Skip to main content

Full text of "Dissertations upon the principles and arrangement of a harmony of the Gospels"

See other formats 




ἊΨ 


——o 


| 


ἡ Φ 
~~ 


| iy be 
4 igs . 


PRINCETON, Ν᾿). 


Part of the 
ADDISON ALEXANDER LIBRARY, 
which w resented by 
D A. Sruarr. 


PE 


Sea 


MESSKS. 


5 were οί» 

















TRO at 
ae ὙΠ 


x 4 
hg γνἢ- ae 


ye ee 
re a | 





DISSERTATIONS 


UPON 


THE PRINCIPLES 


AND 


ARRANGEMENT 


OF AN 


HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. 


BY 
EDWARD’ GRESWELL, B. Ὁ. 
FELLOW OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, OXFORD. 


ee = eee 


SECOND EDITION, 


IN FOUR VOLUMES. 


VOL, 1V. 





OXFORD, 
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 


MDCCCXXXVII. 


. 
a, ἦι 





DISSERTATIONS 


UPON AN 


HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. 


ἘΝῚ 
i: inh 
ban 


















Pi 


Ν᾽ ae Meee i ey 
K ὍΣ Bate lb ek) 
be <a ον 
; 43 eee 
- 
é 


A) 2a Te0}) 68 


ἢ - 
γι hy ᾿ ,) ay 
od » , ἂν 
rf a Ba 
ns BA Cacti τὰ 
᾿ ‘ i ᾿ 


Ν᾿ κἢ αν μρανῦτα 


ΜῊ ἘὉ 5 eo , init? ieatien ἐὐτκθν τὸ 0. ah) 


ae γέ ᾿: - ΝΣ ter 

5 ον ues ἣ ee fain ges: 7 Maes ee τοὶ ὁ δ 2: 
Ἂν : ered >» SP & oe 
. τ Pa ° : 
SAN . ἢ ὌΝ "ir, het ere ba yt 


aie “arenes 


᾿ pe ha ike a 
ἐμ: 2 

3a hoe dba 
i! a, taf Phage 2 : ἊΨ} 7 


Lowey. ἐς ἌΡΗ 


a ‘ 7 a + ‘i ' Di 
sirens ἣν ‘ 
\ ~ > Υγν he ῬΈΑ dy Ἂ Ὗ ij 


ce sation! 
An AY if, FA TE th ΕἾ ᾿; Ὡὰ 
ὟΝ sft ὌΡΟΥΣ νὴ aah ὌΝ 








ἜΠΙΟΝ ΤΟΝ TS 


OF THE 


FOURTH VOLUME. 





APPENDIX. DISSERTATION XV. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity ...... ..ννννννννεν νον I—65 


CENSUS of Augustus, recorded by Suidas—Criticism of Kuster— 
Census, alluded to in Syncellus—:-Not a Census Urbis or Census 
Civium—Description of it, applicable to that of the census at the 
“TET sed cad ape MAI Ell Bs RA GR cb BEA 12. 25. - I—5 


Census of Augustus, according to Malala—Presence of Pedanius 
in Syria, at the time of the council of Berytus—The gens Peda- 
nia—Pedanius, not a legate of Saturninus—Presence of Pedanius, 
possibly connected with the census at the nativity ........ 5—8 


Objection to a Census Orbis from the silence of Dio-Cassius—Hhia- 
tus in Dio—Mission of Caius Cesar into the East—Pisan Ceno- 
taph—Ars Amandi of Ovid, and Remedium Amoris...... 8—I10 


Numbers in Suidas—Conjectural emendation of 6, for vi’. pupiddes— 
Proper sense of davdpes—Population of the empire under Augu- 
stus—Opinion of Mr. Hume—Calculation of Mr. Gibbon—Na- 
tions comprehended in the empire, in the time of Diodorus of 
Tarsus—Estimate of Procopius, of the loss of life under Justinian 
—Calculation of the population of the empire, thence deducible— 
Plague under Justinian—Evagrius .................. 10—16 


Limitation of the inquiry to the probable amount of the population 
of Rome under Augustus—Numbers in Suidas, as they stand, 
applicable neither to the city of Rome, nor to the Roman em- 
pire—Censuses of Augustus, on the Ancyran monument—Extra- 
vagant calculations of the population of Rome.......... 13—18 


First general argument of the population of Rome—Numbers of Cives, 
reported in former censuses—Interruption in the order of the cen- 
suses—Census of Phlegon—A Roman census, a Census Civium, 


a3 


vill THE CONTENTS. 


Corn-pension of the poor of Alexandria, in the time of Diocletian— 
Proportion of the poor to the δῆμος generally—Proportion of the 
poor at Antioch and Constantinople, in the time of Chryso- 
SUOMI INEI NM. JAD Ete. eastetelahs προ ΕΣ «lakes 5I—52 


Seleucia ad Tigrim—Power and independence of this city—Jews of 
Seleucia, U. C. 790 or 791—Population of Seleucia, in the time of 
Marcus Aurelius—Population, in the time of Pliny...... 52—53 


Antioch on the Orontes—The metropolis of Syria—Census of Apa- 
mea, by Quirinus—Founders or enlargers of Antioch, at different 
times—Antigonia—Street, paved by Herod in Antioch—Perimeter 
of Antioch—Military population of Antioch—Ajpos of Antioch, in 
the time of Chrysostom—Numbers of the church, and of the poor 
of Antioch—Oratio Antiochica of Libanius—Probable population 
of Antioch—Earthquakes at Antioch, and loss of life, at different 
times—Capture of Antioch by Chosroes—New name of Antioch, 
Theopolis. or Thetipolis.\..ceeeckl. ocnveit moviayehntls en QSe57 


Fourth general argument—Probable extent of ground covered by 
Rome—Divisions or Regiones of Rome—Pomerium of Rome 
—Ancient Rome, equal in periphery to Athens—Perimeter of 
Athens—Walls of Rome, at the census of Vespasian—Suburbs 
of Rome—Estimate of the compass of Rome by Aristides—Wall 
of Aurelian—Date of its construction—Acdornpa of the wall of 
Rome, A. D.410—Olympiodorus—Ammon—Semicircular shape of 
Rome—Acdornpa in question, the radius of the circle ....57—59 


Number of the births at Rome, soon after the same time—Content 
of the Circus Maximus, at the same period—Proportion of births 
miicities,-ampmally). 5. ρον λιν πῆρα, Anos enishneys ioeras 2 59—60 


Allowance to be made, for the language of contemporaries in speak- 
ing of the magnitude of Rome—Number of families in the same 
house—aAltitude of the houses— Vacant spaces— Uninhabited build- 
Inga hi. πο δξ atd aac τρόπιν eet σατο ee. 60—61 


Passage of Pliny, descriptive of the magnitude of Rome, U.C. 830, 
how to be understood—Reading of xui miles—Milliarium Au- 
reum—Castra Pratoria—Number of gates of Rome—Number of 
Vie Publice—The Pomecerium, what—Gates and Vive in the time of 


THE CONTENTS. ΙΧ 


Procopius Square miles of the area, or ground plan of Rome— 
Insulz and Domus at Rome, and number of both together. .61—65 


DISSERTATION XVI. 


On the Jewish and Julian dates of the several years of the 
SPIES UNE ato ed ae estan tig ea ane vis aie besa’ anh co 66—81 


Cardinal dates in the Jewish year, Nisan 15 and Tisri 15—Inter- 
val between, of what extent—Calendar of the dates in question 
from U.C. 819, A. D. 66 to U. C..826, A.D. 73. ...... 66—68 


Jewish year lunar, at the gospel era—Book of Enoch—Galen—Book 
of Ecclesiasticus—Syro-Macedonian names of months, applied 
by Josephus to the months in the Jewish year in his time. . 66—67 


Confirmation of the correctness of the calendar proposed, by cases in 
point, U.C. 819, 820, 821, and 822—Investigation of the Julian 
date of Tisri 15, 17. C. 822—Rule of Josephus, in specifying the 
lengths of the reigns between Nero and Vitellius........ 69—70 


Reign of Galba—Reign of Nero—Corruption in the text of Jose- 
phus—Reign of Otho—Birthday of Otho—Reign of Vitellius— 
Birthday of Vitellius—Date of the day of his death—Third of 
Apelleus in Josephus—Corruption, for the 20th of Audeneus— 
Merivatnonth\ ef wordays pk. CO, ΝΑ ΟῚ 70—74 


Date of the death of Nero—Lengths of the reigns from Nero to Vi- 
tellius—Course of events, between the adoption and the death of 
Piso—Date of the death of Otho, and arrival of the news at 
Rome —Course of events in Tacitus, between xy. Kal. Jan. and the 
datetof ithe. deathtof: Vitelliusi, nine Me oe a Ὑἱ 72—73 


Modern Jewish calendar—Rabbi Samuel—Difference in the mode of 
computing the number of days in Nisan—Rule, by which it might 
best be regulated—Nisan in an intercalated year, necessarily 
thirty days—Octaeteric cycle, among the Jews—Adar and Veadar 
—Testimony of Galen—Liber Enoch ................75—76 


Statements occurring in Josephus—Artemisius, a month of 30 days 
—Lous, a month of 29—Date of the duration of the second 
temple-—Omission, in the number of days—Omission of one part 
of a certain number, in Josephus—Adar or Dystrus, 30 days— 


x THE CONTENTS. 


Book of Esdras—Interval from Nisan 15 to Jar 15, in the year 
of the Exodus——Nisan, a month of 29 days—Tpuaxas, or last day 
of Tisri—Secondary sense of rpvaxds—Tisri, U. C. 822, a month 
of 29 days—Tpiaxas of Xanthicus, in the Syro-Macedonian 
FORTS gees ba aetinns shb Mee Sneaks ottinel, Aum Ape 0: 76—81 


DISSERTATION XVII. 
Chronology of the Historia Naturalis of Pliny ....... 82—97 


Notices of time in the Historia—Work of Pliny, De Grammatica, or 
Dubii Sermonis——Mutianus ter Consul—Consulships of Mucian— 
Tacitus, De caussis corrupte eloquentie—Neapolis in Samaria— 
War in Britain—Age of Homer and Hesiod—Interval from the 
death of Cato Major—Foundation of Utica—Theophrastus— 
Temple of peace—Lupus, prefect of Egypt—Story of Sabinus— 
Works of Pliny—Date of the death of Pliny .......... 82—88 


Date of the death of Virgil, according to Pliny—Reasons for pre- 
ferrmg it to the common one—Donatus’ life of Virgil—Twelfth 
ode of the fourth book of Horace, addressed to Virgil—Date of 
the fourth book of Horace—Sicambri—Rheti and Vindelici— 
The Consolatio ad Liviam—Date of Horace, Carminum iv, v— 


Virgib living; Us€ Apami sort: denoeeh-oomablencds Rorme 88—go0 


Date of the Bucolics, Georgics, and Aineid of Virgil—Episode of 
Aristeeus, in the fourth Georgic—Death of Gallus—Internal 
evidences of the date of the third Georgic——Internal evidences of 
the date:of the Atneid, cls aiesiosls nieuwe He eee ws go—gI 


Epigram of Domitius Marsus—Death of Tibullus, synchronous with 
that of Virgil—Classical sense of juvenis—Age of Virgil, when he 
composed his Bucolics—Date of the birth of Virgil—Virgil, con- 
temporary with Cicero—Date of the birth of Tibullus—Suspected 
genuineness of Tibullus, iii. v. 17, 18—Amores of Ovid—Order 
and time of the extant or other works of Ovid—Date of the Ars 
Amandi, and Remedium Amoris—Expedition of Caius Cesar— 
Banishment of Ovid—Allusions to the cause of it—Probable date 
of the Amores—Gallus, Tibullus, Propertius, and Ovid, flourished 
guccessively:..2i.0 5 civ sity Crews EL εν eae gi—95 


No allusion to the death of Virgil, in Horace—First allusion to the 
Muneid, in any contemporary writer—Date of the Elegies of Pro- 


THE CONTENTS. ΧΙ 


pertius—Inconsistency between the extant accounts of the death 
of Virgil—Epitaph of Virgil on himself—Calabria, a name coex- 
tensive with Messapia—Absurdity of the account of the Life of 
Virgil—Visit of Virgil’s to Athens—Date of the first book of the 
Odes of Horace ........ HA niece eater = 55s Tall! ὡς 95—97 


DISSERTATION XVIII. 


Chronology of the Second Jewish War, in the time of 
ΠΕΤΟΥ͂Ν ΣΝ cee a ise cant Sone Se το λοις aches cine ἤσενν g8—116 


Duration of the second Jewish war, analogous to that of the first-— 
Desolating effects of the second war—Expulsion of the Jews from 
Judeea—Traditionary accounts of the Jews, relating to the second 
ποὺ θη στ πε velba sche» CR tino τούς a tel 98—99 


Seventy years’ interval, between the beginning of the first and the 
end of the second war, analogous to the seventy years’ interval, 
between the destruction of the temple and the second of Darius 
—Dates of the close of the second war—Siege of Bither-—Expo- 
sition of the seventy weeks, secundum Hebrzeos—First of Darius, 
confounded by Jerome with the first of Cyrus—Close of the war, 
A. Ὁ. 136—Olympiads of Phlegon ................ g9g—102 


Date of the beginning of the war—Dates of Jerome—Church of the 
holy sepulchre—Venerarium of Ambrose, on mount Calvary—- 
Date of Epiphanius—Referred to the second of Titus—Beginning 
iat ce ya eID TF | ogo, Bye e) choses as eye Rents Oa 102—I103 


Motives to the rebellion of the Jews—Atlia Capitolina—Interdict 
against circumcision, removed in the reign of Antoninus Pius— 
Coincidence of the rebellion with the interval of Hadrian’s visit 
POPOL ANG VTE πὸ Ὁ εὖ Wen χουνε 103—104 


Journeyings of Hadrian—Tillemont—Eckhel—Coins of the Egyptian 
nomi prove the presence of Hadrian in Egypt, in the eleventh of 
his reign—Number of the nomi—Nomi, which have the eleventh 
of Hadrian, and nomi, which have not—Coins of Antinous—Date 
of the death of Antinous—Hadrian in Egypt, in the eleventh of 
his reign—Alexandrian, or Egyptian, reckoning of the years of his 
FOUR... πα σοι εξ, ta harmon osit Bn τοῦ tun tiere ath 104—I107 


Objection, from the coins of Alexandria, in the X Vth of Hadrian—Do 


ΧΙ THE CONTENTS. 


not exhibit the Adventus Augusti—An Adventus not necessarily 
implied by their devices—Letter of Hadrian, in Vopiscus—Epi- 
gram of Publius Balbinus, on the statue of Memnon—Memnon, 
Phamenoph—Common reckoning of the XVth of Hadrian, the 
XVIth, in the Egyptian—Sabina in Egypt by herself, on this 
occasion—Possible double visit of Hadrian’s to Egypt, in his 
eleventh and his fifteenth—Letter of Hadrian to Servianus, in 
Vopiscus—Hadrian in Egypt, not long before the adoption of 
2 ig: ae AN Ar, oad age je a, 107—110 


Visits of Hadrian to Athens—Hadrian present at the Mysteries— 
At the Dionysia—Apologies of Quadratus and Aristides—Rescript 
to Fundanus—Consecration of the Olympium—Date of Philostra- 
tus—Propylea of Athens—Testimony of Dio Chrysostom—Strabo 
—Diczarchus, or the Bios “EAAddos—Visit of Hadrian to Africa— 
Visit to Britain... 5% sce sere els ae eek eae wee es IIO—I13 


Different accounts of the duration of the war—The last four years, 
the most arduous part of the war—Rebellion under Hadrian, 
confounded with that under Trajan—Colonies of Hadrian in 
Africa—Roman commanders in the war—Julius Severus, Titus 
Annius Rufus—Readings of this name—Velius Rufus—Hadrian 
with the army in person, in the course of the war—Double era of 
the coins of Gaza—Presumptive proof that Hadrian was there, 
between What Wass ie sen cient eke ee eon I13—115 


Fragment remaining of the apology of Quadratus—Quadratus might 
be personally acquainted with subjects of our Saviour’s miracles 
—Anecdote recorded by Socrates, of Acesius and Constantine at 
the council of Nice, from Auxanon, an eyewitness—Similar 
accounts OF EivaeTiuss; «ja. tie sj. oe ete <i ken Chee mae 115—116 


DISSERTATION XIX. 
On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, and the second part 
of the Chronology of the Acts of the Apostles ... 117—258 


Proposed survey of the chronology of the Acts, from the thirteenth 
chapter to the end—Two fixed points capable of being determined 
therein—Determination of the second of them first... ..117—118 


Point of time of St. Paul’s last arrival at Jerusalem in the Acts— 


THE CONTENTS. xii 


When there was no regular high priest—True sense of St. Paul’s 
words before the council .......................+. 118—119 


History of the succession of high priests—Ananias, son of 
Nebedeus—Jonathan, son of Annas or Ananus—Ishmael—Jona- 
than, high priest between the twelfth of Claudius, and the first of 
Nero—Assassination of Jonathan, in the first of Nero—Removal 
of Felix, not later than the fifth of Nero—Appointment of 
Ishmael, not earlier than the first of Nero, nor later than the 
ONE ays eh ον) Sl stor. ayscceds esa Son parherttitay tea io E Qa 2 


Further limitation of the period between the death of Jonathan and 
the appointment of Ishmael—Appointment of Ishmael, in the first 
half of the third of Nero—Confirmed by the misstatement of 
Josephus, Ant. iii. xv. 3—High priests under Claudius—High 
priest during the famine, under Claudius—Frequency of famines at 
this period—Nomination of the high priests vested in Agrippa 
the younger—History of Agrippa, from the last of Claudius to the 
second of Nero—Expedition of Corbulo against the Parthians— 
Assassination of Jonathan at the feast of Tabernacles, or Passover, 
in the second of Nero—Appointment of Ishmael at or before the 
feast of Tabernacles, next ensuing—Time, when there was no 
regular high priest, and St. Paul arrived in Jerusalem, the Pen- 
beeost between picid cite ald... net. ΒΒ. 


Circumstantial confirmation of the above conclusion—Rise of the 
Sicarii—Ananias, vicar of Jonathan—The Egyptian false prophet 
—Accounts of Josephus, consistent with those of the Acts—Ac- 
counts of Josephus in the Antiquities, and in the War—Time of 
the ultimate defeat of this impostor, when St. Paul was at 
Cesarea—Services of Felix—Eleazar, the dpyijorns—Time of 
the appointment of Felix—Date of the administration of Cuma- 
nus—War of the Jews and Samaritans—‘Eopr7, or ἡ ἑορτὴ, abso- 
lutely, the feast of Tabernacles —Quadratus— Ananias and Jonathan 
sent to Rome—Procuratorship procured for Felix—Drusilla, wife 
of Felix—Perishes, in the eruption of Vesuvius—Interval, since 
St. Paul’s last visit—Sedition at Casarea—Ishmael, high priest 
when Paul was tried before Festus—Death of Ananias, in the Jew- 
ish war—Ananias, distinct from Ananus the younger .. 124—1 29 


Discrepancy between Josephus and Tacitus—Inaccuracy of Tacitus 
on Jewish affairs—Quadratus—Cassius Longinus—Vibius Marsus 


xiv THE CONTENTS. 


—Meherdates—Jurisdiction of Felix, probably coordinate from the 
first, with that of Cumanus—Marriage of Claudius and Agrippina 
—General agreement of the two accounts—Adoption of Nero— 
Suetonius and Tacitus at variance—Appointment of Seneca to be 
tis tutorial Mero: soc. 6s Soe ORR, Ae eet 129—133 


Determination of the second of the proposed points of time—Meeting 
of Paul and Aquila at Corinth—Expulsion of the Jews from Rome 
by Claudius—Number of the Jews at Rome—Testimony of 
Suetonius—Confusion of Christus with Chrestus—Date of the 
expulsion, the time of the Parthian embassy to ask for Meherdates 
—Date of Apollinarius of Laodicea, for the rupture of the Jews 
and Romans in the reign of Claudius—Confirmed by Orosius— 
Causes of the expulsion, in the facts which had recently occurred 
in Judeea—Danger of a serious breach with the Romans, at this 
time—Wars and rumours of wars, in the prophecy on the mount 
—Probable date of the decree of expulsion—Consequent time of 
the arrival of Aquila at Corinth ................... 133—137 


Distribution of intermediate particulars, from the Pentecost of U.C. 
802, the date of St. Paul’s second circuit, to the arrival at 
Corinth, on this occasion—Residence at Thessalonica—Interval 
between Pentecost, U. C. 797, the beginning of Paul’s first 
circuit, and Pentecost, U.C. 802, the beginning of his second, 
and mode of filling it up—Time of the council at Jerusalem— 
Arrival of St. Paul at Corinth, in the spring of U. C. 803— 
Confirmation of the above conclusions, by circumstantial coinci- 
dences—Decree of Claudius, probably known at Philippi and 
Thessalonica—Famine, in the ninth of Claudius—Prices of the 
modius of corn—Double supply of the wants of Paul from Philippi, 
within this period—Time of the arrival at Corinth—Why St. Paul 
might accept relief from the Philippians, while he declined it from 
other ehanclies £9. TTR Rs PE ee Oe 137—142 


Course of events, from the time of the arrival at Corinth—Length of 
the residence of St. Paul—Feast attended by him at Jerusalem— 
Time, when he was passing through Ephesus—Vow of Aquila— 
Doctrine of the Nazirzeatus—Prosecution of Paul, before Gallio— 
Province of Achaia—Proconsuls of Achaia—Proconsulship of 
Gallio—Honours of Seneca and Gallio—Consulship of Se- 
neca—Banishment and recall of Seneca—Preetorship of Gal- 
ET A ee eee 142—148 


THE CONTENTS. xv 


Visit of Paul to Antioch—Meeting of Paul and Peter at Antioch— 
Beginning of the residence at Ephesus—Length of time taken up 
by it—Date of its close—Ayopaior, fora, or conventus of antiquity 
—Circuits of the governors of provinces—Ephesus, the πρώτη, or 
metropolitan city—Privilege of the xardm\ovs—Proconsuls of 
Asia Proper—Office and title of ypaypareds—Proconsul of Asia 
in the first of Nero—ExkAnoia of antiquity, and times of holding 
them—Neocoratus of Ephesus—The ᾿Ασιάρχαι --- Olympia of Ephe- 
sus—Ephesia, or games of Diana at Ephesus—Ephesia of Xeno- 
phon at Scillus—Ephesia of Achilles Tatius.......... 148—156 


Course of events from the time of the departure from Ephesus— 
Residence of Paul in Macedonia and Achaia—Date of the de- 
parture from Philippi—Time of the arrival at Jerusalem—Coinci- 
dence of this date with the former................+-+005 156 


Confirmation of the above conclusions, by the dates of the Epistles of 
St. Paul hitherto written—Date and place of the First Epistle to 
SHER ΕΒ ΘΗ ΗΒ IT ees ΤΣ Στ τον nee ees 156—160 


Date and place of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians .... 160 
Date and place of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. . .. 160—165 


Collection for the church of Jerusalem in Achaia—Gymnastic exer- 
Sises BE thetancidnts? 4 OSE PEPSI ee 164—166 


Date and place of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians—Collection 
for the church of Achaia—Rapture of St. Paul ..... .. 166—168 


Date and place of the Epistle to the Romans—Via Egnatia through 
Macedonia—Collections for the church of Jerusalem—Erastus— 
Gaius—Narcissus—Aristobulus...................-169—173 


Date and place of the Epistle to the Galatians—Barnabas, apostle of 
the uncircumcision, as well as St. Paul—To zpdérepov—St. Paul’s 
thorn in the flesh—Collections for the church of Judea in 
Galatia—Titus—St. Luke—Barnabas—Arrival of Titus and St. 
Luke at Ephesus, during St. Paul’s residence there—Sabbatic 
year, U.C. 808 to 809—Judaizing teachers, in Corinth and Galatia 
— AroxérrevOai— Resemblance of Romans and Galatians—Thorn 
in the flesh of St. Paul—2riypara of antiquity 


XV1 THE CONTENTS. 


Arrival of St. Paul at Jerusalem by the Pentecost of U. C. 809—In- 
terval between his arrival and the date of his examination before 
Felix—Czesarea—Antipatris—Date of the two years’ imprison- 
ment—Date of the arrival of Festus—Date of the defence before 
Agrippa—Date of the departure to Rome .......... 189—192 


Harvest in Egypt—Corn-ships of Alexandria—Tabellarie or pack- 
ets—Route of the corn-ships—Etesian winds—Delays in sailing 
anciently—St. Paul delayed by the Etesian winds—Dates of the 
Etesian winds—Nyoreia, or fast of the tenth of Tisri—Shutting 
of the sea, at the autumnal equinox—St. Paul proposing to winter 
in Crete—Storms at the Πλειάδων dious—Dates of the Vergilia- 
rum occasus—Storm encountered by Aristides—Opening of the 
sea in spring—Rising of the Pleiades—Date of the shipwreck of 
St. Paul—Date of the departure from Malta—Date of the arrival 
at Rome... 21.6 sees Se ee Oe eee eer ls 192—199 


Στρατοπεδάρχης at Rome—Burrus—Captains of the Pretorian guard 
—reipa Σεβαστὴ, a cohors Pretoria—Character of the reign of 
Nero for the first five years—Murder of Agrippina—Epistles of 
Baul and. Seneeayn see Gale. eee θεν sae bo a 199—201 


Epistles written from Rome during St. Paul’s first imprisonment ; 
and their order and dates—Epaphras or Epaphroditus—Abbre- 
viation of names anciently—Ephesians, written before Colossians 
and Philemon—Colossians and Philemon, before Philippians—Ar- 
rival of Timothy at Rome—Imprisonment of Timothy at Rome 
—Sickness of Epaphras or Epaphroditus—Sickliness of Rome in 
the autumnal season—Rising of the dog-star—Sacrum Cana- 
rium—No Epistles written by St. Paul, in the first year of his im- 
PrisoMMe+t Υ ΤῊΣ ΤΟΥ iskapoeeeee eae eee tees tad ta 201—208 


Epistle to the Ephesians, whether written to the church of Ephesus 
or not—Words Ἔν ᾿Εφέσῳ, whether part of the Epistle originally 
—Testimony of Basil—Testimony of Jerome—lIIlustration of the 
use of τοῖς οὖσιν, absolutely—Testimony of Ignatius, misunder- 
stood—Distinction between omne and totum—Doctrine of the ar- 
ticle—Proper sense and construction of Ephesians ii. 21.—Epistle 
to Laodicea—The Presbyter Caius—Marcion—Apocryphal Epistle 
to Laodicea—Laodicea, Colosse, Hierapolis, contiguous—Gospel 
not preached by St. Paul on the first occasion, out of Ephesus— 
Philemon and Onesimus, both converted at Rome—Testimony of 


THE CONTENTS. xvi 


Polycarp in the Epistle to the Philippians—Tychicus, whether an 
Ephesian—Ephesians, whether a circular Epistle—Laodicea over- 
throwalibyanedrthqualke sae? i203 10 esa ly hos with oni 208—217 


Date and place of the Epistle to the Hebrews—Ascribed to various 
authors—The composition of St. Paul in Hebrew, and probably 
translated by St. Luke—Circumstances under which it was written 
—Imprisonment and liberation of Timothy—The future, imperfectly 
known to the apostles—Language of St. Paul to the Ephesian 
elders, Acts xx. 25—-Persecution, and rise of false teachers in the 
ἘΠ ΓΟ ΤΟΙ Epheswanad? ict Ἐῶ ho thasiiec cd He νὸν δν 217—224 


Visit of St. Paul to Spain—Testimony to the fact of that visit—Caius 
the Presbyter—Clemens Romanus—Boundary of the west an- 
ciently, Spain or the Straits of Gibraltar—Non-extant Epistle of 
St. Paul—Supposed visit of St. Paul to Britain—Probable length 
of the residence in Spain—lInscription in Gruter—Date of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews—Hyotpevoe of the Hebrew church, and 
their exode or death—Martyrdom of James, the first bishop of 
Jerusalem—Hegesippus—Josephus—Supposed interpolation of the 
text of Josephus—Procuratorship of Albinus—History of Jesus, 
son of Ananus—High priesthood of Ananus—Resulting date of 
the martyrdom of James—RMission of the high priest Ishmael to 
Rome—Poppea, wife of Nero—Divorce of Octavia—Festus— 
Albinus—Florus—Death of Poppzeea—Neronea of Nero—Resulting 
confirmation of the date of the Epistle.............. 224—2360 


Date and place of remaining Epistles of St. Paul—Second to Timothy 
written from Rome, during St. Paul’s second imprisonment there— 
Relative place and order of the First of Timothy, and Titus—Ni- 
copolis—Places so called anciently—Titus, written from Macedonia 
before First to Timothy—First to Timothy written from Nico- 
polis in Epirus—Winter spent at Nicopolis—Visit of St. Paul to 
Crete—Preaching of the gospel by St. Paul in Dalmatia—Internal 
evidences of the lateness of these two Epistles........ 230—244 


Date of the Second Epistle to Timothy—Martyrdom of Paul and 
Peter at Rome—Whether in the same year, and on the same day 
or not—Testimonies, and inference from them—Clemens Roma- 
nus, &c.—Coincidences of days, and events, brought about by 
ΠΟΘΙ τ ὦν τ ΝΜ 0 =. 9 9! 6.8) hia lnlonis 244—248 


VOL. IV. b 


xvii THE CONTENTS. 


Circumstantial investigation of the date of the death of St. Paul and 
St. Peter—Burning of Rome by Nero—Persecution of Christi- 
anity, independent of that event—Traditionary length of the min- 
istry of St. Paul and St. Peter—Paul and Peter probably both dead 
when the Jewish war broke out—Best authenticated year of the 
death of each—Testimonies of various kinds—Internal evidence 
of the Second Epistle to Timothy—Paul brought to Rome in the 
spring of U.C. 819—Audience of Paul before Nero—Visit of 
Nero to Achaia, U. C. 819—Tiridates—Cestius Gallus—Victories 
of Nero in the games—Regular Olympic year deferred—Procon- 
sul of Asia, U. C. 819—St. Paul sent to Rome the second time 
as a Roman citizen—Traditionary day of his martyrdom—He- 
lius, freedman of Nero, at the head of affairs in his absence— 
Paul put to death by Nero or Helius— Emi τῶν ἡγουμένων of Cle- 
WICHS. ee oe oe ΤΕ ΡΣ 248—257 


Martyrdom of Peter—Obscurity of the circumstances, which led to 
it, or preceded it—Not living or at Rome, when Paul wrote to 
Timothy—Nicephorus—Date of his sitting at Rome—His death 
at hand, when he wrote the Second Epistle—Resulting date of his 
death . εὐ ΝΕ να, ὉΣ a a ee 257—258 


SUPPLEMENT TO DISSERTATION XV. AND APPENDIX 
DISSERTATION XIX. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks............. .. 259—414 
Reasons for resuming the consideration of the prophecy....... 259 
Text of the prophecy, with the Bible and other versions of it. . . 260 
Ancient Italic orLatin Vulgate, according toTertullian and Cyprian 264 


Number of the weeks in the prophecy. ................5.+- 266 
Remarks on the Septtapint versione 7 20 2 τὺ 267 
Number of weeks not less than seventy, but possibly as great as se- 

wenty aiid’ ait Walt?" 27 Ae en ee, SIS oz ran 269 
The weeks, whether continuous or interrupted .............. 270 
Various versions of the word rendered by, determined ........ 271 
The weeks, ‘whether weeks of years’y τ ieaae estate ae wield 273 
Supposed proper sense of the Hebrew Dyaw..............6. 274 


Possible aenses of the word :year; foi: vci.io Gaiam ies: iol τ 5) 


THE CONTENTS. ΧΙΧ 


Whether the years of the prophecy are lunar or solar......... 276 
Supposed prophetical or Chaldaic year ..... Suited ne hind OO 
A civil year of 360 days, under what circumstances once in use 281 
Antediluvian and postdiluvian year of the most ancient kind, what 282 
The Chaldaic year in the time of Daniel, a year of 365 days... . 283 
No evidence of the computation of time by the prophetic year of 


360 days, in the Book of Daniel ............-.+-+.04- 284 
Calculations of that kind apparently in the Book of Revelation, on 
what principle to be explained ..........-..-00 ee ee sees 285 
The proper measure of such periods, their length as specified in 
Δ ον ΡΟ ΡΠ Ἢ te Ar Diels 


Difference between the apparent and the real length of time em- 
braced by the prophecy, as it is supposed to compute by propheti- 
calvor byssolan years \.s8) ss eels.6 :--- a ond. a ee eee 


᾿Αρχὴ or beginning of the decursus of the weeks, whether determin- 
able from the prophecy to the time of what event..........290 
Object or purpose of the going forth of a word, whether determinable 
ΠΡ πη sore tris ον tee χες Se nine ce adhe Le 20] 
Public acts or decrees, on record in scripture, which might seem to 
agree with each of these descriptions of its own point of depar- 


ture, furnished by the prophecy beforehand ............-.294 
Kings of Persia, mentioned in the Book of Ezra, and proofs that the 
Artaxerxes of Ezra is Artaxerxes Longimanus ............295 


Particular consideration of the claims of each of these decrees to be 


regarded as the point of departure of the prophecy ........ 296 
Decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah, a gratuitous assumption. . . . 299 
Nature of the letters given to Nehemiah. .................-300 
Decree of Darius, not strictly entitled to the name .......... 302 
Decree of Darius, supplementary to that of Cyrus............ 303 


Decree of Cyrus—Answers the description in the prophecy, as a going 
forth ot a word, but as. nothing more. ἡ 2... esas ne vee yas 304 
Decree of Cyrus restricted to the rebuilding of the temple .... 305 
The rebuilding of Jerusalem, to whatsoever extent the effect of the 
decree of Cyrus, was so only per aecidens and ἐκ ne: in com- 


parison of its proper object. . SS ee FT ter or . 307 
Decree of Cyrus never ane to Panoele permission to ἐν μα 
TEES Ee ρα EE eee τοὺ ρον ΡΣ. 108 


b 2 


XX THE CONTENTS. 


Decree of Cyrus too near in point of time to the date of the pro- 


phecy, to have been intended by it. 80. SSP ee ce eee 309 
Reign of Cyrus, as represented in the canon of Ptolomy—Includes 
the ‘two''years of Darius at Babylon’: fe 310 
The first of Darius at Babylon, fixed by the 21 days of Daniel . . ibid. 
Watureiof the’canon-of Ptolemy ">> 55) 7200 eee eerie ee ibid. 


Reign of Cyrus, according to the canon, his reign at Babylon ...311 
First of Cyrus at Babylon fixed by the date of the seventy years’ cap- 


rs Maas ae IO Rl Ainge ae! i aa SA i are en cy ibid. 
Darius actually and truly king of Babylon, before Cyrus ...... ibid. 
Essential to the fulfilment of prophecy that such should have been 
GHESEHSC Sie cr oe Cae te ee te ae ce rae ee SY τονὲ ibid. 
Cyrus, described as king of Babylon in scripture ............ 312 


Recorded effect of the decree of Cyrus not answerable to that 
expectation of the effect, which might be formed from the descrip- 


tion of the’ going forth in the prophecy. *...5. 2s. o-e 312 
Prejudice in favour of the decree of Cyrus, partly resolvable into 
what inaccuracy of the English version. ον ἐς . ibid. 


Decree of Cyrus not in accordance to fie aed state , of the 
case in the prophecy, with respect both to the nation of the Jews, 


and tothe city of Jerusalein sss ne ne oe ee ne ene 314 
Proper'sense of the Hebrew SY oye. 38 Ae ee eee os 315 
Chronological difficulty of the decree of Cyrus .............. 317 


Decree of Ezra—Proof from the decree itself that it is competent 
to answer the conditions of the going forth in the prophecy ...317 


General fitness of the decree of Ezra to answer the conditions of the 
prophecy—Remarkable character of the decree of Artaxerxes above 
ὉΠ Cyrus Gon aus ns seco ee take tae eee 320 


The mission of Ezra the date of the political ἀποκατάστασις, or bring- 
ing back of all things among the Jews to the state ml were in 


before the captivity. . yes Mia's 
Ezra, regarded by the sds as thai Lata ἜΠΕΣΕ ΠΡ in pe 
Mid StRLe ye fe a stare To os ote See me hie ΤΡ See kare anaes 323 


- 


Analogy perceptible between the distance of the date of the mission 
of Ezra from the date of the first interruption to the continued 
operation of the decree of Cyrus, and the interval between the 
date of that decree and the beginning of the captivity ...... 323 


THE CONTENTS. Xxl 


Mission of Nehemiah subordinate to that of Ezra, and intimations 
ὉΠ βου ὙΠΟ ΡΥ ΘΠ ΟΝ Wes. τ. πε τ λοι οτος pogo 325 
Proper sense of the Hebrew, rendered “ In troublous times.” ...326 
Analogy perceptible between the mission of Ezra, as succeeded by 
that of Nehemiah, and the decree of Cyrus, as followed by that of 
RLRIAYS OE τ Che La a Neee itech ECM te tals AIL ὧν 328 


Consideration of the point of time where the prophecy must be sup- 
posed to end—Combination of two classes of events in it, the 
facts of the Christian ministry, and the facts of the Jewish war 
—Connection between these in the prophecy, independent of 
ὉΠ πη πον mterpased . πε yeeros, okt Py ae a 329 

The end of the weeks under these circumstances necessarily twofold, 
and hence the probability that their beginning will be twofold 
ΕΠ πύον es ra coy en A ie A ageing eae sok Se Σ 331 


ἘρΟΤτν ρον οὐ aN IVI, Soin ial leia G wih het Dw! ipy 5. Snare brs 832 
Proper ἀρχὴ of each of the lines—Subserviency of the first division of 
the weeks to the determination of the ἀρχὴ of the second .. ibid. 
A simple division of one portion of the number from the rest, suffi- 
cient as a note of time, or as a chronological boundary between 
ΠΟΘΙ ΜΟῚ LINES OF IEVERtSy’ NEA θ EPONA. GEM. We eR τα, 335 


Proper termination of the second of the lines, relating to the events 


Ὁ Jewisu ware oe Rae WoO SS Be ΒΕ ἐδ 336 
This proper termination must go beyond the date of the destruction 
Gi ΕΞ ΞΕ Ή ΘΙ ΠΡ ρα least.) ici juss ΤΉ iele eel ἐς 438 


Misapprehension of the prophecy in this part of its predictions, ἃ- 
scribable to what inaccuracy of the Bible version.......... 339 
Meaning of the Hebrew, “And the end thereof shall be with a 
BUELL OU ee Ae RE τὼν ed ἀν ch chelate A gcc ogy hakn a Corea oar 340 
The idea which predominates in this part of the prophecy, after what 
point of time not that of the destruction of Jerusalem ...... 341 
Supposed allusion in the ‘ Overspreading of abominations,” and in 
our Saviour’s reference to the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, in the pro- 
phecyondthpynount odin ehtokGliscwred coke. weed ibid. 


The obscurity of this part of the prophecy, due to what cause ...343 
Amendedizersion, of these, texts: ἀντ ρα τοῦ, a). vibe. epg de. 2 344 


Xxil THE CONTENTS. 


