity is fixed on independent grounds in B. C. 7. Following Ideler, he concludes that the conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn, which occurred in that year, was the “Star” which led the Magi to Palestine. ftj5 Fasti Romani , A. D. 29. ftj6 Luke 3:23. Such is the right rendering of the verse. The Revised Version renders it: “ And Jesus Himself, when He began to teach , was about thirty years of age.” ftj7 Lewin, Fasti Sacri , p. 53. Diss., chap. 6: The joint-principate theory of the reign of Tiberius, elaborately argued for by Greswell, is essential with writers like him, who assign the crucifixion to A. D 29 or 30.

Sanclementi, indeed, finding “that nowhere in histories, or on monuments, or coins, is a vestige to be found of any such mode of reckoning the years of this emperor,” disposes of the difficulty by taking the date in Luke 3:1 to refer, not to John the Baptist’s ministry, but to Christ’s death. Browne adopts this in a modified form, recognizing that the hypothesis above referred to “falls under fatal objections.” He remarks that “it is improbable to the last degree” that Luke, who wrote specially for a Roman officer, and generally for Gentiles, would have so expressed himself as to be certainly misunderstood by them. Therefore, though the statement of the evangelist clashes with his conclusion as to the date of the Passion, he owns his obligation to accept it. See Ordo Saec ., §§ 71 and 95. ftj8 As Dean Alford puts it (Gr . Test ., in loco ): “This wJsei< tria>konta admits of considerable latitude, but only in one direction, viz., over thirty years .” ftj9 “It seems to me absolutely certain that our Lord’s ministry lasted for some period above three years” (Pusey, Daniel , p. 176, and see p. 177, note 7). This opinion is now held so universally, that it is no longer necessary to set forth in detail the grounds on which it rests; indeed, recent writers generally assume without proof that the ministry included four Passovers. The most satisfactory discussion of the question which I know of is in Hengstenberg’s Christology (Arnold’s trans., §§ 755-765). St. John mentions expressly three Passovers at which the Lord was present; and if the feast of John 5:1 be a Passover, the question is at an end. It is now generally admitted that that feast was either Purim or Passover , and Hengstenberg’s proofs in favor of the latter are overwhelming. The feast of Purim had no Divine sanction. It was instituted by the decree of Esther, Queen of Persia, in the 13th year of Xerxes (B. C. 473), and it was rather a social and political than a religious feast, the service in the synagogue being quite secondary to the excessive eating and drinking which marked the day.

It is doubtful whether our Lord would have observed such a feast at all; but that, contrary to the usual practice, He would have specially gone up to Jerusalem to celebrate it, is altogether incredible. ftj10 Clinton’s Fasti Rom ., A. D. 29. ftj11 “The month began at the phases of the moon…and this happens, according to Newton, when the moon is eighteen hours old. Therefore the fourteenth Nisan might commence when the moon was 13d. 18h. old, and wanted 1d. oh. 22m. to the full. [The age of the moon at the full will be 14d. 18h. 22M.] But sometimes the phases was delayed till the moon was 1d. 17h. old; and then if the first Nisan were deferred till the phases , the fourteenth would begin only 1h. 22m. before the full.

