iv. DURATIONS OF DIVISION B. 486. We proceed now to shew what durations have been assigned to this Division, or may be deduced by a comparison of passages. No. 1. Amount of years shewn in Tables 8, 9, and 11 52y.+154y. 3m.+169y.= 2. According to the received Chronology, B.C. 536-162 But some chronologers make, between 1st Cyrus's reign and A. Eupator's death Y. M. 375 3 374 378 O 417 5 મા 3. Title-numbers of Books 11 and 12, from 1st of Cyrus' 4. From the Return to the appointment of Jacimus (Ant. or 416 5 or 414 5 414 O 5. From 1st Cyrus to the death of Alexander the Great (Title to Book II.) (v.R. 2432y.) 6. In Wars VI. iv. 8, the interval between the 2nd of Cyrus and the 2nd destruction, is Idem VII. x. 4. Onias's Temple in Egypt was shut up after A. Eupator But this event happened 3 or 4 years after the 2nd destruction of Jeru Y. M. D. 639 1 15 339 0 0 300 0 0 Here is a discrepancy of 114 years. It may, however, be got rid of thus. A Various Reading of "233," instead of 343 years may be brought forward; and this will give 410 years. * In each of 6 long chronometrical lines, which either have a terminus at or traverse this Division, there is a Various Reading reducing the amount by 100 years. We take this fact to be a clear proof that these Various Readings are Original and framed to suit the computations, and are not corruptions as might The vulgar Chronology will approximately support this duration. From B. C. 162 to A.D. 70=232. And 640-232=408. An inference may be drawn from this example in favour of the original genuineness of the Various Readings, seeing that we have found it necessary to have recourse to a Various Reading to remove a discrepancy between Received Readings, and to produce approximate congruity with the common chronology. Further, when we look at the amount of the above discrepancy (114), and notice that the sum of the Title-numbers of Bks. 13 and 14 is the same, viz., 114, we may be led to suspect that the discrepancy has arisen from a doubling of those numbers, more especially if we take into account that a Cycle of equation may have been formed between them and the 343-year duration of Onias's Temple. For 343 49 x 7. And 114 x 3+1=343. (Note also that 56×6 (or 7 x 6 x 8)+7=343.) A doubling of the above Title-numbers would make the sum of those prefixed to Bks. 13 to 20 amount (in round numbers) to 330 years. 7. Ant. XII. vii. 6 informs us that "the desolation" of the Temple by A. Epiphanes "came to pass according to the prophecy of Daniel, which was given 408 (v. R. 308) years before." Josephus refers to the prophecy contained in the three last chapters of Daniel, which are dated in "the 3rd year of Cyrus," that is, of his joint reign=the 1st of his sole reign. Hence, adding the 6 years between the profanation and the death of A. Eupator, there will be 414 years to our terminus ad quem. 487. Setting aside the small differences of 2 or 3 years, the most irrefragable evidence is afforded by the numerous passages above referred to in favour of the 414-year duration of this Division. And this duration is further authenticated by the cyclical character of the number (414-1656),—which also, by the bye, may be taken as a proof that our Division is a true cyclical and original Division. Yet the mere fact that the duration of 374 or 378 years has been received by chronologers as representing the actual length of the interval is alone sufficient to shew that it has a great weight of evidence in its favour. To what conclusion then must we come? Note the differences: -414-374-40: 414-378=36. Both are significant numbers; the latter will be seen to be especially so, when it is remembered that an intercalation to this amount in this Division has been proved ¶ 328. Can it be doubted that the differences are intercalary? or, which be supposed if the Variation were single and unsupported. The number of them forbids the hypothesis of accidental corruption, and the fact that they do not suit the Chronology half so well as the Received Reading is equally opposed to the supposition of designed alteration. comes to the same thing, that the different durations have been introduced to make diverse cyclical combinations? [3]. THE PROPHECIES OF DANIEL. i. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 488. The allusion in the passage last cited to the "halfweek" of Temple desolation, which forms as it were a complement or appendage to the prophetic line of 408 years, and the reference to Daniel's prediction appositely lead us to the consideration of this interesting period, and to an examination of the prophecy mentioned as a preliminary step thereto. But we must premise that it will be necessary in order to obtain a clear view of our argument that the reader should have the book of Daniel before him. For it is our intention not to confine ourselves exclusively to the main points that we have in view, but to take such a survey of the whole of the visions of this prophet as our limited space will permit. It has seemed to us that, in the end, it would conduce most to brevity and perspicuity, (and especially in reference to our present topic) to take the discussion on this book of numerical prophecies under one head, rather than to break it up into detached portions, distributing each according to its supposed fulfilment. In point of