Explanation and illustration of the phrase “ Wing of abomina- 


ONS Se Sank dak το 2 . . SRE Oe ee eres 347 
Ensigns of the Roman armies of what two kinds ............ 348 
Objects of divine worship to the legions .................. ibid. 
Abominations in the eyes of the Jews ...............0.205- ibid. 


First of the second class of events in the prophecy, “ Messiah the 


Pringe! ita “oad wh) 3 (ae ce eee Be creda 350 
Messiah the prince, to be understood of his advent .......... 351 
The advent of Messiah, whether his birth or his appearance in his 

public ministry ..... ΠΡ τὸ τ ΠῚ 352 
Proper sense of the Hebrew, rendered by “‘ Prince” .......... 355 


Confirmation of the above conclusion by the consideration of the 
purposes, specified at the outset as the object of the weeks ...357 


Final end of the Messiah’s coming into the world generally .... 358 


First three clauses of ver. 25, and marginal variations upon them...359 
Proper sense of the Hebrew, rendered, ‘‘to finish,” or ‘ to restrain’ 360 


Proper sense of the Hebrew, rendered by “ transgression” .... 361 


Proper sense of the Hebrew, rendered by “‘sins”............ ibid. 
Proper sense of the Hebrew, rendered by “ iniquity”.......... 362 
Analogy between these several subjects of the acts specified of each, 

gnd‘the acts themselves. τυ τς ΕΝ ee ee 364 
Proper sense of the Hebrew, rendered by, ‘to make reconcilia- 

PO ocd Sy: ΡΠ ΠΤ 
General import of all these clauses taken in conjunction ...... 366 
Fourth clause, “Τὸ bring in everlasting righteousness” ....... ibid. 
Fifth clause, “To seal up the vision and prophecy” .........: 368 
Proper sense of the word, rendered by “to seal”............ ibid. 
Proper sense of the word, rendered by “‘ prophecy” .......... 369 
Cuneralsenserul the Clauses. see u ee ren a venta Oe ae ibid. 
Sixth and last clause, ‘‘ To anoint the Most Holy” .......... 370 
Unction or anointing here alluded to, to be distinguished from the 

unction-at the baptism τον . Secale ee ee ibid. 
Objection to the Bible version of “ the Most Holy” .......... 371 


Holy of holies, why the designation here chosen to describe our Sa- 
viour, and at what point of time ..............e0cececs 372 


THE CONTENTS. Xxill 


Second event of this class, “ The cutting off of Messiah”... .... 372 


Proper sense of the word, rendered by “ cutting off” ........ 373 
Rejection of Messiah by his people, as the immediate cause of his 
death, declared by this part of the prophecy .............. 374 


Confirmation of this conclusion by the proper meaning of the He- 


brew clause, rendered by “ But not for himself” .......... 375 
Version of these words by Theodotion .............+.244-- ibid. 
Proper sense of the Hebrew js 2.02... o.oo sca pe A 377 


Interval, between the appearing of Messiah and his being cut off, 
necessarily implied in this part of the prophecy, and to what to be 
RASC UNGER OEE: Sito lois) ato pees) laude « wes eee A 4 ες" 379 


Third event of this class, ‘‘ The confirmation of the covenant with 
many” 


LAPSES ae ee, ayn en peat San en Pe mE Lae es Om yO aR a 383 
The confirmation of the covenant with many, the preaching of formal 
Christianity to the Jews ...... a Paeke pemibid. 
The confirming this covenant for one pee de re of formal 
Christianity to the Jews for seven years ........... . 384 
Distinction between preaching Christianity to the Jews eaelunively 
Saad NOt, ORGUOSW PLY pear iets fred ον F iste nh Ue) adetaye tats 385 


Christianity preached to the Jews seven years in the former sense 386 
Summary of the progress of the Gospel dispensation, beginning with 
the Jews and ending with the Gentiles ; shewing its character to 
have been exclusiveness, gradually relaxed and made inclu- 
Ἐν. aa Ratti ἐν ἐν Soe Pt τὴν εἰ Ne eM Ee, Le ibid. 


fie) deena bes ibis Alelsees bs cores? cad τι ΣΝ 387 


Whether a reference to the week last mentioned is implied by the 


presence of the article before the week here specified... .. .. 389 
Proper sense of the Hebrew rendered by ‘‘ midst” .......... ibid. 
The presence of the article to be accounted for virtute termini, or 

virtute materie, on what principle ..........-..0.eeeeees 391 


b4q 


XX1V THE CONTENTS. 


Objection to the Bible version of the word, rendered by “ obla- 
TOW goes ale arn 2 che clove = el oe 2d og 5 a eee ee Ὁρ 393 


General meaning and comprehension of the two words, rendered 


“* sacrifice” and “ oblation,” severally and conjointly ....... ibid. 
Specific sense of the same two words, descriptive of what..... 396 
The thing implied in either of these cases by the cessation in ques- 

IGE WHERE. Ce lt ae et ye Yo sone Men eee as λον 


Point of time in the period of the half week, at which this event was 
to take place, whether determined by the prophecy or not... . 397 
The event in question, the effect of our Saviour’s death and Pas- 


BOL SIE oe on te, δεν λλδι stint Sis rare ehercian se haere tantra emete 398 
Our Saviour’s hour what, and whether io be understood with ἃ spe- 
cial reference to the prophecy of the seventy weeks ........ 399 


The length of the Messiah’s personal ministry determined in this 


clause of the prophecy...... - ow . ibid. 
Why the determination of this nena ΠΕΡ Rive been reall for 
this part of its disclosures -'ys 0... + ss cht eer Re Cane st 400 


General amended version of the prophecy of the seventy weeks, in 
conformity to the conclusions established ................ 403 


Fulfilment of its various predictions shewn in brief, by a comparison 
with the event—First, of the particulars relating to the facts of the 
ROTM INUTaTPDUILISELY! dete Morte whe = ave lan eins o agete Pte ate) we cia ech ane 404 


Secondly, of the particulars relating to the facts of the Jewish 
WAL oe aS PNG Δ ae Ow Aan oot eS ea δ. :, 406 


Remarkable analogy between the distance from each other, at which 
these two lines were respectively brought to a close, and the dis- 
tance from each other, at which they respectively began. .... 406 

Argument thence deducible that the detachment of the first seven 
weeks from the remainder, was with a prospective view to the 
termination of the second of these two lines hereafter....... 408 


Importance of the prophecy of the seventy weeks to chronology 
both profawe ANd EaGred we ce ce cue wn are ere a wae ons a eee ep 


THE CONTENTS. XXV 


Importance of the same prophecy to every scheme of a Gospel Har- 
mony, or digest of the apostolical history in the Acts and the 
SS ey ΤΕΣ A ee a nS ΟΣ ἐς ἐν, ἘΌΜΣ 410 


Ran eraaii Mein deo Sette Ji ose thats Wm aNe » έν spats oetien iva) abe 413 


DISSERTATION XX. 
On the Date of Trajan’s Expedition into the East..415—426 


Distinction of Simon the Cananite, and Simon son of Cleopas, ne- 
cessary to reconcile the accounts concerning each—Double date 
of the martyrdom, of the latters)..8 2241). 10 AAP Sed τα 415 


Martyrdom of Ignatius, connected by Eusebius with that of Simon 
son of Cleopas—Reason of this connection probably what—False- 
ligo- of this prestinption’) ΥΩ ἘΠῚ 20.AR 2G 415—416 


Date of the martyrdom, according to the Acta—Too near to the per- 
secution of Domitian, to be consistent with general probability— 
Difficulty arising from the supposed presence of Trajan in the 
East at the time of the martyrdom, according to the Acta— 
Triumphi Dacici of Trajan—True reason of Ignatius’ being sent to 
suffer at Rome, probably his being a Roman citizen—Latin words 
in his Epistles—No allusion in his Epistles to the presence of 
Trajan in the East—Peace restored to the church by his condem- 
nation—No reason to suppose that the bishop of Jerusalem suf- 
ΤΟΥ δ το erie οι σαν ORL τε ας SERIA § 416—417 


Particular consideration of the question, whether Trajan was or was 
not in the East, in the ninth or tenth year of his reign. 

Trajan not yet in the East, when Pliny was proconsul of Bithynia, 
Pliny, not yet proconsul of Bithynia, before the twelfth or thir- 
teenth of Trajan, or later. 

Epistles of Pliny—Allusion to the death of Verginius Rufus—Allu- 
sion to the monument to Verginius, post decimum mortis annum 
—Place of this allusion in the course of proceedings against Va- 
renus—Accusation of Varenus when instituted, and time taken up 
by the course of it—Order of the letters of Pliny, and date from 
which they begin—First nine books written before his procon- 
sulate, and first six before U. C. 860—Date of the arrival of Pliny 
in his province, and length of his continuance there—Birthday of 
Trajan, and difficulty connected with the received date of his 


XXVl THE CONTENTS. 


death—The Votorum Nuncupatio—Birthday of Cicero—Result- 
ing conclusion of the time when Pliny was in his province, and 
Trajan still at Rome—Acta of Bassus—Calvus the predecessor of 
PUR See ss Ole 2° 5 ve an peep eahes aD read nes eee 418 —423 


Double expedition of Trajan, according to Tillemont—Chronology of 
the reign of Trajan, as fixed by Eckhel—Dates of the beginnings 
and endings of the two Dacian wars—-Highway through the 
Pontine marshes—Dedication of Trajan’s pillar—No year open to 
the expedition before U. C. 866 or 867—Probable that Trajan set 
out in the spring of U. C. 867, and had made one campaign be- 
fore the earthquake at Antioch, U.C. 868 .......... 423—424 


Quotation from the Epistles of Ignatius in Dionysius the Areopa- 
gite—Answer of Maximus to the objection thence taken to the 
genuineness of his works—Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch 
—Treatise of Theodorus the presbyter, to vindicate the genuine- 
ness of the works of Dionysius.................... 424—426 


DISSERTATION XXI. 


On the Chronology of the Epistles of Pliny ......... 4297—454 


Epistles of Pliny put together in regular order.......... 427—428 


Order of the Epistles, from i. 1. to ii. 9. U. C. 849, to U.C. 850— 
Hiatus from U. C. 850 to U. C. 852—Proofs of that hiatus—Ac- 
cusation of Marcus Priscus and Cecilius Classicus—Pliny applied 
to when prefectus erarii, U. C. 852—Causes tried before Trajan 
when Pliny was consul designatus, U. C. 853—Publicum opus of 
Pliny, at Tifernum Tiberinum—Accusation of Baebius Massa— 
Probable causes of the hiatus in question—Date of Pliny’s ap- 
pointment to the office of prefectus wrarii .......... 428—431 


Order of the Epistles, from ii. 12. to ili. 21—Second hiatus between 
the close of the third and beginning of the fourth book, from 
U.C. 853 exeunte to U. C. 856 medium. 

Proofs of that hiatus—Prosocer of Pliny, and Epistles to him— 
Pliny, whether twice married or thrice—Date of the loss of his 
first or his second wife—No proof of any second marriage before 
τ. Ο. 854—Date of the death of Julius Frontinus, and appoint- 
ment of Pliny to the auguratus—First Dacian war of Trajan— 
No allusion to Trajan’s Dacian wars in Pliny until both were 


THE CONTENTS. XXvii 


over—Probable causes of the second hiatus in the order of the 
letters—Hiatus exactly coextensive with the duration of the first 
MPa πα os, pies tpn c epee yet es Sete ae of γον ποτ 431—434 


Order of the Epistles, from iv. 1. to the end of the ninth book, U.C. 
85610 UD. C. 862... 0. vee eee lenes δ δον eeeee nee 435 


Accusation of Bassus, U. C. 856—Case of Marcellinus, and cause of 
Corellia and Cecilius, U. C. 856 or 857—Suppression of the 
Gymnicus agon apud Viennenses, U. C. 857—Age of Pliny at this 
time, and before—Case of Nominatus, U. C. 858—Pliny associ- 
ated with Cornutus Tertullus, in some office connected with the 
roads or watercourses—Pliny, curator alvei Tyberis—High road 
of Trajan through the Pontine marshes, U. C. 859 or 860—Por- 
tus Trajani at Centumcelle, U.C. 860. ..........-. 435—438 


Case of Varenus, U.C. 858 to 860—Case of Bruttianus and Atticinus, 
U.C. 859—Visit of Pliny to Trajan at Centumcelle, U.C. 860, 
and consequent confutation of the Acta gnatii—Distinction of Pom- 
ponius Rufus from Varenus Rufus—Bithynia at this time an im- 





perial province—Proconsuls two years in office—Date of the suc- 
cession of Varenus to Bassus ...........- 25 +6-+00- 438—442 


Order of the Epistles, from U.C. 860 medio, to U. C. 861 ab auctum- 
no—Case of Afranius Dexter. ἀπο «τορος ον τοι eee ee 442—443 


Order of the Epistles, from autumn U. Ο. 861 to autumn U. C. 862, 
the end of the ninth book—Government of Betica, of Calestrius 
Tyro—Letter of Pliny to Paullinus—Agri or lands of Pliny apud 
Tuscos— Leases of Pliny, and renewals of them—Lustral terms 
of the granting of leases—U.C. 852 and U. C. 862, when Pliny 
was renewing his leases, lustral years—Droughts at the time of 
the accession of Trajan, and before—Predia materna of Pliny, 
AEN ὉΠ δ ΕΠ ML) PRY Saas RS eee pes Εν 443—447 


Resulting conclusion that the ninth book of Pliny ends with the 
autumn of U. C. 862—Inference hence deducible that Pliny could 
not be sent into Bithynia before U.C. 863 at the earliest. . 447—448 


Date of the proconsulate of Pliny, U.C. 855 or 856—Disproved by 
the case of Callidromus—History of that case—Susagus—Dece- 
balus—Losses of the Romans in the Dacian war—Pacorus and 


XXVill THE CONTENTS. 


Osroes, or Chosroes, and civil-war in Parthia before the expedi- 
tion of Trajan—Laberius Maximus ................ 448—449 


Date in question disproved also by the date of the death of Pliny’s 
prosgeer,, Habatus 7:25 20% Se2 Gs ee eee ee 450 


Date of the proconsulate of Varenus, U. C. 852—Inconsistent with 
the history of Dio Chrysostom—Particulars of that history, from 
his banishment under Domitian, to his return to Prusa, under Tra- 
jan—Dio at Prusa, U. C. 856 to 858, but not U. C. 852 to 854— 
Visit of Dio to the Olympia—Dacian war of Domitian—Date of 
the expulsion of the philosophers from Rome—Epictetus—Dis- 
pute of Dio with the citizens of Prusa, when Pliny was in office 
I EMG YHA Pia ΤΡ ΤΡ, Rn OE I een, 450—453 


Proconsulate of Calvus, the predecessor of Pliny—Proconsulate of 
Pliny, and its date—Third hiatus in the order of the Epistles, 
between the ninth and tenth books—Internal evidence of that 
hiatus—Corollary from the above conclusion, that Pliny’s persecu- 
tion of Christianity must bear date U. C. 865 ........ 453—454 


DISSERTATION XXII. 
Computation of Sabbatic years .........scccscceseeeees 455—485 


Date of the first sabbatic year, or of the sabbatic cycle, resulting from 
the coincidences established with respect to sabbatic years—Ob- 
jection to the principle on which these coincidences are founded 
—Sabbatic years in question determined without any reference 
to their place in the sabbatic cycle—Example of this in the sab- 
batic year in the sixteenth of Hezekiah, B.C. 709 to 708—Dates of 
the sabbatic cycle, distinct from this, inapplicable to these two 
facts, that B.C. 709-708 coincided with the sixteenth of .Heze- 
kiah, and each with a sabbatic year—Date of archbishop Usher, 
and the English Bible—Error in the date of the Exodus, compen- 
sated by an opposite error in the date of the foundation of the 
MMA Merman in lap δ οὐ τ οι iene ereriaterat cbats pentane Gihaeme οοῶν 455—459 

Sabbatic years distinct from this of B.C. 709-708, and independ- 
ently determined also—Cumulative proof hence resulting of the 
correctness of the principles on which the computation is found- 
ed—Sabbatic years as exactly observed after the captivity as be- 
fore—Jobn Hyrcanus esteemed by the Jewish church a prophet— 
Accuracy of the same computations shewn by their repeatedly 
stopping short on the verge of a contradiction .......459—461 


THE CONTENTS. ΧΧΙΧ 


Table of sabbatic years, from the first of Saul to the last of Zede- 
FG Ee ΚΠ OAS II PG LVL Lea 461—462 


Illustration of the accuracy of the table—First year of Gideon— 
Capture and restoration of the ark, and death of Eli—Inaugura- 
tion of Saul—Death of Ishbosheth—Plague in the reign of David 
= Hirstrof Rehoboail, ἡ ΠΡ 262 ΞΞ ΘΗ 


Drought in the reign of Ahab—Marriage of Ahab and Jezebel— 
Reign of Ethbaal or Ithobal at Tyre—Succession of kings of Tyre 
from Menander, from the first of Hiram to the seventh of Pyg- 
malion—Date of the foundation of Carthage, in the seventh of 
Pygmalion so determined—Other dates for the same—An Ηἰ- 
ram contemporary with David, as well as with Solomon—Called 


Abibalus, by Dius and Menander..................464—471 


Sabbatic year, B. C. 604 to 603, the first of Nebuchadnezzar—Con- 
sideration of 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21—Seventy sabbatic cycles reck- 
oned back from B.C. 604 fall out in the first of Saul—Conse- 
quences of supposing the seventy years’ captivity a compensatory 
provision for the neglect of seventy sabbatic years—Absolute 
duration of the term of the rest of the land, bears date from what 
time—Coincidence deducible from this fact, with respect to 
the fifth of Rehoboam and the invasion of Judea by Shi- 


Ἐπ κα gays Sie satel eels Wis Sed oe ANE Ratha ah ei τς Gee 471—474 


Hundred and forty-second sabbatic year, and consideration of Hag- 
gai 11. 10. 18—Received date of the first of Darius Hystaspis, in- 
consistent with the fact that his second year was not a sabbatic 
year—Dates of the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah in the 
years of Darius, and inference thence resulting, of the beginning of 
the years of Darius in the order of the sacred months. . 474—475 


Inductive proof from Herodotus, that the reign of Xerxes began, and 
that of Darius expired, B.C. 486, as deduced backwards from the 
date of the battle of Salamis—Expedition of Xerxes truly began 
with the march from Susa, B.C. 481, and not the march from 
Sardis, B. C. 490—Time of the arrival at Sardis, the close of the 
autumnal quarter, B.C. 481: as proved more especially from the 
time of the mission of the heralds, and the time when they met 
Xerxes on his march into Greece—Kclipse at the time of the 


XXX THE CONTENTS. 


march from Sardis, and inconsistency upon this head between 
historical testimony and astronomical calculations ....475—478 


Inductive proof of the same conclusion, from the date of the battle 
of Marathon. 60.0000 Jes. whee nis ape a  βεξξῆγο 


Reigns of Cyrus, Cambyses, and Smerdis, before the accession of 
Darius, all capable of adjustment between B.C. 559 and B.C. 
522—Reigns of subsequent kings of Persia, not affected by raising 
the first of Darius from B. C. 521 to B.C. 522...... 479—480 


Consistency of these conclusions with the prima facie sense aud 
meaning of Haggai ii. 10. 18—Testimony of Herodotus reconciled 
with that of Haggai and Zechariah—Remarks on the canon of 
Ptolemy, and probability that from its peculiar rule of reckoning 
it should be liable to trifling errors of excess or defect—Principle 
of its reckoning adopted for the earlier reigns from necessity— 
Continued for the later for consistency’s sake—Recorded eclipses 
in the reign of Darius or Cambyses, not inconsistent with the 
aboxe.conclisienpitici). sce Siew dat teenies Wh 480—484 


Julian date of Chisleu 24, B.C. 521, Sunday, Nov. 28—Second 
temple begun on Tuesday August 31, B.C. 521; and finished 
on Thursday Feb: 19): Βα 86: ici 2 winged tee de 62 482—484 


Further argument of the assumed date of the sabbatic cycle, from 
the fact of the coincidence of the first sabbatic year, with the three 
hundred and fifty-seventh mundane sabbatic year ....484—485 


DISSERTATION XXIII. 


On the Population of Judea in the Time of our Saviour. 
486—507 
Survey of the population of Judea, at different periods of its history 
in the Old Testament—Numbers at the Exodus, and Eisodus— 
At the civil war between the tribe of Benjamin and the rest of 
the tribes—In the reign of Saul—In the reign of David—In the | 
reigns of Abijab, Asa, and Jehoshaphat—Numbers reported by 
Josephus, who returned with Zerubbabel—Observations on the 
preceding review, and the variableness of the population of Juda 
at different tine. ascii woes sie tae ae abla WS Oka 486—49c 


THE CONTENTS. ΧΧΧῚ 


Populousness of Judea at the Gospel era—Examples in point— 
Number of towns in Galilee, and average population of each— 
Extent of Palestine from north to south, and east to west— 
Population of all Judea, west and east of the Jordan, not less 
Ἐπ τ ἠσπ ταν: ΟΥΑΙ is: Ji: Ab. Hest PA woe be. 491 —493 


Confirmation of this conclusion by other facts—-Number of towns in 
Palestine in the time of Hadrian, and average population of each 
—Numbers who attended at the passover, U. C. 81g—Ajpos of 
Jerusalem computed by Josephus at three millions—Numbers 
who perished at the siege of Jerusalem—No just criterion of the 
entire population of the country, and why .......... 493—496 


Population of Jerusalem in particular—Magnitude and population of 
Jerusalem in the time of Manetho, and of Hecatzeus of Abdera—#v- 
dai of the priests in the time of Hecatzus, and in that of Josephus 
—Jerusalem in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes—Population of 
Jerusalem at the siege of Titus, according to Tacitus—Estimates of 
the circuit of Jerusalem—Jerusalem of Ezekiel—Size of Bezetha 
in proportion to that of the rest of the city—Circuit of Jerusalem, 
exclusive of Bezetha—Proportion of Jerusalem to Alexandria or 
Antioch, and calculation of its population on that princi- 


ὌΠ τ ak AF CaS Mats: ΜΙΝ bP Soran Maoh IG Roatan 496—499 


Population of Judza at the Gospel era, nearly on a par with that of 
Egypt—Size and population of ancient Thebes—Population of 
Egypt in the time of Herodotus—Number of cities in Egypt, in 
the reign of Amasis—Number of cities in the dominions of Pto- 
lemy Philadelphus, according to Theocritus—Population of Egypt 
in the reign of Ptolemy Soter, according to Diodorus—Population 
of Egypt in his own time—Various reading of the text of Diodo- 
rus—Decay of population in the time between Ptolemy Soter and 
Diodorus, not peculiar to Egypt ..................499—503 


Prosperity of Egypt from the reign of Augustus to the destruction of 
Jerusalem—Proportion of births in Africa and Egypt—Exposure 
of infants unknown in Egypt—Population of Egypt in the time 
of Agrippa the younger, U. C. 819—Poll-tax on the inhabitants 
of Egypt and other parts of the empire—Population of Alexandria 
in particular—General population of Egypt, what..... 5°3—505 


Number of the Jews in Egypt, from Ptolemy Philadelphus to 


XXXIl THE CONTENTS. 


Trajan—Proportion of the population of Egypt in general to that 
ot Jertsaleeiin partieglar ys ΠΡ alla chats pa Oke 505—506 


Populousness of Galilee supplies an answer to the question, Why the 
ministry of our Lord was confined in a great measure to that 
ΟΠ ΠΟ te Ned goa OE Bos aI thn IOS oll ecw shania 506—507 


DISSERTATION XXIV. 


On the Computation of Roman Hours ......... veeees 508—5 15 


Computation of Roman hours began at sunrise and ended at sun- 
rise—Scheme of Roman and modern hours, proposed by Dr. Town- 
son—At variance with this hypothesis — Examination of this 
ΝΥΝ See πεν 5 ΤΑ ee ee 508 


Reception of Roman hours in Judza a proof that they began and 
ended at sunset—Sunrise, the intermediate point of time between 
a Jewish evening and morning—Mode of notifying the coming in 
and going out of the sabbath, among the Jews ...... 508—509 
Testimony of John xi. 9, 1o—Testimony of Mark xiii. 35—Di- 
vision of night watches among the Jews—Morning watch began 
at what time—Four night watches not unknown to the 


Greelisie Yate ao ek ee eee ei ae ene «+ 509—5I11 





Distinction of πρωΐ and mpwia—Testimony of Matthew xx. 9 to 12— 
Sunset the close of the day at Rome, according to the laws of the 
twelve tables—Proper sense of crepusculum—Early habits of the 
ancients, and use made of the time between dawn and sun- 


TIS e es ee Sn ee ease ARIES RN credit έν κα eaeeR camer ee 511-513 


Foundation of the mistake of Dr. Townson, the confounding the 
hour current with the hour complete—Usus loquendi on this point, 
anciently and_ still, what— Passage from Palladius, De Re 
Πυθα πο ca vie λον ik ie =  Θτθ τς 514. 


Epigram on the statue of Memnon in Egypt—A proof that the first 
hour began at sunrise—Testimonies from the Scholia on Aratus— 
Testimony of Ammianus Marcellinus, &c. ......-..- 514-515 


THE CONTENTS. XXXill 


DISSERTATION XXV. 


On the journey of St. Paul from Philippi to Jerusa- 
BPM AC OOD aries!) ΡΟΣ ον, λῆς 3 dug δεν saree tants vet dete 516—5 24. 


Objection, that St. Paul’s journey could not have been accomplished 
PARE T OME SUP POSEC ον πὸ Aa rane Meters 516 


Rate of a ship’s sailing anciently—Diurna and nocturna navigatio 
distinct—A day and a night’s sail never estimated at less than one 
thousand stades, and frequently at twelve hundred and fifty—Ex- 
amples in point to both these assertions—Course of St. Paul may 
be estimated at one hundred and twenty-five, or one hundred and 
fifty Roman miles, in a day and a night 


Particulars of the journey—Departure from Philippi, Monday, 
March 27—Arrival at 'Troas—Mia τοῦ σαββάτου, before the de- 
parture to Assus—Distance of Assus from Troas—Arrival at Mi- 
letus, Thursday, April 13—Distance of Ephesus from Miletus— 
Arrival at Patara, Monday, April 17—Comparison of Lucan’s 
account of the voyage of Pompey with St. Luke’s of St. 
πα ον δ Res DOE ενεν αν ἐτρες 520—5 23 


Arrival at Tyre, Thursday, April 20—Arrival at Cesarea, April 30 
—Distance of Cesarea from Jerusalem—Arrival at Jerusalem, on 
the eve of Pentecost, Monday, May 8.............. 523—524 


Particulars and dates of the twelve days between the arrival of 
St. Paul, and the examination before Felix, Sunday, May 21.. 524 


DISSERTATION XXVI. 


On ie rate of a day s γον ες... πὰ useeessos 525—530 


Variations in the statement of the measure of a day’s journey, and 
to what possibly due—An ordinary day's journey may be esti- 
mated at what, and a journey ἀνδρὶ εὐζώνῳ, at what—Case of the 
ἡμεροδρόμοι of antiquity, necessarily excepted 

VOL. IV. ς 


XXXIV THE CONTENTS. 


Examples and authorities, in proof or support of the above 
BEBEREUIS ARC hee We Ce om ey AR, eg ἘΝ 5 26—5 29 


Inference deducible from the whole, of the probable length 
of our Lord’s day’s journey, before he stopped with Zac- 
GC URGet tanh Sc aik cane Gis pride tt ss τ ΤΑΣ ΠῚ 529—530 


HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. 





DISSERTATIONS. 





APPENDIX. 


DISSERTATION XV. 
On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 
Vide Dissertation xiv. vol. 1. page 544. line 11. 


THERE is a well-known passage in Suidas, relating 
to some census in the time of Augustus, which, as it 
stands in Kuster’s edition of his Lexicon, is to the fol- 
lowing effect: Ὅτι Αὔγουστος Καῖσαρ, δόξαν αὐτῷ, 
πάντας τοὺς οἰκήτορας Ῥωμαίων κατὰ πρόσωπον ἀριθμεῖ, 
βουλόμενος “γνῶναι πόσον ἐστὶ πλῆθος. καὶ εὑρίσκονται οἱ 
τὴν Ῥωμαίων οἰκοῦντες ut’. μυριάδες καὶ χίλιοι uC’. ἄνδρες ἃ : 
upon which the editor observes, that Suidas has con- 
founded censum urbis with a census of the empire; as 
it would be ridiculous to suppose that the population 
of the empire amounted to no more than 4,101,017 
men. Here, not to stop to point out the impropriety 
of not distinguishing the census urbis, from the census 
civium or census populi—the justness of the criticism, 
it may be said, is founded on the supposed integrity of 
the text of Suidas; in which case, it is an obvious re- 
mark, that what would appear an absurd and ridiculous 
statement at the present day, must have appeared 
equally so in the time of Suidas. No one could be so 
ignorant in the time of Suidas, any more than now, as 
« Αὔγουστος Καῖσαρ. 


VOL. IV. B 


2 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


not to perceive that the sum of four millions could not 
express the population of the Roman empire, either in 
the reign of Augustus, or at any period subsequent to 
it. The criticism supposes too that the statement 
comes from Suidas himself; whereas it is much more 
reasonable to conjecture that he took it from another 
quarter, and has given us either the words or the sub- 
stance of some authority more ancient than himself. 
It is ushered in by the mark of a quotation, ὅτι. Hence, 
though we may not be able to trace the fragment to 
its origin, yet that it was taken from some historical 
work, or other document, which Suidas had seen, and 
might quote, there can be little question*. In this 
case, and if his text exhibits the words of that more 
ancient document, such as he first extracted them; 
others besides Suidas must be included in the same 
charge of mistaking a census urbis for a census orbis: 
and this mistake in a professed historian, or in any 
document of an historical character, would be much 
more extraordinary than in a mere grammarian, and 
in the work of a lexicographer. 

It appears to me, however, that whatever fact the 
assertion may relate to, the last thing with which it 
can reasonably be confounded, is a census urbis, or a 
CENSUS CiviUM. 

For first; it attributes the census to the beneplaci- 
tum of the emperor. Avryouaros Καῖσαρ, δόξαν αὐτῷ, 
or, as we might contend it should be expressed, δόξαν 


* Syncellus, i. 602.17: 6 αὐτὸς 
τοὺς οἰκήτορας Ῥώμης κατὰ πρόσ- 
πον ἀριθμήσας εὗρεν οἰκοῦντας αὐ- 
τὴν ἀνδρῶν μυριάδας ιγ΄. καὶ are’. 
The Latin version has the same 
numbers. 

This passage looks like an 
abridgment of that in Suidas ; 


but as Suidas is a later author 
than Syneellus, it is probable 
that both took their statement 
from the same original. Syn- 
cellus is speaking of a census by 
Augustus ; so that his numbers, 
as they stand, are undoubtedly 
corrupt. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 3 


αὑτῷ : Augustus Czesar, because it had seemed good to 
himself, did so and so. The measure, whatever it was, 
was the result of the imperial will and pleasure: Au- 
gustus consulted by it nothing but his own humour 
and inclination. Now this is not the way in which 
the regular census civium would be said to take 
its origin; but it is very like the way in which St. 
Luke describes the census at the Nativity to have 
been originated. The census civium, from the time of 
its first institution, was or should have been of regular 
occurrence every five years: and the number of times, 
for which it was actually celebrated, between the first 
census in the reign of Servius Tullius, and the last in 
the reign of Vespasian, is on record*>. But the census 
at the Nativity is ascribed, like this of Suidas, to a 
ddyua—an edict, decree, or beneplacitum of the em- 
peror: ἐξῆλθε δόγμα παρὰ Kaicapos Αὐγούστου. 

Secondly ; it was in its own nature merely a κατὰ 
πρόσωπον ἀρίθμησις, and it had for its object merely τὸ 
γνῶναι πόσον ἐστὶ πλῆθος : there is nothing either in the 
description of it, or in the purposes assigned to it, which 
can identify it with a proper Roman census, ἀπο- 
ypapat or τιμήσεις, like the census civium; the most 
essential criterion of which, as we stated elsewhere, 
was its connexion with the valuation of property. The 
same distinction was shewn to characterise the census 
at the Nativity. That also was certainly an enrolment 
per capita; a κατὰ πρόσωπον ἀρίθμησις ; but very pro- 
bably was nothing more. 

Thirdly ; the whole Roman empire was affected by 
this census; and so was it by that in St. Luke. I en- 


* For the care with which served, see Dionysius Hal. Ant. 
the Tabule Censori@ were pre- Rom. i. 74, 75. 


b Censorinus, De Die Natali, 18. 


ΒΦ 


4 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


deavoured to prove this from the sense of τὴν οἰκου- 
μένην, in the ones; and it is proved by the phrases τοὺς 
οἰκήτορας Ῥωμαίων, and of τὴν Ρωμαίων οἰκοῦντες, in the 
other. The last of these shews us that the former is 
corrupt; (which indeed is sufficiently clear without 
proof;) and at the same time how it ought to be cor- 
rected. If the text, as it stands, is sound in the latter 
instance, that of of τὴν Ρωμαίων οἰκοῦντες, the former, 
which is plainly tantamount to it, must have stood, τοὺς 
οἰκήτορας τῆς Ρωμαίων. In this case there is the same 
ellipsis in either instance; which the abettors of the 
criticism of Kuster would perhaps say was πόλεως or 
πόλιν, but those who dissented from it, with much 
greater reason, might contend was ἀρχῆς or ἀρχὴν, ΟΥ̓ 
some equivalent term. 

These circumstances of distinction, I think, are suf- 
ficient to prove that, whatever the assertion in the text 
of Suidas may relate to, it is not to a proper Roman 
census, much less to a census urbis; but to some- 
thing much more akin to what we ourselves, at the 
present day, would understand by the mention of a 
census. It follows therefore that the author of the 
statement, if he asserts a matter of fact, cannot be 
justly charged with confounding the two kinds of 
census together. The same criteria, too, which discri- 
minate this census of Suidas from a proper Roman 
census, identify it with that in St. Luke. Unless then 
the former could be shewn to be ultimately derived 
from the latter; that is, unless the authority which is 
followed by Suidas, was not altogether different from 
that of St. Luke, the two assertions corroborate one 
another, and each of them must have been founded in 
fact. 

We may observe that the allusion to ¢hzs fact in 
Suidas is altogether independent of that which relates 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 5 


to the twenty delegates, asserted under the article’ A7o- 
yepapn before: and this implies that the former was 
not derived from the same authority as the latter, and 
perhaps that the facts in themselves were perfectly 
distinct events. We may observe also that as the cen- 
sus is ascribed to the sole pleasure of Augustus, and yet 
must have been enjoined by virtue of some censorian, as 
well as some zmperial authority; the time when such a 
measure would be most likely to take its origin from 
him, would be when he was exercising the censorian 
authority a/one, and not when he was exercising it 
with a colleague. Now this was the case with the 
middle census, U.C.746; but not with either of the 
extreme ones, U.C.726, or U.C.767. Moreover, if a 
proper census had been held so recently as U.C. 746, 
it is not a probable supposition that a census of any 
kind would be again enjoined before the arrival of the 
next dustrum, which would be 1]. (. 750, or later. 

Accordingly, John Malala, the historian of Antioch, 
has a singular statement*®, which if true would both 
agree with the account of Suidas, and confirm the pre- 
sumption in question, by establishing the fact of a 
census U.C. 749, or U.C. 750. In the thirty-ninth 
year of his reign, and in the tenth month of that year, 
Augustus, says he, issued an edict, commanding the 
whole empire ἀπογραφῆναι. The thirty-ninth year of 
the reign of Augustus, according to Malala, began 
U. C. 749, and the tenth month of that year, according 
to the same authority, was the month of July, U.C. 
750. Ido not vouch for the truth of this assertion; 
but I will observe that, if any such edict as the edict 
alluded to, Luke ii. 1, did actually emanate from Au- 
gustus before the birth of Christ, and Christ was 
actually born in the spring of U.C.750; it must have 

ΟΡ. ix. 226. 1. 1. 
B 3 


6 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


been received in the provinces either early that same 
year, or in the latter half of the year before it. 

There is a circumstance mentioned by Josephus, in 
his account of the proceedings at the council of Bery- 
tus, and consequently belonging to this period of the 
year, U.C.749, which, after these previous observa- 
tions, will appear critical and significant. Among 
those who presided at the council, besides Saturninus 
the governor of Syria, and Volumnius the next in au- 
thority to him, he specifies the presence of of περὶ Ileda- 
νιον πρέσβεις 3 all of whom assumed the chief place ac- 
cording to the instructions of Augustus 4@. 

It is an obvious question, who were this Pedanius 
and his fellow ambassadors or legates, who are thus 
distinguished from the proper presiding officers of 
Syria, and yet were at this time on the spot as well 
as they, and invested with an authority equal to 
theirs? That there might be in the reign of Augustus 
a real character of that name, is indisputably proved by 
the following facts. There was one Gens Pedania at 
Rome, whose cognomen was Costa®: another, or a branch 
of that, whose cognomen was Secundus; one of which 
family was Urbis Przfectus U.C. 814. Pliny men- 
tions a Lucius Pedanius who was sometime consul$; 
and Josephus a Roman knight of that name, who dis- 
tinguished himself at the siege of Jerusalem?. 

Now this Pedanius and his colleagues, whosoever 
they were, cannot be confounded with the legates of 
Saturninus. Those legates are mentioned in the next 
section by their proper name of πρεσβευταὶ not πρέ- 
oBes; and are spoken of as ¢wo in number. Σύμψη- 
po δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ δύο πρεσβευταὶ γίνονται : had they been 

d Bell. Jud. i. xxvii, 2 ὁ Eckhel, v. 269. Tacitus, Historie, ii. 71. Cf. Va- 


lerius Max. iii. ii. 20. f Tacitus, Annales, xiv. 42, 43. 8H. N. x. 16. 


h Bell. Jud. vi. ii. 8. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 7 


more than two, or had the sense intended been that 
two of his legates concurred with Saturninus, and the 
third dissented from him, this sense would have re- 
quired, σύμψηφοι δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ δύο τῶν πρεσβευτῶν, OF 
καὶ δύο τῶν πρεσβευτῶν, “γίνονται. The truth is, the 
legates were three in number; but they were all the 
sons of Saturninus, as even the War itself in the same 
passage implies‘; and they were all attending upon 
their father in a common capacity, and present at the 
council along with him. Mer’ ἐκεῖνον of Σατουρνίνου 
παῖδες, εἵποντο γὰρ αὐτῷ τρεῖς ὄντες πρεσβευταὶ, τὴν αὐτὴν 
γνώμην ἀπεφήναντο. 