This precision, however, in adjusting the month to the moon did not exist in practice. The Jews, like other nations who adopted a lunar year, and supplied the defect by an intercalary month, failed in obtaining complete accuracy. We know not what their method of calculation was at the time of the Christian era” (Fasti Rom ., vol. 2., p. 240); A. D. is the only year between 28 and 33 in which the phases of the full moon was on a Friday. In A. D. 29 the full moon was on Saturday, and the phases on Monday. (See Wurm’s Table, in Wiesler’s Chron . Syn ., Venables’s trans., p. 407). ftj12 Herod . 2:4. ftj13 It was about A. D. 360 that the Jews adopted the metonic cycle of nineteen years for the adjustment of their calendar. Before that time they used a cycle of eighty-four years, which was evidently the calippic period of seventy-six years with a Greek octaeteris added. This is said by certain writers to have been in use at the time of our Lord, but the statement is very doubtful. It appears to rest on the testimony of the later Rabbins. Julius Africanus, on the other hand, states in his Chronography that “the Jews insert three intercalary months every eight years.” For a description of the modern Jewish calendar see Encyc . Brit . (9th ed., vol. 5., p. 714). ftj14 Browne, Ordo saec ., § ftj15 See ex . gr . Browne Ordo saec ., § 64. He avers that “if in a given year the paschal moon was at the full at any instant between sunset of a Thursday and sunset of a Friday, the day included between the two sunsets was the 15th Nisan; “and on this ground he maintains that A. D. 29 is the only possible date of the crucifixion. As his own table shows, however, no possible year (i. e., no year between 28 and 33) satisfies this requirement; for the paschal full moon in A. D. 29 was on Saturday the 16th April, not on Friday the 18th March. This view is maintained also by Ferguson and others. It may be accounted for, perhaps, by the fact that till recent years the Mishna was not translated into English. ftj16 Acts 27:20. Treatise Rosh Hashanah of the Mishna deals with the mode in which, in the days of the “second temple,” the feast of the new moon was regulated. The evidence of two competent witnesses was required by the Sanhedrin to the fact that they had seen the moon, and the numerous rules laid down for the journey and examination of these witnesses prove that not unfrequently they came from a distance.

Indeed, the case of their being “a day and a night on the road” is provided for (ch. i., § 9). The proclamation by the Sanhedrin, therefore, may have been sometimes delayed till a day or even two after the phases, and sometimes the phases was delayed till the moon was 1d. 17h. old [Clinton, Fasti Rom ., vol. 2., p. 240]; so that the 1st Nisan may have fallen several days later than the true new moon. Possibly, moreover, it may have been still further delayed by the operation of rules such as those of the modern Jewish calendar for preventing certain festivals from falling on incompatible days. It appears from the Mishna (“Pesachim ”) that the present rules for this purpose were not in force; but yet there may have been similar rules in operation. ftj17 See Fasli Rom ., vol. 2., p. 240, as to the impossibility of determining in what years the Passover fell on Friday. ftj18 The following is the scheme of the octaeteris: “The solar year has a length of 365 1/4 days; 12 lunar months make 354 days. The difference, which is called the epact or epagomene, is 11 1/4 days. This is the epact of the first year. Hence the epact of the second year = 221/2 days; of the third, 33 3/4. These 33 3/4 days make one lunar month of 30 days, which is added to the third lunar year as an intercalary or thirteenth month (ejmbolismo>v ), and a remainder or epact of 3 ¾ days. Hence the epact of the fourth year =11 ¼ + 3 ¾=15 days; that of the fifth year =26 ¼; of the sixth, 37 & 1/2, which gives a second embolism of 30 days with an epact of 7½. The epact, therefore, of the seventh year is 18 ¾, and of the eighth =18 ¾ + 11¼ just 30, which is the third embolism with no epact remaining.” —BROWNE, Ordo Saec ., § 424.

The days of the Paschal full moon in the years A. D. 22-37 were as follows; the embolismal years, according to the octaeteris, being marked “E”:

A. D. 22 5th April 23 25th March 24 12th April 25 1st April 26 21st March 27 E 9th April 28 29th March 29 E 17th April 30 6th April 31 27th March 32 E 14th April 33 3rd April 34 23rd March 35 E 11th April 36 30th March 37 E 18th April ftj20 Josephus testifies that an “innumerable multitude” came together for the feast (Ant ., 17., 9, § 3); and he computes that at a Passover before the siege of Jerusalem upwards of 2, 700, 200 persons actually partook of the Paschal Supper, besides the foreigners present in the city (Wars , 6., 9, § 3).