fact, according to our view, there is such a unity in the whole as to render it impracticable to treat of it intelligibly otherwise than as we propose to do. A volume would be required to do the subject anything like justice, whereas we can allot to it but a limited number of pages. It must therefore be borne in mind that we aim only to indicate the heads of the view we take, and not to develop it fully. For the sake of brevity we shall confine ourselves to placing side by side in parallel columns the commonly received interpretations and those which we would adopt as preferable, subjoining a few remarks on each prophecy. = 489. Daniel's prophecies extend over a 70 years of captivity, that is, from the 1st of Nebuchadnezzar (of his joint reign, as it would seem) 3rd (or 4th) of Jehoiakim (i. 1), and B. C. 606," unto the 1st year of king Cyrus" (i. 21) B.C. 536. Daniel is supposed to have been 20 years of age at the first date consequently 90 at the last. His book is divided into 12 chapters, of which the first 6 are reckoned to be historical, the last 6 prophetical. He was sent to Babylon in the 3rd of Jehoiakim, and was to be "nourished 3 years that at the end thereof he might stand before the king." Accordingly, "at the end of the days" he was brought before Nebuchadnezzar. But as two years complete could not have elapsed, and perhaps not much more than one, we conclude that we have here another example of that inclusive mode of reckoning, of which we have so often spoken. A Daniel is mentioned among the chief of the fathers who returned with Ezra (viii. 2), and again among those who were sealed with Nehemiah, (x. 6). east. 491. Objections to the popular interpretation.-Ch. ii. 31. The representation of 4 kingdoms under the emblem of one image obviously denotes some kind of unity between them. This could be no other than territorial. On the proposed view there was a territorial unity in general co-extensiveness, and in the seat of empire, which Alexander did not live to transfer to Macedon. But not so on the popular view; since the Roman empire doubled the size of the others, and had its seat of empire as far to the west as the others to the V. 44-45. It cannot be denied that the same principles and rules of interpretation ought to be adhered to throughout. But the Stone is declared to be an emblem of a kingdom; and, of course, of a kingdom of the same kind as the others. Christ's Church was not such a kingdom; nor, in a proper sense, a kingdom at all: neither did it, nor could it by reason of its spiritual nature, break in pieces the preceding kingdoms. "The Stone" is spoken of in Zech. iii. 9, 10, where also it may be used to represent the Roman power at the same crisis, and the protection which it subsequently afforded to the Jewish nation. Jose phus, it is true, gives the common interpretation of the image (Ant. X. x. 4). The following passage, in which he speaks of the Stone, Whiston rightly describes as "a most remarkable one." "Daniel did also declare the meaning of the stone to the king: but I do not think proper to relate it, since I have only undertaken to describe things past or things present: but not things that are future." The adoption of this Christian interpretation of the prophecy, joined with many other indications, leads us to entertain a strong suspicion that the Author of the Antiquities was in reality a Christian, who assumed the character of a Jew to give weight to his testimony in favour of Christ. In all the visions which follow, the days of the profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes are described as being at "the end,” 'at the time of the end," in "the latter days," in "the last end of the indignation:"-expressions purporting that this was the general goal to which the prophecies reached forth. It were quite anomalous that this vision of Nebuchadnezzar should be twice as comprehensive as those vouchsafed to the Prophet. 99 66 492. Arguments in favour of proposed view. Ch. ii. 39. The designation, and the laconic notice of the 2nd kingdom aptly denote the short duration of the Median Kingdom, and its inferiority to the Persian. V. 41. The Macedonian 66 empire was forthwith "divided;" yet it was partially strong," and partially "broken." But its parts did not "cleave one to another." V. 44. "In the days of these kings" denotes kings reigning simultaneously over the fragments of the 4th kingdom. The rise of the Roman power during the divided state of the Macedonian empire would be in accordance with this; but not so the rise of the Christian Church under the one power of Rome. The terms of universality ("never," "for ever") ought certainly to be interpreted, not strictly but according to common Scripture usage. V. 34, 35. 44, 45. "The stone" exactly represents the Empire of Rome and its progress. This was a kingdom by reason of the dominion it obtained; yet not such a kingdom as the others, in that it had no king. It was hewn out without the hands of a king; and its dominion was not consigned to venal Satraps. In comparison with the others, it stood for ever." Its progress to power is exactly described. Rising contemporaneously with the Macedonian (see Bell's Chart), soon after the death of Alexander, it began its assaults upon his Empire, as with the blows of a small stone. It smote first "the Macedonian |