If however Pedanius was neither the same with 
Saturninus, nor with one of his legates, nor yet with 
Volumnius, and notwithstanding was the equal of both 
the governors themselves, and present in Syria, at this 
time, as well as they; is it unreasonable to conclude 
that he was there on a special mission, and that this 
mission might possibly concern the census which pre- 
ceded the Nativity? It is no objection to this suppo- 
sition, that the Gens Pedania was plebeian; and that 
Pedanius was probably only of equestrian dignity. 
Such an one was more likely to be chosen, for the ex- 
ecution of a measure like this, than a person of patri- 
cian family or of senatorian rank. But it makes in 
favour of it, that whosoever he was, and for what pur- 
pose soever he had been sent, he was in Syria before 
the council was held at Berytus; and his mission con- 
cerned that country rather than Judza. I do not think, 
as I before observed, that Syria had ever yet been sub- 
ject to a proper Roman census, or was so perhaps 
until U. (. 760, when Quirinus or Quirinius, a man of 
plebeian extraction!, but of consular dignity, was sent 
to carry the first measure of the kind into effect. For 


ij. Xxvii. 3. k Ant. xvi. xi. 3. 1 Tacitus, Annales, iii. 48. 


B 4 


8 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


any other purpose, which partook of the nature of a 
proper census, but did not go to the same extent as 
that, if commissioners must be sent into the provinces 
expressly, it is more probable that such persons as Pe- 
danius would be sent, than not; especially into those 
provinces which were governed by magistrates of su- 
perior rank and authority, at the time. The jurisdic- 
tion of Pedanius in Syria would consequently not su- 
persede, but merely coincide and cooperate with that 
of its regular governor, Saturninus. 

The objection, which might be urged from the silence 
of contemporary historians, as I before observed, is 
neutralized, if not obviated, by the fact of an hiatus in 
Dio, just where the account of a census like this, if 
noticed at all, ought to have come in. The fact of 
this hiatus is unquestionable. The mission of Caius 
Cesar into the East follows in the course of the his- 
tory, as it now stands, upon U. C. 748, or U.C.749™; 
and the mention both of his burial and of that of his 
brother Lucius follows directly after", at a time which 
coincides with 1]. Ο. 757, the first year of Augustus’ 
fourth decennium. The same coincidence is confirmed 
by the Pisan Cenotaph, which places the death of Lucius 
Cesar in the twenty-fifth of Augustus’ tribunitian 
power, answering to U.C.755°, and the death of 
Caius in the twenty-sixth, answering to []. Ο. 757. 
Caius was still at Rome, U.C. 751, when Augustus de- 
cided on the will of Herod?; if not, according to 
Suetonius, when Augustus entered on hisgthirteenth 
consulate’. Orosius seems to place his mission in 
U.C.752", but even this allusion to it may be under- 
stood of U.C.753. There is extant a letter to him 


m ly, 9.11. n Ibid. 12. Ὁ lili. 32. p Ant. Jud. xvii. ix. 5. Bell. ii. 
li. 4. 4 Augustus, 26. Daviess 


On the Census Orhis at the Nativity. 9 


from Augustus, written while he was still alive and 
absent, which that emperor wrote on his birthday, 
when he had completed his sixty-third year; and con- 
sequently in the month of September, U. C.7548. Nor 
was Caius Cesar, and perhaps not even Lucius, yet 
dead, when Tiberius returned from Rhodes, in the 
year U.C. 755‘. The Pisan Cenotaph also shews that 
Caius discharged his consulate in the East; and there- 
fore was there in U.C. 75ὅ4.. 

The true year of his mission was, consequently, 
neither earlier than U.C. 752, nor later than U.C. 
753: and Velleius Paterculus, who places it a little 
after Augustus’ thirteenth consulate, and the banish- 
ment of Julia, both in U.C. 752, implies the same 
thing". There is, consequently, an omission in Dio, 
extending from the year U.C. 748, to the year U. C. 
756, or U. C. 757 7. within which the account of a ge- 


* The expedition in question 
was just preparing when Ovid 
wrote his Ars Amandi: i. 177, 
Ecce parat Cesar domito,quod de- 
fuit, orbi | Addere: nunc, Oriens 
ultime, noster eris. | Parthe, da- 
bis peenas: Crassi, gaudete se- 
pulti, | Signaque barbaricas non 
bene passa manus: | Ultor ad- 
est : primisque ducem profitetur 
in armis: | Bellaque non puero 
tractat agenda puer. | Parcite 
natales, timidi, numerare Deo- 
rum: | Cxsaribus virtus contigit 
ante diem. Ibid. 191: Auspi- 
clis animisque patris puer arma 
movebis: | Et vinces animis au- 
spiciisque patris. | Tale rudi- 
mentum tanto sub nomine de- 
bes; | Nune juvenum princeps, 
deinde future senum. | Cum tibi 
sint fratres ; fratres ulciscere le- 
sos: | Cumque pater tibisit: jura 
tuere patris. | Induit arma tibi 


genitor patrieque tuusque : | 

Hostis ab invito regna parente 
rapit. Cf. seqq....228. Also De 
Remedio Amoris, 155. The 
whole strain of these allusions 
demonstrates that the expedi- 
tion in question was that of 
Caius, U.C. 752 or 753, not of 
Tiberius, U.C. 734. Caius Cesar 
was but nineteen years of age, 
U.C. 753, whereas Tiberius was 
forty-one. The time of the 
Ars Amandi, and of the Reme- 
dium Amoris, is thus determined 
likewise. 

+ Dio, lv. 10. speaks of a lar- 
gess of 60 denarii or drachmez 
apiece to the people, as though 
it followed upon, or took place 
in, U.C. 748, which the Ancy- 
ran monument proves to have 
been really distributed U. C. 
752. 


It appears also from cap. 10 


5. Aulus Gellius, xv. 7. Ὁ Velleius Pat. ii. 103. Suetonius, Tiberius, 13, 14, 
u 


15. Dio, lv. 9. 11. 11. 100, 101. 


10 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


neral census, if any such took place in U.C. 749 or 
750, ought to have come. Not but that, if the ob- 
ject of this census was no more than merely an en- 
rollment, however general, with a view to ascertain 
the population of the empire, it might possibly be 
passed over, as not sufficiently important to deserve 
particular notice. 

To revert then to the numbers in Suidas. If a 
Greek writer were required to express, according to 
the idiom of his own language, and without the use 
of numeral characters, the sum of forty millions ; his 
most natural and obvious mode of expressing it would 
be by τετρακισχίλιαι μυριάδες. But if, for the sake of 
abbreviation, it were necessary to express the same by 
numeral characters, I do not see in what other way 
this could be effected, than by means of ὃ, μυριάδες 5 
a form of notation which might easily be confounded 
with w, especially if the iota was ascript, as in δι, in- 
stead of subscript, as in ὃ, : or if both were expressed 
in capital letters by AI; for A rudely and imperfectly 
formed might scarcely be distinguishable from Y. I 
submit it therefore to the judgment of the learned, 
whether, if the text of Suidas in this instance is to be 
pronounced unsound, the numeral characters vw may 
not be amended for 6: in which case the amount of 
the numbers will be forty millions, and not, fous. 

We may observe moreover that these are called ἄνδρες 
in Greek; which answers to men in English, and to vere 
in Latin. Now by either of these denominations, ἄν- 
dpes in the one language or vi77 in the other, none can ~ 
be properly understood except adults of the male sex 
only: all of the female sex, whether adults or non- 
and 11, that Julia was banished, the banishment of Julia fifteen 
and Caius sent into the East, years before U. C. 767, ergo, 


this same year. Tacitus, also, U.C. 752. 
Annales, i. 53, virtually places 


On the Census Orhis at the Nativity. 11 


adults, and all of the male not yet arrived at maturity, 
would be alike excluded by them. The propriety of this 
mode of speaking is well illustrated by John vi. 10. Luke 
ix. 14. Mark vi. 44. compared with Matt. xiv. 21. The 
number of male adults in the Roman dominions, it 
would be thus implied, amounted to forty millions ; 
the number of female adults would be equal to that of 
the male; and the number of adults and non-adults, 
whether male or female, put together, would at least 
be equal to as many as either of them separately. The 
gross amount of the population of the Roman empire, 
in the time of Augustus, might thus be computed, ὡς 
πλατεῖ λόγῳ, at one hundred and twenty millions. 

It is not my intention to enter minutely upon the 
calculations which would be necessary to prove the ge- 
neral correctness of this last statement. Such an inves- 
tigation would carry us too much into detail, and after 
all arrive only at probable conclusions, the certainty of 
which could never be placed beyond a question. There 
are parts of the Roman empire, in the time of Augus- 
tus, the population of which might be determined with 
tolerable exactness: and so far a foundation might be 
laid, on which to build in calculating that of the re- 
mainder. For by far the greatest part of the empire, 
however, we should have no data on which to pro- 
ceed; though there is every reason, in my opinion, 
to believe that the world was much less populous, 
both in the reign of Augustus, and for many centu- 
ries afterwards, than some learned men have sup- 
posed. If any one will refer to Mr. Hume’s Essay on 
the Populousness of Ancient Nations *, he will see a 
variety of facts brought together, the tendency of 
which is to correct the common, but erroneous, notion 
on this subject ; and to that collection a large addition 


X Political Essays, vol. ii. Essay xi. 


12 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


of similar particulars might be made. Mr. Gibbon has 
occasion to make a general computation of the popula- 
tion of the empire, in the times of which we are here 
treating ; and he also has estimated it at 120 millions, 
but not more ¥. 

The nearest approximation to a general statement 
of the population of the empire, which I have met 
with, occurs in a passage of Diodorus, κατὰ εἰκαρμένης, 
in the Bibliotheca of Photius’; where it is said that 
the Roman dominions comprehended 300 nations, or 
even more. The age of Diodorus was about A.D. 3818: 
and the empire, in his time, consisted of as great an 
extent of territory, as in that of Augustus: if not of a 
greater. An average of 500,000 to each of these na- 
tions, would imply a gross population of 150 millions 
of inhabitants; and an average of 400,000, one of 
120 millions. Those who have attended to the state- 
ments of the numbers of particular nations, which not 
unfrequently occur in the writers belonging to this pe- 
riod, will not be misled by names; but will consider 
it exceedingly probable, that taking one nation with 
another, an average of four or five hundred thousand 
to each, would more than represent the total amount 
of all *. 


* Though the natural ten- 
dency of population is to go on 
encreasing, under all circum- 
stances, and against all possible 
impediments and checks from 
without ; yet if we consider the 
manifold and almost innumer- 
able calamities, to which the Ro- 
man empire was subjected, with 
little or no intermission, between 
the time of the destruction of 
Jerusalem and the reign of Jus- 


y Decline and Fall, vol. i. chap. 2. 
ad sinistram. Cf. line 23. and sqq. 


tinian; partly from civil wars, 
partly from famine and pesti- 
lence, partly from earthquakes 
and inundations, partly from the 
inroads and ravages of barbarian 
invaders, (Cf. Philostorgius, xi. 
7.) we shall see every reason 
to conclude that the empire un- 
der Justinian, could not have 
been much more populous than 
under the reign of Augustus. 
In Procopius’ Historia Ar- 
z Cod. 223. page 218. line 39, and sqq. 
a Vide Theodorit, iv. 25. 187. v. 4. 202. 


C. D: Socrates, v. 5. 262. A—264. Ὁ. vi. 3. 302. C: Sozomen, vii. 7. 711. D. 8. 


713. A: Suidas, in Διόδωρος. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 13 


Without, then, entering at large upon so wide, and 
perhaps so uncertain, a field of discussion, as the ge- 


cana, cap. xviii. something like 
a calculation is attempted of the 
loss of life which the various 
parts of the empire had sustain- 
ed from the beginning of that 
reign up to the date of the Ηι- 
storia Arcana itself: the sum to- 
tal of which, as the effect of a 
variety of causes, is computed at 
the enormous amount of μυριάδας 
μυριάδων μυρίας. The passage of 
Procopius in question is cited by 
Suidas, p.1848 (Gaisfordi): and 
the same numeral reading, μυριά- 
δας μυριάδων μυρίας, extravagant 
as it may appear, occurs there 
also. This coincidence is so far 
a voucher that the text of Pro- 
copius at present exhibits these 
numbers as they proceeded from 
the author himself. It is not 
impossible, however, that in the 
interval between the time of Pro- 
copius and that of Suidas, (an 
interval not less than four or 
five hundred years) the text of 
the Historia Arcana might have 
become corrupted, at least in this 
particular instance : and that in- 
stead of μυριάδας μυριάδων μυρίας, 
the author originally wrote, μυ- 
ριάδα μυριάδων, or μυριάδας μυρίας. 

Ten thousand myriads of my- 
riads, (μυριάδες μυριάδων μυρίαι) 
expressed according to our own 
notation of numbers, would be 
1,000,000,000,000; that is, one 
million millions: a statement, so 
hyperbolical and extravagant, if 
literally understood, that we 
need not hesitate to suppose 
Procopius either intended to 
speak only in the most general 
terms, or if he meant his asser- 
tion to be literally understood, 
that he wrote one hundred mil- 
lions. It is agreed upon all 
hands, that at no period of hu- 


man history, much less at any 
period within the duration of 
the Roman imperial govern- 
ment, could the entire sur. 
face of the habitable world, 
much less so much of it as 
was comprehended by the Ro- 
man empire, have contained 
more than the thousandth part 
of this number of inhabitants, li- 
terally understood. The num- 
ber of inhabitants which the 
world is supposed to contain at 
present, (when in all probability 
the amount of human popula- 
tion is greater than ever before, 
and certainly can scarcely be 
considered less,) is not estimat- 
ed at a thousand millions of 
souls. Who, then, can believe that 
a thousand times this number pe- 
rished in the Roman empire 
alone, in the days of Justinian ? 
to say nothing of those who sur- 
vived—who yet must have borne 
a certain proportion to the num- 
ber of those who perished: for 
even Procopius himself does not 
mean to imply, that many as 
they might be who perished, 
during the reign in question, 
there were not many, if not as 
many also, who survived. 

A consumption of human life 
during an interval of time, which 
at the utmost could not have 
been greater than from A. Ὁ. 
527, the beginning of the reign 
of Justinian, to A.D. 565, its 
close, that is, thirty-eight years 
in all, and which Procopius 
himself does not suppose to have 
extended beyond the first thirty- 
two years of his reign, amount- 
ing to one hundred millions, 
would be something apparently 
extravagant and unexampled in 
itself, but it is moderate in com- 


14 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


neral population of the empire, under Augustus; I 
shall confine myself, for the remainder of this disserta- 


parison of a million of millions. 
If we proceed to the details also 
of this calculation, they will be 
found to be such as possibly to 
consist with a general sum total 
of one hundred millions ; but to 
be utterly irreconcileable to the 
supposition of any greater re- 
sult, much less such an one as a 
million of millions. Five mil- 
lions of lives are supposed to 
have perished in Libya or Africa; 
and three times as many, within 
the same time, in Italy; Italy 
being reckoned thrice the size of 
Africa : and these are but twenty 
millions in all. Add to these 
the consumption of life by the 
annual inroads of barbarians, in 
the western part of the empire, 
over a space of nearly thirty- 
two years, at the rate of two 
hundred thousand per annum: 
or six millions, four hundred 
thousands in all. Let the ge- 
neral result be stated at twenty- 
seven millions in all. All this 
was chiefly the effect of war: 
and so far as we have yet con- 
sidered it, confined to the west- 
ern empire. But, in addition 
to this, we must take into ac- 
count the effect of the same 
causes, war and the inroads of 
the barbarians, (particularly the 
destructive inroads of the Per- 
sians,) on the consumption of life 
in the eastern parts of the em- 
pire: the loss of life by earth- 
quakes in each division of the 
empire, (the annual amount of 
which was truly considerable,) 
by inundations, by famines, by 
insurrections, by intestine feuds, 
or the strife of parties in parti- 
cular places: and it will appear 
only reasonable to conclude that 
if twenty-seven millions perish- 


ed by war alone in the western 
division of the empire, sixty 
millions must have perished, 
rom that and from every other 
cause of the destruction of life, 
in conjunction, in both divisions 
of the empire. 

But we have said nothing yet 
of the specific effect of the me- 
morable pestilence in particular, 
which broke out in the reign of 
Justinian ; and both from the 
length of time for which it 
lasted, and from the extent 
and violence of its ravages, 
is deservedly to be reckoned 
among the most active as well 
as the most constant of the 
causes of destruction to human 
life for the period in question. 
Victor Tununensis, Chronicon 
p- 9, dates the commencement of 
this plague, Post Consulatum 
Basilii ii. which would be A. D. 
543- in the sixteenth of Justi- 
nian. Evagrius, the ecclesiasti- 
cal historian, dates it the year 
before, A. D. 542: and we may 
judge of the length of its dura- 
tion, from what he tells us, 
that it had continued from that 
time to the time when he was 
writing, fifty-two years without 
intermission. Evagrius was writ- 
ing A. D. 592. See iv. 33. 363. 
A. We may judge of its con- 
tinuity also, from the fact which 
he mentions, of its visiting An- 
tioch alone, four times in fifty 
years: iv. 29. 404. A. Evagrius 
was himself a sufferer by the vi- 
sitation, both in his family, and 
in his own person ; having first 
been attacked by it when six 
years old, and a boy at school. 
He describes it consequently 
from his own experience; E.H. 
iv. 29. 403, 404: and with his 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 15 


tion, to some remarks on the probable magnitude, and 
the number of the inhabitants of the city of Rome, in 


account we may compare Proco- 
pius’ also, De Bello Persico, ii. 
22. p. 249. 1. 7—23. 259. 1. 12. 
which is the account of a con- 
temporary and an eyewitness 
likewise. Both he and Proco- 
pius are agreed that, having be- 
gun in the regions of Aithiopia, 
or in Egypt, this visitation gra- 
dually spread to the most dis- 
tant quarters of the empire in 
the west; travelling into all, 
and desolating all, in their turns, 
and not content with visiting 
particular places once, or for a 
limited time, but returning thi- 
ther again, and prolonging its 
stay there as if on purpose. In 
Byzantium or Constantinople 
alone, after it had reached that 
quarter, we are told by Proco- 
pius, as many as 5000, and ulti- 
mately as 10,000, were known 
to die in a day: and that early 
in the history of the continuance 
of the plaguea. Nor, excepting 
perhaps occasional periods of in- 
termission, does Constantinople 
appear to have been free from 
repeated visitations of it any 
more than Antioch. For, ad 
annum Justini iidi septimum, 
consequently A.D. 571 or 572. 
Joannes Abbas, the continuator 
of Victor Tununensis, observes, 
p- 13. In Regia urbe mortalitas 
inguinalis plage exardescit ; in 
qua multa millia hominum vidi- 
mus defuisse: and this it ap- 
pears continued till the eighth 
of Justin, when Tiberius was 
appointed Cesar; and the re- 


mark occurs, Hujus Tiberii Cx- 
saris die prima in Regia urbe in- 
guinalis plaga sedata est: though 
as we have seen from Evagrius, 
the plague itself, generally, can- 
not be supposed to have ceased 
throughout the empire, before 
A.D. 592 or 593, the eleventh 
of Mauricius, successor of Tibe- 
rius, at least. 

Estimating the effects of this 
visitation in general, Procopius, 
both in this chapter of the Hi- 
storia Arcana, and also cap. vi. 
20. C. D. is of opinion, that 
one half at least of those who 
survived the preceding causes of 
destruction must have fallen 
victims to this. Taking, there- 
fore, each of these data into ac- 
count, and assuming that from 
various causes, the loss of hu- 
man life over all the empire, 
during the reign of Justinian, for 
the period considered by Proco- 
pius, amounted to 100,000,000: 
sixty millions of which or 
upwards, must be assigned to 
the effects of war, &c. and the 
remainder, forty millions, or 
nearly, to that of pestilence in 
particular—if these forty mil- 
lions were equal to one half of 
the numbers which survived the 
other causes of destruction—the 
entire number which survived 
those causes was about eighty 
millions: and the entire amount 
of the population of the empire, 
including all who perished from 
any of the above causes, and all 
who survived, for the period in 


ἃ Procopius, indeed, observes, that the plague reached Byzantium first, in the 
spring of the second year; and that the visitation in this first instance lasted 


four months, three of them the ἀκμὴ of the disease. 


But that he does not imply 


by this any actual cessation of the plague, appears plainly from the Bellum Van- 
dalicum, ii. 14. 469. 1.15. et 544 : the time of which was the tenth of Justinian. 


16 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


his time, or at any period before or after his, which 
may best illustrate its magnitude and population in 
his. This inquiry is intimately connected with the 
consideration of the numbers in the text of Suidas. If 
those numbers are all of them allowed to be genuine, or 
if the first of them in particular (that which denotes the 
four hundred) be admitted to be such; it follows that 
the sum total, the four millions and upwards, denoted 
by them, must be understood of the population of the 
city, if it cannot be understood of the population of the 
empire. That it cannot be understood of the latter, is 
self-evident; yet that it cannot be understood of the 
former, may be rendered almost as certain. In this 
case, either the whole passage, as it stands, means 
nothing at all, and must be dismissed as unworthy of 
further notice, or the numbers of the census, as they 
stand in the text at present, are to be considered un- 
doubtedly corrupt; and therefore may justly admit of 
correction by δ» or any other alteration, which may 
best render them consistent with the rest of the pas- 
sage, and with the matter of fact. 

For it should be observed, that the passage asserts 
the numbers in question to be the amount of the zxha- 
bitants τῆς Ῥωμαίων ; and therefore either of the city 
without meeting a single inha- 
bitant. The extent of the exist- 
ing depopulation in Africa, in 


particular, may be conceived 
from the fact, that Justinian re- 
3 


question, must be estimated, 
upon the authority of Procopius, 
at 130 or 140 millions. 

Nor is this vast reduction of 
the population of the empire 


from 140 to 40 millions, so very 
improbable in itself, at least if 
the accounts of Procopius are to 
be believed. For he tells us, 
that as the effect of the whole, 
in all parts of the empire, east 
and west, in Africa, in Italy, in 
Upper Asia, the country was al- 
most depopulated, and a man 
might travel many days’ journey 


built there one hundred and 
fifty cities ; all more or less in 
ruins at the time: Evagrius, 
E. H. iv. 18. 294. ἢ: though 
indeed Procopius De Atditiciis 
alone is competent to shew, that 
there was scarcely a quarter of 
the empire, either east or west, 
where he had not occasion to do 
the same thing. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 17 


or of the empire. It asserts consequently the num- 
bers either of a census urbis, strictly so called, or of a 
census orbis: both which are different things from a 
census civium, or census populi, as such. It is there- 
fore of little importance to the question at issue, that 
the numbers in Suidas, as they stand, may be partially 
recognised in the results of each of the three census 
populi, held by Augustus, in the course of his reign, 
and reported upon the Ancyran monument, and in 
the chronicon of Eusebius. I say partially recog- 
nised; for they agree with them all in part; but 
with none of the three exactly. The last of these 
censuses, according to the marble, viz. that of U.C. 
767, was 4,037,000: on which account, Chishull pro- 
posed to correct the numbers in Suidas by vy’, instead 
of uw’, μυριάδες, καὶ χιλιάδες ἑπτὰ, 4,037,017, instead of 
4,101,017*. The chronicon of Eusebius», however, 
represents this saine census at 4,190,117. It is pos- 
sible, therefore, that the numbers on the monument 
may themselves be in error; in which case they are 
not a proper standard whereby to correct the text of 
Suidas. At least no correction of Suidas in conformity 
either to the monument or to the chronicle, will do 
more than shift the difficulty in question; which is 
this, whether any of the censuses, reported in either, 
can be understood of the population of the city of 
Rome in the time of Augustus, or not. I am not dis- 
posed to allow that the censuses either in the monu- 
ment or in the chronicle have any thing to do with 
a census urbis; but on the contrary I maintain 
that they are to be understood of the census civium, 
throughout the empire. Yet, notwithstanding, I cannot 
admit that the census in Suidas was ever intended 


a Tacitus, Tom. ii. pars ii*. 840. b Chronicon Armeno-Latinum, pars ii. 
263. Ad annum 2029. 


VOL. IV. σ 


18 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


even of a census of this last description: for it is 
there set forth as a census of the inhabitants either of 
the city or of the empire, for the former of which, as 
it stands at present, it is a great deal too much in ex- 
cess, aud for the latter it is still more so in defect. 

While some learned men, upon the authority of 
these several censuses, have assumed the population 
of Rome in the time of Augustus, at four millions and 
upwards, others, upon the testimony of a well-known 
passage in Pliny®, within 60 years after the last of 
the censuses of Augustus, are found to calculate it 
at the enormous multitude of 14,000,000. What 
can we think of such an extravagant conclusion ? 
especially when taken along with the former, the very 
truth of which would of itself imply the falsehood or 
absurdity of the latter. For even though Rome had 
contained four millions of inhabitants U.C. 767, these 
never could have increased to fourteen millions by U.C. 
826. The truth is, that both these calculations of its 
numbers are grossly exaggerated, as we shall see by 
and by; though the latter is much more so than the 
former. 

My first argument to shew that no one of the cen- 
suses under Augustus is to be understood of a census 
urbis as such, would be taken from a comparison of 
the returns of those censuses, with the results of: former 
censuses, also on record ; even such as are the nearest 
in point of time to these of Augustus. The dispro- 
portion between them is much too great to allow them 
all to be understood of a census urbis, or to ac- 
count for the superior amount of the numbers under 
Augustus, by any intermediate increase of the magni- 
tude or population of the city, which can reasonably be 
supposed to have taken place. 


ec H.N. iii. g. p. G14. et sqq. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 19 


Dionysius of Halicarnassus reports a census of citizens, 
about U. C. 278, at 110,000, and a gross population of 
all kinds at 440,000 and upwards¢. When the city was 
taken by the Gauls, U.C. 364, the census was 152,573°. 
About the time of Alexander, B. C. 324, U. C. 430, it 
was 130,000': U.C. 461, it was 262,322: U.C. 475, 
278,222: about U.C. 479, 271,224: about 1]. C. 489, 
292,224: about U.C. 499, 297,797: about U.C. 509, 
251,222: just before the second Punic war, about U.C. 
534, it was 270,213: and U.C. 546, it was 137,108: 
U.C. 550, it was 214,000: [1]. Ο. 565, 258,318: 
about U. C. 577, it was 273,244: U.C. 581, B.C. 173, 
it was 269,015: U.C. 586, B.C. 168, 411,810: about 
U.C. 590, B.C. 164, it was 337,452: about U.C. 594, 
it was 328,314: about U.C. 602, it was 324,000: 
about U.C. 613, it was 328,342: about U.C. 618, it 
was 323,000: about U. C. 624, it was 313,823: 
about 1]. C. 628, it was 390,736: about U.C. 640, it 
was 394,336 ἢ, 

The Ancyran monument speaks of there having been 
no lustrum conditum for 42 years before U.C. 727+. 


* Jerome, Chronicon, p.150. ad 
annum Abrahami 1932. Olym- 
piad 173. 3. notices a census in 
which the results were 463,000. 
This date answers to U. C. 669: 
two years after the rights of citi- 
zenship had been conceded to 
the Italici Populi. See Livii 
Epitome ~txxx. Hence pro- 
bably the increase of numbers 
upon the census last preceding ; 
though even this is small in com- 


ἃ Ant. Rom. ix. 25. 
vii. 292. De Fortuna Romanorum. 


e Pliny, H. N. xxxiii. 5. 


parison of the numbers specified 
by Phlegon, as we shall see, at 
the census, U. C. 685, B.C. 69. 
The difference might be partly 
accounted for by the loss of life 
in the war which preceded the 
census of U.C. 669; from which 
the country must in some mea- 
sure have recovered itself by the 
time of the census, U. C. 685. 

+ Dio, xl. 57. mentions the 
restitution of the Potestas Cen- 


f Plutarch, Operum 


& Livy, x. 47. Epitome, xiii. xiv. xvi. xviii. 
xix. xx. Livy, xxvii. 36. xxix. 37. xxxvili. 36. 


h Livy, xlii. το. Epitome, xli. 


xlv: Plutarch, Emilius Paulus, 38. Cf. Livy, Epitome, xlvi. xlvii. xlviii. liv, lvi. 
lix. lx. lxiii: Suidas, Ῥωμαίων πόλις, and Ῥώμη. 


Cz 


20 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


This makes the last such lustrum, U. C. 685, B.C. 691. 
Phlegon, as reported in Photius, (Codex 97. p.84. 1.14,) 
gave the results of a census, Ol. ροζ΄. γ΄. 177. 3, (B.C. 
19.) which must be the same, at 910,000. Here isa 
vast increase upon the numbers of former censuses, all 
at once: which it would not be easy to account for 
except on the supposition that all the citizens were in- 
cluded in this last, who became entitled to that charac- 
ter after the Bellum Sociale; that is, the whole of Italy, 
with the exception of Cisalpine Gaul*. 

But, even supposing that this census of Phle- 
gon’s was a census urbis, is it conceivable that be- 
tween U.C. 685, and U.C. 727, in 42 years’ time, the 
number of citizens could have mounted up from 
910,000 to 4,063,000 as reported on the Ancyran mo- 
nument, and 4,164,000 as stated in the Chronicon of 
Eusebius *; a period one of the most disastrous, and 
destructive to life and property, of any that can be 
mentioned in Roman history, before the birth of 
Christ ? Or, supposing even this possible, what is the 
reason that the numbers of the city which had mounted 
upwards at this extraordinary rate, during so turbulent 
and destructive a period, are found at the next census 
of Augustus, U.C. 746, twenty years afterwards, only 
4,233,000: and at the third, U.C. 767, forty years 
afterwards, only 4,037,000 according to the monu- 
ment, and 4,190,117 according to Eusebius™? This 


soria, U.C..702: and 63. the 
ejection of the historian Sallust 
from the senate by the censors, 
U.C. 704. It does not however 
follow that any census was held, 
or the lustrum conditum, before 
the time specified in the monu- 
ment. And Dio, xxxvii. 9g, men- 


i Cf. Plutarch, Crassus, 13. Pompeius, 22. 
m Ad annum 2029. 


Jerome, Chronicon, p. 154. 


tions a census of Italy, as going 
on, but not completed, U.C. 689. 
Cf. however, Livy, cxv. 

* Livy, Epitome, lib. xeviii., 
makes this census 450,000 only ; 
most probably as exclusive of 
the Novi Cives. 


k Ad annum 1991. Also 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 21 


last census was almost as long after that of U.C. 727, 
as that was after the census of U. C. 685: yet the num- 
bers of this last, in U.C. 767, shew scarcely any in- 
crease on the numbers of that in U.C. 727, and are 
even less than those of the intermediate census, U.C. 
740. . 

The truth is, a Roman census as such, was a census 
civium, and not a census urbis, at least after the time 
that there began to be citizens of Rome, who yet were 
not resident at Rome. The colonies, we are told, 
began to be censed along with the inhabitants of Rome, 
U.C. 550, Censoribus Nerone et Livio™. From this 
time forward frequent allusions occur in Roman his- 
tory to the same thing; and we may take it for granted 
that many more would be included in a regular census, 
than were or could be properly inhabitants of Rome?®. 
Gades is several times mentioned by Strabo, as com- 
prehended in the censuses of his time; and Gades be- 
came a colony, U.C. '705?. We may easily conceive 
what an addition would be made to the numbers of a 
Roman census, when the freedom of the city had been 
imparted to the whole of Italy cis Paduin, as it was 
after the Bellum Sociale, U. C. 6674: to all Cisal- 
pine Gaul, or Gallia Togata, U.C. 705°: to Sicily, 
about U.C. 710, B.C. 445: to the Provincia Romana, 
or Gallia Narbonensis, as there is reason to believe, 
before U. C. 712, and certainly before U. C. 741 Ὁ: not 
to mention the numbers dispersed in various parts 
of the empire, in Europe, Asia, or Africa, through a 
multitude of colonies, and municipia. The amount 
of Cives Romani in Asia alone, just before the Bel- 


n Livy, xxix. 37. o Cf. Velleius Paterculus, ii. 15. Livii Historia passim. 
Asconius in Verr. ii. p. 42. Cicero pro Archia, v. 2. 119. P Dio, xli. 24. 
Livy, cx. q Velleius Pat. ii. 17: Livy, Epitome, Ixxx: Pliny, H. N. ii. 85. 
xxxlii. 17: Diodorus Sic. Operum x. 184. r Dio, xli. 36. (Cf. xxxvii. 9.) 
s Diodorus Sic. xvi. 70. t Vide Dio, xlvi. 55. Cf. xliii. 51. liii. 22. liv. 25. 
Livy, cxxxiv. Cxxxvi. CXXxvii. 


cs 


rh) 


2 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


lum Mithridaticum, U. Ὁ. 666, was so great, that 
Mithridates destroyed, according to some authorities, 
150,000, and according to others, not less than 
80,000, in one dayt. A census of Augustus, then, 
especially such censuses as these, at a distance of 
twenty years asunder respectively, U. C. 727, U. C. 
746, U.C. 767, would no doubt express the sum total 
of Roman citizens, not in Rome merely, but in all the 
empire, wherever they were to be found. In particular 
they would express the entire of the free population 
of Italy, including Rome, of Gallia Togata, and of 
Sicily, at least. 

This conclusion is strongly corroborated by the pro- 
portion of the numbers of the next census, of which 
we have any account, to those of the last of Augustus. 
This census was taken in the eighth of Claudius, U.C. 
801", thirty-four years after U.C. 767. Tacitus re- 
presents the numbers of the returns at 6,944,000: Eu- 
sebius in Chronico’, at 6,941,000: Jerome, in Chro- 
nico *, at 6,844,000. The difference between it, and the 
last of Augustus, in round numbers, is 2,750,000; that 
is, the sum total was more than half as much again 
upon this occasion as upon the former. How shall 
we account for so sudden an increase in the numbers 
of the citizens of Rome, within thirty-four years from 
the death of Augustus; which had continued sta- 
tionary for the last forty years of his lifetime, if they 
had not even gone back ? 

It is not enough to reply that Augustus made it a 
point to prevent the freedom of the city from becom- 
ing too cheap and promiscuous; whereas in Claudius’ 
time, before the third of his reign, U. Ὁ. 796, it was to 

t Valerius Max. ix. ii. 3: Plutarch, Sylla, 24: Photius, Codex 224. p. 231. 5: 
Cf. Velleius Pat. ii. 18: Livy, xxviii: Appian, De Bell. Mithrid. 17. 22, 23. 


u Tacitus, Annales, xi. 25. v Ad annum 2061. x P. 160. Ad annum 
2001. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 93 


be had almost for nothing’. No doubt this circum- 
stance must go someway to explain the increase in the 
numbers of a subsequent census; but not until the 
reign of Claudius; and not so soon in his reign, as 
U.C.801. The only adequate solution of the pheno- 
menon is the fact that, just before the time of this 
census of Claudius, the full rights of citizenship, which 
previously had been restricted to Gallia Braccata, or 
the Provincia Romana, had been conceded to the 
rest of Gaul, called by way of distinction Comata, 
and comprehending three fourths of the whole*. The 
consequence would be, that whereas in the censuses of 
Augustus was comprehended only the free population 
of one fourth of Gaul, in this of Claudius would be in- 
cluded that of the whole: and the difference which is 
seen to hold good between their numbers, respectively, 
is no more than was beforehand to be expected. 

Gaul is one of the few countries in the dominions of 
the Roman empire, the population of which, at this 
time, we have something like data to determine. 

Appian ὃ tells us that Julius Cesar, in his wars in 
Gaul, engaged, at different times, with more than 400 
myriads of men—that is, four millions ; one million of 
which he slew in battle, and another he made pri- 
soners. He further supposes these to have constituted 
400 nations, and the population of 800 cities *. 

Plutarch, in his life of Caesar >, has but three mil- 


* Evagrius, Εἰ. H. iii. 41.372. tons, says that they possessed 
D. in his answer to certain ac- among them 500 cities: a much 
cusations of Zosimus against the more probable statement than 
memory of Constantine, allud- this of Appian’s, though very 
ing to Cesar’s conquests over possibly exaggerated in itself. 
the Gauls, Germans, and Bri- 


y Dio, lx. 17. Cf. Acts xxii. 28. Dio, lvi. 33. z Tacitus, Annales, xi. 23— 
25: Seneca, De Beneficiis, vi. xix. 2: Ludus de Morte Claudii Cesaris, iii. 3: 
Pliny, H. N. iv. 31: Lucan, Pharsalia, i. 442, 443: Dio, xlvi.55. 8.198 Rebus 
Gallicis, iv. 2. b Cap. 15. 


ς 4 


24 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


lions of people, 300 nations, and 800 cities; though in 
the other particulars he agrees with Appian. 

Julian, in his Cesares‘*, supposes Cesar himself to 
say he subdued more than 300 cities, and not less than 
200 myriads, or two millions of men: to which if we 
are to add one million for the slain, this statement 
will pretty nearly agree with Plutarch’s: otherwise, if 
it expresses the sum total of the Gauls encountered by 
Ceesar, it differs both from that, and from Appian’s. 

Agrippa is represented by Josephus“ as telling the 
Jews, U. C. 819, that Gaul contained 305 nations: a 
statement which cannot be true, any more than Ap- 
pian’s or Plutarch’s, as we shall see presently, if under- 
stood of nations: but may be if understood of myriads 
of inhabitants. 

Pliny® says that Julius Cesar killed in his wars, 
distinct from the civil wars, and consequently chiefly 
in his wars in Gaul, 1,192,000 persons. Velleius Pater- 
culus‘ puts the number slain by him in these last 
wars at 400,000 and upwards. There is an immense 
difference between these statements; though it must 
be confessed that those of Pliny, Plutarch, and Ap- 
pian, with respect to the numbers destroyed in battle, 
are sufficiently in unison with each other. But they 
are all the statements of later writers than Velleius 
Paterculus, whose authority, in point of time,: is the 
next best to that of Cesar himself. To judge from 
Ceesar’s own account, if the numbers in Velleius ap- 
pear to be somewhat underrated, yet those in the other 
instances must be considered a great deal more ex- 
aggerated, in comparison of the truth. 

Reckoning the Belge at a third of Gaul, distinct 
from the Provincia, Casar& states the forces which 


ς Opera, 321. A. ἃ De Bello, ii. xvi. 4. p. eH. N. vii. 25. (Cr, 
Solinus Polyhistor, i. ὃ, τού, f Lib. ii. 47. Ε si Bello Gallico, i. 15 ii. 1. 4. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 25 


their different clans offered to bring into the field on a 
certain occasion at 306,000. I think that the above 
sum total was intended to express the proper melitaris 
e@tas of their nation; and consequently to be a fourth 
of their whole population. Strabo tells us® the Belge 
consisted in his time of fifteen clans or ἔθνη, and once 
could bring into the field an army of 300,000 soldiers; 
in which he seems to have had his eye on this passage 
in Cesar. Cesar himself informs us: that the Adu- 
atuci, who promised on the same occasion 28,000 sol- 
diers, consisted only of 53,000 + 4000, or 57,000 in 
all. Whence it appears that they promised half their 
population: or all their males, excepting children. In 
like manner, the Nervii, who had promised 50,000 sol- 
diers, had in fact but 60,000 in all: out of which number 
he tells us they lost all but 500, or as the Epitomizer of 
Livy has it, all but 300; the whole of their adult male 
population. On this principle, Belgium contained a po- 
pulation of about 1,200,000: and the whole of Gaul, 
if four times as great, contained one of 4,800,000. 
Diodorus Siculus indeed has a statement * that the 
greatest nation in Gaul contained a population of 
nearly 200,000 males, and the least, one of 50,000: 
between which the average would be 125,000. But 
that this statement is erroneous, either in restricting 
these numbers to the male population only, or in the 
numbers themselves, or in both, may be rendered very 
probable. Czsar mentions an instance}, in which the 
gross population of five nations was 368,000; which 
was but 73,000 and upwards, male and female, to each. 
The Aduatuci, as we saw, were but 57,000 in all. 
Belgium with 15 nations, according to Strabo, (cf. 
Cesar De B. G. ii. 4.) had a population of 1,200,000 in 


h Lib. iv. cap. 4. §. 3. 86, 57. 1 De Bello Gallico, ii. 4. 28, 29. 33. Cf. Livy, 
lib. civ. ky. 25. 1 Lib. i. 29. 