THE COMING PRINCE - ftk1 qeopneustov, 2 Timothy 3:16. See Browne’s Ordo Saec ., §§ 65- 70, for an exhaustive discussion of this question, in proof that “the three first Gospels are at variance on this point with the fourth.” The matter is treated of in books without number. I here deal only with the salient points in the controversy. Arguments based upon the Sabbatical observance of the 15th Nisan being inconsistent with the events of the morning of the crucifixion are worthless. “To strain at a gnat and swallow a camel” was characteristic of the men who were the actors in these scenes. If any one have doubts of it, let him read the Mishna . And points such as that the Jews were forbidden to leave their houses on the night of the Supper, depend upon confounding the commands given for the night of the Exodus with the law relative to its annual celebration.

As well might it be urged that the Lord sanctioned and took part in a violation of the law because He reclined at supper, instead of standing girded and shod as enjoined in Exodus 12. ftk2 Matthew 26:17 (Revised Version). In the Authorized Version out translators have perverted the verse. It was not the first day of the feast , but th~| prw>th| tw~n ajzu>mwn, or, as St. Luke calls it, hJ hJme>ra tw~n ajxu>mwn , viz., the day on which leaven was banished from their houses, the 14th Nisan, on the evening of which the Passover was eaten. ftk3 See Luke 22:1., and compare Josephus, Ant ., 14:2, I, and 17:9, 3:” The feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover .” ftk4 Or if the emphasis rested on the last word, the distinction would be between Passover and Pentecost or Tabernacles. ftk5 Numbers 28:16,17. Compare Exodus 12:14-17, and Leviticus 23:5,6, and mark that in the enumeration of the feasts in the twentythird chapter of Exodus, the Passover (i. e., the Paschal Supper) is omitted altogether. ftk6 John 13:1. The reader must carefully distinguish between verses such as this and those verses where in our English version the word “feast” is in italics, denoting that it is not in the original. ftk7 Such, for instance, was the day of atonement ( Leviticus 23:32) and also the weekly Sabbath. But though the Passover was eaten between six o’clock and midnight, this period was designated in the law, not the beginning of the 15th Nisan, but the evening or night of the 14th (compare Exodus 12:6-8, and Leviticus 23:5). The 15th, or feast day, was reckoned, doubtless, from six o’clock the following morning, for, according to the Mishna (Treatise Berachoth ), the day began at six o’clock a. m. These writers would have us believe that the disciples supposed that they were there and then eating the Passover, and yet that they imagined Judas was dispatched to buy what was needed for the Passover! ftk8 Because the day ended at six o’clock. Moreover, we know from Jewish writers that these offerings (called in the Talmud the Chagigah ) were eaten between three and six o’clock, and ceremonial uncleanness continued until six o’clock. ftk9 h+n de< paraskeuh< tou~ pajsca, compare vers. 31 and 42, and also Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54. Josephus (Ant ., 16., 6, 2) cites an imperial edict relieving the Jews from appearing before the tribunals either on the Sabbath or after the ninth hour of the preparation day. It is unjustifiable to assert that the absence of the article in John 19:14 precludes our giving this meaning to the word paraskeuh< in that passage. In three of the other five verses cited the word is anarthrous, for in fact it had come to be the common name for the day, and the expression “Passover Friday” was as natural to a Jew as is “Easter Monday” to ourselves. (See Alford’s note on Mark 15:42. Still more valuable is his explanation of Matthew 27:62.) ftk10 Numbers 28:19-24. Compare Josephus, Ant ., 3:10, 5. ftk11 The present Jewish calendar is so adjusted that the 14th of Nisan shall never fall upon their Sabbath (see Encyc . Brit ., 9th ed., title, Hebrew Calendar ); and this, doubtless, was so intended, for the duties of the day were inconsistent with the due observance of the fourth commandment. Therefore, the morrow after the Sabbath” following would invariably be a working day, so that the law is perfectly consistent in providing that the sheaf should be waved on the first day of the harvest. It is only, therefore, in a cycle of years that the true day for offering the first-fruits falls on the third day from the Passover; but in the year