26 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


all; which is 80,000 apiece. The average of Belgium, 
I should consider to be a very fair average for the whole 
of Gaul. Now Gaul contained, according to Strabo”, 
60 nations; and according to Servius ad Aneidem, i. 
286, 64; and that the first of these numbers may be 
looked on as true, we may infer from a variety of pas- 
sages in Strabo". Among these, the 20 nations of the 
Aquitani, he observes, were μικρὰ καὶ ἄδοξα, in his time ; 
which also must contribute to discredit the statement 
of Diodorus. Assuming then the number of ἔθνη at 
60, and the .average rate of population at 80,000, 
we obtain the sum total of the inhabitants of Gaul, 
4,800,000: a conclusion exactly the same as before. 

A Roman census took an account of all the mem- 
bers composing the family of a Roman citizen; male 
and female, adult or non-adult, alive or dead, bond or 
free®. The published results of such accounts, indeed, 
did not comprehend the sum of all, but only of the 
free portion of the whole. This free portion included 
the women and children, who possessed the rights of 
citizens, as well as the menP: and there is no reason 
why they should not be considered to be comprehended 
in the joint amount of the cives Romani at a given 
time, as well as the men*. That they were so com- 
prehended in this instance of the census in the time of 
Claudius appears from the following fact, which is on 
record in reference to it. 

There is extant an ancient inscription to the pur- 

* We find the orbz and orbe, times they were included, or 
the pupilli and vidue, sometimes that women not vidue, and 
expressly excepted, as Livy, iii. minors not orbz or orbe, ordina- 


3. and lib. lix. Epitome; which _ rily were so. 
implies either that at other 


m Lib. iv. 3. δ. 2.44. Cf. Pliny, H.N. iii. 24. π Lib. iv. 1. §.1. 43 2. §. 1. 
37) 38: 4.8. 3-56, 57. Cf. Geographi Min. i. 46. 48, 49, 50. Marciani Peri- 
plus, ii. © Dionysius Hal. iv. 15. ix. 25. Cf. Frontonis Opera inedita, Pars ii. 
444. Epistole Grace, vii. Ρ Cf. Pliny, Epp. x. 4. 107. 


——————— SS 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 2 


-} 


port that, Temporibus Claudii Ceesaris, facta hominum 
armigerum ostensione in Roma, (reperta sunt) septies 
decies * centena millia lxxxvii. If this inscription be 
an authentic document, it refers to the census in the 
eighth of Claudius, U. C. 801: and the authenticity of 
the inscription is strongly confirmed by the proportion 
which it asserts between the armigera pars, and the 
gross amount of the census: viz. 1,700,087: referred 
to 6,944,000. This is as nearly as possible the propor- 
tion of one to four: and such, it is calculated, is the 
proportion which the part of a given population, at a 
given time, fit for war bears to the whole. Of this 
proportion, we may adduce the following instances, 
which will illustrate the truth of the assertion. 

Ceesar himself informs us4 that out of 368,000 Hel- 
vetii, the militaris atas amounted to 92,000; that is, 
just to one fourth of the whole. 

Strabo mentions" that when the Salassi were re- 
duced by Augustus, U.C. 729, out of 36,000 in all, 
8000 were able to bear arms. This is not quite a 
fourth; but the deficiency may be explained by sup- 
posing that they had lost 1000 of their soldiers, be- 
fore they were reduced. 

Velleius Paterculuss’ tells us that in the revolt of 
Pannonia and Dalmatia, U. Ο. 760, out of a population 
of 800,000 and upwards, 200,000 and upwards took 
the field; that is, one fourth of the whole. 

As then we perceive an excess of nearly three mil- 
lions in the census, U.C. 801, above that in U. C. 767; 
so, if the population of Gallia Comata was taken into 
account in the former census, but only that of Gallia 

* Septies decies, that is, 17, dici sine et conjunctione, et 


not 70. Cf. Varro, Fragmenta, — similia. 
198: Quintum tricesimum diem 


4 Lib. i. 29. r Lib. iv. 6. §. 7. 84. Cf. Dio, liii. 25. s Lib. ii. 110. 


28 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


Braccata in the latter, we perceive that the difference 
between them is accounted for. Gallia Comata, in point 
of extent, might be more than three fourths of the 
whole of Gaul; but the Provincia Romana, in point of 
population, contained perhaps one third of the inha- 
bitants of Gaul. For the Provincia had never suf- 
fered from those destructive wars of Cesar, by which 
one third of the rest of the inhabitants of Gaul had 
been cut off. Hence if the population of all Gaul 
was about five millions, the Provincia might contain 
nearly two millions of these, and the rest of the coun- 
try the remainder. A census, then, which took in 
these last, as well as the former, would exceed one 
which comprehended only the former, by nearly three 
millions. 

Again, among the other criteria for determining the 
amount of the population of Rome, the numbers of 
the plebs urbana, or of the δῆμος, properly so called, 
would seem to be one, if those numbers could be ascer- 
tained with any thing like precision. Under this de- 
nomination, Diot includes the commonalty of Rome as 
such; that is, all the free population of the city, with 
the exception of the knights and the senators. Neither 
of these latter classes in particular was at any time so 
numerous as to make much difference in the total 
amount of Roman citizens, whether reckoned .inclu- 
sively or exclusively of them. The number of sena- 
tors, even when greatest, never exceeded 1000; and 
U.C. 736, was permanently reduced by Augustus to 
600". And as to the amount of the equestrian order, 
though greater than that of the senatorian, yet it might 
be shewn from the accounts of the numbers of their 

t lii. 28. 30. a Vide Plutarch, viii. 21, De Garrulitate: 1 Mace. viii. 15 : 
Livy, lx: Cicero, Oratio post reditum ii. 10: Appian, B. C. i. 59. 100, ii. 30: 


Dio, lii. 42. liv. 13, 14. 17. 35: Suetonius, Augustus, 35. Cf. Aurelius Victor, 
De Vespasiano. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 29 


body, which perished in the proscriptions, at a time 
when the greatest part of them were cut off at once, 
that they probably did not exceed two or three thou- 
sand ¥. 

The most effectual means of ascertaining the num- 
ber of the citizens of Rome, as such, is the account of 
the several congvaria of various kinds, which were dis- 
tributed to them at different times; in some instances 
of which the numbers who partook of them are ac- 
tually specified, and in others may very probably be 
conjectured. I shall produce examples of these con- 
giaria, not only during the reign of Augustus, but be- 
fore and after it; from which it will appear that the 
number of those who were entitled to partake in such 
gratuities, preserves a remarkable uniformity through 
a period of two centuries and upwards. 

Lucullus, on his return from Asia, U. C. 688, distri- 
buted among the people of Rome, 100,000 cadi of Chian 
wine ™. 

The cadus congiarius is considered by Arbuthnot an 
uncertain measure. But we may suppose it was nearly 
the same as the Attic χοῦς ; that is, it contained some- 
thing more than six pints of our measure, or six Roman 
sextarli*. 

If we refer to the passages cited below’, we shall 
conclude that two sexfari, or about a quart of our 
measure, would be no improbable allowance to each 
recipient on such an occasion as this*. If so, the 


*Inthe Greek Anthologythere which, as it appears from the con- 
is an epigram of Posidippus, — text, reckons three choés of wine 


v Cf. Appian, B. C. i. 103. iv. 5. w Pliny, H. N. xiv. 17. xv. 30. Velleius 
Pat. ii. 33. x Cf. Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum Veterum, v. 5. Suidas, indeed, 
voce Xovs has a gloss, that the Xovs was equal to two sextarii or ξέσται; and the 
Χοεὺς to six; in which case the χοεὺς was the same with the Cadus. But in fact, 
as Kuster, in locum, observes, χοῦς and χοεὺς are the same thing. y Thucy- 
dides, iv. 16. vii. 87: Livy, vii. 37: Plutarch, Lycurgus, 12: Dicearchus apud 
Atheneum, iv. 19: Horace, Sermonum i. i. 74: Juvenal, vi. 426, 427: Vopisci 
Tacitus, 11. 


30 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


whole number of recipients was 300,000; and that 
was the number of the Roman people at this time. 

Marcus Crassus, U.C. 684, entertained the people 
of Rome, at a public banquet, on 10,000 tables *. 

Julius Cesar, U. C. 708, did the same at the cele- 
bration of his triumph, on 22,000 tables’. The num- 
bers at each table are not specified. But if thirty per- 
sons were entertained at a table by Crassus, the num- 
bers upon that occasion were 300,000 in all; and if 
fifteen were entertained by Cesar, the numbers then 
were 330,000. 

That such epula as these might comprehend the 
women and children as well as the men, may be in- 
ferred from Suet. Caius, 17, §. 4, 5. 

Julius Cesar left behind him at his death? 2500 
myriads (of drachme) to be distributed among the peo- 
ple at the rate of 75 drachmz, or 300 numi apiece. 
This supposes the total of citizens 330,000 and up- 
wards. And that the largess in question would in- 
clude all the males from eleven years old and upwards, 


wine to one choenix of bread. 
Cf. Atheneus, x. 7. In Ju- 
lian’s letter to Arsacius, the 
Gentile high priest of Gala- 


only a necessary allowance for a 
party of eight: that is, one quart 
and half a pint to each: Antho- 
logia, 11. 49. Posidippi xii. In 


Porphyry, Περὶ ἀποχῆς ζώων, iv. 4. 
305. eight choés of wine are put 
in proportion to a medimnus of 
corn per month, which is at the 
rate of a pint and an half of 
wine to a choenix and an half of 
corn per day. In like manner, 
Pollux, Onomasticon, iv. 11. 
two choés of wine are put 
in proportion to six choenixes 
of bread; that is, a quart of 


x Plutarch, Crassus, 12. 


tia, (Operum 430. C. Epistole, 
xlix. or Sozomen, Εἰ. H. v. τό. 
619. C.) 60,000 sextarii of 
wine are put in proportion to 
30,000 modii of corn: that is, 
one quart to a modius: or about 
one hemina of wine (the gill 
measure with us) to two cho- 
nixes of bread—which is a very 
low proportion. 


y Plutarch, Vita, 55. Pliny, H. N.xiv.17. 2 Plu- 


tarch, vi. 778. Apophthegmata: Antonius, 66. Brutus, 20: Suetonius, Julius, 
83, 4: Tacitus, ii. Pars ii. 842.: Appian, B. C. ii. 143: Nicolaus Damascenus, 
Vita Aug. 13: Dio, xliv. 35: Zonaras, x. 12. 493. B. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 91 


(if not indeed of every age,) appears from Suetonius, 
Augustus, 41, 5. 

The numbers of the corn pensioners, or of such as 
received a monthly distribution of corn at the ex- 
pense of the state, before U. C. 708, are estimated at 
320,000. At that time, however, they were found to 
have decreased to 150,000; or this number of names 
was struck off the list by Julius Cesar at once*. Of 
the reasons which might have occasioned this reduc- 
tion, some conjecture may perhaps be formed from 
Suetonius, Augustus, 42: Appian, B.C. ii. 120. But 
we shall see presently that the reduction itself was 
not a permanent measure, aud that the number of corn 
recipients, on several later occasions, is still estimated 
at the same amount of 320,000. 

Thus it appears from the Ancyran monument®, that 
the plebs urbana, up to Augustus’ xii consulate, U.C. 
749, were still reckoned at 320,000: but that by the 
time of his thirteenth consulate, U. C. 752, they had 
again been reduced to something more than 200,000. 
The time of this reduction is shewn by a comparison 
of the monument with the history of Dio, (in which 
about this period there is an hiatus in the order of 
events,) to have been either U.C. 752 itself, or some 
year between that and U.C. 748°. 

The annual expense, entailed upon the state by the 
σιτηρέσιον ἔμμηνον, or monthly issue of corn, is stated 
by Plutarch in one instance at 550 myriads, that is, 
5,500,000 drachmz: and in another at 1250 talents, 
that is, 7,500,000 drachmee ¢. 

These two sums are in the proportion of 11 to 15: 
and those are to each other nearly as 200 : 300; oras 
2:3. If so, there is no necessity to correct the text 

a Plutarch, Julius, 55 : Suetonius, Julius, 41, 6: Appian, B. C. ii. 102: Dio, 


xliii. 21: Zonaras, x. 10. 489. B: Cf. Livy, Epitome, cxv. Ὁ Tacitus, ii. Pars ii. 
842. ¢ Dio,lv. το: cf. Suetonius, Augustus, 42. ἃ Cesar, 8. Cato Minor, 26. 


32 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


of Plutarch, in the Life of Cesar; and his statements 
may be rendered consistent with each other, by sup- 
posing the larger of them intended to denote the ex- 
pense of maintaining about 300,000 persons annually, 
and the lesser that of supporting about 200,000: in 
other words, that the number of corn pensioners was 
always understood to be neither much more than 
300,000, nor much less than 200,000. 

That the larger of the two sums in question is a 
pretty accurate statement of the expense of maintain- 
ing 300,000: persons annually, may be collected from 
the Ancyran monument, loco citato; where it is said 
that Augustus, in his xi consulship, U. C. 731, distri- 
buted to the people, duodecim frumentationes, at his 
own expense: upon which, and on the other congvaria, 
recited in the same document, it is observed, that they 
never cost him less than 250,000 sesterces, that is, 
than 62,500 drachme at a time. These twelve /fru- 
mentationes were most probably intended for a month’s 
subsistence each time wholly or in part; and therefore 
for a year’s supply wholly or in part in all. 

If the alleged expense be understood, as the neces- 
sity of the case requires it should be, of the cost of 
every one of those frumentationes in particular, the 
gross amount of the twelve, or of one year’s allowance 
of corn from Augustus’ private purse to the people, was 
750,000 drachme. As this is exactly a tenth part of 
7,500,000, we may presume that this year, U. C. 731, 
which was in fact the first of Augustus’ Tribunitia 
Potestas as such, he contributed a tenth part of the 
whole expense, annually incumbent on the state for 
the maintenance of the people*. 


* In the Epitome of Aure- A%gypto urbi annua ducenties 
lius Victor, De Augusto, it is centena millia frumenti infere- 
observed: Hujus tempore ex  bantur. This statement is pro- 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 33 


The Ancyran monument, loco citato, specifies three 
pecuniary largesses of Augustus to the people, of 400 
numi, or 100 drachmez each, annis U. C. 725, 730, 
742, respectively®. In these largesses all the male 
citizens, whether men or boys, partook alike’. A fourth 
pecuniary largess, one of 60 drachmz each, is further 
specified, U.C. 749, when the recipients were 320,000 
plebet urbane. As the numbers of receivers are men- 
tioned on this occasion, but only the amount distri- 
buted to each on the former, I should conclude that 
though more was received by each of the parties on 
the former occasions, many more individuals received 
the gratuity in the later instance: in other words, that 
‘perhaps not more than two thirds of the number were 
included in each of the former gratuities, who were 
included in the latter. A further reason for this sup- 
position will appear in the fact which will next be cited. 

The emperor Augustus bequeathed to the citizens 
of Rome, 40,000,000 of sesterces, or 10,000,000 of 
drachmez, besides a legacy of 3,500,000 sesterces to 
the Plebs, composing the tribes, or to the Vicorum 
Magistri, in particular: and other legacies to the mili- 
tary—the Prztorian guards, the Cohortes Urbane, 


bably to be understood of the 
whole amount of corn annually 
imported from abroad4. Itisthere 
estimated at 20,000,000 of mo- 
dii yearly; that is, at 1,666,000 
every month: which at the rate 
of six modii to every recipient 
a month, would be adequate to 
the maintenance of 277,000 per- 


sons and upwards, monthly. This 
conclusion is clearly in unison 
with those which have been al- 
ready established ; and would 
lead to the same inference, that 
the number of corn-pensioners in 
the reign of Augustus was from 
two to three hundred thousand, 
but not more. 


4 Plutarch, in his Life of Cesar, cap. 55, estimates the annual contribution of corn 
from Lybia or Africa, at 2,000,000 of Attic medimni; that is, about 14,000,000 
of modii: and Agrippa, apud Josephum, De Bell. ii. xvi. 4. p. 483—estimates that 
of Egypt in general or Alexandria in particular, at a four months’ supply. On this 
principle two thirds of the annual supply of corn were drawn from Africa, and the 
remaining third from Egypt: hence, if Africa supplied for that purpose about 
14,000,000 of modii, Egypt must have supplied about 7,000,000, and both to- 
gether about 20,000,000. e Cf Dio, li. 21. liii. 28. liv. 29. f Dio, li. 21: 
Suetonius, Augustus, 41, 5. 


VOL. IV. D 


94 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


and the legionary soldiers: to these last at the rate of 
300 numi or seventy-five drachmez each®. Had the 
people received the whole of their legacy at the same 
rate as the legionary troops, it would. imply that they 
were not much more than 133,000 in number. But 
Tiberius distributed this largess at the rate of 65 
drachmez to each, U.C. 768". In this case, the number 
of recipients was 153,000 and upwards, but not more. 

In like manner, the emperor Tiberius himself left 
the people at his death, U.C.790, the sum of 11,250,000 
drachmee, which Caius, his successor, paid, with a lar- 
gess of his own of 75 drachmez to each person, be- 
sides‘, Perhaps Caius doubled the largess of Tibe- 
rius; at least, we may presume, he did not exceed it. 
If each citizen received 75 drachme, out of 11,250,000, 
the number of recipients was 150,000: if 65 drachme, 
their number was 173,000 and upwards. 

After this time, though the fact of a variety of 
money largesses is upon record, yet we meet with none 
which furnishes the means of ascertaining the number 
of recipients, until the reign of Severus, U.C. 955 ; 
when, as Dio informs us*, 50,000,000 of drachmz 
were distributed among the σιτοδοτούμενος ὅμιλος, and 
the Praetorian guards, at the rate of ten aurei, or 250 
drachme apiece. The number of recipients in all was 
consequently 200,000: and therefore the numbers of 
the δῆμος, as such, were minus that number by the 
amount of the Praetorian guards in the reign of Seve- 
rus, whatever that was. And if the Praetorian guards, 
with the Cohortes Urbane, amounted to 16,000 in the 
reign of Augustus, (see Dio, lv. 24, U.C. '758,) they 
could not be less than that in the reign of Severus*. 

* The Praetorian guard had been suppressed and disbanded 

& Suetonius, Augustus, 102, 4: Tacitus, Annales, i. 8: Dio, ἵν]. 32. ἢ Dio, 


lvii. 14. i Dio, lix. 2. Cf. Suetonius, Caius, 17, 4. Tiberius, 76. k Lib. 
Ixxvi. 1. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 3 


or 


If then we may pause at this juncture to review the 
preceding observations, we perceive that from U. C. 
684 to U.C. 955, a period of 271 years, the numbers 
of the Roman people never exceeded 320,000, nor 
fell short of 150,000; and are stated sometimes at 
the former, sometimes at the latter. I think there is 
no other mode of reconciling these different statements, 
but one; viz. that where the number of the Plebs 
Urbana is reckoned at 320,000, it includes all of 
every age and of either sex; where it is stated at 
150,000, it is intended only of the male part of it, as 
such : though both of adults and non-adults alike. On 
this principle the gross total of the free population of 
Rome, male and female, adult or non-adult, was not 
more in the reign of Augustus than 320,000. Nor 
need we be surprised at this. When Julius Cesar 
proposed his law, U. C. 695, for the division of the 
ager Campanus, there were not among the citizens of 
Rome more than 20,000 married persons, with three 
children or more apiece!; that is, the gross amount of 
families, of five persons each, was but 100,000. About 
the same time, there were not 2000 citizens, gui rem 
haberent ; that is, were people of property, or of in- 
dependent fortune ™. How small comparatively, then, 
would the number of married citizens with families 
be, and how very probable that. as 150,000 seems often 


by Severus, at the beginning of 
his reign, for their treachery to 
Pertinax: see Herodian, ii. 43, 
44. But that they were after- 
wards restored, appears from the 
fact of the early appointment of 
Plautian to the office of Pre- 
fectus Pretorii: and both the 


Pretorian guard, and the Co- 
hortes Urbanz are mentioned, 
Herodian, 111. 44, towards the 
end of the reign of Severus: the 
latter as four times more nu- 
merous than they once had 
been. 


1 Velleius Paterculus, ii. 44. Suetonius, Julius, 20, 6. Appian, Bell. Civ. ii. το. 


m Cicero, De Officiis, ii. 21. 


D2 


36 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


to be specified as the sum total of the male population 
of citizens of every age, so twice that amount might 
be the sum total of the gross population, male and 
female, of every age likewise. 

This conclusion we may further confirm by another 
fact which is recorded of the reign of Severus: viz. 
that at his death, U. C. 964, A. D. 211, he left in the 
public granaries, Septem annorum canonem, ita ut 
quotidiana septuaginta quinque millia modiorum ex- 
pendi possent". This statement implies that the daily 
issue of corn to the people, at the time of the death of 


Severus, was 75,000 modii *. 


* There is nothing improba- 
ble in the above supposition. 
The case of Rome at this time 
was but analogous to that of 
Constantinople in after time; or 
the Νέα Ῥώμη, as it was called. 
The grandeur of Constantino- 
ple, and the number of its in- 
habitants, almost from the first, 
were on a par with those of an- 
cient Rome. Its foundation, 
which means its completion, is 
placed by the Fasti Idatiani, p. 
30. Coss. Gallicano et Symma- 
cho, v. idus Maias, May 11, A.D. 
330. By Zonaras, ii. xiii. 3. 6. 
C. also the day of its dedication 
is fixed to May 11, A.M. 5838 
—which also may be shewn to 
answer to A.D. 330. Pollux 
in his Chronicon (p. 272) dates 
it Artemisius or March xi, in 
one of Constantine’s consulships, 
fire Antiochene 378: which 
would answer to A. D. 329. 
Suidas, Κωνσταντῖνος 6 μέγας, has 
much too late a date. Eckhel, 
Doctrina Numorum Veterum, 
vill. 76. datesthe commencement 
of the work, A. D. 326, and 


(Cf. ibid. 95.) its eompletion, as 
before, May 11, A. D. 330: in 
which case it took up but five 
years in all: a conclusion hardly 
reconcileable with the observa- 
tion of Julian, Oratio i. 8. B.: 
πόλιν τε ἐπώνυμον αὑτοῦ κατέστησεν 
(sc. ὁ Κωνσταντῖνος) ἐν οὐδὲ ὅλοις 
ἔτεσι δέκα : Which implies at least 
double the time. With respect 
to its magnitude from the first, 
Zosimus, ii. p. 105. 108. 112. 
Socrates, i. τό, 45. Ὁ. Sozo- 
men, 11. 3. 444. C—D. 445. B. 
Evagrius, iii. 41. 371. A. B. 
will shew what provision Con- 
stantine made for the peopling 
of the New city, and in how 
short a time it rivalled ancient 
Rome ‘in the number of its in- 
habitants, and the extent and 
magnificence of its buildings. Cf. 
Philostorgius, ii.9. 472. D. Je- 
rome, in Chronico, ad annum 
Constantini 24. A. D. 330. ob- 
serves, Constantinopolis dedica- 
tur pene omnium urbium nudi- 
tate: the meaning of which last 
words is well explained by a Lo- 
cus Classicus in reference to this 


n Spartian, Severus, 23. 8. Cf. Lampridius, Heliogabalus, 27. 
] > ἢ } ᾿ 8 9 27 


in δνθονΝ 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. o7 


A cheenix of flour, or of bread corn, prepared for 
baking, was reckoned a sufficient allowance for one 


very subject in Eunapius’ Life 
of Aidesius, where he is giving 
an account of the death of So- 
pater, another of the disciples of 
Iamblichus, whom Constantine, 
as he would have it believed, 
sacrificed to the senseless cla- 
mour of the people of Constan- 
tinople—who charged him with 
having by magical arts spell- 
bound the winds, and prevented 
the arrival of the supplies of 
corn: page 22: TOTE 
συνορᾷν ἐξῆν τὸ κατὰ Σώπατρον ἐπι- 
βούλευμα. ἡ μὲν γὰρ ΚΚωνσταντινού- 


“ \ 
OUTW Kal 


\ f) νι, ’ ν 
πολις, τὸ ἀρχαῖον Βυζάντιον, κατὰ 
A ‘ ν᾿ , > , 
μὲν τοὺς παλαιοὺς χρόνους ᾿Αθηναί- 
ous παρεῖχε τὴν σιτοπομπείαν, καὶ 
περιττὸν ἢν τὸ ἐκεῖθεν ἀγώγιμον" ἐν 
δὲ τοῖς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς καιροῖς, οὐδὲ τὸ 
ἀπ᾽ Αἰγύπτου πλῆθος τῶν ὁλκάδων, 

» A A > > , c , , 
οὐδὲ τὸ ἐξ ᾿Ασίας ἁπάσης, Συρίας τε 
καὶ Φοινίκης, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν 
συμφερόμενον πλῆθος σίτου, κατὰ 
ἀπαγωγὴν φόρον, ἐμπλῆσαι καὶ κορέ- 
σαι τὸν μεθύοντα δύναται δῆμον, ὃν 
Κωνσταντῖνος, τὰς ἄλλας χηρώσας 

΄' > , > A 4 
πόλεις ἀνθρώπων, εἰς τὸ Βυζάντιον 
μετέστησε, Ky τ. A. συμβέβηκε δὲ 

ners ΄ ἘΣ , Cy Uae 
kat TH θέσει τοῦ Βυζαντίου μηδὲ εἰς 
πλοῦν ἁρμόζειν τῶν καταφερομένων 
Ἅ 
πλοίων, ἂν μὴ καταπνεύσῃ νότος 
ἀκραὴς καὶ ἄμικτος" καὶ τότε δὴ τοῦ 
, ‘ 
πολλάκις συμβαίνοντος 

Θ᾿ PA ΄ , o aA 
ὡρῶν φύσιν συμβάντος, 6 τε δῆμος 
ὑπὸ λιμοῦ παρεθέντες συνήεσαν εἰς 


κατὰ τὴν 


τὸ θέατρον, καὶ σπάνις ἢν τοῦ μεθύ- 
οντος ἐπαίνου, καὶ τὸν βασιλέα κατεῖ- 
xev ἀθυμία. κὶ, τ. λ. The privilege 
of the corn-pension or σιτηρέσιον, 
enjoyed by the freemen of an- 
cient Rome, was transferred by 
Constantine to the burgesses of 
the Νέα Ρώμη also ; see Zosimus, 
11. 108. Evagrius, loco citato, &c. 
and the provision made by him 


for the daily issue of bread, wine, 
garments, &c. accordingly, is il- 
lustrated by Pollux, Chronicon, 
Ῥ- 272. Cf. Socrates, i. 35. 71. 
B. Sozomen, ii. 25. 481. D. 
Theodorit, i. 31.65. C. It ap- 
pears from Socrates, E. H. ii. 
13. 90. D. in reference to the 
violence committed by the peo- 
ple of Constantinople upon the 
person of Hermogenes, the Ma- 
gister Militum, in the reign of 
Constantius, A. D. 342, (Cf. 
Ammianus Marcellinus, xiv. 10, 
p- 47, 48.) in consequence of 
which that emperor amerced the 
city in one half of the daily al- 
lowance in question, such as it 
was, (Cf. Sozomen, iii. 7. 506. 
C. D.) that this daily allowance 
amounted to 80,000 measures of 
corn: a statement, repeated by 
Pollux, (probably after Socrates, ) 
Chronicon, p. 322, in reference 
to the same occasion. Eighty 
thousand ἄρτοι 15 the phrase which 
occurs in Pollux and in Photius 
(Codex 254, ip. 475.- 9.) 
with respect to the provision 
in question. But Valesius (see 
his note on Socrates in loco) 
very properly understands ἄρτοι 
here, as equivalent to modii: 
otherwise unless the size of 
the loaf was _ proportionably 
greater, and adequate to the 
maintenance of five or six per- 
sons daily—the free population 
of Constantinople could have 
amounted to but 80,000, at a 
time when that of Rome was 
probably four or five hundred 
thousand. ‘This is too great a 
disproportion to justify the de- 
scriptions given above of the size 
of the city from the first, and of 


D'S 


38 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


man’s subsistence daily°®. Polybius tells us, De Militia 
Romana ?, that a Roman soldier’s monthly ration of 
bread corn was δύο μέρη, two thirds, as I understand 
him, of an Attic medimnus; 32 choenixes—or about one 
choenix a-day. A slave’s monthly allowance at Rome 
from his master, was five modii and five denarii 4; 
which is in the proportion of a modius every six days 
—or, if we reckon with Arbuthnot, the Roman modius 
at one sixth of the Attic medimnus, (though the Latin 
writers commonly put it at one seventh,) eight che- 
nixes every six days—at the rate of a chcenix and one 
third per day. Cornelius Nepos tells us of Atticus’, 
that he distributed to the people of Athens seven mo- 
dii, or one Attic medimnus, at a time apiece; which 
was 48 choenixes—and if. intended for a month’s sub- 
sistence, was about a chcenix and an half per day. So 
Julius Cesar, U.C. 708, distributed to every citizen 
ten modii of corn, and ten pounds of oil’; which at 
the same rate of a choenix and one third per day, 
would be a two months’ subsistence for each. That 
oil was often distributed on such occasions as well as 
bread corn, is well known. 

With regard then to the question, how many per- 
sons 75,000 modii of corn as issued daily in the time 
of Severus, were competent to support; if one modius 


its equality even to Rome. But 
if ἄρτοι be equivalent to mo- 
dii, then a daily issue of 80,000 
ἄρτοι, at the rate of one modius 
among six persons, would be 
adequate to the daily mainte- 
nance of 480,000 persons. And 
a free population of Constanti- 


© Herodotus, vii. 187: Thucydides, vii. 87; iv. τό: 


nople in the time of Constantius, 
amounting to 480,000, would be 
very much on a par with the 
free population of Rome, in his 
father’s time, and in his own, 
which was very probably about 
the same. 


Atheneus, iti. 54: 


Theophrastus, Hist. Pl. viii. 4. p. 159: Horace, Serm. i. vy. 68, 69: Aristides xxv. 
496. 1.20: Dio Chrysostom, vii. 231. 35: Philostratus, 552. A. Vitae Soph. ii. 
Herodes Atticus. Cf. supra p. 29, 30. P Lib. vi. 39. Cf. Livy, vii. 37. 
4 Seneca, Epistole, 80, 7. r Vita, 2. S Suetonius, Julius, 38, 2. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 39 


would suffice one person six days, it would suffice six 
persons one day: and therefore 75,000 modii would suf- 
fice 450,000 persons daily. But Severus is said to have 
increased the usual rate of the corn allowance to the 
military, and, as we may presume, also to the people *. 
It is probable then that each pensioner received some- 
thing more than one modius every six days: perhaps 
one modius every five days, or six modii in a month. 
In this case the number of daily recipients was but 
375,000. 

Now this sum is more in proportion to the other, 
of the recipients of the largess in the reign of Seve- 
rus, which we found to be 200,000 minus the num- 
ber of the Pretorian guards. Let us suppose the 
Pretorian guards were about 16,000; and therefore 
the people as such, were about 184,000: and that 
these were the male part of the citizens of every age. 
Twice that amount, or 368,000, would be the amount 
of the free population, male and female, and of every 
age also. 

The monthly corn ticket was the right by law of 
every citizen living at Rome". Even the Jewish Ro- 
man citizens had the same privilege as the rest; and 
with this further indulgence in their case, that if the 
usual monthly distribution otherwise fell on their sab- 
bath, they were allowed to receive their share on the 
following day’. It was in the power, too, of every 
citizen to claim the ticket, whether his circumstances 
might require it or not: and there is very little doubt 
that the rich claimed it as well as the poor’. It would 
be absurd to suppose that the female citizens would 
not have the same need of it, and the same right to it, 


t Herodian, iii. 25. u Cf. Epicteti Manuale, 2: Seneca, De Beneficiis, iv. 
ΖΘΟῚ: Vv Philo Judeus, ii. 560. 13. sqq. De Virtutibus. w Cicero, 
Tusculane Disputationes, iii. 20: Juvenal, i. 117—1203 vii. 174, 175. 


D 4 


40 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


as the male; and consequently that the distribution 
would not include the women as well as the men *. 
In the time of Trajan, too, U. C. 751, there is proof 
that children were taken into account as well as grown 
up persons Y. The same thing appears of the children 
of both sexes, in the reign of M. Aurelius, U.C. 9147; 
as also that the names of the children of freemen 
were to be registered with the przefecti zrarii Sa- 
turni, within a month after their birth**: most pro- 
bably in order to ascertain the number of the corn- 
pensioners the better, and what proportion each citizen 
was entitled to, not only for himself, but also for his 
family: though as to the keeping a register of the 
births of Roman citizens, that was not peculiar to 
such as took place in Rome, but extended also to the 
provinces. 

The sum total then of the free population of Rome, 
of every age and of both sexes, which in the time of 
Augustus did not exceed 320,000, at the death of Se- 
verus, A. D. 211, was about 368,000. Here is an in- 
crease of 48,000; which is what we should expect in 
general, though the amount of the increase, in propor- 


* The biographer of Aurelius 
says he was the jirst to make 
this regulation; but his com- 
mentators have shewn that this 
was not the case; it was only 
the revival or improvement of 
an ancient custom. 
from Apuleius, De Magia Ora- 
tio, vol. ii. page 92, that in 
Africa (at CHa at least) the 
births of female citizens were 
wont to be publicly registered, 
at a time which was forty years 
before the date of that oration ; 
viz. the proconsulate of Claudius 


x Cf. Juvenal, i. 120—126: Pliny, Epistole, x. 4. 107. 
gyricus, 25—27, 28. 561. Cf. Spartian, Hadrianus, 7. 


ninus Phil. 7. 


a Ibid. g. 


It appears © 


Maximus, sometime in the reign 
of Antoninus Pius, see p. 88, 
perhaps about the middle of it. 
The epitomizer of Aurelius Vi- 
ctor, De Nerva, observes, Puel- 
las, puerosque natos parentibus 
egestuosis, sumptu publico per 
Italie opida ali jussit. This 
would require an account to be 
kept of them. Trajan’s provi- 
sion for the orphan children of 
freemen was no doubt in imita- 
tion of this of Nerva’s. Cf. Dio 
Ixviii. 5. 


y Pliny, Pane- 
z Capitolinus, Anto- 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 41 


tion to the length of time between Augustus and Se- 
verus, may appear small in particular. I am con- 
cerned, however, only with facts, and do not propose 
to investigate causes at present; some of which might 
nevertheless be specified, to account for the effect in 
the given instance ; especially the debauchery and im- 
morality of the Roman capital for all this period, and 
the still prevailing practice of the exposure of new 
born children; two causes which must strongly have 
checked the natural tendency of population to increase, 
even in times otherwise the most favourable to its 
augmentation; which the times between Augustus and 
Severus were not. 

I think the conclusion thus obtained, concerning the 
numbers of the free population of Rome, in the time 
of Augustus, or thenceforward, from the rate of the 
different congiaria, above considered, may be further 
confirmed, by a comparison of these numbers with the 
magnitude of the various theatres built at Rome, for 
their accommodation. 

Publius Victor in his Descriptio Urbis Rome, (which 
was not written, however, before the reign of Constan- 
tine,) enumerates a great number of public buildings, 
as theatres, circuses, amphitheatres, &c.; but I shall 
confine myself of course to those which are most com- 
monly mentioned in the writers contemporary with 
the reign of Augustus, or thereabouts. The principal 
theatres, then, in these times were Pompey’s, dedi- 
cated U. C. 699»: Balbus’ and Marcellus’, both dedi- 
cated 1]. C. 741°. These three together served the 
same purpose for the resort of the people, on holydays, 
as the three forums, the forum Romanum, the forum 
Cesaris, and the forum Augusti, upon other days, for 


Ὁ Dio, xxxix. 38: Cicero, De Officiis, ii. 16. € Dio, liv. 25, 26. 


42 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


the transaction of business *. They were as competent 
to contain the people, at times of public diversion and 
amusement, as the fora were, upon occasions of a 
eraver nature. Moreover persons of all ages, and con- 
ditions, and of each sex, resorted to them promiscu- 
ously®: therefore they were intended for the accom- 
modation of all, or at least of the greatest part of the 
inhabitants of Rome. 

Marcellus’ theatre, according to Victor‘, contained 
30,000 sittings: Balbus’, 30,095. So likewise, the au- 
thor of another Descriptio Urbis Rome, posterior to 
A.D. 410: Regio ix. Pompey’s theatre, according to 
Pliny£, would accommodate 40,000 spectators. An- 
other reading, it is true, has the number 400,000 in 
this passage; for the proof of the absurdity of which 
statement, it is enough to refer to the note of the 
editor, 7x locum. The theatre of Scaurus, a temporary 
building, and much larger than Pompey’s for the time, 
yet contained only 80,000 sittings». The same may 
be observed of a moveable theatre not long afterwards 
built by Curio. 

The joint amount of these three theatres would be 
only 100,000 sittings; not so much more than the 
content of the single theatre of Scaurus. Yet both 
Lucan, U.C. 705, and Tacitus, U.C. 811, speak of 
Pompey’s theatre alone, as competent to hold the 
greatest part of the people *. 

The Circus Maximus, however, was that particular 
quarter of Rome, to which the people resorted most 
for the sake of shows and diversions; and where in 


ἃ Ovid, Tristium iii. xii. 23, 24. Ars Amandi, ili. 393, 394: Seneca, De Ira, 
ii. ix. 1. De Clementia, vi. 1. e Valerius Maximus, ii. iv. 3: Vitruvius, v. 3: 
sqq: iii. 633, 634: Calpurnii Ecloge, vi. 23—29, Ke. f Descriptio Urbis 
Rome, Regio ix. g H.N. xxxvi. 24. δ. 7. h Pliny, loc. cit. Cf. Cicero, 
De Officiis, ii. 16. i Pliny, H. N. xxxvi. 24. ὃ. 8. k Lucan, Pharsalia, 
vii. g—12. Tacitus, Annales, xiii. 54. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 43 


fact they spent almost the whole of their time!. To 
illustrate its magnitude, and to shew that it was com- 
petent to furnish accommodation for nearly the whole 
of Rome, I shall produce only this one passage : 

Interea Megalesiace spectacula mappz, 

Ideum solenne colunt, similisque triumpho 

Preda caballorum Pretor sedet: ac, mihi pace 

Immense, nimizque licet si dicere plebis, 

Totam hodie Romam Circus capit. 

Juvenal, xi. 191 —195. 


Now the Circus Maximus, even after its enlargement 
by Julius Cesar, in the time of Dionysius of Halicar- 
nassus ™ is estimated to contain only 150,000 sittings ; 
though Pliny states it in his time, to be capable of hold- 
ing 260,000°. Dio speaks of it as further enlarged by 
Trajan, and rendered competent to hold the people 
(δῆμος) in his time®: yet it would seem from Pliny 
the younger, that he added (about U.C. 851) no more 
than 5000 sittings?: and long after this, Publius 
Victor 4 describes it as capable of holding only 385,000 
persons; and the author of the other description, 
before referred to, Regio xi. only 485,000: a state- 
ment which is very probably to be corrected by that 
of Victor. 

If we take the sum of the content of these several 
theatres, from the time of Pompey to that of Pliny the 
elder, it seems that altogether they would not furnish 
accommodation for more than 360,000 spectators ; 
which we may, therefore, justly presume represents the 
entire amount of the whole of the free population of 
Rome at least, of both sexes and of every age; for whose 


1 Ovid, Ars Amandi, i. 135, 1363; Seneca, De Ira, ii. vii. 4: Juvenal, viii. 117, 
1138: x. 79g—81: Calpurnius, Ecloge, vii. 2330: Herodian, ii.26: Ammianus 
Marcellinus, xxviii. 4. p. 534. m Ant. Rom. iii. 68. Cf. i. 3: Cf. Livy, i. 35. 
nH. N. xxxvi. 24. §. 1. o Lib. Ixviii. 7. vp Panegyricus, 51. Cf. Ibid. 28 : 
Dio, Ixviii. δ. 1 Descriptio, &c. Regio xi. Cf. Aurelius Victor, De Con- 
stantino. 


44 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


convenience and amusement in particular all these 
buildings were primarily intended, and who alone 
would properly have a right to the use and enjoyment 
of them. How very exactly this conclusion, so ob- 
tained, squares with the numbers already deduced 
from the consideration of the various congiaria, dis- 
tributed to the people throughout the same period, I 
need not observe. Either of them should serve to 
confirm the other. 

I have said nothing, as yet, of the numbers of the 
slave population, nor of those of persons resident at 
Rome, whether foreigners, or not, who did not possess 
the rights of citizens, and therefore must be dis- 
tinguished from the free population. It is a very dif- 
ficult thing to say what was the proportion which the 
amount of either of these classes, living at Rome, 
bore to that of the freemen, at a given time. Neither 
of them would appear in the results of a proper Ro- 
man census; if that comprehended, as I believe it 
always did, none but the Zibera capita, and cives Ro- 
mani, as such. 

In the account of the census, mentioned by Diony- 
sius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. ix. 25, after stating 
what was the number of the male citizens and adults, 
he tells us that the amount of the women and children, 
the slaves, and the ἔμποροι, or foreigners, was three 
times as many. It is evident, however, that we’ can 
build nothing upon the fact of such a proportion in 
this isolated case, in deducing a general rule, that the 
same thing would always hold good. Very strong de- 
scriptions indeed may be inet with in different authors, 
from the time of Czesar to that of Antoninus Pius, of 
the number of strangers or aliens, settled at Rome ; as 
though entire communities or nations existed there, in 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. - 45 


the midst of its native population, and this one city 
presented an epitome of the whole world’. 

But it is not probable that the number of strangers 
at any time resident in the capital was allowed to do 
more than equal the native population: if it did so, 
they were considered dangerous, and it was usual to 
expel them from it: of which we have an instance, 
U.C. 689’. The Jews in particular were often so 
treated; yet, U.C.'751, when Archelaus was at Rome, 
about his father’s will, we read only of 8000, resi- 
dent in the city, who joined the deputation from the 
mother country to oppose his appointment to the 
throne. This does not imply that they were so very 
numerous. 

Seneca has a statement (De Clementia, xxiv. 1.*) 
which, unless great allowance is to be made for his 
usual declamatory manner of speaking on every sub- 
ject, clearly implies that the number of slaves at Rome 
was at least two to one, in proportion to that of the 
citizens. Certain it is, that individual Roman citizens 
possessed numerous families of slaves, some many 
thousands in amount ; though not all of them perhaps 
resident in the city: and so common was this species 
of property at this period of Roman history, that we 
can scarcely conceive a single citizen so poor, as not to 
be worth one slave. Yet in the time of Xenophon, 
though the gross amount of the slave population in 
proportion to that of the free, was probably as great 
at Athens as in any other community that can be men- 
tioned, we may infer from his De Vectigalibus, iv. 17, 
that even there it was not in the proportion of three 
to one. 

* Cf. Appian, De Bellis Civilibus, ii. 120. 
r Lucan, Pharsalia, i. 5 10—514. vii. 399 —407 : Seneca, Consolatio ad Helviam, 


vi. 2,3: Atheneus, i. 36: Aristides, xiv. Ῥώμης ᾿Εγκώμιον, 348.1. sqq. 8 Dio, 
XXXVil. 9. 


46 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


Upon the whole, then, we may conclude, that if the 
gross amount of the free population of Rome, at a 
given time, was 320,000; that of slaves, and strangers, 
and of others, not freemen of the city but living there, 
was, perhaps, six or seven hundred thousand more : so 
as to make the total of the inhabitants of the city, at 
the given time in question, about a million. 

I shall proceed to confirm this conclusion, in the 
last place, by a comparison of the magnitude of Rome 
with that of other celebrated cities; especially those 
which in numbers and grandeur are allowed to have 
rivalled it most nearly: viz. ancient Carthage; Ale- 
xandria in Egypt; Seleucia ad Tigrim; and Antioch 
in Syria*. And first of Carthage. 

If we may judge of the magnitude and opulence of 
ancient Carthage, by those of New Carthage, founded 
upon the site of the old, U.C.710: we find Herodian" 
observing of the latter city, in the reign of Maximin, 
A. D. 237: ἡ “γοῦν πόλις ἐκείνη καὶ δυνάμει χρημάτων, Kat 
πλήθει τῶν κατοικούντων, καὶ μεγέθει, μόνης Ρώμης ἀπολεί- 
mera, φιλονεικοῦσα πρὸς τὴν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ᾿Αλεξάνδρου πόλιν 
περὶ δευτερείων. ‘To the like effect, Ausonius, of the 
same city in his days, that it acknowledged no supe- 
rior but Rome, not even Constantinople. 

Constantinopoli adsurgit Carthago priori, 

Non toto cessura gradu ; quia tertia dici 

Fastidit *. De Nobilibus Urbibus Carmen ii. 1—3. 
Servius, ad A’neidem i. 367, 368, informs us from the 
Vita illustrium of Cornelius Nepos, that ancient Car- 
tnage consisted of an inner and an outer town; the 
former called Byrsa, the original settlement, as encom- 
passed by the bull’s hide—of 22 stades in circuit ; the 





t Vide Strabo, Xvi. 2. §. 5. 304. Diodorus Siculus, xvii. 52: Dio Chrysostom, 
Oratio xxxii. 669. 45 : Aristides, Oratio xiv. 333.1. 9 : Pausanias, viii. 33 : Seneca, 
Epistole, 102 §. 21. tei Lib. vii. 14. x Cf. Photius, Bibliotheca, Codex 
243. p- 376. |. 30. Himerii Sophistw: Μελέται. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 47 


latter called Magalia. We know that it was situated 
on a chersonesus, or peninsula, the breadth of the 
αὐχὴν or neck of which, where it was contiguous to 
the main land, and in which direction only it was 
accessible by land, Polybius and Appian state at 25 
stades’, though Strabo puts it, apparently, at 60”. 
The circuit of Carthage is estimated by Livy * at 23 
Roman miles, that is, 184 stades; but by Strabo Joc. 
cit. at 360 stades. The numbers of Strabo in this in- 
stance are probably corrupt, or were intended to be 
understood of much more than the circuit of the city, 
If we reduce this statement of the circuit of the city, 
in proportion to that of the breadth of the isthmus, 
as corrected by Appian and Polybius, the real extent 
of Carthage, according to Strabo, was about one half 
of 360 stades, that is, 180, or nearly so: which will 
agree with the statement of Livy. 

Now when Carthage went to war with Rome on 
the last occasion, B.C. 149, she is said by Strabo’ to 
have been mistress of 300 cities in Africa, and to have 
contained a population of 700,000 souls. If this is a 
correct statement of the population of a city 180 
stades in circuit, it seems absurd to suppose that any 
city, before or after its time, of still inferior magni- 
tude in point of extent, could contain a greater number 
of inhabitants. 

Let us now consider the magnitude of Alexandria, 
and the number of its inhabitants; in both which 
respects it was acknowledged by general consent to be 
the second city in the empire, and scarcely inferior to 
Rome itself. 

The shape of Alexandria is compared to that of a 


Macedonian chlamys’; a species of military cloak, 

v Polybius, i. 73. Appian, De Rebus Punicis, vili. 95. 119. W Xvii. 3. 
§. 14. 671. x Lib. li. y Lib. xvii. 3. §. 15. 673. z Cf. Servius ad Georg. 
iv. 287. 


48 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


which resembled, when stretched out on the ground, a 
curvilinear oblong, contracted at the two ends or 
corners *. Its oblong sides, which Strabo calls τὰ ἀμ- 
φίκλυστα, he describes as thirty stades in diameter ; 
its sides, ἐπὶ πλάτος, as seven or eight stades apiece *. 
This implies a periphery of 76 stades at least. 

Agrippa, in his speech to the Jews of Jerusalem, 
U.C. 819, represents it as thirty stades in length, and 
ten in breadth; that is, as of eighty stades’ circuit, in 
all». . 

Stephanus, De Urbibus‘, states its length at 34, its 
breadth at eight stades; and its perimeter, at 110. 
But 34x24+8x2=only 84. Quintus Curtius com- 
putes its perimeter at 80 stades¢: Pliny at xv. Ro- 
man miles’, which are equal to 120 stades. It had an 
harbour of thirty stades in extent f: and whatever was 
its original magnitude, as laid out by its founder, we 
learn from Ammianus Marcellinus’, it continued the 
same, or did not much vary from its first dimensions. 

In Diodorus’ account of its foundation», B. C. 331, 
there is no express statement of the extent of ground 
covered by it. It is described merely as resembling 


* Pliny describes it (H. N. 
v. 11.) Ad efhigiem Macedonice 
chlamydis orbe gyrato lacinio- 
sam, dextra levaque anguloso 
procursu. No doubt the ground 
on which it was situated (viz. 
the part between the Lacus Ma- 
reotis on the south, and the sea 
to the north) was previously 
somewhat of that shape. We 
learn from Cesar, De Bello Ci- 
vili, and Hirtius, De Bello A- 


a Lib. xvii. 1. §. 8. 502. 
dpe. “4 Lib. iv. vill. 2. 


xxii. 16. p. 343- h Lib. xvii. 52. 


b Jos. De Bello Jud. ii. xvi. 4. p. 482. 
SoH LINe Ve Iie 
stathius, ad Dionysium Periegetem, 254. Apud Geographos Minores, iv. 


lexandrino, that the city was not 
of uniform breadth at the two 
corners in question, and that the 
narrowest part was next to the 
Pharus: also that there was a 
considerable difference in the al- 
titude of the different parts of 
the city, that some were many 
feet lower than others: viz. the 
parts nearest to the Pharus. De 
Bell. Civ. iii. 111,112: De Bell. 
Alex. 1, 2.6—9, &c. 


ο ᾿Αλεξάν- 
f Jos. De Bell. Jud. iv. x. 5: Eu- 
& Lib. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 49 


the Macedonian chlamys, and as having a street forty 
stades in length, and a plethrum, or 100 feet in breadth, 
which passed through it from one gate to another. 
These gates, as we may collect from Achilles Tatius ἷ, 
went by the name of the sun’s and the moon’s re- 
spectively: the street in question had a colonnade of 
pillars on each side of it, and was cut by another, in 
an oblique direction, almost of equal size and beauty. 
The whole city was divided into five regions, called 
after the first five letters of the Greek alphabet; a 
division which is recognised by the author of the Res 
Gest Alexandri*, published by Angelo Maio, with 
this further explanation of the denominations them- 
selves, that the five letters were taken from the initials 
of the words in the following proposition, which they 
were intended to express : ᾿Αλέξανδρος βασιλεὺς Διὸς γέ- 
vos ἐποίησεν. | 

If these regions were laid out at the foundation of 
the city, it is probable that they were nearly equal in 
size, and that each of them was one fifth of the extent 
of the whole. The Jews had possession of two of the 
five; one of them, the fourth in order or the Delta; a 
quarter bordering on the sea, and represented by Jose- 
phus as among the finest in the city!, probably as being 
the airiest and most healthy. 

In the persecution of the Jews of Alexandria, by 
Flaccus Aquilius, the governor of Egypt, U.C. 791, 
they were forcibly ejected from one of these quarters, 
and obliged all of them to take refuge in the other. At 
that time 400 houses are said to have been rifled, and a 
vast number of myriads turned out of doors ; for whose 
accommodation their new quarters being much too 


i De Clitophontis et Leucippes Amoribus, v. 1. Cf. Strabo, loc. cit. =k Lib. 
i, 28. 1 Contra Apionem, ii. 4: Ant. Jud. xiv. vii.2: De Bell. ii. xviii. 8 : 
Philo, Adversus Flaccum, ii. 525. 21. 566. 


VOL. IV. E 


50 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


small, multitudes were compelled to seek shelter on the 
sea shore, or among the tombs and dunghills, or wher- 
- ever they could™. 

Upon another occasion, in a sedition at Alexandria, 
U.C. 819, 50,000 Jews lost their lives at once"; 
which, I should think, to judge from the context of 
the account, was about one third of their numbers at 
that time living in the city. This makes the entire 
Jewish population of Alexandria about 150,000: which 
being estimated at two-fifths of the whole, would 
make the entire population of the city about 375,000. 
This must be considered the sum total of the free po- 
pulation ; for the Jews of Alexandria were all citizens, 
as much as the Greeks. 

In the time of Diodorus®, who visited Egypt, Olymp. 
180, about B.C. 60, U. C. 694, Alexandria contained 
a free population of 300,000 and upwards, as he ascer- 
tained from the public register or album of citizens. 
At the same time the general population of Egypt was 
about three millions. By the time of the breaking 
out of the Jewish war, U.C. 819, this general popula- 
tion had mounted upwards to 7,500,000, as we shall 
see elsewhere; exclusive of the population of Alexan- 
dria. It was to be expected that the population of 
Alexandria would increase also, if the general popula- 
tion of the country did the same; though not in the 
same proportion with that: and therefore that if its 
free population, B. C. 60, was about 300,000, it might 
be about 375,000, U. C. 819, A.D. 66. 

The statement of Diodorus which professes to give 
the number of the ἐλεύθεροι, in his time, must be un- 
derstood to comprehend all who were entitled to that 
denomination, whether male or female, young or old, 


m Philo, Adversus Flaccum /oco citato, et ii. 5.31. 5: De Virtutibus, ii. 563. 27. 
866. n Jos. Bell. Jud. ii. xviii. 7, 8. © Lib. xvii. 525 1. 31. 44. 83. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 51 


in opposition to those who were not. We have seen 
that at Rome, in the time of the emperors, an account 
of the births of children was strictly kept, and by the 
proper officers, as well as in the provinces: and we 
may collect from a letter of Dionysius, bishop of Alex- 
andria, in the reign of Gallienus, about A.D. 456", 
that persons of all ages, from puberty to 80, were in- 
cluded in the roll of citizens, kept there in his time. 

As it is admitted that Alexandria, whatever was the 
extent of ground which it covered, whether 80 stades, 
or 120, yet in wealth, grandeur, and the number of its 
inhabitants, was very nearly equal to Rome; it is to be 
presumed that the population of the one, at any time 
during a given period, would be found almost on a 
par with that of the other, for the same. We have 
computed the population of Rome for the reign of Au- 
gustus at about a million: and we may compute that 
of Alexandria at seven or eight hundred thousand. In 
the number of its citizens, or free men, the δῆμος pro- 
perly so called—I should be disposed to think that 
Alexandria was actually equal to Rome, if not greater 
than it. The difference between their comparative 
total population consisted probably in the greater num- 
ber of slaves and “strangers, mixed up with the po- 
pulation of Rome, than with that of Alexandria. The 
latter were perhaps in the proportion of two or three 
to one at Rome; but not more than in that of one or 
two to one at Alexandria, or in any other city, how- 
ever great, besides Rome *. 


* A fact is mentioned by Pro- 
copius, De Historia Arcana, 
xxvi. 77. D. which may throw 
some light on the magnitude 
and numbers of Alexandria in 
comparison of those of Rome. 
He observes there, incidentally, 


that Διοκλητιανὸς Ῥωμαίων γεγονὼς 
αὐτοκράτωρ, σίτου μέγα τι χρῆμα 
δίδοσθαι παρὰ τοῦ δήμου τῶν ᾿Αλε- 
ξανδρέων τοῖς δεομένοις ἀνὰ πᾶν ἔτος 
διώρισε : the time of which ordi- 
nance, though no otherwise spe- 
cified by Procopius than as 


Ρ Eusebius, E. H. vii. xxi. 267, ad calcem. 


EQ 


52 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


The next city, the magnitude of which we shall 
consider, is Seleucia ad Tigrim: the chief Grecian 
city in Upper Asia, and founded by Seleucus Nicator, 
about B. C. 312, in the vicinity of Ninus, the ancient Ni- 
neveh, and Babylon. The wealth and opulence of this 
single city may be judged of from the fact, that, though 
isolated by its situation, aud almost in the midst of the 
Parthian dominions, it was yet able to set their power 
at defiance, and for a long time to maintain its own 
independence 4. * 

Though not equal in size and population to Alexan- 
dria*, it was not much inferior to it: and their equal- 
ity may be further estimated from this fact, that as the 
Jews of Egypt lost 50,000 of their numbers, U.C. 


Ww 


above, would probably be when 
Diocletian reduced Alexandria, 
in the thirteenth of his reign, 
A. D. 296 or 297, according to 
Jerome in Chronico. This allow- 
ance, it seems, continued down 
to Procopius’ own time ; when 
Hephestus, prefect of Alexan- 
dria, under Justinian, to please 
the emperor, ἔνθενδε μυριάδας ἐς 
διακοσίας ἐπετείους μεδίμνων τοὺς 
τῶν ἀναγκαίων ὑποσπανίζοντας ἀφε- 
λόμενος τῷ δημοσίῳ ἐντέθεικε. 

If we may understand the me- 
dimni, here spoken of, as mean- 
ing modii, which I think the ne- 
cessity of the case requires, then 
two hundred myriads are equi- 
valent to two millions of modii: 
and two millions of modii an- 
nually are at the rate of about 
166,000 per month: and 166,000 
per month, at the rate of one mo- 
dius among five persons, would 
be adequate to the daily supply 
of about 33,000 persons. 

It is evident that these reci- 


pients in the present instance 
are restricted to the poorer part 
of the Alexandrine community 
as such ; the δεόμενοι or the ἀνα- 
γκαίων ὑποσπανίζοντες. The ques- 
tion is, what proportion would 
these bear to the gross popula- 
tion, and how is that to be as- 
certained? By the same rule, 
we may answer, as at Antioch ; 
where we shall see, by and by, 
that Chrysostom, w hile he reck- 
ous the δῆμος in the gross at 
200,000, estimates the poor in 
particular at a tenth of the 
whole P. On this principle the 
poor of Alexandria would be one 
tenth of the 8jn0s—and :there- 
fore the poor amounting to 
33,000 persons, the djposamount- 
ed to 330,000, and upwards. It 
is true, this is a computation in- 
stituted for the reign of Justi- 
nian. But mutatis mutandis, it 
night apply to the time of Au- 
gustus. 


Ρ In like manner, Operum ix. 93. D. In Acta Apostoloruam Homilia xi. 3, he 
estimates the poor of Constantinople at 50,000: which if the numbers of the δῆμος 
were nearly 500,000 not many years before (see page 38. supra) is Ne ems) a just 
proportion, ᾳ Tacitus, Annales, xi. 8, 9. τ Strabo, xvi. 2. δ. ς. 304. Οὗ 1. 
§. 5. 252. §. τό. 274. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 53 


819, who were living at Alexandria, so did those of 
Babylonia lose the same number of theirs, U. C. 791, 
who were living at Seleucia ὃ. 

We are told by Jerome in Chronico, that when Se- 
leucia was taken by Avidius Cassius, in the Parthian 
war, U.C. 917, the fourth of Marcus Aurelius, it con- 
tained a population of 300,000. If this be understood 
of the free population, it is very much in _propor- 
tion to what was probably the amount of that both of 
Rome and of Alexandria, at the same period of time. 
When Pliny was writing, however, viz. U.C. 830, he 
mentions it as a report which he had heard of its num- 
bers *, that it contained 600,000 plebis urbane. The 
necessity of the case seems to require that this should 
be understood of its entire population: in which case, 
the magnitude of this city will actually bear that propor- 
tion to the size and grandeur of Alexandria, which from 
the comparative estimate of their respective extent, left 
on record, we should naturally expect to find it did. 

Let us consider, in the last place, the magnitude of 
Antioch upon the Orontes, the metropolis of Syria; of 
which Josephus observes, that in his time it was con- 
fessedly to be reckoned the third principal city in the 
empire": meaning that it was inferior only to Rome, 
and Alexandria in Egypt. 

Strabo calls Antioch, Seleucia, Apamea, and Lao- 
dicea, the four largest cities of Syria’. Of these, 
Apamea, according to an inscription in Orellius*, at 
the time of the census of Syria, by Quirinus, U.C. 
760, contained a population of 117,000 citizens, which 
I should consider equivalent to a gross population of 
two or three hundred thousand. Antioch undoubtedly 


was more populous than Apamea. 


s Jos. Ant. Jud. xviii. ix. 1. 9. t H.N. vi. 30. u De Bello, iii. ii. 4: 
Cf. Herodian, iv. 5. Ausonius, De Urbibus Nobilibus, carmen 3. Υ Lib. xvi. 
2. ὃ. 4. 302. x Synagoge Inscriptionum, vol. i. art. 625. p. 459. 


E3 


54 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


Those who have described Antioch, tell us it was 
τετράπολις, consisting of four divisions, as added or 
augmented by different founders at different times, 
with a distinct wall to each division, and a common 
one to the four. It was founded originally by Seleucus, 
on the site or in the vicinity of Antigonia, a city so 
named from its founder Antigonus, who was defeated 
and killed in battle, B. C. 301*. The first division was 
consequently his work; the next was added by its own 
inhabitants; the third by Seleucus Callinicus, or An- 
tiochus Magnus; the fourth by Antiochus Epiphanes’. 
Its principal street ran from east to west, with a colon- 
nade on either side of it, and a stone pavement between. 
The rest of the streets branched out from this at right 


angles, north and south%. Josephus tells us that among 


the other munificent actions of Herod done abroad, he 
paved this street with marble, the length of which he 
says was 20 stades*; besides providing it with a co- 
lonnade also, upon each side of it, as long as the street. 
But we may collect from Dio Chrysostom, that An- 
tioch was 36 stades in length”; in which case the di- 
mensions of the street are underrated in Josephus. On 
this principle too, the perimeter of the city was at 
least 72 stades in all. 

Libanius, indeed ®, /oc. cit., says the difference of mag- 
nitude between the city in his time, and the city as 
originally built, was 40 stades. Whether he méans 
Antigonia, or the Antioch of Seleucus, does not clearly 
appear. I apprehend the former. If Antioch was 


* Both Eusebius and Jerome would be soon after the bat- 
in Chronico date its foundation tle in question. So also Syn- 
in the twelfth of Seleucus, de. cellus, i. 520. 5. 
duced from B. C. 312, which 


y Strabo, xvi. 2. ὃ. 4. 303: Libanius, Antiochiea Oratio, i. 309. 10, ]. 14. 310, 
&e: Eustathius, ad Dionysium Periegetem, 917. Geographi Minores,iv. 2 Liba- 
nius, Antiochica Oratio, 337. 1.15. sqq. ἃ De Bell. i. xxi, 11. Ant. xvi. v. 3. 
b Oratio xlvii. 229. 15. ¢ 299. 1. 18. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 55 


twice the size of the original city, it was about eighty 
stades in circuit; and this, I think, is not more than 
ought to be allowed to a city, inferior only by a little 
to Alexandria and to Rome. 

The military population of Antioch, in the reign of 
Demetrius, B. C. 145 or 144, according to the Ist of 
Maccabees“, amounted to not less than 120,000; which 
implies a gross population of not less than 480,000. 
When Antiochus Sidetes was defeated in Upper Asia, 
by the Parthians, (B.C. 130.) its population seems to 
be represented at 300,000, and more ©. 

But in the time of Chrysostom, a contemporary of 
Libanius, the δῆμος or people of Antioch as such, are 
plainly stated at 20 myriads, 200,000‘: and that this 
statement is correct,and must be understood of the whole 
of its free population in his time, appears from other 
statements, which occur in his works elsewhere; as 
that the numbers of the church at Antioch were 
100,000 ; the amount of the poor, or of such as stood in 
need of relief among its inhabitants, was a tenth part of 
the number, or 20,0008. In each of these statements, 
the women and the children would necessarily be in- 
cluded, as well as the men. 

Though we might suppose from the highflown and 
hyperbolical description of the grandeur, opulence, 
and prosperity of Antioch, which is given in the Ora- 
tio Antiochica of Libanius, that its numbers were 
never greater than in his time, yet I doubt whether 
there was much difference between them then and in 
the reign of Augustus. To assume them, therefore, as 
pretty nearly the same at each of these periods, we 
may observe how exactly proportionate the size of 


ἃ Ch. xi. 45. 47. e Excerpta Diodori, lib. xxxiv. Apud SS. Deperditos, ii. 
ee ‘ I0O—19. f Operum ii. 597. A. Homilia In δ. Ignatium Martyrem, 
g Operum vii. 810. A. in Mattheum Homilia lxxv. 4: and Ibid. 

Ger. 7 658. A. B. Homilia lxvi. 3. 


E 4 


56 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


Antioch with a free population of 200,000 is to that of 
Alexandria with one of 300,000, and to that of Rome 
with one of 320,000, at the same period of time. If 
such was the actual ratio of their free population, it is 
no wonder that they were usually reckoned to be al- 
most on a par with each other; and the third of them 
not much more inferior to the second, than the second 
was to the first. Making the same allowance for the 
mixture of slaves and strangers with the free popula- 
tion of Antioch, as we did for that of Alexandria, viz. 
in the proportion of one or two to one; if we must 
reckon the free population of Antioch about 200,000, 
we may estimate the gross population at three or four 
hundred thousand more; between five and six hundred 


thousand in all*. 


* The above conclusion is 
not inconsistent with certain 
facts relative to Antioch and its 
subsequent history—which oc- 
cur in Procopius and other au- 
thorities. For example, the 
fact that 300,000 of its inha- 
bitants perished in the earth- 
quake experienced by it in the 
reign of Justin I: Procopius, 
De Bello Persico, :i. 14. It ap- 
pears from Evagrius, E. H. iv. 
5. 383. C. that this earthquake 
happened May 29, A. D. 525 
or 526, and Marcellinus Comes 
dates it accordingly A.D. 526, 
in the eighth of Justin. We can 
hardly suppose it lost more than 
half of its population upon that 
occasion. Antioch was taken by 
the Persians under Chosroesinthe 
reign of Justinian, A. D. 540, 
and burnt by them to the ground. 
Procopius, De Bello Persico, ii. 
5—10. Cf. Evagrius Εἰ. H. iv. 
25.398. B—D. Perhaps it never 
recovered its splendour after that 
catastrophe, though Justinian 
rebuilt it, and gave it the name 


of Theopolis or Thetipolis: see 
Procopius, De Atdificiis, 11. το. 
Cf. Evagrius, Ecclesiastica Hist. 
i. 3. 258, D: though the latter 
authority indeed tells us it was 
rebuilt and called by its new 
name in consequence of a 
second earthquake, thirty months 
later than the former, the date 
of which was Nov. 29, A. D. 
528: and consequently coming 
within the reign of Justinian ; 
for that bears date from August 
1, A.D.527. See Evagrius, iv. 
6. 384. B: 9. 387. B. Another 
earthquake in which 60,000 of 
the inhabitants of Antioch were ~ 
reported to have lost their lives, 
is also recorded by Evagrius, 
Es H.. viv Seago." Casio 
sixty one years after the last 
mentioned, and consequently 
A. D. 589, in the seventh of the 
emperor Mauricius: and the 
number which perished on this 
occasion being so much smaller 
in comparison than that of those 
who perished on the former, 
it is some argument of the 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 57 


I shall conclude these observations with some re- 
marks, in the last place, on the probable magnitude 
of the city of Rome, or the extent of ground covered 
by it, at the period of time of which we have hitherto 
been treating. 

The form and construction of Rome, in the days of 
Augustus, and before the fire in U.C.817, A. Ὁ. 64, 
which destroyed either wholly or in part, ¢en out of its 
fourteen Regiones, are described by Tacitus, Ann. xv. 
40-44. And that it was rebuilt pretty much the same 
as before that accident, appears from Pliny, H. N. 
iii. 9. Publius Victor, Descriptio Urbis Rome, &c. * 

Dionysius of Halicarnassus tells us that the Pomee- 
rium of Rome, up to his time, had not been extended 
beyond the limits fixed to it in the reign of Servius 
Tullius»; and that the additions subsequently made to 
the magnitude of the city, consisted in the suburbs, or 
parts beyond the Pomcerium, and unenclosed by a wall. 
He observes also that the size of the city, in his own 
time, as collected from its original boundaries, was not 
much greater than that of Athens, exclusive of the 
Pirzeus': and Athens, as it might be shewn from va- 
rious authorities, so restricted, was about 60 stades in 
circuit*. After the time of Dionysius, however, (who 
wrote his history about U. C. 747,) the walls were en- 


gradual decay of the size and 
population of the city from that 
time to this. Perhaps no city 
in the empire ever suffered more 


record them, and to specify the 
order of their occurrence in the 
historical series of visitations of 


like kind. 


at different times from earth- 
quakes, than Antioch. Evagrius, 
himself a native of Antioch, and 
an eyewitness of many of these 
visitations, has been careful to 


* Cf. the description of Rome 
as it is given by Ammianus 
Marcellinus, xvi. ro. at the time 
of the visit paid it by Constan- 


tius, A. D. 356. 


h Ant. Rom. iv. 13. Yet both Syllaand Julius Cesar enlarged the Pomeerium 
more or less before the time of Dionysius. Cf. A. Gellius, xiii. 14. Dio, xliii. 50. 
(U.C. 710.) Tacitus, Annales, xii. 23, 24. i Ibid. iv. 13: ix. 68: Cf. Diony- 
sius Halic. Epitome, xii. 21: Ant. Rom. ii. 54. k Thucydides, ii. 13. and 
Schol. in loc.: Cf. Dio Chrysostom, Oratio vi. 199. δ. 253 xxv. 521. ὃ. 45; Ari- 
stides, Oratio xiii. 305. ὃ. 5. 


58 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


larged, so as at the time of the census, U. C. 826, in 
the reign of Vespasian, to embrace a compass of 13 
Roman miles at least. Cf. Pliny, H.N. iii. 9. p. 611. 

The suburbs of Rome, notwithstanding, extended at 
all times much beyond the limits of its walls. Were 
we to construe literally a passage in Aristides}, we 
should conclude that when he was writing, viz. in the 
reign of Antoninus Pius, a wall of 20 parasangs, or 600 
stades in extent, that is, 75 Roman miles, would have 
been requisite to compass the whole about. But there 
is no doubt that he is speaking of a figurative not a 
literal wall. 

The suburbs were actually enclosed, A. D. 271, in 
the reign of Aurelian ™*, by a wall of nearly 50 Roman 
miles in circumference: and we are further informed 
upon the authority of Olympiodorus, that just before 
the capture of the city by the Goths, A. D. 410, the 
διάστημα, or distance of the walls, being measured by 
the geometrician Ammon, was found to be 21 Roman 
miles". The shape of ancient Rome was semicircular, 
the circumference of the semicircle being formed by its 


* Jerome, in Chronico, dates 


ρώθη βασιλεύοντος Πρόβου τὸ τεῖ- 
this fact in the fourth of Aure- 


xos: sometime between A. D. 


lian, A. D. 274. and Vopiscus 
gives some countenance to the 
statement. The truth appears 
to be, that the enlargement of 
the walls was begun, A. 1). 271, 
but not finished until the Pomee- 
rium was advanced forwards 
A. D. 274, after Aurelian’s suc- 
cessful expeditions in the East. 
Cf. Aurelius Victor, and the 
Epitome,in Aureliano. Zosimus, 
1. p. 43 : ἐτειχίσθη δὲ τότε ἡ Ρώμη, 
πρότερον ἀτείχιστος οὖσα. καὶ λαβὸν 
τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐξ Δὐρηλιανοῦ, συνεπλη- 


1 “Ρώμης ᾿Εγκώμιον, Oratio xiv. 355. 3. 356. 2. 


30: Eckhel, vii. 479. 


270 and 276. The Fasti Ida- 
tiani, p. 29, date the commence- 
ment of the work, Coss. Aure- 
liano et Basso, A.D.271. Au- 
relius Victor, De Antonino 
(Caracalla) speaks of a ‘great 
accession as made to the city in 
his reign by the addition of the 
Via Nova; and De Aureliano, 
mentions that the distribution 
of pork to the Plebs Romana 
began to bear date from his 
reign downwards. Cf. the Epi- 
tome, and Zosimus, ii. p. 79. 


™ Vopiscus, Aurelianus, 21. 


n Photius, Codex 80. pag. 63. 1. 27. sqq. Olympiodori 


Historica. De Olympiodoro, see the introduction of the article by Photius, and 


Zosimus, Vv. p. 332. 


He was a native of Thebes in Egypt. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 59 


wall, the diameter by the Tiber; upon which both 
ends of the wall rested *. If the distance here alluded 
to is meant of the diameter of the semicircle, it implies 
that the circumference was about half as much more 
in extent as that; viz. 31 Roman miles. If it ex- 
presses the radius of the semicircle, or the distance of 
the extreme point at the centre of the circumference 
from the middle of the diameter, it implies that the 
entire circumference of the semicircle was about three 
of these radii, that is, 60 Roman miles. And this, I 
should consider, was the meaning of Olympiodorus ; 
because it is more agreeable to the statement of the 
circuit of the wall, from the time of Aurelian to his own, 
as attested by Vopiscus. If that circuit was 50 Roman 
miles, A. D. 271-300, it might be 60, A.D. 410: but 
if it was only 30, A. D. 410, it is scarcely conceivable 
that it could have been 50, A. D. 271. 

It must be confessed, however, that there are other 
particulars relating to the magnitude of Rome, in the 
same passage of Olympiodorus, which are so extra- 
ordinary as to throw discredit upon his testimony. 
For example; the fact that in a short time after the 
capture of the city by the Goths, when it was only 
beginning to recover itself from the shock given to its 
prosperity by that calamity, Albinus, the governor of 
Rome, wrote to the emperor to inform him that the 
usual allowance of corn to the people was no longer 
sufficient for the increase daily taking place in their 
numbers. As a proof of which he mentioned that 


* That Rome lay principally, Constantine: μὴ συνάψας πᾶσαν 
if not entirely, on one side of ἀπὸ τῆς ὄχθης τῆς πρὸς τῇ πόλει, 
the Tiber, appears from the ob- μέχρι τῆς ἄλλης. Cf. Procopius’ 
servation of Zosimus, ii. 86: account of the siege of Rome, 
with reference to the bridge A.D. 537. De Bello Gotthico, i. 
built over it by Maxentius,A.D. το. p. 93. 1. 18. sqq. 

312, against the approach of . 


60 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


14,000 children had been born in one day®. If these 
numbers in Photius are not grossly corrupted, we 
might well believe, upon the authority of such a state- 
ment, that Rome contained, or would soon come to 
contain, at this period of its history, 14,000,000 of in- 
habitants. 

Had the assertion been that 14,000 children were 
born in one year, it would have been perfectly credible, 
and consistent with what was probably the real state 
of the case: viz. that Rome at this period contained a 
free population of between 4 and 500,000. The con- 
tent of the Circus Maximus, for the same period, is 
represented by the anonymous author of the Descriptio 
Urbis Romee, before quoted, at 485,000, and by Pub- 
lius Victor, not long before, at 385,000. The propor- 
tion of new births in a Jarge population, like that of a 
crowded city, every year, may be reckoned about one 
thirtieth of the whole: on which principle, if 14,000 
children had been born at Rome in one year, about 
A. D. 411, Rome contained 420,000 free inhabit- 
ants. 

Whatever be the language in which contemporary 
writers speak of the numbers or magnitude of Rome, 
it is necessary to make great allowances for it: espe- 
cially if such things as very large and very populous 
cities, with some few exceptions, besides Rome it- 
self, were then uncommon. That it was the great- 
est and most populous city in the empire, and per- 
haps in the known world, for the time of Augustus, 
may indeed be admitted; and independent of the 
extent of ground actually covered by it, the houses 
were many stories high, and a number of families, or 
of different individuals, often lived in the same house, 


© Photius, Bibliotheca, ut supra, p. 59. 1. 30. sqq- 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 61 


upon the several floors or stories of it?: a circum- 
stance, however, not peculiar to Rome, but character- 
istic of many other cities of the empire. Yet Strabo 
tells us, it was a regulation of Augustus that no build- 
ing by the side of the public streets, should exceed 
seventy feet from the ground in height4; and Juvenal 
speaks of the third loft or story, apparently as the 
uppermost or highest of all’. 

There is no doubt too, that even within the walls of 
Rome, there was a variety of spaces (as lacus, campi, 
horti, fora, &c.) unoccupied by buildings; and still 
more, the site of buildings which could not in any wise 
contribute to the number of the inhabitants, such as 
baths, aqueducts, porticos, temples, courts, theatres, 
museums, amphitheatres, &c.; however much they 
might add to the size of the place in general; and 
that the houses of the Roman grandees or rich men 
were almost always of a magnitude very dispropor- 
tionate to the number of their owners δ. We read even 
that on two occasions, a single palace of the reigning 
emperor, first that of Caius, and afterwards that of 
Nero, was of such dimensions as to run round, or com- 
pass, the whole city'. 

Let us consider then, in the last place, the passage of 
Pliny", which describes the magnitude and extent of 
Rome, as it was in his time, U.C. 830. 

Meenia ejus collegere ambitu imperatoribus censori- 
busque Vespasianis anno conditz 826, pass. xiii. M. cc. 
Complexa montes septem, ipsa dividitur in regiones 
quatuordecim, compita Larium cclxv. ejusdem spatium, 


P Dionysius Halic. x. 32: Plutarch, Sylla, i: Tibullus, ii. vi. 3740: Strabo, 
Xvi. 2. δ. 23. 337: Vitruvius, De Architectura, ii.8 : Cf. Aschines, Oratio i. 124. 
ᾳ Lib. v. 3. δ. 7.166. Aurelius Victor, Epitome, De Trajano, tells us that Tra- 
jan afterwards limited this altitude to sixty feet; for the reasons there assigned. 
r Sat. iii. 199. s Cf. Photius, loc. cit. 63.17.sqq: Publius Victor, Descrip- 
tio, ὅτ. t Pliny, H. N. xxxvi. 24, 5: Suetonius, Nero, 31: Cf. Herodian, iv. 1. 
u H.N., iii. Ὁ: p. 611. 


62 Appendix. Dissertation Fifteenth. 


mensura currente a milliario in capite Romani Fori 
statuto, ad singulas portas, que sunt hodie numero 
triginta septem, ita ut duodecim semel numerentur, 
preetereanturque ex veteribus septem, qua esse desi- 
erunt, efficit passuum per directum xxx. m. DCCLXV. 
ad extrema vero tectorum, cum castris Preetoriis*, ab 
eodem milliario, per vicos omnium viarum, mensura 
colligit paulo amplius septuaginta millia passuum. quo 
si quis altitudinem tectorum addat, dignam profecto 
zstimationem concipiat, fateaturque nullius urbis ma- 
gnitudinem in toto orbe potuisse ei comparari. 

That the reading of xiii Roman miles for the extent 
of the walls as such, in this passage, is correct, appears 
from the testimony of the best manuscripts; and as to 
the rest of the description, which speaks of 30 miles 
and of 70 miles and upwards, distinct from these, I think 
it is to be explained consistently with the previous 
statement, as follows. 

In order to specify the mere perimeter or circuit of 
Rome, nothing more, it is manifest, could be done than 
to assign the length of its wall, as ascertained by the 
last measurement. But, in order to give an adequate 
idea of the extent of ground covered by it, or of the 
superficial content of the site of the city, as enclosed 
by its wall, Pliny adopts the method of supposing a 
person to start from the Milliarium aureum, the com- 
mon head of all the w@, or roads, which led from 
Rome, into the country, in any direction; and to fol- 
low the course of each road as far as the gate of the 
city by which it passed into the country, but no fur- 


* The Pretorian cohorts, as Tiberio. The site of this en- 
it is well known, were first campment it thus appears was 
formed into one encampment by Ad extrema tectorum ; but still 
Tiberius. See Tacitus, Dio, within the city. 

Suetonius, Aurelius Victor, De 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 638 


ther; and he gives, as he imagines, an adequate idea 
of the magnitude of the place, by telling us, that one 
who thus made the round of the roads, would have to 
travel 30 miles and upwards, per directum, from the 
milliarium ; and 70 miles and upwards, per vicos om- 
nium viarum, before he could even get out of the city. 
This would be in fact almost a three days’ journey. 

Of the ve or roads in question, all set out from the 
same point, the mzllarium aureum*, and all passed 
through some gate of the city or other. These gates 
Pliny tells us, were 37 in number; but that seven of 
them were no longer in being; that is, had either been 
blocked up, or rendered impassable, so that no roads 
passed through them. All the roads then passed 
through the remainder in general, which were 30 in 
number. Each of these roads, it is to be supposed, 
after setting out from the md/liarium, would proceed 
some distance ina straight line (per directum) ; though 
it is not less probable that each somewhere or other 
must diverge from that right line, in passing to the 
gate by which it left the city. 

Following each of the roads—only per directum, or 
in this first part of their course, a person would have 
to travel 30 miles and upwards; but following them 
through the whole of their course, not only along the 
straight line, but after they began to turn off, in one 
direction or another, per vicos omnium viarum, and ad 
extrema tectorum, (which I consider to mean, to the 
Pomerium as such, an open space within a certain 
distance of the wall, inside as well as outside of the 


* Erected by Augustus, U.C. ἴο have been the case, by Hero- 
734. Dio, liv. 8. Of the Via’ dian, ii. 34, and iv. 3. 
Sacra in particular this is proved 


Dissertation Fifteenth. 


64 Appendix. 


city, where the buildings would consequently end *,) 
he would have to travel upwards of 70 miles. 

We observe that of twelve of the thirty gates, Pliny 
says, Ut semel numerentur; which I understand to 
refer to this fact, that through each of these twelve 
gates, certain two or more of the roads in question 
passed : notwithstanding which, it was evidently neces- 
sary to Pliny’s argument, that in the general computa- 
tion of the distance to be travelled along each road, 
per directum, it should be so reckoned as though no 
more than one road passed through each gate. Publius 
Victor, it is true, and the other author above referred 
to, both state the number of we publice in their time 
at 29. But this is no proof that they might not be 
more numerous in the time of Pliny: as many as the 
gates of the city, when most numerous, or even more}. 

As the areas of circles, though proportional to, are 
not equal to, the squares of their diameters; if the 
diameter of the semicircular area of Rome was about 
nine Roman miles, in the time of Pliny, the area of 
the semicircle was about one half of 9 x 9, or 81 Ro- 
man miles; that is, about 40 square Roman miles. If 
we were to suppose the whole of this area to have 
been built upon with houses, and the ground floor of 
every house to have been only ten yards square, about 


* Pomeerium autem urbisest, 14. and Ammianus Marcellinus, 


quod ante muros spatium sub 
certa mensura dimissum est. sed 
et aliquibus urbibus et intra mu- 
ros simili modo est statutum, 
propter custodiam fundamento- 
rum, quod a privatis operibus 
obtineri non oportebit : Agge- 
nus Urbicus: in Frontinum de 
limitibus agrorum, (Rei Agra- 
rie SS. p. 58.) Cf. in particular 
Livy, i. 44. A. Gellius, xiii. 


XXVil. 9. p. 497. 

t In the course of time the 
number of gates would very 
probably decrease, and that of 
the Viz Publice also. Thus, 
when Rome was besieged by the 
Goths in the reign of Justinian, 
A.D. 537, Procopius, De Bello 
Gotthico, i. 19, speaks of the 
περίβολος as containing only 14 
πύλας, καὶ πυλίδας τινάς. 


On the Census Orbis at the Nativity. 65 


30,976 houses would have stood on every square mile; 
and about 1,239,040 houses, in the whole. This 
calculation makes no allowance for streets, or vacant 
spaces, or uninhabited buildings—or for the general 
inequality of the size of the houses in Rome, one 
compared with another, which we know to have been 
very considerable: and consequently as to the actual 
number of dwelling-houses in Rome, it is doubtless 
prodigiously beyond the truth. That number, at no 
time, probably amounted to 50,000. The anonymous 
author above quoted reckons the sum total of Insule and 
Domus at Rome (which together made up the aggre- 
gate of its inhabited dwellings) at 46,602 + 1,780; 
that is, 48,382 in all*. The calculation is proposed as 
one which, under the circumstances of the case, should 
be received as nearly tantamount to the number of 
the inhabitants both of Rome and of its suburbs: that 
‘Is to say, we could scarcely reckon for Rome itself in 
a calculation of dwelling-houses so made, half an in- 
habitant to each house: on which principle, the sum 
total of the population of Rome and of her suburbs 
in the time of Pliny might be computed at about one 
million, but not at much more. 


* Publius Victor, for the se-*® ber, has 45,795 Insule, and 
veral Regiones, fourteen in num- 1830 Domus, or 47,625 in all. 


VOT Li. Fr 


APPENDIX. 





DISSERTATION XVI. 


On the Jewish and Julian dates of the several years of the 
Jewish War. 


Vide Dissertation xv. vol. 11. page 65. line 16. 


BEFORE the reader proceeds to the details of the 
most melancholy septennium, or octennium, which is 
to be found in the history of the world; it will doubt- 
less be an acceptable service to him, if he is furnished 
with the means of reducing the Jewish dates, which 
repeatedly occur in Josephus’ account of these times, 
to their corresponding Julian ones. It is true, we had 
occasion to do this formerly in part; more especially 
for the years U. C. 819. and U.C. 823. It may not 
however be taken amiss, if I exhibit at once, in the fol- 
lowing calendar, for all the years in question, from U.C. 
819—U.C.826, the two cardinal dates in a Jewish year; 
the 15th of Nisan, and the 15th of Tisri respectively; 
by the assistance of which there is no difficulty in 
ascertaining any of the rest. This calendar, if its cor- 
rectness can be depended on, must unquestionably be 
useful to the general student of Josephus; as well as 
for one of the most interesting of his works, the Bel- 
lum Judaicum *. 


* It is not necessary, by way 
of preliminary to the calendar 
in question, that we should en- 
ter upon the controversy whie- 
ther the Jewish year was ori- 
ginally lunar or solar. ‘The pro- 
per place for such a discussion, 
had it been considered requisite, 


was Dissertation vii. of volume i. 
Whatever might be the primi- 
tive constitution of the Jewish 
year, there can be no doubt that 
for the period which coincides 
with the duration of the gospel 
history, and extends to the close 
of the Jewish war, it was purely 


Jewish and Julian dates of the Jewish War. 67 


The 15th of Tisri is necessarily to be deduced from 


lunar. The testimony of Philo 
Judzus, and of Josephus, alone 
is sufficient to place this fact be- 
yond dispute: and to theirs we 
may add that of the Book of 
Enoch ; (cap. 1xxii. lxxiii:) which 
will be so much the more valu- 
able, if, according to the opinion 
of the learned translator, the 
Book of Enoch was really writ- 
ten sometime in the reign of 
Herod the Great; before the 
birth of Christ. 

I cannot indeed subscribe to 
this opinion ; as I believe it ra- 
ther to be the production of 
an Hebrew Christian; though 
not later than the reign of Ha- 
drian. Upon this particular ques- 
tion, however, its testimony is 
clear and positive ; and it is fur- 
ther supported by the authority 
of Galen, (Operum ix. g. A. B.) 
The ἀκμὴ of Galen coincided with 
the beginning of the reign of 
Marcus Aurelius; for he tells 
us himself he was thirty-seven 
years of age about the seventh 
or eighth of that emperor’s reign. 
The Jewish year, the year at 
least which was observed in Pa- 
lestine in his time, was lunar ; 
consisting of three hundred and 
fifty-four days, or twelve months, 
every two of which contained 
fifty-nine days in all. 


The passages which were cited, 
in Dissertation vii. vol. i. p. 318, 
from the Agathobuli and from 
Aristobulus, prove that the same 
form of the civil year was in 
use among the Jews at a much 
earlier period. The author of 
the Book of Ecclesiasticus, xliii. 
6, 7, 8, bears similar testimony 
to the state of the case in his 
time: which was the beginning 
of the second century before 
Christ. And according to Ana- 
tolius, apud Eusebium, E. H. vii. 
32. 287 A. and to Basil, Ope- 
rum i. 80. C. in Hexaémeron 
Homilia vi. the year of the 
Jews was lunar from the first. 

In opposition to this weight 
of evidence, the authority of 
Syncellus, who certainly sup- 
poses the Jewish months to have 
been solar, consisting some of 
thirty, and others of thirty-one 
days, may justly be considered 
as good for nothing. I shall 
barely subjoin then the follow- 
ing statement of the names and 
order of the Syro-Macedonian 
months, which Josephus em- 
ploysas appellations for the lunar 
ones in use among his country- 
men: with references to the pas- 
sages, where their Jewish names 
occur, but to those only. 


τ sXtanshiCus «yee eee INISANE? Hai. 5 1} Ant. Jud. i. ii. 33) Wi xivs6: 1. x. 
5: πιθῖν, 8: 

2 Artemisius ........Jar FOO A ONAL sbbly Tes 

3 Dasius . : Sivan 

AeEAT CDOS -)ς - ὁ or οκοεῖς Thamuz 

Beuous (Hecatombreon)) AD... 6. τ το oe see iv. iv. 7 

GaGorpieush cis τς τε οι ἐς Elul 

7 Hyperberetzus...... JUSai5cb os oe 5.....- ᾿ς viii. iv. I. 

ΘΕ elk ee oe oes sles Marclresvantena au ecient a. ieee 

9 Apelleus, .:...5...; (Tebeth) Chasleu.......... xi. Ve 4: Xili. v. 4: vii. 6. 

10 Audeneus.......... Tebeth 

Tae EIS! op toooh doo se Sebat 

na ADVE ΡΠ a5 SETA 71... τ ττ|ν 725 ἦν iv. vill. 49: ΧΙ. iv. 7: Vi. 


1.3.3 ell eX ae 


68 Appendix. Dissertation Sixteenth. 


the 15th of Nisan: since from the nature of months, 
which consisted alternately of twenty-nine and of thirty 
days each, or vice versa, and were six in number, the 
177th day inclusive, from the 15th of Nisan exclusive, 
must fall on the 15th of Tisri. The 15th of Nisan, 
for the years in question, I obtain from eclipses calcu- 
lated in the Art de vérifier les dates; and eclipses in 
every instance so near to the paschal terms, March 18, 
and April 16, that the times of the mean full moons 
as thence deduced must represent, with very little 
error either of excess or of defect, the actual times of the 
true. I have added also the Dominical letter, and the 
day of the week; observing only, that though the 
former is actually the letter for the corresponding year 
of the solar cycle; the latter is two days in advance of 
the corresponding day of the week. 


U.C. 819. A. D. 66. D. Let. E. 15 Nisan. March 30. Tuesday. 
15 Tisri Sept. 23. Thursday. 
U.C. 820. A. D. 67. D. 15 Nisan. March 19. Saturday. 
15 Tisri. Sept. 12. Monday. 
U.C. 821. A. D. 68. C. B. 15 Nisan. April 6. ~ Friday. 
15 Tisri. Sept. 30. Sunday. 
U.C. 822. A. Ὁ). 69. A. 15 Nisan. March 26. Tuesday. 
15 Tisri. Sept. 19. Thursday. 
ὕ. 6. 823, A.D. 70. G. 15 Nisan. April 14. Monday. 
15 Tisri. Oct. 8. | Wednesday. 
U. C, 824. A.D. 71. F. 15 Nisan. April 8. Friday. 
15 Tisri. Sept. 27. Sunday. 
U.C.825. A. D. 72. E.D. 15 Nisan. March 22. Tuesday. 
15 Tisri. Sept. 15. Thursday. 
U. C. 826. A. D. 73. C. 15 Nisan. April 11. Tuesday. 
15 Tish: 0: Ὁ Thursday. 


This calendar expires with the recapture of Masada, 
the last act of the war in Judea, U.C. 826, on the 
15th of Xanthicus or Nisan; that is, Tuesday, April 
11: as, if we compute the duration of the war from 


Jewish and Julian dates of the Jewish War. 69 


one Jewish passover to another, it may be considered 
to have begun on the fifteenth of the same month, 
U.C. 819, Tuesday, March 30. 

The correctness of the above calculations for the 
years U.C. 819, U.C. 820, and U. C. 823, I think was 
abundantly proved in the Dissertation already referred 
to*, Its correctness for the year U. C. 821. may be 

further illustrated as follows. 

If the 15th of Xanthicus or Nisan fell that year on 
April 6, but the year before on March 19, this is 
enough to prove that the year was _ intercalated. 
Hence we might naturally expect, about the period of 
the passover, an allusion to the fruits of the ground as 
ripe. Such an allusion occurs Bell. Jud. iv. vii. 2. 

Again, if the 15th of Xanthicus fell on April 6, and 
the year was intercalated, the 4th of Dystrus would 
answer to the 4th of Veadar, and the 4th of Veadar 
to the 25th of February. About this time then the 
spring rains would naturally be at their height; and 
the Jordan might well be so much encreased by them 
as to be impassable. Accordingly, Bell. iv. vii. 3. 5. 
this appears to have been the case*. 

But perhaps the clearest proof that we have rightly 
assigned the 15th of Nisan, in these several years, to 
its corresponding Julian date, is supplied by what ad- 
mits of being established concerning the 15th of Ni- 
san, U. C. 822, in particular. It will follow as a ne- 
cessary consequence, that this 15th of Nisan is justly 
supposed to coincide with March 26, if the 15th of 
Tisri, corresponding to it, can be proved to have co- 
incided with September 19. And this, I think, ad- 


* Bell. iv. viii. 1. mention oc- The next year, U. C. 822. (when 
curs of the second of Desius. Vespasian again took the field, 
Nisan 15 coinciding withApril6, (Bell. iv. ix. 9.) Desius 5 coin- 
Desius 1 coincided with May21. cided with May 14. 

a Vide vol, i. p. 412—434. 
F 3 


70 Appendix. Dissertation Sixteenth. 


mits of being demonstrated; by the help of the date 
which Josephus assigns to the death of Vitellius—a 
certain day in the month Apelleus*, or rather, as 
we shall see by and by, Audeneus. The same proof 
also will make it appear that the Jewish months, be- 
ginning with Nisan, are much more probably to be 
reckoned in every year, (an unintercalated one, as well 
as an intercalated,) at twenty-nine and thirty days 
each alternately, than vice versa, at thirty days and 
twenty-nine. 

From the great minuteness with which Josephus 
has specified the lengths of the several reigns between 
the demise of Nero and the death of Vitellius, it is 
clear that he intended to be very exact in each of these 
instances; and to express their lengths not merely by 
months, but also by days. The integrity of his text, 
however, has suffered greatly throughout from cor- 
ruptions as to numbers: and no where more so than 
here. ; 

The rule which he follows, in stating the lengths of 
the reigns in question, is to reckon by calendar Julian 
months, and by those only: as may thus be demon- 
strated. 


I. The reign of Galba is stated at seven months and - 


as many days». The last day of the reign of Galba 
was XVIII. kal. Feb.¢ (Jan.15.) This computation, then, 
supposes it to have begun on the ninth of some month. 
Reckon backwards seven Julian months, and its be- 
ginning will coincide with June 9. The correctness 
of this conclusion is proved by what is asserted con- 
cerning the length of the reign of Nero. 

Nero is said to have reigned thirteen years and 
eight days’; in which assertion, as the text now 


Δ Bell. iv. xi. 4. » Bell. iv. ix. 2. Cf. Aurelius Victor, in Galba. Also the 
pitome, in eodem. ὁ Tacitus, Historie, i. 27. ἃ Bell. iv. ix. 2. 


Jewish and Julian dates of the Jewish War. 71 


stands, there is undoubtedly a great omission. The 
reign of Nero began October 13. 1]. (. 807. and he 
reigned full thirteen years, and almost eight months 
of a fourteenth’. Reckoned by Julian months, the 
eighth month of this fourteenth year would begin May 
13. U.C. 821. From that day inclusive, to the 9th 
of June znclusive also, are twenty-eight days exactly. 
I have no doubt that this is what Josephus meant; 
viz. that the reign of Nero expired, as the reign of 
Galba began, June 9, U.C. 821. His text then must 
have stood originally, τρισκαίδεκα ἔτη, μῆνας ἑπτὰ, καὶ 
ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ καὶ εἴκοσι----η' καὶ «x; not simply η΄ : a mode 
of notation which might easily be corrupted, especially 
if expressed by 7 καὶ κ΄, or even by κη. 

Again, the reign of Otho is computed at three 
months and two days®. According to Dio, Otho died 
on April 17, eleven days" before his birthday‘, April 
28. To this day znclusive, from January 15. pre- 
ceding it, reckoned as before, there are just three 
months and two days. It is clear, then, that Josephus 
reckons the day of his death as April 17. Hence it 
constitutes no objection that Suetonius supposes Otho 
to have died xcv imperii die*; which, dated from 
January 15 inclusive, would make his death to have 
happened April 19. That statement also might once 
have stood in Suetonius xciv imperii die; which, 
reckoned from January 15, as before, znclusive, would 
be only one day wide of the truth. Josephus is fur- 
ther confirmed by Dio, doco cifato, who computes the 
reign of Otho in general terms at ninety days *. 

* It is another example of of Claudius is stated at thir- 
Josephus’ mode of reckoning by teen years, eight months, and 


calendar or Julian months, that twenty days. This is exactly 
Ant. Jud. xx. viii. 1. the reign the interval of time between 


e Tacitus, Annales, xii.69. ἢ Dio, lxiii. 29. Suetonius, Nero, 40,1. & Bell. 
iv. ix. 9. h Dio, Ixiv. 15. i Suetonius, Otho, 2. k Otho, rr. 


F 4 


KYO 


la 


Appendix. Dissertation Sixteenth. 


On this principle, when Vitellius is said to have 
reigned eight months and five days', we must under- 
stand his eighth month to have expired December 16, 
U. C. 822, and his death to have happened December 
21, on the fifth day afterwards. Accordingly Dio also 
states him to have reigned a year, save fen days™; 
which the necessity of the case requires should be un- 
derstood to imply that he died on December 21. He 
asserts also that he survived his birthday eighty-nine 
days™. His birthday was either September 7, or Sep- 
tember 24", From the former znclusive, the eighty- 
ninth day would fall on December 4—but from the 
latter, on December 21: and we have the further as- 
surance of Tacitus®, that Vitellius was alive consider- 
ably after December 4. All these circumstances must 


concur to fix the day of his death to December 21.* 


January 24, U.C. 794, inclusive, 
and October 13, U.C. 807, in- 
clusive, so computed. 

* Dio, lxvi. 17, from the death 
of Nero, U.C.821, to July 1, 
U.C. 822, the first of Vespa- 
sian, it is reckoned one year, 
twenty-two days: which proves 
that Dio considered June 9g to 
be the date of Nero’s death. 

Hippolytus, Opera, 58. Chro- 
nicon, section xix. Nero’s reign 
is stated at 13 years, 8 months, 
28 days. So also by Clemens 
Alex. i. 406, 1. 16: Stroma- 
tum i. 21. Theophilus ad 
Autolycum, iii. 27. p. 387, puts 
it at 13 years, 6 months, 28 
days : Epiphanius, ii. 168 C: De 
Mensuris et Ponderibus, xii. at 
13 years, 7 months, 27 days. 
But Cassiodorus, in Chronico, 
computes it at 13 years, 7 


| Bell. iv. xi. 4, m Ixy. 22. 


n Suetonius, Vitellius, 3. 


months, 28 days, exactly. The 
same authority reckons the reign 
of Galba at 7 months: that of 
Otho at 3 months 5 days: that 
of Vitellius at 8 months 1 day. 
The intermediate date agrees 
with that of Suetonius: and as 
reckoned from April 19 exclu- 
sive, Vitellius’ reign would thus 
expire on December 20. 

Tacitus, Historia, 1. 18: Piso 
was adopted by Galba, January 10, 
U.C. 822. Ibid. 19. 27, he was 
killed four days after (which 
must be reckoned exclusively,) 
January 15, xvili Kal. February: 
for, ibid. 29, (cf. Plutarch, Galba, 
24,) it is said, in reference to 
the date of the adoption itself, 
on the very day of the death, 
Sextus dies agitur, &c. 

The arrival of Icelus, Plutarch, 
Galba, 7, in Spain, with the news 


© Historia, iii. 67. 


Jewish and Julian dates of the Jewish War. 13 


Now this day Josephus makes to coincide with the 
third of Apellzeus. Apelleus or Chasleu was the ninth 
month in the Jewish year, reckoned from Xanthicus 
or Nisan: and Tisri or Hyperberetaeus, was the se- 
venth. If the 15th of Nisan coincided with March 26, 
or (what is the same thing) the 15th of Tisri coincided 
with September 19; the 24th of September coincided 
with the 20th of Tisri, and the 3d of Apelleeus with the 
5th of November. But if Apellaus be reckoned at 
twenty-nine days, and the 3d of Apellaus coincided 
with the 5th of November: then the 29th of Apellaeus 
coincided with the Ist of December: and the 3d of 
Audenzus with the 4th of December: and the 20th 


of Audenzus with the 21st of December. 


of Nero’s death, seven days after 
that event, would be June 16; 
what Plutarch calls θέρος ἤδη. 
Plutarch, Otho, 18, also dates 
his reign at three months. Taci- 
tus, Historia, ii. 55. the Ludi 
Cereales were going on at Rome 
when news arrived of the event 
of his death. The old Roman 
calendar dates these games April 
Io or 12: and they were cele-. 
brated for six or seven days, as 
late as April 19. Cf. Ovid, 
Fasti, iv. 389, 393, 619—621, 
681. Cicero, Ad Atticum, ii. 12. 

If Otho died at Brixellum on 
the 17th of April, his death 
might easily be known at Rome 
on the nineteenth: and this is 
the most probable account of 
the mistake of Suetonius; that 
he has confounded the day on 
which the news of the death 
was received, with the day of 
the death itself. 

Tacitus, Historie, iii.67.begins 
to relate the circumstances of the 
death of Vitellius, from xv. Kal. 
Jan. Dec. 18; supplying the fol- 


Now either 


lowing notes of time, after (cap. 
69) the night of that day. 

Cap. 70, Luce prima, Decem- 
ber1g: 78, the Saturnalia, which 
began December 17, and lasted 
to December 21 at least : 79, the 
night of December 19, and the 
morning of December 20: 82, 
ad serum usque diem ; which is 
the end of December 20: 85, 
86, diem latebra... precipiti 
in occasum die: which seems to 
be spoken still of December 20, 
and certainly is to be under- 
stood either of that day or of 
the next. One of these two, 
then, according to Tacitus, De- 
cember 20 or 21, was the day of 
Vitellius’ death. 

Eutropius also, lib. vii. 18, 
supposes Vitellius tohave reigned 
eight months and one day. If 
he reckons these from the death 
of Otho, ninety-five days as he 
supposes after that of Galba, 
the first month began April 20, 
and the last expired December 
19, and Vitellius died on the 
20th. 


74 Appendix. Dissertation Sixteenth. 


of these dates per se might express the day of the 
death of Vitellius; but the latter only can be the true, 
or that which agrees both with Josephus’ own state- 
ment respecting the length of his reign, and also with 
the testimony of Dio and Tacitus. What remains, 
then, except to suppose that instead of τρίτῃ μηνὸς 
᾿Απελλαίου, Josephus either wrote, or intended to write, 
εἰκάδι μηνὸς Αὐδηναίου ὃ κ΄ μηνὸς Αὐδηναίου, not ry μηνὸς 
᾿ΑπελλαίουΡ How easily κ' might be mistaken for γ᾽ 
is too obvious to require proof *. 

But this supposes that the month Apellzeus con- 
sisted of twenty-nine days; for had it consisted of 
thirty, the 3d of Audenzus, the next month, must 
have fallen on December 5, and the 20th of Audenzeus 
on December 22; and this would place the death of 
Vitellius one day too late. If then we would avoid 
such an error at last, or in the final result of a compu- 
tation, which Josephus, as it is clear, intended should 
be precise and exact; we have no alternative except 
to suppose that Apellzeus consisted of twenty-nine 
days, not of thirty; and on the same principle Tisri 
also. 

I am aware that the contrary is the commonly 
received opinion; and therefore that it may appear 
presumptuous in me to venture to dissent from it. 
Nor should I have thought of dissenting from the 


* Such a mistake as the above, 
with reference to the name of a 
month, would not be unexam- 
pled in Josephus ; for, Ant. Jud. 
xi. v. 4: Apelleus is confound- 
ed with Tebeth, though both 
the Latin version in loco, and 
Ant. Jud. xii. v. 4, prove it to 
have been in reality the same 
with Chasleu. Josephus might 
confound Apellzus with Aude- 


neus, in this instance, intend- 
ing to express by either a cer- 
tain date in the Jewish month 
Chasleu, because παρὰ Μακεδόσιν, 
according to Suidas, in voce, 
Apellxus was reckoned the same 
with December, and so was 
Chasleu among the Jews. Au- 
denus, on the other hand, ac- 
cording to Suidas, zz voce, was 
the Macedonian January. 


Jewish and Julian dates of the Jewish War. "5 


common opinion, in this respect, unless there had 
seemed to be good grounds for a different conclu- 
sion. The contrary belief, if I mistake not, is found- 
ed implicitly on the authority of the modern Jewish 
calendar, the supposed composition of Rabbi Samuel, 
about the beginning of the third century after Christ’; 
which calendar, as I think, is no necessary criterion of 
the mode of reckoning among the Jews, or of the con- 
stitution of their calendar, in the time of Josephus; 
contemporary with the Gospel era. 

It is indifferent to the number of days between the 
15th of Nisan exclusive, and the 15th of Tisri znclu- 
sive, or vice versa, whether all the odd months in the 
Jewish year consisted of twenty-nine days, and all the 
even months of thirty; or the reverse. It is indifferent 
also to the question of the day of the week, or of the 
Julian day of the month, upon which a particular 
Jewish day would fall; except when that day belongs 
to one of the even months. And with respect even to 
these, the two modes of reckoning can never differ 
from each other by more than a single day in excess, 
or a single day in defect, respectively. For my own 
part, I have invariably gone upon the principle that 
the Jews observed such a rule in the division of their 
_ months into days, as was liable to the least fluctuation ; 
or would suit best to all possible contingencies. Now 
the month Nisan, under all circumstances, might con- 
sist of twenty-nine days only; but it could not, under 
all circumstances, consist of thirty. It might consist 
of twenty-nine in any year, whether an intercalated or 
an unintercalated one, indifferently; but it could not 
always consist of thirty. Though in a common year 
it consisted of thirty, yet in an intercalated year it 


Ρ Scaliger, Canonum Isagogicorum lib. i. cap. vi. 


76 Appendix. Dissertation Sixteenth. 


would consist of twenty-nine. Julius Africanus‘ in- 
forms us that, even in his time, the Jews intercalated 
thrice in every eight years, and on each occasion not 
less than thirty days; that is, eight times eleven days 
and six hours, or ninety full days, in eight years*. 
Moreover, it was not usual to intercalate, except be- 
tween Adar and Nisan, the last month and the first in 
the year. In such cases, the intercalated month, called 
Veadar, or second Adar, (like the Latin Bissextile, in 
Leap-year,) always consisting of thirty days, and al- 
ways coming after twelve complete lunations; Nisan, 
the next month to it, necessarily consisted of twenty- 
nine. 

The testimony of Galen, before referred to, is de- 
cisive as to the fact that in two successive Jewish 
months, there were comprised fifty-nine days in all, 
or two mean lunations; but it leaves it doubtful in 
what order, whether of thirty and twenty-nine, or of 
twenty-nine and thirty +. I have carefully examined 
Josephus’s History of the War, with a view to in- 
formation on the point in question; and though there 
is nothing express, or which is not left solely to im- 
plication, yet what I can discover makes in favour of 
the principle, upon which I have hitherto reckoned, 
rather than against it. 

For example, Bell. v. xi. 4, a computation occurs, 


* There is a plain reference 
to the use of the same octaéteric 
cycle (as we may presume among 
the Jews, the contemporaries of 
the author) in the Liber Enoch, 
chap. lxxili. 13—16. Cf. Suidas, 
*Eviautos, 

+ The same uncertainty ap- 
plies to the testimony of the 


Liber Enoch, chap. Ixxvii. 10: 
where it is said, that on stated 
months the moon has 29 days. 
Ibid. 19, 20, it is said it has 
three months of 30, and three of 
29 days, or 177 days, in 6 months. 
Compare chap. Ixxviii. 3. The 
order of these months, however, 
is not specified. 


ᾳ Πρ] αι Sacre, ii. 188. 


Jewish and Julian dates of the Jewish War. 77 


extending to seventeen days; from the twelfth to the 
twenty-ninth of Artemisius, which was the month next 
after Nisan. Had Artemisius consisted of twenty-nine 
- days only, I think Josephus would not have specified 
the twenty-ninth as such ; he would have called it the 
last day of the month. 

Again, vi. viii. 1. 4, he reckons it an eighteen days’ 
interval from the 20th of Lous the fifth month, to the 
7th of Gorpizus the sixth month; a reckoning which, 
at first sight, appears to make against us. For if 
Lous contained thirty days, then from Lous 20 inclu- 
sive, to Gorpieus 7 also znclusive, there would be just 
eighteen days. But in this year, which was U.C. 823, 
when the passover was celebrated April 13, it is mani- 
fest that there had been an intercalation; and Nisan con- 
sequently must have contained only twenty-nine days: 
in which case Ab or Lous which contained the same 
number with Nisan, could not have contained thirty. 
Besides which, the text of Josephus, in this instance, 
is corrupt; or he himself has fallen into an inaccuracy: 
for it is clear from the context, that the works which 
were begun on the 20th of Lous were completed on 
the 6th, and not on the 7th of Gorpizus. The attack 
was made on the 7th, as soon as the works were com- 
plete ; and the contest (which most probably began in 
the morning) did not cease until the night; and on 
the next day the capture of the city was completed. It 
is probable, then, that instead of ὀκτωκαίδεκα ἡμέραις, 
that is, ἐγ ἡμέραις, Josephus actually wrote, πεντεκαίδεκα 
ἡμέραις----ἰε΄ ἡμέραις : for nothing is more common in 
ancient manuscripts than the corruption of ε into ἡ; or 
vice versa. In this case, if the works were actually 
begun on the 20th of Lous, and Lous contained only 
twenty-nine days; their completion might actually 
fall on the fifteenth day after, which would thus be 


Appendix. Dissertation Sixteenth. 


78 


the 6th of Gorpizus: just as a similar undertaking, 
begun on the 12th of Artemisius, was said to be finish- 
ed in seventeen days’ time; viz. on the 29th. 


Again, vi. iv. 8, the duration of the second temple, . 


from the time of its being built to the time of its 
destruction, is reckoned at six hundred and thirty-nine 
years, and forty-five days. With the number of years 
we have no concern at present ; but the number of days 
is manifestly and grossly corrupted. Josephus could es- 
timate the number of days from no canonical date but 
that of Ezra vi. 15, which asserts that the second temple 
was finished on the ¢hird of Adar, in the sixth year of 
Darius the king; and he could conduct it downwards 
to no date but the 10th of Lous; on which day he 
himself places its destruction. Now if we reckon 
Adar at thirty days, from the 3rd of Adar exclusive, 
to the 10th of Lous or Ab enclusive, there are exactly 
one hundred and fifty-five days: a number which 
would be expressed by pve, or PNE; and as so ex- 
pressed, and preceded by ἡμέραι, might be corrupted 
into ue, or ME, merely. But we cannot reckon Adar 
at thirty days, without reckoning Nisan or Xanthicus 
at twenty-nine *. Hence, if Josephus in this calcula- 
tion implies the former, he necessarily implies the latter. 


* Omissions of one number 
among others, and that generally 
the principal or leading number, 
are not uncommon in _ Jose- 
phus. Thus the millenary num- 
ber is wanting, Contra Api- 
onem i. 31; where the age of 
Moses is specified as 518 years 
before some date or other ; 
which being in all probability 
the date of the work itself must 
imply an antiquity of 1518 
years at least. Again, there is 
a like omission, Ant. vi. xili. 10, 
where David is made to have 


stayed with Achish at Gath or 
in Ziklag four months, twenty 
days only ; instead of one year, 
four months at least; which 
1 Sam. xxvii. 7. proves to have 
been actually the case, though it 
must be admitted that the o’ have 
only four months also. But the 
most indisputable omission is at 
Ant. xii. v. 5: the 46th year 
ἄν. Sel. there mentioned should 
undoubtedly be the 146th: which 
shews the centenary number to 
be wanting. 


Jewish and Julian dates of the Jewish War. 719 


In the printed text of the Antiquities, xi. iv. 7, the 
same date which Ezra expressed by the third of Adar 
is called the 23rd. From this date exclusive to the 
10th of Lous tnclusive, or vice versa, the interval is 
one hundred and thirty-five days; Adar or Dystrus, 
which Josephus makes synonymous, and both to be 
the twelfth month in the Jewish year, being reckoned 
at thirty days as before. In these different statements 
there is great apparent confusion ; but it must be clear 
from any of them, that the centenary number is want- 
ing in the passage cited from the War; and that Adar 
was a month of thirty days. And perhaps every thing 
may be cleared up at once, if we suppose merely that, 
in his copy of Ezra, Josephus read the 13th of Adar ; 
and not the 3rd, and wrote cy’, not Ὑ: according- 
ly: (for in that case the number of days from Adar 
13 to Lous 10 would be strictly 145:) or that he con- 
founded in his memory at the time the 3rd of Adar 
with another memorable date in the same month, the 
13th of Adar, (1 Mace. vii. 43. 49. 2 Macc. xv. 36,) 
which would lead to the same conclusion *. 

With regard, however, to the general question which 
relates to the number of days in the Jewish Nisan; 
perhaps the following passage from Josephus supplies a 
decisive argument. According to the sacred narrative, 
the day when the Israelites were provided with quails 
was the fifteenth of Jar; (see vol. iv. 466.) according 


* The same date indeed which 
is assigned to the completion of 
the temple in Josephus, appears 
also in the first book of the 
Pseudo-Esdras, vii. 5: from 
which the Antiquities, at this 
period of the history, may be 
seen upon comparison to have 
borrowed the greater part of 
their accounts, in preference 


even to the canonical book of 
Ezra. Whether ¢his date in par- 
ticular was borrowed from that 
book may be doubted ; for where- 
as 1 Esdras vil. 5. places the 
completion on the 23d of Adar 
in the stzth of Darius, Ant. xi. 
iv. 7, places it on the same day 
in the ninth. 


80 Appendix. Dissertation Sixteenth. 


to Josephus it was the τριακοστὴ ἡμέρα, dated from the 
Exodus. Now he places the Exodus distinctly on the 
fifteenth of Nisan. Hence, he must have supposed 
Nisan to contain ¢wenty-nine days only: for had he 
reckoned it to contain thirty, the jifieenth of Jar in- 
elusive would have been the thirty-first from the fif- 
teenth of Nisan inclusive. Nor can it be said that he 
reckons the day of the Exodus exclusively, and the 
day of the supply of quails inclusively ; or vice versa: 
for in another passage immediately preceding, he tells 
us that the length of time, during which the people 
subsisted on the supply of food originally brought out 
of Egypt, was just thirty days, and no more. The 
day of the Exodus was the first of this number, and 
the fifteenth of Jar was the last. Vide Ant. Jud. ii. 
xvid, & and in. 183: 

The objection, which might be taken from the use 
of the term τριακὰς, in reference to the last day of 'Tisri 
or Hyperberetzeus, U.C. 819, has been obviated else- 
where’, That term might be used ἁπλῶς in its second- 
ary sense, for the last day of any month as such, 
whether properly the 30th, or only the 29th. Besides 
which, it is a well established fact that the Syro-Mace- 
donian months actually consisted of not less than 
thirty days each; and as Josephus applies the names 
in vogue for them, to describe and distinguish the 
lunar months in use among his countrymen, nothing 
was more natural than that he should (whether de- 
liberately or inadvertently would make no difference) 
give to the last day of Tisri as such, (though that 
might be merely the 29th of the month,) the proper 
denomination for the last day of Hyperberetzus as 
such; which could be only the 30th. In the mean 
time, the argument from the date which he ascribes to 


4 Dissertation xii. vol. i, 430. 


. 


Jewish and Julian dates of the Jewish War. 81 


the death of Vitellius, Audenzeus 3, if that death 
happened on December 4, and Audenzus 20, if it hap- 
pened on December 21; remains the same, and leads 
to the same inference as before, that Apelleeus or Chas- 
leu, and consequently Hyperberetzeus or Tisri, in the 
year of the death of Galba, U.C. 822, must have con- 
sisted of twenty-nine days each. Now this year was 
cavus ; that is, not intercalated. But if Tisri in an 
unintercalated year consisted of only twenty-nine days, 
a fortiort, in an intercalated year it would consist of 
the same number: and if Tisri, then Nisan; and all 
the odd months in the Jewish year besides. 

Nor do I consider it any difficulty that 2 Mace. xi. 
30. makes mention of the 30th of Xanthicus. For 
that is in the course of a letter from king Antiochus 
to the Jews, and as part of the terms of that document 
itself. The computation of months and days, which 
such a document would follow, would necessarily be 
the Syro-Macedonian; and according to that compu- 
tation Xanthicus, which ranked as the sixth month 
in their year, was a month of thirty or thirty-one 
days*. Vide De Anno et Epochis, Dissertatio i. 
p- 22. 

* The τριακὰς of the month Diodorus Sic. xviii. 56: τοὺς δ᾽ 
Xanthicus is similarly alluded ἄλλους καταδεχέσθωσαν πρὸ τῆς 


to in the letter of Polysperchon τριακάδος τοῦ Ξανθικοῦ μηνός. 
to the Grecian states, B.C. 319, 


VOL. IV. G 


APPENDIX. 





DISSERTATION XVII. 


Chronology of the Historia Naturalis of Pliny. 


Vide Dissertation xv. vol. 11. page 77. line 20. 


SOME of the passages in the Historia Naturalis, by 
which its chronology admits of being determined, were 
produced in the fifteenth Dissertation of the present 
work. The additional notices dispersed throughout it, 
upon which a similar argument might be built to ascer- 
tain the precise year of its composition, may be col- 
lected and arranged as follows. Many of them are 
and must be absolutely indefinite; and others in their 
present state are very probably corrupt: yet a consi- 
derable part of them will be found to confirm the con- 
clusion before established, that the true date of the 
work is U. C. 829, or U. C. 830. 

Ita enim verius dixerim: quoniam audio et Stoicos, 
et Dialecticos, Epicureos quoque, (nam de Grammaticis 
semper expectavi,) parturire adversus libellos, quos de 
Grammatica edidi, et subinde abortus facere yam decem 
annis, cum celerius etiam elephanti pariant ἃ. 

The work de Grammatica, alluded to here, seems to 
be the same which Pliny the younger describes under 
the title of Dubie Sermonis, consisting of eight books ; 
and which he tells us was written sub Nerone, novis- 
simis annis>, If it was written only ten years before 
U. Ὁ. 830, it would still be written U.C. 820, in the 
thirteenth of Nero. 

Hac nunc celesti passu cum liberis suis vadit maxi- 


ἃ Ad Divum Vespasianum Preefatio; p. 25. > Epistole, iii. v. §. 5. 
᾿ " 3 ὃ 


Chronology of the Historia Naturalis. 83 


mus omnis evi rector, Vespasianus Augustus*’—Intra 
ducentos annos Hipparchi sagacitate compertum est, 

Nam ut quindecim diebus utrumque sidus quzre- 
retur, et nostro zvo accidit, Imperatoribus Vespasianis 
patre iv. filio iterum Consulibus®. This fact, then, 
happened 1]. C. 825. 

Nec minus mirum ostentum et nostra cognovit ztas, 
anno Neronis principis supremof. 

Mutianus ter Consul’. This description of Mucian 
as ter consul is of standing occurrence throughout the 
work Vide ΠΟ viii. 9.: ἈΠΕ Sst xiih 97) xiv. Gi 
ei (9) 2) mix: 2s sect. 27 xxvii) Sis) xxxive ΤΥ 6 His 
second consulship is alluded to, xxxv. 46, whence it 
appears to have been not long after U. Ὁ. 822. The 
Fasti shew it U.C. 823. It might be inferred too, 
from xvi. 79, Mucianus, ter consul, ex his qui proxime 
viso eo scripsere, that his third consulate was still a re- 
cent event. The Fasti, accordingly, shew him Consul 
iii. U.C. 828. Dio, lxvi. 13-15, proves that he was at 
Rome about U.C. 827: and Tacitus, De caussis cor- 
ruptz eloquentiz, 37, observes: Nescio, an venerint in 
manus vestras hzc vetera que ...cum maxime a Mu- 
ciano contrahuntur : ac jam undecim, ut opinor, Acto- 
rum libris et tribus Epistolarum composita et edita 
sunt. This cum maaxime refers (cap. 17.) to the sixth 
of Vespasian; U. C. 827-828. 

Universze Hispanize Vespasianus Imperator Augu- 
stus jactatus procellis reipublicee Latii jus tribuit »— 
Itemque a Vespasiano Imperatore eodem munere do- 
natum Icosion'—Cesarea. . .nunc colonia prima Flavia, 
a Vespasiano Imperatore deducta... Neapolis quod 
antea Mamortha Ἶ. 

\ The epoch of the foundation of Neapolis is placed 
c Ἡ. Ν. ii. 5. ἃ ii. το. 6 ii. το. f ii, 85. Vide also ii. τού, and 
xvii. 38. & il. τού. h iii. 4. it Vite J v.14. 


G 2 


84 Appendix. Dissertation Seventeenth. 


by Eckhel* U.C. 825, or U.C. 826. At the same 
time a colony might be planted in Ceesarea. The pe- 
riod of these events in general seems to have been the 
duration of Vespasian’s censorship!, from U.C. 825— 
827. 

Triginta prope jam annis notitiam ejus (sc. of 
Britain) Romanis armis non ultra vicinitatem silvze 
Caledoniz propagantibus ™. 

It does not appear to what ἀρχὴ this date is referred. 
But, if we reckon back from U. C. 828 or 829, it may 
be the time of the invasion of Britain by Claudius, 
U. C.'796, or it may refer to the close of that war, 
U. C. 803, the ninth year according to Tacitus, after 
its commencement: Tacitus, Annales, xii. 36. One 
thing is certain; the successes of Agricola in Britain 
had not been gained in Pliny’s time. 

Proximo bello, quod cum Censibus Romani gessere, 
auspiciis (al. initiis) Vespasiani Imperatoris®. 

Et libera Mitylene annis M.D. potens °—Nuper Vo- 
logesus rex aliud oppidum Vologesocertam in vicino 
condidit P. 

Ante annos prope mille—Ante millia annorum4: 
the first of which relates to the age of Homer, the 
latter to that of Hesiod. But what date of these ages 
respectively Pliny followed is left uncertain, except 
that he must have considered them nearly contempo- 
rary. 

Agrippina Claudii Cesaris turdum habuit....imi- 
tantem sermones hominum cum hee proderem*". With 
this however we must compare another passage ; 
Scio sestertiis sex candidam. . .vaenisse, quie Agrippinz 
Claudii Principis conjugi dono daretur 5. 


k Doctrina Numorum Veterum, iii. 436. 1 Vide Eckhel, vi. 330—333. 
DAY οἶἰ80. ny. 5. Cf. Solinus, Polyhistor, xxix. §. 6. ον. 39- P vi. 30. 
4 vil. 16. xiv. 1. Y xX. 59. 5 xX. 43. 


/ ἥς 


Chronology of the Historia Naturalis. 85 


Nune quoque erat in urbe Roma, hec prodente me, 
equitis Romani cornix e Beetica*. 

Cn. Matius.. Divi Augusti amicus, invenit nemora 
tonsilia intra hos Lxxx annos’. LHighty years before 
U. C. 830, or U. C. 829, would be 1]. C. 749, or U.C. 
750, when Augustus was still alive. 

Qui mea etate legati ex Arabia venerunt ἃ. 

Ita sunt longinqua monumenta Tiberii Caiique 
Gracchorum manus, que apud Pomponium Secundum 
vatem civemque clarissimum vidi annos fere post Cc.* 
Compare with this passage xiv. 6. 

Interiit nuper incendioY—Septimo hine anno”. 

Hisce xx annis mercato rus... intra octavum annum 
...intra decimum fere cure annum**—Intra xxx 
annos reperta»—Intra centum annos inventa Greca- 
nica °—Hee observatio triginta jam fere annis non 
congruit ἃ, 

Separatim toto tractatu sententia ejus (Catonis sc.) 
indicanda est, ut in omni genere noscamus que fue- 
rint celeberrima anno sexcentesimo urbis, circa captas 
Carthaginem ac Corinthum, quum supremum is diem 
obiit, et quantum postea CCXXx annis vita profecerit ©. 

This is a very plain indication of the age of the 
work; for it makes 230 years’ interval between U. C. 
600 and the time of the writer: and it is confirmed 
by another equally plain; Ea omnia approbantibus 
octingentorum triginta annorum eventibus: with 
which we may compare also, L. Opimio consule... 
natali urbis DCXXXIII (vide xiv. 16.) durantque ad- 
hue vina ducentis fere annis*‘—Hee nunc circiter 


* If Seneca bought this vine- Pliny was writing, he must have 
yard about ten years before bought it U.C. 818. 


t x. 60. Vv xii. 6. ἃ xii. 31. X xiii. 26. Y xili. 29. Z xiv. 4. 
a χῖν. 5. b xv. If. © xvill. 74. d xxxvi. 15. sect. 6. e xiv. 5. Vide 
also xxix. 8. f xxviii. 3: xiv. 6. 


Ἔ 5) 


86 Appendix. Dissertation Seventeenth. 


annum ccccL (referred to U. C. cccLxtx) habets. 
If the reading here is not corrupt, the time of the al- 
lusion becomes U. C. 819. But Harduin reads in the 
one case U. C. 379, as well as in the other 450: which 
makes the time of the allusion U. C. 829. 

Utpote quum tota Asia exstruente quadringentis 
annis peractum sit (aliter 220. compare xxxvi. 21)— 
Et jam quadringentis prope annis durare a 

Utica ...ita ut posite fuere, prima urbis ejus ori- 
gine, annis mille centum octoginta octo! (ad marginem 
Lxxvul.*) If the date of the work was U.C. 829, 
A. D. 76, the foundation of Utica would thus be placed 
B. C. 1113, only seventy years later than the commonly 
received date of the capture of Troy. Utica was a 
Phoenician colony, as well as Carthage; and it is not 
an improbable conjecture that many of the dates as- 
signed to the foundation of the latter, especially those 
which place it within the first century after the cap- 
ture of Troy, are really dates of the foundation of 
Utica. 

Theophrastus .. cuncta cura magna persequutus 
σοσχα. (aliter ccccxc.) annis ante nos‘. Now, xiii. 
30, and xv. 1, Theophrastus’ age is placed U. Ὁ. 440: 
so that the time of this allusion is U. C. 440 + 390 or 
830. 

Quo duo consulares obiere, condentibus hze nobis, 
eodem anno, Julius Rufus, et Quintus Lecanius Bas- 
sus!. Bassus was consul U.C.817, and Rufus U.C.820. 

In hisce xx annis™—Milium intra hos decem an- 
nos ex India in Italiam invectum est"— Id eo ipso 
anno quum commentaremur hzec® etc.—Aistate .. pro- 
xima Valerius Marianus?)— Et paulo ante Julium Vin- 


* This reading is adopted by Harduin. 


& xvi. 85. h xvi. 79. ΕΛ 70. k xix. Io. 1 xxvi. 4. Vide also 
XXXVi. 69. Mm xiv. 4. N xviii. 10. §. 3. © xviii. 57. PD xixe ἥν 


Chronology of the Historia Naturalis. 87 


dicem adsertorem illum a Nerone libertatist— An- 
nzeum Serenum przefectum Neronis vigilum'— _ Sicut 
proxime Annzum Gallionem fecisse post consulatum 
meminimus*— A‘tas nostra vidit in Capitolio, prius- 
quam id novissime conflagravit, a Vitellianis incen- 
sum ‘. 

Again, the dedication of the Capitol, or of the Tem- 
ple of Peace, is alluded to in all the following places : 
xii. 42. xxxiv. 19. §. 24. xxxv. 36. ᾧ. 6. 20. xxxvi. 5. 
§. 8. 11. 24. §. 15 allusions so much the more valu- 
able, because they prove that no part of the work be- 
tween lib. xii. 42. and lib. xxxvi. 24. could have been 
composed earlier than U. C. 828, at which time, but 
not before, Dio" shews that the dedication in question 
took place. The nineteenth book, which contains the 
mention of the death of Lupus, comes between these 
extremes; and therefore must have been written be- 
tween U. C. 828 and U. C. 830. 

It is some argument also of the date of the Natural 
History, that we find in it no mention of the story of 
Sabinus, and his concealment in a cave for nine years; 
a story otherwise so remarkable, that had Pliny known 
of it, he would not have failed to notice it. Tacitus, 
Historie, iv. ὅδ, Sabinus was at large, and implicated 
in the rebellion of Civilis in Gaul, U.C. 823. eneunte ; 
and this being the first of the nine years in question, 
U. C. 831, or U. C. 832, was the last. Confer Dio, 
Ixvi. 3. ad U. C. 823, and Ibid. 16. ad 1]. C. 831: also 
the Amatorius of Plutarch, Operum ix. 86—89. The 
story therefore did not come to light, (though it did in 
the reign of Vespasian,) before the Natural History 
had been written and published *. 


* It is also to be observed _ iii. v. in his list of the works of 
that Pliny the younger, Epistole, his uncle, enumerates his Natu- 


αἰ χα. 57: τι X64 175 5 Xxxi. 33. t xxxiv. 17. ἃ Ixvi. 15. 


G 4 


88 Appendix. Dissertation Seventeenth. 


Lastly, there is an allusion in the Natural History 
to the death of Virgil, which I have purposely re- 
served for this place: Atque hee Virgilii vatis etate 
incognita, a cujus obitu xc. aguntur anni*. The MSS. 
exhibit no variation in the reading here: so that it is 
a gratuitous supposition to assume the incorrectness 
of the number in the text; or to propose to alter it 
for xcIv. or xcv. It is the opinion, therefore, of Har- 
duin, 7 doc. that the common date for the death of 
Virgil, U. C. 735, is wrong; and should be superseded, 
on the authority of this passage, by that of U. C. 739, 
or U.C. 740. ‘The time when Pliny was writing, 
especially in this part of the Natural History, being 
U. C. 830, ninety years before that time cannot be 
earlier than U. C. 739, or U. C. 740. 

The received date of the death of Virgil rests on 
the credit of his biographer, the Pseudo-Donatus, four 
hundred years posterior to the beginning of the Chris- 
tian era; whereas Pliny was writing only seventy-six 
or seventy-seven years after it. So long as the sound- 
ness of the present reading, XC, remains unquestioned, 
I do not see how we can avoid the conclusion that 
Virgil was alive five years later than the supposed 
year of his death. The consideration of this point at 
full length would require more time and space than I 
should be justified in bestowing upon it. I will men- 
tion, however, one or two arguments, which induce me 
to concur in Father Harduin’s opinion, as above stated. 

First, and chief, the twelfth ode of the fourth book 
of Horace, beginning, 


ral History last of all. This is have written something else— 
an argument that he had not had he finished this work ear- 
finished it before U.C. 830. So lier—before his death, in Sep- 
laborious and productiveawriter, tember U.C. 833. 

it might be supposed, would 


X xiv. 3. 


Js 


Chronology of the Historia Naturalis. 89 


Jam veris comites, que mare temperant, 

is addressed to Virgil. This book, as we are told by 
Suetonius, in his short memoir of the Life of Horace, 
was not published until a long time after the three 
preceding ones ; and it contains internal evidences that 
it was published, U. C. 738, or U.C.'739. The first 
ode itself proves that Horace was fifty when he pub- 
lished it, or nearly so: (i. 4, 5, 6:) and he was fifty 
complete, Dec. 8, U. C.739. I have had occasion to 
refer to several of the odes collected in this book ; and 
to shew, from contemporary history, that they could 
not have been written before this year, or the preced- 
ing. Thus ode ii. 3336: iv. xiv. the reduction or 
expected reduction of the Sicambri, the actual reduc- 
tion of the Rheti and Vindelici by Tiberius and 
Drusus, are distinctly referred to, and placed four- 
teen or fifteen years after the capture of Alexandria, 
τ). C. 724: that is, U. C. 738, or U.C.739. The latter 
of these statements Strabo and Dio prove to be histo- 
rically true*. 

Compare the Consolatio ad Liviam, a piece written 
U. C. 745, in the year of Drusus’ death. 

15. Ile modo eripuit latebrosas hostibus Alpes, 

Et titulum belli dux duce fratre tulit. 


Ille genus Suevos acre, indomitosque Sycambros, 
Contudit, inque fugam barbara terga dedit. 
And also, 
311. Nec tibi deletos poterit narrare Sycambros, 
Ensibus et Suevos terga dedisse suis. 
Fluminaque et montes, et nomina magna locorum: 
Et si quid miri vidit in orbe novo. 
In like manner, Horace, Carminum Lib. iv. ode v. 
beginning, 
Divis orte bonis, optime Romulz 
* The reduction of the Sy- Horace allude to it here as a 
cambri was not fully completed past event, but only as an ex- 


before U.C. 743. See Disserta- pected one. 
tion xiv. vol. ii. 481. Nor does 


90 Appendix. Dissertation Seventeenth. 


has been shewn to be later than Augustus’ departure 
into Gaul, U. C. 738. (vol.i. 501.) In short there is 
no ode in this fourth book, which supplies any histo- 
rical data for determining the time when it was written, 
but what must be referred to this period. 

What shall we say, then, to the twelfth ode, ad- 
dressed to Virgil? It is not the practice of Horace to 
address odes to persons, who were dead, as if they were 
alive; nor to publish odes, as so addressed, after the life- 
time of the parties addressed in them. Unless, then, it 
can be shewn that this fourth book of Odes was not 
published U. C.'738, or U. C. 739; or, though it was 
then published, that the twelfth ode, addressed to Vir- 
gil, was published after his death; Virgil was alive 
U. C. 738, or U. C. 739, three or four years later than 
the supposed year of his death, U. C. 735. 

Again, both Donatus and Servius (Prefatio ad 
Aneidem) tell us that Virgil was three years employed 
on his Bucolica, seven years on his Georgica, and eleven 
or twelve on his ποιά. Now both these writers also 
tell us, (Servius, ad Eclog. x. and ad Georgic. iv.) 
that the conclusion of the last Georgic, which at pre- 
sent is taken up by the episode of Aristzeus, was ori- 
ginally devoted to the praises of Cornelius Gallus; but 
that when he fell under the displeasure of Augustus, 
either at the command of Augustus, or from a sense of 
delicacy on the part of Virgil, it was superseded by 
the episode in question. It is implied in this tradition, 
that the Georgica were not finished before Gallus fell 
under the displeasure of Augustus; and that was not 
until U. C. 728 : 

Tu quoque, si falsum temerati crimen amici, 
Sanguinis atque anime prodige Galle tue ; 
Ovid, Amorum iii. ix. 63. Cf. Propertius, ii. xxxiv. 91. 
for, being disgraced and banished in that year, he 
committed suicide. 


Chronology of the Historia Naturalis. 91 


If Virgil, then, had not completed his Georgica be- 
fore 1]. C. 728, the eleven or twelve years’ composition 
of his Aneid will bear date from no earlier time than 
U. C. 729, which agrees exactly with Pliny’s date for 
his death, U.C. 739, or U.C. 740. There is internal 
evidence in the Georgica themselves, that the final 
hand was not put to them before this time*. In parti- 
cular, the exordium of the third Georgic, from line 10 
downwards, contains clear allusions to the institution 
of the Ludi Actiact, U.C. 726; to Augustus’ triumph, 
U.C. 725; to conquests, or projected conquests, in 
Britain, U.C. 727; to the reduction of the Cantabri, 
and we may almost say, the closing of the Temple of 
Janus, U.C.729: which even Servius and Philargy- 
rius understand accordingly. True it is, this exordium 
might have been written when the whole work was 
completed ; and so, perhaps, it was: but even this will 
prove that the whole was not completed before U.C. 
728, or U.C. 729. 

Again, the epigram of a contemporary poet, Domitius 
Marsus, on the death of Tibullus, 

Te quoque Virgilio comitem non xqua, Tibulle, 
Mors juvenem campos misit ad Elysios : 
Ne foret, aut elegis molles qui fleret amores, 
Aut caneret forti regia bella pede, 
shews the death of Virgil and Tibullus to have been 
nearly coincident in point of time. What I would 
observe upon, in reference to that of the latter, is, that 
Tibullus is called juvents, when it happened. Those 
who are acquainted with the classical sense of juvenis, 
know that it expresses the age next after adolescens, 
and could not with propriety be bestowed until a per- 
son was ¢hirty at least; though it might continue to 


* The Aineid too in like i. 291—296, compared with viii. 
manner supplies internal evi- 714—728, and vi. 861—887. 
dence that it was not begun be- Cf. Servius, zn (oc. 
fore U. C. 729, especially Aneid 


92 Appendix. Dissertation Seventeenth. 


be given him until he was forty or more. Virgil him- 
self supplies an instance of this at the close of the 


fourth Georgic. 
Carmina qui lusi pastorum, audaxque juventa, 
Tityre, te patulee cecini sub tegmine fagi. 
That is, he was juvenisy, as such, when he began and 
concluded his Bucolica. Servius tells us accordingly 
(Preefatio ad Bucolica: ad Eclog. i. 29: ad Georgic. iv. 
565.) that he was twenty-eight when he set about them. 
There is no reason to call in question the received date 
of the birth of Virgil, Oct. 15, U.C. 684. Coss. Pompeio 
et Crasso, which is confirmed by the testimony of Phle- 
gon, (Photius, Bibl. codex 97. p.84. 1.18.) who places it, 
Ol. 177. 3. B.C. 70. U.C. 684, on the ides of Octo- 
ber. On this principle he was twenty-eight years 
complete, Oct. 15, U. Ὁ. 712, and was in his twenty- 
seventh year, Oct. 15, U.C.711; which renders it just 
possible that Cicero, according to the tradition men- 
tioned by the author of the Life of Virgil, might have 
heard one of his Bucolics; for Cicero was alive until 
December 7, at the end of that year. But that Virgil 
had not, fintshed his Bucolics by the time he was twenty- 
eight appears from iv.11: which was written when 
Pollio was consul, or consul elect, U. C. 718, or U.C. 
714, at which time Virgil was twenty-nine or thirty. 
Now Tibullus was born, as he tells us himself, ili. v. 
ΤΠ Or 1 
Natalem nostri primum videre parentes, 
Cum cecidit fato consul uterque pari. 
Is it likely, then, that he would be called juvenis, U.C. 
735, when he would be only twenty-five years old ? 
But he might be so called, U. Ο.. 740, when he would 
be thirty *. 
* Some learned men, indeed, of the above distich, because of 
have suspected the genuineness its repugnancy to the precon- 


y Cf. Ovid, Tristia, ii. i. 537, 538. 


% 


Chronology of the Historia Naturalis. 93 


The coincidence of the death of Virgil and Tibullus 
is further implied by Ovid, Tristium iv. x. 51. 
Virgilium vidi tantum: nec avara 'Tibullo 
Tempus amicitiz fata dedere mez. 
Lib. iii. ix. of his Amores is devoted exclusively to the 
subject of the death of the latter; and if we knew the 
time when this was written, we should know the time 
of the event which it commemorates. 

From Tristium i. i. 67. 105—122: vi. 11—40: 
Tristium ii. i. 5—8. 61—66. 245—252. 549—562: 
iii. i. 65—-76: xiv: Fasti, iv. 81—84: we may col- 
lect that the extant works of Ovid, distinct from the 
Tristia and Epistole de Ponto, were composed in 
the following order: Heroidum Epistole— Amores 
— Medicamina Faciei—Ars Amandi and Reme- 
dium Amoris—Metamorphwcewv—and Fasti; the 
two last of which were neither of them complete, 
at the time of his banishment, U. C. 761, exeunte. 
The Ars Amandi and Remedium Amoris, I have 
shewn elsewhere to have been written at the pre- 
cise period when Caius Cesar was setting out on 


his expedition into the East, U. C. 752.*. 


ceived opinion of an earlier date 
of the birth of Tibullus; as 
U.C. 690, or U. C. γος. Whe- 
ther it is genuine or not, de- 
pends on critical considerations 
which I am not under the neces- 
sity of entering upon here. Suf- 
fice it to say, no editor has ven- 
tured to remove it from the 
text, or been able to shew, ex- 
cept on grounds of pure conjec- 
ture, that it ought not to remain 
there. In other respects, the 
chronological difficulties, con- 
nected with its reception, in my 
opinion, are not insuperable. 

* The date of the Ars Aman- 
di is thus determined to U.C. 


Is it pro- 


752, or U.C.753: which alone 
we may observe by the way, 
would be a sutlicient refutation 
of one among the other reasons, 
conjecturally assigned for the 
banishment of Ovid, viz. that 
he had been witness to Augu- 
stus’ incest with his daughter 
Julia. For Julia was banished 
this very year, U.C. 752: see 
Tacitus, Annales, i. 53. Dio, 
lv. 10, 11. and cf. Dissertation 
Xv. supra, p. 9, 10. whereas 
Ovid’s disgrace cannot be dated 
earlier than U. Ο. 761, ez- 
eunte, nine or ten years later. 
Whatever was the true cause 
of Ovid’s banishment, it was 


94 Appendix. 


Dissertation Seventeenth. 


bable, then, that the Amores were written earlier than 
U.C. 740 or 741*? or that an author of so fertile a 
vein as Ovid, if he had begun to write before U.C. 735, 
should have written nothing again before U.C.752 ὃ 


Nos facimus placite late preconia forme : 


Nomen habet Nemesis : 


Cynthia nomen habet : 


Vesper et Eow novere Lycorida terre : 
Et multi que sit nostra Corinna rogant. 


x 


De Arte Amandi, 111. 535. 


This passage implies that the Amores were written, 
and had got into circulation, some time before the Ars 
Amandi: for Corinna is the heroine of those pieces, 
as Nemesis, Cynthia, and Lycoris, were of the elegies 
of Tibullus, Propertius, and Gallus, respectively, 
Elsewhere Ovid says of himself, Tibullus, and Pro- 


pertius, 


certainly due to something which 
he had seen; but that is all 
that we can know about it. 
See the ee allusions to it: 
Tristium i. 1. 67: 111—116: 
ii. Q5—I00: iii: 3.75.3 Sadi: 1,108 
—210: lili. ἜΤΟΣ ge Ὁ 
ὙΠῸ 7 2 IV: 1 25: ἢ 39— 
46: vill. 33—40: X. 99: δἰ 
ne ae 1. li. 97: vi. ἜΣ ἢ: 

01 ΤΎΠΟΙ: xs Tee 
ΣΡ 

* Ovid’s first work appears to 
have been his Medea, and the 
next, his Heroidum Epistole. See 
Amorum ii, xvill. 13. 2I—34. 
Cf. Ars Amandi, iii. 343—346. 

The argument from the pro- 
per sense of juvenis is not less 
applicable to the age of Ovid, 
when he began to write, than it 
was to that of Virgil or of Ti- 
bullus. He declares repeatedly 
that he was juvenis as such, 
when he published his Amores, 
Ars Amandi, ἕο. See Amorum, 
111. i, 27, 28: Tristium i. viii. 59 


—62: li. i. 339, 340, 543, 544: 


111. i. 7, 8: iv. x. 57-—6o, &c. 
This last passage states—Car- 
mina cum primum populo juve- 
nilia legi; | Barba resecta mihi 
bisve semelve fuit. Yet that 
this was not before he was 20 
years of age, that is, before 
U. C. 731 at least, is proved 
by verse 31, just before. Jam- 
que decem vit frater gemi- 
naverat annos, | Cum perit ; et 
coepi parte carere mei. In short, 
the first book of the Amores 
was not written before the re- 
duction or expected reduction of 
the Sycambri, which we. have 
seen was not completed before 
U. C. 743: as appears from i. 
xiv. 45—50. I should date the 
composition of this work, U. C. 
740. Ifso, Elegy ix. of the third 
book, which commemorates the 
death of Tibulluscannot bear date 
before U. C. 740. Cf. Amorum 
i, xv. 25—-28, which very pro- 
bably implies that both Virgil 
and Tibullus were then alive. 


Chronology of the Historia Naturalis. 95 


Successor fuit hic tibi, Galle, Propertius illi. 
Quartus ab his serie temporis ipse fui. Tristium iv. x. 53%. 


which must be understood to mean that, as distin- 
guished writers of elegy, they flourished in that order: 
and though it does not imply that Tibullus wrote 
nothing before the death of Gallus, or Propertius 
nothing before that of 'Tibullus—which would be false 
—yet it must imply that there was some interval be- 
tween the death of Gallus and that of Tibullus, during 
which the latter was the most distinguished elegiac 
poet; as well as some interval between the death of 
Tibullus, and Ovid’s becoming known in this depart- 
ment of poetry, during which Propertius stood alone. 

In no part of the extant works of Horace is there 
any allusion to such a fact as the death of Virgil— 
whom yet he must have survived ten or eleven years, 
if Virgil died U.C.'735: and he must have published, 
as we have seen, a certain portion of his works even 
subsequently to that event. Nor is there any allusion 
to his Aineid, or even to his Georgica. When Horace 
published his Sermones, which, however, were the ear- 
liest of his productions, Virgil was known only as the 
author of some elegant Bucolics—for so I should un- 
derstand his 

Molle atque facetum 
Virgilio annuerunt gaudentes rure Cameene. 
Sermonum i. x. 44, 45. Cf.Epistole, ii. i. 245—247. 
The first clear allusion to the Aineid in any contempo- 
rary writer occurs in Propertius, ii. xxxiv. 65: 
Cedite Romani scriptores, cedite Graii. 
Nescio quid majus nascitur Iliade. Cf. Ibid. 61—64. 

And there are parts of the poems of Propertius which 
I have shewn elsewhere to have been written as late 


* Cf. Tristium 1. li. 445—468. 


Appendix. Dissertation Seventeenth. 


96 


as U.C. 738 or U.C. 739. This is especially true of 
the last elegy of all. See vol. i. p. 500. and Cf. ibid. 
p. 533. As to the above allusion, lines 91, 92 of the 
same elegy prove that it could not have been written 
before the death of Gallus; after which it was that 
Virgil undertook the composition of his Atneid. 

It will be allowed that there is some weight in these 
considerations; sufficient perhaps to shew that the 
truth of the received date for the death of Virgil may 
reasonably be called into question. Not to dwell, then, 
any longer upon this subject, though more might still 
be said to the same effect, I shall conclude with point- 
ing out a striking inconsistency between the account 
of his death, as given in his Life, and by Servius, Pre- 
fatio ad Aineid. i. The former tells us that he went 
to Athens, U.C. 735, with a view to spend three years 
in Greece and Asia, and to put the last hand to his 
Aneid: but that he had scarcely landed at Athens 
when Augustus came there on his return from the 
East—whom he determined to accompany back to 
Italy. At Megara he fell ill upon the way; and his 
sickness being aggravated by the passage to Brun- 
disium, he died there, a day or two after he arrived. 
Servius has none of these circumstances in his account. 
He tells us merely, Periit .. Tarenti, in Apuliz civi- 
tate: nam dum Metapontum cupit videre, valetudi- 
nem ex solis ardore contraxit. Nor does he say in 
what year he died*. 


* Nor is the testimony of the 
Epitaph, said to have been dic- 
tated by Virgil, with his last 
breath, on himself, (vide Jerome 
in Chronico: 155, ad annum 
Augusti xxv.) more in unison 
with the supposition of his dy- 
ing at Brundisium, than with 
that of his dying at Tarentum. 


Mantua me genuit: Calabri ra- 
puere : tenet nunc | Parthenope. 
cecini pascua, rura, duces. Me- 
tapontum would be in Lucania; 
but both Tarentum and Brundi- 
sium were cities of Messapia, or 
the Salentini: and Calabria ori- 
ginally was a name of equal 
extent with Messapia. The same 


Chronology of the Historia Naturalis. 97 


The other account indeed is very improbable through- 
out—as supposing first that one who had formed the 
design of finishing off a poem like the A‘neid within 
a certain time, would determine to go on his travels 
for that purpose; and secondly that, if he had made 
up his mind to spend the next three years abroad, he 
should so soon have resolved to turn back. It can 
scarcely be said that he did this out of compliment to 
Augustus: for he must have known that Augustus 
was on his return, and would shortly be in Italy again, 
before he determined to go abroad. 

The truth of a visit of Virgil’s to Attica I do not call 
in question. Horace, Carminum i. 3, alone proves this 
fact ; and I think it not improbable that the first book 
of the Odes of Horace was published U.C.731. The 
testimony of Suetonius, before cited, is no insuperable 
objection to the contrary. 


epitaph is mentioned by the au-— Apulia. The fact is, he might 
thor of the Vita, and by Ser-_ be said to have died in Apulia 
vius, loco citato, who yet sup- or in Calabria indifferently. 
poses Virgil to have died in 


VOL. IV. H 


APPENDIX. 





DISSERTATION XVIII. 


Chronology of the Second Jewish War, in the time of Ha- 
drian. 


Vide Dissertation xv. vol. 11. page 81, last line. 


Ir will contribute to strengthen the probability of the 
conclusion, which we endeavoured to establish, respect- 
ing the duration of the first Jewish war, under Nero 
and Vespasian; if the same thing can be shewn, with 
any degree of credibility, to hold good of the second, 
in the time of Hadrian. Though that second war, as 
far as we can perceive, is not directly noticed in the 
prophecy of the seventy weeks, nor in our Saviour’s 
prophecy on the mount; yet it was fully as calamitous 
as the first: nor could the “ desolation determined,” 
perhaps, be said to be absolutely over, until that also 
was past. 

It is recorded by Dio*, that 580,000 Jews perished 
in this second contest, by the sword alone: that 50 
fortified places, and 985 villages or towns, which he 
calls “ very considerable,” were laid waste, and levelled 
with the ground: a degree of desolation to the face of 
the country which the ravages of the former ‘war, 
though equally destructive of human life, are not 
known to have produced. The horrors of the siege of 
Jerusalem were renewed in that of Bither. The con- 
sequences of this war, too, to the political rights and 
immunities of the Jewish people, were much more ca- 
lamitous and permanent, than those of the former had 
been. With the close of this last rebellion, we must 


a Ixix. 12—14. 


ὅς 


Chronology of the Second Jewish War. 99 


date the termination of their political existence as a 
nation. Neither Titus nor Vespasian, when the con- 
test in their time was over, had carried their hostility 
to the extent of dispossessing the survivors of their 
country, and of casting them out as exiles and wan- 
derers, upon society: but this second experience of the 
turbulent and refractory spirit of the Jews left the 
Roman government no alternative except to banish 
them from Judzea; and to forbid them, under penalty 
of death, to set foot on their native soil. 

Though the history of the second war is almost 
entirely unknown, yet the Jewish rabbis have pre- 
served some remarkable traditions concerning it 5 
shewing that the most memorable of the circum- 
stances, which distinguished the former visitation, were 
equally characteristic of this. Jerome affords some 
countenance to these traditions in his commentary on 
Zech. viii: where he observes?: In hoc mense, (viz. 
the fifth in the Jewish year, answering to the Julian 
August,) et a Nabuchodonosor, et multa post secula a 
Tito et Vespasiano, templum Jerosolymis incensum 
est atque destructum: capta urbs Bethel, ad quam 
multa millia confugerant Judzorum: aratum T’emplum 
in ignominiam gentis oppress, a Tito Annio Ruffo. 
It would therefore be no extraordinary circumstance, if 
these national visitations should be found to agree in 
the respective periods of their duration, as well as in 
other remarkable instances of coincidence. 

The anger of God against the cities of Judah was 
supposed to be still continuing, after seventy years 
from some beginning, in the second of Darius®; and 
what is equally observable, the fasting and mourning 
for the national calamities are described to have been 


Ὁ Hieronymus, Operum iii. 1752. ad calcem. Cf. Mishna, ii. 7. 382. ο Zech. 
1.1: 12. 


H 9 


100 Appendix. Dissertation Highteenth. 


going on for the same length of time, in his fourth °. 
I hope to shew elsewhere®, that the second of Darius 
most probably bears date B.C. 521 medio: and his 
fourth B.C. 519 medio. The period of seventy 
years, that is, the appointed duration of the punish- 
ment of the Jews, properly began with their first 
captivity, B.C. 606: and properly ended with their 
restoration by Cyrus, B.C. 536. Yet seventy years 
of Divine indignation, or of national suffering and 
humiliation, were either just expired, or still current, 
B.C. 521, and B.C. 519. 

It would be easy to ascertain these 0 τε by re- 
ferring the former to B.C. 590 exeunte, when the 
siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar was begun; 
and the latter to B.C. 588 med., when it was brought 
to a close. But this is not our business at present. 
What I would observe upon them is, that the same 
pried of seventy years, which was properly and pri- 
marily intended of the duration of time between B. C. 
606, and B.C. 536, the beginning and the close of the 
Jewish captivity, is yet referred in the above passages 
to other extremes; within which some dispensation of 
retributive judgment was still going on, or was only 
just brought to a close. A coincidence, analogous to 
this, will be shewn to hold good in the present Ϊη- 
stance, if it can be rendered probable that as the first 
Jewish war began A. D. 66, U. C. 819, so the latter 
was ended A. D. 136, U.C. 889. 

Capitolinus informs us that the rebellion of the Jews 
was scarcely over at the beginning of the reign of An- 
toninus Pius‘; which bears date from July 10, A. Ὁ. 
138, U.C. 891. 

According to Eusebius’, the siege of Bitthera, or 


d Zech Viiv ὅν αἰ e Appendix, Dissertation xxii, f Vita, 5. gE. ΕἸ. 
lv. vi. 118. C. 


Chronology of the Second Jewish War. 101 


Bither, where the Jews made the most obstinate re- 
sistance, was not begun before the eighteenth of Ha- 
drian, A. D. 134, U.C. 887. 

By Dio or Xiphilinus', the close of the war is 
placed about the time of the death of Servianus; who 
was living and consul, A. D. 134, U.C. 887, and at 
the time of the adoption of Alius Verus, U.C. 888 or 
U.C. 889: nor did his death long precede that of Ha- 
drian himself‘, July 10, A. D. 138. 

These concurrent testimonies seem to imply that the 
war could not have been concluded before A. D. 135 
or 136. And so by Eusebius, Chronicon-Armeno- 
Latinum, its close is regularly represented, Hadriani 
xix. Ol. 228. 4. This year answers to A. ἢ). +24; and 
if the war was really brought to an end in the fifth 
Jewish month, it expired in the latter half of the nine- 
teenth of Hadrian, A. D. 136, U.C. 889. 

Eusebius’ date is confirmed by Jerome: who, among 
other expositions of the prophecy of the seventy weeks, 
having given that secundum Hebreos, sums up the 
account in these terms): Hee loquuntur Hebrei, non 
magnopere curantes a primo anno Darii, regis Persa- 
rum, usque ad extremam subversionem Jerusalem, que 
sub Hadriano eis accidit, supputari olympiades centum 
septuaginta quattuor, id est, annos sexcentos nonaginta 
sex, qui faciunt hebdomadas Hebraicas nonaginta no- 
vem, et annos tres: quando Cochebas, dux Judzorum, 
oppressus est, et Jerusalem usque ad solum diruta est. 

The first of Darius is here confounded with the first 
of Cyrus, regis Persarum, B. C. 560*. In other 


* Just as Suidas, voce ᾿Αναξι-ὀ Cyrus, Olympiad 55, with the 
μένης, according to his present capture of Sardis, B.C. 548. Cf. 
reading, confounds the first of ad ’Apioréas. 


h Ixix. 15. 17. i Spartian, Hadrianus, 23. Verus Cesar, 3. Dio, lxix, 
17. Spartian, Hadrianus, 15. 25. J Operum iii. 1117. in Dan. ix. ad calcem. 


H 3 


Appendix. Dissertation Eighteenth. 


respects the calculation is sufficiently exact: for six 
hundred and ninety-six current years, beginning B. C. 
560, would be brought to an end A. D. 136. 

There is good reason, then, to conclude that the 
second Jewish war terminated A. D. 136, U.C. 889, 
or thereabouts*. 

The question of the time of its commencement is 
much more difficult. Yet I shall endeavour to shew 
that it may probably be dated A. D. 127, U.C. 880. 

Jerome, in three * places of his works, reckons it 
fifty years between the former war and the latter: 
which, though referred to the end of the former, A. D. 
75, and to the beginning of the latter, will not place 
this later than A. D. 125, U.C. 878. 

In his account of the exposition of the seventy 
weeks, secundum Hebreos, before mentioned!, he sup- 
poses them to reckon it forty-nine years from the 
death of Vespasian to the time of the events in ques- 
tion. Vespasian died June 23, A.D. 79: whence, 
forty-nine years bring us to A. D. 128, U.C. 881. 

Ab Hadriani temporibus, says he elsewhere™, usque 
ad imperium Constantini, per annos circiter centum 
octoginta, in loco resurrectionis simulacrum Jovis; in 
crucis rupe statua ex marmore Veneris a gentibus 
posita colebatur +. As Constantine’s reign bears date 


* This date for the conclusion 
of the war is virtually confirmed 
by what Suidas, Φλέγων, observes 
of the Olympiads of Phlegon of 
Tralles ; a digest of universal his- 
tory, down to the 229th Olym- 
piad, where it closed. The same 
work contained in brief the par- 
ticulars of the Jewish war, as 


well as other historical matters 
of various kinds—apparently 
among the last or latest which 
it recorded. We may presume 
then the war was just over where 
it closed, Olympiad 229, which 
bears date B.C. 137. 

+ These allusions of Jerome 
to the above idols, and their 


k Operum ii. 610. ad calcem. Epp. Critice : iii. 65. ad calcem. in Isaiw vi: ibid. 


725. ad calcem. in Hzech. v. Cf. Julius Pollux, Chronicon, 218. 


1117. ad medium. 


1 Operum iii. 


m Operum iv. Pars 118, 564. ad medium, Epistole, xlix. 


ws 


Chronology of the Second Jewish War. 103 


July 25, A. D. 306, one hundred and eighty years be- 
fore that would be A. D. 126, or 127. 

It thus appears that he has three dates, none of 
which would be true in any sense, except as referred 
to the beginning of the second Jewish war—A. D. 125, 
A. D. 126, A.D. 128. The true year is as likely to 
be between the second and the third of these, viz. 
A. D. 127, as any where else. 

Epiphanius supposes forty-seven years between the 
destruction of Jerusalem, and Hadrian’s visit to Judea, 
followed by the rebellion of the Jews". If we refer 
this date to A. D. 70, it will place the revolt in the 
very first year of Hadrian, A.D. 117. It appears, 
however, from the context°, that, whether right or 
wrong in itself, the date to which he refers is the 
second of Titus, U. C. 833-834, A.D. 80-81: forty- 
seven years from which actually expire, A. D. 127— 
128. It confirms this construction that they are sup- 
posed to expire in the twelfth of Hadrian. The twelfth 
of Hadrian bears date Aug. 11, A. D. 128, U.C. 881. 

The motive to the Jewish rebellion, according to 
Spartian, was their being forbidden to practise the rite 


sites, are illustrated by Euse- 
bius, Vita Constantini, ili. 26. 
497. D. 41. 503: Sulpicius Se- 
verus, li. 45: Socrates, i. 9. 37. 
B..17. 46. C: Sozomen, ii. t. 
440.C: Theodorit, 1. 16. 45. D: 
Julius Pollux, Chronicon, 218. 
The existence of a statue of Ve- 
nus, or a temple, dedicated to 
her, upon the site of mount Cal- 
vary, in particular, throws light 
upon an obscure allusion in Am- 
brose, i. 938. D. E. in Psalm. 
xlvii. ὃ. 5, which would other- 


n Opera, ii. 170. B. De Mensuris et Ponderibus, xiv. 


170. A. xiii. 


wise be unintelligible: Simul 
quia Dominus secundum cli 
tractum in Venerario passus est, 
qui erat locus in latere aquilo- 
nis. The Venerarium might de- 
note the site of the temple or 
image of Venus, upon mount 
Calvary, from the time it was 
first set up there: and the spot 
might retain the name, even 
after the temple or image had 
been removed, and the church 
of the Holy Sepulchre erected 
in its stead. 


© Cf. also 169. C. Ὁ. 


H 4 


104 Appendix. Dissertation Eighteenth. 


of circumcision: according to Dio, was the foundation 
of Alia Capitolina on the site of the ancient Jerusa- 
lem, and of a temple of Jupiter on the site of the 
former temple ?. According to both, however, the pre- 
cise time of the revolt was the interval between 
Hadrian’s presence in Judza, and his visit to Syria or 
Egypt’. 

The reign of this emperor was almost entirely spent 
in travelling from place to place; and there was 
scarcely a quarter of his dominions, however remote, 
which he did not visit once at least. The times and 
orders of his journeys, however, are very difficult to be 
fixed: and the attempts of learned men, to follow and 
trace them year by year, are after all chiefly conjec- 
tural. If the reader is curious to see them chrono- 
logically arranged, he may consult Tillemont; or 
Eckhel, who has stated them in conformity to the 
opinions of Tillemont’. It is unnecessary for ows pur- 
pose to consider the date of his visits to any part of 
the empire, except Syria, Judea, or Egypt: since it 
seems to be agreed that the rebellion of the Jews broke 
out soon after the emperor had, some time or other, 
paid a personal visit to their country, either in his way 
to Egypt or on his return from it*. 


* Dio, Ixix. 12, implies that through Judea by the way. 
it was afler his return. He im- Spartian, 14, implies that he 
plies also that Hadrian came came into Egypt, peragrata:Ara- 
into Syria from Egypt, not in- bia. 
to Egypt from Syria; passing 


Ρ Spartian, Hadrianus, 14. Dio, lxix. 12. Cf. Philostorgius, vii. 11.507. Ac- 
cording to Jerome, in Chronico, ad ann. Hadriani xx. Elia was not founded until 
after the war, in Hadrian’s twentieth. It might have been founded before, but 
finished only then. The motive to the rebellion, alleged by Spartian, is confirmed 
apparently by a reseript of Antoninus Pius, produced by Casaubon, in his notes 
ad locum, from Modestinus. The prohibition in question seems to have been re- 
moved at the beginning of the reign of Antoninus Pius; and about an hundred 
years after, Origen, Contra Celsum, ii. 13. Operum i. 399. A. speaks of the Jews 
as alone enjoying by law the right of practising circumcision. q Spartian, 


Hadrianus, 14. Dio, xix. 11, 12. r Doctrina Numorum Veterum, vi. 480. 
seqq. 


Chronology of the Second Jewish War. 105 


Now, in the paucity of particulars relating to the 
motions of Hadrian, which remain to us from Dio, and 
under the great confusion and uncertainty of his life 
as related by Spartian; the best guide which we should 
have to follow upon this, or any similar question, 
would be his extant coins: and these do strongly sup- 
port the conclusion that he visited Egypt in the ele- 
venth year of his reign. 

The coins of the several nomi of Egypt are de- 
scribed by Eckhel, iv. 99-115. These nomi are fifty- 
two in number*; and with five exceptions only, viz. 
the Aphroditopolite nome, the Mareote, the Nicopolite, 
the Oasite, and the Sethroite; they all exhibit coins of 
Hadrian, and thirty of them exhibit none but his. 

Of those which exhibit the coins of Hadrian exclu- 
sively, the Pelusiote nome alone has no year specified 
on his coins; the rest all bear date in the eleventh 
year of his reign; and one only, the Heracleopolite, 
besides this date of the eleventh, has that of the four- 
teenth also. The remaining nomi, whose coins present 
the names of Trajan, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus 
Aurelius, as well as that of Hadrian, nevertheless all 
exhibit the eleventh of the reign of the latter: and one 
only, the Saite nome, besides the eleventh, has the 
seventh and the seventeenth likewise. In many cases, 
too, there are several coins of the same nome, all bear- 
ing this date of the eleventh of Hadrian. 

Now what reason is so likely to have produced this 
remarkable phenomenon—viz. that forty-seven of the 
nomi of Egypt should agree in exhibiting this one 
year, and in so large a majority of instances no year 
but that; as the supposition that Hadrian came into 


* The nomi of Egypt were that some of these were subdi- 
originally thirty-six. But Stra- vided ; and more might be added 
bo (xvii. 1. ὃ. 3. 477, 478) shews in the course of time. 


106 Appendix. Dissertation Highieenth. 


Egypt, and visited the several nomi successively, in this 
one year? Such a fact would at once explain the phe- 
nomenon: but nothing else will do so, satisfactorily. 

True it is, that there are eight nomi; the Aphrodi- 
topolite, Arabia, the Arsinoite, the Athribite, the Cop- 
tite, the Naucratite, the Sebennyte, the Sethroite; 
which concur in exhibiting on their coins the thir- 
teenth of Trajan. But, of this number, the Arsinoite 
exhibits also his fourteenth, and the Naucratite his 
twelfth. And, among the other nomi in general, the 
Memphite and Oasite shew his twelfth, and the Mene- 
laite his fifteenth: so that, as to this emperor in parti- 
cular, the coins of the nomi commemorated merely the 
years of his reign promiscuously, the twelfth, thir- 
teenth, fourteenth, or fifteenth: and it is purely acci- 
dent which has preserved a greater number, comme- 
morative of the thirteenth, than of any other year. 
The years of Hadrian were doubtless commemorated 
too; yet besides his eleventh, three other years only, 
the seventh, the fourteenth, and the seventeenth, are to 
be met with upon the coins of all the nomi collectively. 

In like manner, the eighth year of Antoninus Pius 
is commemorated in ten instances: the eleventh in one: 
the fifteenth in one: and the eighteenth in two. ‘The 
first year of Marcus Aurelius as Czesar, occurs once ; 
the eighth three times: his first and his eighth as em- 
peror, each once. ᾿ 

The coins which commemorate the deification of An- 
tinous, who is known to have accompanied Hadrian 
into Egypt, and to have perished there sometime after 
his arrival’, exhibit no date. Yet Eusebius, Chronicon 
Armeno-Latinum, places his death in Egypt in the ele- 
venth of Hadrian’s reign: Jerome, Chronicon, in the 
thirteenth. 


8 Dio, Ixix. 11. 


ὅς 


Chronology of the Second Jewish War. 107 


Putting, therefore, these testimonies together, that 
is, combining the implicit evidence of the coins of the 
Egyptian nomi, with the direct assertions of Hpipha- 
nius and Eusebius; perhaps we shall be justified in 
concluding that Hadrian was certainly in Egypt in the 
eleventh year of his reign. I will observe, however, 
that according to the Egyptian or Alexandrine mode 
of computation, this eleventh would be reckoned to 
bear date from August 29, U. C. 879, A. D. 126—the 
same day, U.C. 880, A. D. 127. Between these ex- 
tremes, he must have visited Egypt; and, consequently, 
the rebellion of the Jews, if it coincided with the time 
of that visit, must have broken out. 

There are, however, four coins of Alexandria, which 
all bear date in the fifteenth of Hadrian’s reign; that 
is, according to the same mode of reckoning, between 
Aug. 29, U. C. 883, and Aug. 29, U. C. 884 : and which 
in the opinion of Eckhel strongly imply that he was 
in Egypt between those extremes. I refer for their de- 
scription to Eckhel himself‘: though I cannot agree 
with him in thinking that the inference in question is 
so strongly implied by them. They have not the in- 
scription, Adventur Augusti: while on the contrary, 
those coins which have this inscription, are without the 
date of the year. It is inferred that they commemo- 
rate an adventus Augusti only from the nature of the 
device upon them. But this device might apply to 
other occasions. Two of them represent the genius of 
Alexandria holding out to the emperor an handful of 
ears of corn: the third represents it holding out a 
branch of olive to the emperor, who is riding in a cha- 
riot of four horses: the fourth exhibits the emperor 
sitting on board a ship. The ears of corn may simply 
denote an εὐθηνία, or year of plenty: the olive branch 

t Tom. vi. 489, 490. and iy. 64. 


108 Appendix. Dissertation Eighteenth. 


may refer to the occasion, mentioned by Vopiscus ¥, 
when the Alexandrians had given some offence to the 
emperor: and as to the two last together, if they each 
refer to an adventus Augusti in the same year, it 


seems incongruous that he should be represented both- 


in a chariot and in a ship: especially as Hadrian’s 
journeys, so far as we are informed about them, were 
chiefly performed by land and on foot. And if Spar- 
tian is to be believed he came into Egypt by land*. 

In support of his opinion, Eckhel further appeals to 
the testimony of the Greek epigram, which Pococke 
copied from the statue of Memnon in Egypt *. 

"Exdvov αὐδήσαντος ἐγὼ Πόβλιος BadBivos 
φωνᾶς τᾶς θείας Μέμνονος, ἢ Φαμένωφ. 
ἦλθον ὁμοῦ δ᾽ ἐράτᾳ βασιληΐδι τῇδε Σαβίνᾳ, 
ὧρας δὲ πρώτας ἅλιος ἔσχε δρόμον. 
κοιράνω ᾿Αδριανῶ πέμπτῳ δεκάτῳ ἐνιαυτῷ" 
ἄματα δ᾽ ἔσχεν ᾿Αθὺρ εἴκοσι καὶ πίσυρα. 
That the statue of Memnon was supposed by the Egyp- 
tians to represent a native hero called Phamenoph, ap- 
pears from the testimony of Pausanias’. But the 
evidence of this epigram is not exactly in unison with 
that of the coins. The epigram implies that Sabina; 
the same, doubtless, with Hadrian’s queen of that 
name’; was in Egypt on the 24th of Athyr in the fif- 
teenth of Hadrian: but according to what reckoning ? 
Surely, not the Egyptian, but the common one: for 
Balbinus, the writer of the inscription, was a Roman 
courtier in attendance upon Hadrian’s queen. Now, 
according to the common reckoning, the 24th of Athyr 
in the fifteenth of Hadrian would answer to Nov. 20, 
U. Ὁ. 884; in the sixteenth of Hadrian, according to 
the Egyptian computation. 


v Saturninus, 8. u Spartian, Hadrianus, ΓΟ. 14. Dio, lxix. 9. Χ loc. cit. 
y Attica, xlii. z Spartian, Hadrianus, 1. 2. 23. Dio, lxix. 1... 


Chronology of the Second Jewish War. 109 


But, as it may be said that Hadrian might come 
into Egypt in his fifteenth, and continue there until his 
sixteenth, according to the Egyptian mode of reckon- 
ing, I shall not insist upon this objection. I contend, 
notwithstanding, that the natural inference from the 
inscription is, that Sabina was in Egypt at the time of 
this visit to the statue, by herself. And this inference, 
if just, would go far to prove that the coins above- 
mentioned refer to no coming of Hadrian’s in his fif- 
teenth. For those num of Alexandria, which actually 
commemorate an adventus Augusti, exhibit Hadrian 
and Sabina in conjunction®, and so imply that they 
were sometiine in Egypt together. But both the coins 
and the epigram; the one by referring only to Ha- 
drian, the other by mentioning only Sabina ; conspire to 
shew that this time was not the fifteenth of his reign 
in particular. 

Still if the deference which is due to so competent 
an authority as Eclkhel’s, should induce any to concur 
in his opinion, and to assume a visit of Hadrian to 
Egypt in his fifteenth year; it is nevertheless a pos- 
sible supposition that Hadrian was fwice in Egypt— 
once in his eleventh, and again in his fifteenth: a sup- 
position which reconciles the testimony of these several 
coins together. It derives some countenance from a 
letter of Hadrian’s to Servianus, written either dur- 
ing the consulship of the latter, or after it; and con- 
sequently not before U. Ὁ. 887, A. D. 134; which 
Vopiscus has given us, in his Life of Saturninus, 
on the authority of Hadrian’s freedman Phlegon”. 
Having spoken of his being in Egypt, he adds, Denique 
ut primum inde discessi, et in filium meum Verum 
multa dixerunt, et de Antonino (potius Antinoo) que 
dixerunt comperisse te credo. If this document be au- 

a Eckhel, vi. 489. b Cap. 8. 


110 Appendix. Dissertation Eighteenth. 


thentic, Hadrian had uot long left Egypt, on some re- 
cent occasion, before the adoption of Verus; the time 
of which was either U. C. 888, or U.C. 889: though 
Eckhel, on the faith of an inscription in Gruter, pre- 
fers the latter®: and, according to Spartian, whenso- 
ever he adopted him, it was peragrato jam orbe ter- 
rarum ἃ. 

As Eusebius, Chronicon, loc. cit. supposes Hadrian to 
be in Egypt in his eleventh year, so he supposes him 
to be passing the winter at Athens in his thirteenth, 
A.D. 129 or 130. Spartian, in his account of Had- 
rian’s journeys, mentions two visits of his to Athens ®: 
the first of which was later than a visit to Asia, and 
the second than some visit to Africa. But Spartian is 
here at direct variance with Dio: who also mentions 
two visits to Athens or Greece, one in Hadrian’s way 
to the East, when he was initiated in the mysteries ‘, 
and another on his return back, when he presided at 
the Dionysia, and consecrated the Olympium&. To 
be there at the time of the mysteries, he must have 
been in Greece in September; and to be present at 
the Dionysia, he must have been there in February 
or March. Spartian supposes his presence at the mys- 
teries and at the Dionysia, upon his first visit, and as 
he was returning from Asia to Rome; and his dedica- 
tion of the Olympium on his second visit, when he was 
making another progress into the Hast. 

There is consequently great uncertainty as to the 


ς Tom. vi. 524. ἃ Verus, 2. e Cap. 13. ΤΊΣΙΣ, 11: g Ibid. 16. 
Prosper, in Chronico, 709. supposes Hadrian to be wintering at Athens, U.C. 
878. Cf. Cassiodorus, Chronicon. This last Chronicon, in fact, as it stands at pre- 
sent, asserts or implies Hadrian’s being at Athens, under the following consuls: 
Verus and Ambiguus (Ambibulus) A. D. 126: Gallicanus and Titianus, A. D. 127: 
Pompeianus and Commodus, A. D. 136: under which last it places his dedicating 
of various buildings there, and presiding as agonotheta, &c. Three years earlier, 
under Hibertus (Hiberus) and Silanus, A. D. 133, it places the cessation of his 
persecution of the Christians; which would imply the presentation of the apolo- 
gies of Aristides and Quadratus to him and his rescript to Fundanus, about that 
time. At this time too Hadrian might be returning from or going to Egypt. 


*s 


Chronology of the Second Jewish War. 111 


true time and order of these different visits to Athens 
or Greece: to discuss which, at any length, is not my 
intention. I will observe only, it is equally probable 
that Hadrian would stop at Athens, whether on his 
way to, or on his return from, the East; and there- 
fore, it is equally probable that he might be initiated 
in the mysteries, as Dio supposes, on his way into the 
East; or as Eusebius and Spartian suppose, when he 
was coming back to Rome. On the same occasion, 
and after the initiation in question, Quadratus and 
Aristides, if Eusebius and Jerome are to be believed ®, 
must have presented their apologies to Hadrian *: and 
it is a singular coincidence that the letter, above refer- 
red to from Vopiscus, certainly exhibits sentiments not 
unfavourable to Christianity+. The effect of those 
apologies was to stop an incipient persecution: and 
the time when they were presented might be between 
the eleventh and the fifteenth of Hadrian. 
Philostratus: tells us that Hadrian consecrated the 
Olympium at Athens, ov ἑξήκοντα καὶ πεντακοσίων ἐτῶν 
Now, Harpocration, under the article 


ἀποτελεσθέν. 


* Kusebius, it is true, Chro- 
nicon Armeno-Latinum, falls into 


time or other Hadrian thought of 
deifying Christ. His rescript to 


the absurdity of supposing a dou- 
ble inttiation of Hadrian’s ; once 
in his eighth, and again in his 
thirteenth. The same is true of 
Jerome in Chronico also. And 
they place both the apologies in 
questionat the time of the former. 
But, so far as regards the cir- 
cumstance of their being pre- 
sented when Hadrian was ini- 
tiated, they might just as well 
be placed after the latter. 

7 See also the life of Alexan- 
der Severus, by Lampridius, 43: 


whence it appears that some 


Minucius Fundanus, proconsul 
of Asia, forbidding the punish- 
ment of the Christians out of 
deference to mere popular cla- 
mour, is quoted by Justin, Apo- 
logia Prima, ad jfinem; Cf. Eu- 
sebius, E. H. iv. viii. ix: and 
by Eusebius and Jerome (in 
Chronicis) is placed in the same 
year when he received the apo- 
logies of Quadratus and Aristi- 
des. Xiphilinus reckons Ha- 
drian and Antoninus Pius among 
distinguished protectors of Chris- 
tianity, Ixx. 3. 


h Eusebius, Chronicon Armeno-Latinum, Ad annum 2140: Hieronymus, iv. 
lida, τοῦ. De SS. Kcclesiasticis, xix. xx. Ibid. ad principiwm, Epist. 83. Cf. Eu- 


sebius, E. Η, iv. 3. 


i Vite Sophistarum, i. 532. C. Polemo. 


112 Appendix, Dissertation Eighteenth. 


προπύλαια, mentions from Philochorus that the pro- 
pylea, at Athens, were begun, ἐπὶ Εἰὐθυμένους, B.C. 
437. It is well known that the Peloponnesian war * 
interrupted, by its occurrence, the progress of these 
or similar undertakings. The same passage of Har- 
pocration quotes the first book of Heliodorus, περὶ τῆς 
᾿Αθήνησιν ἀκροπόλεως, to shew that the propyleea were 
finished in five years; (Cf. Suidas, in προπύλαια :) con- 
sequently B. C. 432, having cost 2012 talents: which 
so far agrees with Thucydides. It is not improbable 
that the Olympium was begun immediately after 
the completion of the former work; and had therefore 
been going on one year, when it was stopped by the 
war *. 

If Philostratus’ date is to be depended on, the com- 
pletion of the temple, 560 years after B. C. 431, would 
fall out A. D. 129 or 130 in the thirteenth of Hadrian, 
when Eusebius supposes him to have been wintering 
at Athens, and at the same time building or dedicating 
various public works there. So likewise Jerome, in 
Chronico, under the same date or the sixteenth. 

It is not unlikely that Hadrian’s first visit to Egypt 
might be paid about the time of that visit to Africa, 
which Spartian placed between ithe two visits to 
Athens. We may probably infer! that he did not 
visit Africa for the first five years of his reign, if it be 


* This conjecture derives some Strabo speaks of the Olympi- 


support from the testimony of 
Dio Chrysostom, Oratio ii. περὶ 
βασιλείας, 85. 10-15, who classes 
them both together; unless in- 
deed by ᾿ολύμπιον he means the 
statue of Jupiter Olympius. But 
that was made at the expense of 
the Eleans, see Oratio xii. 399. 
39: 412. 35. 


k Thucydides, ii. 13. 


um as still unfinished in his time, 
ix. 1. §. 17.364. So also Dice- 
archus, in his Bios Ἑλλάδος, where 
he is describing Athens: Ὀλύμ- 
mov, ἡμιτελὲς μὲν, κατάπληξιν δ᾽ 
ἔχον τὴν τῆς οἰκοδομίας ὑπογραφήν᾽ 
γενόμενον δ᾽ ἂν βέλτιστον εἴπερ συνε- 
τελέσθη : p. 22, ex editione Gu- 
lielmi Manzi, Rome 1819. 


1 Vita, 22. 


Chronology of the Second Jewish War. 113 


true that Ad adventum ejus post quinquennium pluit : 
nor, if we consider how many other places he had 
visited meanwhile, not until much later. From Spar- 
tian, 5—11. 15, and Dio, Ixix. 1, 2. 7. 18,19, we may 
collect that he could not have visited Britain before 
the fourth year of his reign; and the course of his 
journeyings afterwards will lead to the inference that 
it would be four or five years more before he would be 
in Africa. And Spartian supposes him to come into 
Egypt out of Arabia, as Dio does out of Judza ™. 

The duration of the second Jewish war is certainly 
found represented at three years and six months. But 
so is the first; and by the same authority, the Hebrew 
expositors of the seventy weeks. Jerome, doc. cit.: Nec 
ignoramus quosdam illorum dicere quod una hebdo- 
mada, de qua scriptum est: Confirmabit pactum multis 
hebdomada una; dividatur in Vespasiano et in Hadri- 
ano: quod juxta historiam Josephi, Vespasianus et 
Titus tribus annis et sex mensibus pacem cum Judzis 
fecerint. tres autem anni et sex menses sub Hadriano 
supputantur, quando Jerusalem omnino subversa est ; 
et Judzorum gens catervatim czsa: ita ut Judaea quo- 
que finibus pellerentur *. 

* The truth, indeed, appears _ here observe, that the anachron- 
to be, that supposing the war to ism, committed by both these 
have broken out in the eleventh authorities, in dating the rebel- 
or twelfth of Hadrian, the last lion and reduction of the Jews 
three or four years were the in the second of Hadrian; arose, 
most arduous part of the strug- most probably, from confound- 
gle: and these would bear date ing the rebellion under Hadrian, 
from the fifteenth or sixteenth with that under Trajan. The lat- 
of Hadrian. In the sixteenth terwasonlyjust overat the begin- 
both Eusebius and Jerome (in ning of the reign of Hadrian. Cf. 
Chronicis) place the commence- Jerome, Ad annum Hadriani v. 
ment ofthewar; andintheeight- whenhe is said to have conducted 
eenth or nineteenth its close. As colonies into Libya, Qu a Ju- 


an average statement this might dzis vastata fuerat: doubtless 
be sufficiently correct. We may at the time of the insurrection 


m Spartian, Vita, 14. Dio, Ixix. 11. 


VOL. IV. I 


114 Appendix. Dissertation Eighteenth. 


That the war was a long and a severe one is dis- 
tinctly attested by Dio": that different commanders 
must have been employed in it, on the side of the Ro- 
mans, Titus Annius, or Vinnius, Rufus, according to 
the rabbinical traditions *, Julius Severus, brought for 
that purpose, from Britain, according to Dio, is also 
on record. Yet Hadrian himself must sometime have 
been with the army, or in its neighbourhood : if, as 
Dio relates, in consequence of the losses sustained, he 
omitted in writing to the senate, the usual preamble 
of his epistles® ; ἐγὼ καὶ τὰ στρατεύματα ὑγιαίνο- 
μεν. Now, at what time could this be, except after 
his first presence in Egypt or Judea? If so, it indi- 
cates some subsequent visit to the same neighbour- 


of the Jews of Cyrene, under 
Trajan. The same anachronism 
occurs in the Paschal Chroni- 
con, i. 474. 1. 3. sqq. 475. 1. 3. 
which places the destruction of 
Jerusalem in the third of Ha- 
drian, yet his visit to Egypt, 
Coss. Aviola et Pansa, U. C. 
875, in his sixth. 

* In the Armenian Chronicen 
of Eusebius this name is strange- 
ly corrupted ; Tycinio filio Ruf, 
there occurring, for Titus Vin- 
nius Rufus. Unless, indeed, the 
orthography of the name in full, 
was Titus Annius Velius Rufus. 
The name of Velius Rufus, as 
that of a well-known public cha- 
racter before his own time, oc- 
curs in Antoninus, De Rebus 
Suis, xii. 27. though, Gataker, 
in his notes upon the passage, 
throws no light upon it. Yet it 
might be the name of one of 
the Roman commanders, in the 
Jewish war under Hadrian ; for 
Rufus appears to have been a 
military character. In the pas- 


D Ἰχῖχ, 12—14. 


sage, quoted from Jerome, su- 
pra p. go, he was called Titus 
Annius Rufus. In Chronico, ad 
annum Hadriani xvi. he callshim 
Tenius Rufus, which may be a 
corruption for Titus Annius Ru- 
fus, written in brief, viz. T. An- 
nius Rufus; or simply for Vinnius 
Rufus. A similar corruption of 
the name occurs, Operum iii. 
1117. ad medium, in Dan. ix. 
where Ailius Hadrianus, it is 
said, rebellantes Judzos Timo 
Ruffo magistro exercitus pu- 
gnante superavit. 

+ Frontonis opera inedita, 
pars ii. 321. De Bello Parthico : 
Quid avo vestro Hadriano im- 
perium obtinente ... quantum 
militum a Judeis, quantum ab 
Britannis cesum. We may infer 
from this passage, also, that the 
Jewish war was followed by the 
revolt in Britain ; and therefore 


2, 


that, as the latter was going on, - 


or beginning, at the accession of 
Antoninus, so the former was not 
over much before the same time. 


© Ixix. 14. 


Chronology of the Second Jewish War. 115 


hood, and late in the duration of the contest ; when he 
might also have been in Egypt, and ¢hat in or about 
the fifteenth of his reign. 

There are coins of Gaza extant, of the time of Ha- 
drian, which imply that something occurred, U. C. 883, 
to induce the inhabitants of that city to adopt a new 
era, in conjunction with their ancient one, which bore 
date from U.C. 693. It was conjectured by Norisius 
that this new era was adopted by them, to commemo- 
rate some visit of Hadrian’s to their city in U. C. 883: 
and the conjecture is certainly a possible one. There 
is, however, an anomaly about this era; viz. that it 
bears date from a different time of the year from the 
old. Annus v. of this era synchronises with annus 
CXxCIv. and cxcv. of the old. Neither does it pro- 
ceed further than the fifth year, answering to U.C. 
887, or U. C. 888, in the eighteenth or nineteenth of 
Hadrian. Cf. Eckhel, iii. 452, 453. 

The cause of the adoption of the era is, therefore, ob- 
scure : though it may still refer to some presence of Ha- 
drian’s in those parts between U. C. 883, and U.C. 888: 
in which case the time embraced by it coincided with 
what was probably the most arduous and critical period 
in the Jewish struggle: and it closed with the end of 
the contest, the year before the adoption of Verus; at 
which time we had reason to conclude from Hadrian’s 
letter to Servianus, that he was personally in Egypt. 

A sentence has been preserved by Eusebius from the 
apology of Quadratus abovementioned, which asserts 
that many of those who had been the subjects of mi- 
racles, wrought by our Saviour, had lived to his time; 
80 as we may presume to have been seen by him. If 
there is any difficulty upon this point, it is not greater 
as concerns the fifteenth, than as concerns the eighth of 
Hadrian. Between A.D. 30, and A.D. 131, there 

12 


116 Appendix. Dissertation Eighteenth. 


were certainly more years than the life of one person 
can be supposed to have occupied. But there is no 
reason whatever to imagine that the continued exist- 
ence of many of the almost innumerable subjects of 
our Lord’s miracles, and the personal knowledge of a 
man advanced in life, like Quadratus, might not meet 
half way; about A.D. 80. St. John the apostle was 
alive twenty years or more after this time. Cf. Euse- 
bius, E. H. iii. 37. 109. A. iv. 3. 23. 143. Ὁ. v. 17. 


183. D.* 


* The anecdote. recorded by 
Socrates, (Ecclesiastica Historia, 
i. το. Cf. Suidas also, voce ᾿Ακέ- 
σιος,) respecting the conversa- 
tion between the emperor Con- 
stantine and Acesius, a Novatian 
bishop—a conversation which 
passed at the council of Nice— 
was repeated to the historian by 
one who had been present at the 
council, and an eyewitness of 
what had passed there: one Au- 
xanon, as it appears, a Novatian 
presbyter; see Εἰ. H.i.13.41. Ὁ. 
and ii. 38. 142. D. 143. A. Now 
the council was held A. D. 325, 
and Socrates could not have been 
writing much before A. D. 439, 
the seventeenth consulate of 
Theodosius the younger, down 
to which he brings his history. 
Thus we see that only one life 
was necessary as a link of con- 
nection for a period of more 


than one hundred years, between 
the historian Socrates, and the 
proceedings of the council of 
Nice. Cf. the same historian, 
111. 19. 192. A. B. It makes no 
difference to this conclusion, that 
Socrates, according to his own 
account, (i. 13. 41, D.) when 
Auxanon related these particu- 
lars to him, was a very young 
man; and Auxanon himself 
κομιδῆ νήπιος, When present at 
the council along with Ace- 
sius. Both were of an age to 
take notice of what passed, or to 
remember what was told them. 
Evagrius also, E. H. iii. 32. 362. 
B. compared with xxxiii. 363. 
A. supplies another instance of 
old persons, still living in his 
time, and able to remember and 
give an account of what had 
happened eighty years before. 


APPENDIX. 





DISSERTATION XIX. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, and the second part of 
the Chronology of the Acts of the Apostles. 


Vide Dissertation xv. vol. 11. page 19. line 3—page 62. last line. 


Ir may not, perhaps, be considered sufficient that we 
should have shewn the first twelve chapters of the Acts, 
with respect to the times and the periods which they em- 
brace, to require to be distributed in a certain manner ; 
the proof of which position in subserviency to the ge- 
neral purposes of a Gospel Harmony was fully stated 
in Dissertation xv; unless it is further demonstrated 
that the sequel and residue of the history admit of 
such a distribution. For the sake, therefore, of 
establishing this fact, I shall devote the present Dis- 
sertation to the discussion of the remainder of the 
Acts, from the thirteenth chapter inclusively, to the 
close ; in the course of which I shall necessarily have 
occasion to treat of the chronology of the Epistles of 
St. Paul. 

The notices of time, or such other indications as 
might serve to ascertain the chronology of the Acts, 
are interspersed in the body of the history; and are 
withal of so peculiar a nature, as to render it much 
easier and much safer, to begin by tracing the course of 
events from a certain fixed point backwards, than from 
any point forwards. Two such points, each of them 
coming within the compass of the time which remains 
to be investigated, are capable of being determined ; 

13 


118 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


and as they may be ascertained independently of one 
another, and yet will be found to coincide in one result, 
no inconvenience is likely to arise from our beginning 
with the consideration of the latest first. 

When St. Paul, on the occasion of his last visit to 
Jerusalem recorded in the Acts, was brought before 
the Jewish sanhedrim*’, Ananias presided at the san- 
hedrim, in quality of high priest; and yet St. Paul 
did not know him to be the high priest; or rather, he 
did not know that there was at that time any high 
priest. The true meaning of his reply—ov« ἤδειν, ἀδελ- 
poi, ὅτι ἔστιν Gpxcepeds—upon which we may ground 
this inference, has been obscured by the inaccuracy of 
the authorized version; I wist not, brethren, that he was 
the high priest. We need not object to the rendering of 
the historical present, ὅτι ἔστι, by was, for that is more 
agreeable to the genius of our language, as the other 
is to the idiom of the Greek», than the contrary would 
be: the objection lies only to the rendering, ὅτε ἔστιν 
dpxrepevs—standing absolutely as it does, and yet be- 
ing supposed to stand for the name of the high priest 
officially—as if it had been expressed, ὅτι ἐστὶν ὁ ap- 
χιερεὺς, or as if the whole had stood, οὐκ ἤδειν, ἀδελφοὶ, 
τοῦτον ὅτι ἐστὶν ὁ ἀρχιερεύς. 

The person who had just reproved St. Paul, speaking 
under his own impression, had very naturally said: 
TOV ἀρχιερέα τοῦ Θεοῦ λοιδορεῖς ; and St. Paul, if he had 
meant to be understood of any particular person as 
high priest, would have expressed himself with equal 
propriety. There is an instance, very much akin to each 
of these passages, at Acts xix. 2. St. Paul inquired of 
the disciples at Ephesus, εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐλάβετε πιστεύ- 
σαντες ; where, as he did not mean the Holy Ghost abso- 
lutely, but some one or other of the gifts or the graces 


* Acts xxiii, I—65. Ὁ Vide Acts ix. 26. 38. xii. 9. 


ἧς 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 119 


of the Holy Ghost; he could not so properly have 
used the article as omitted it: Have ye received an 
holy ghost—that is, any gift or χάρισμα of the Holy 
Ghost—in consequence of your having believed ? To 
this the disciples replied, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ, εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἔστιν, 
ἠκούσαμεν. No, so far from that; we have not even 
heard that there was an holy ghost: we did not know 
that there was any such gift to be received. 

On the same principle the reply of St. Paul, οὐκ ἤδειν, 
ἀδελφοὶ, ὅτι ἔστιν ἀρχιερεὺς, Which is so far exactly 
analogous to that, ought to be rendered in a similar 
manner; I did not know, brethren, that there was an 
high priest. The correctness of this version, I think, 
is unimpeachable; and while that is the case, no words 
can more plainly declare at what juncture of circum- 
stances the speaker must have come to Jerusalem, or 
have been standing before the council; viz. at a time 
when there was no regular high priest, but when some 
one was either altogether usurping the office, or at 
the utmost, was only pro tempore acting instead of 
the regular high priest. This some one in either 
case was doubtless Ananias; and the history of Ana- 
nias is as follows. 

Herod of Chalcis, either in the year before or in the 
very year of his death; that is, either before or in the 
eighth of Claudius®; removed Joseph the son of Ca- 
mudus, or Cami, whom he had appointed to the priest- 
hood a few years before’, and nominated Ananias the 
son of Nebedeeus in his stead®. This was also the year 
in which Cumanus succeeded to Tiberius Alexander. 

After that, some time between the eighth of Clau- 
dius as before, and the end of his twelfth, Ananias was 
sent to Rome by Quadratus, the governor of Syria ὃ: 
and he was sent upon a charge of high treason. From 


e Ant. Jud.xx. ν. 2. 4 Ibid. i.3. © Ibid. vi. 2. vii. 1. Bell. ii. xii. 5, 6. 


I 4 


120 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


the time of this mission, consequently, he was no 
longer high priest ; but instead of him, at a point of 
time coincident with, or at least not later than the first 
of Nero, Jonathan, son of Ananus‘, the Annas of the 
Gospel history, and known in Josephus as Ananus the 
son of Seth, was so; which Jonathan was sent to 
Rome as well as Ananias* 5, and either had been ap- 
pointed high priest at the time of the removal of Ana- 
nias, or was so upon their return in common from 
Rome: of which return, as they were acquitted of 
blame by Claudius‘, there can be no doubt in the case 
of either. 

The next high priest, of whom mention occurs, was 
Ishmael; a different person from both the former ; 
appointed by Agrippa the younger‘, before the close 
of the administration of Felix. Between the first of 
Nero, then, and the appointment of Ishmael, either 
there was no regular high priest at all, or it was Jona- 
than. . 

But Jonathan, not long after his appointment, was 
assassinated at one of the feasts; through the instru- 
mentality of the Sicarii, but by the subornation of Fe- 
lix!. This assassination therefore took place either in or 
after the first of Nero, yet before the removal of Felix; 
and the removal of Felix was prior to the loss of the 
influence of his brother Pallas; or rather it was while 
that influence was at its height™. Now the influence 
of Pallas with Nero depended more or less on his in- 
fluence with Agrippina the mother of Nero, and upon 

* It is said, indeed, in the before captain ofthe temple, were 
Antiquities, xx. vi. 2, that Ana~ sent to Rome; and this was pro- 


nias only, and his son Ananus, — bably the case. 
(Cf. Bell. ii. xii. 6.) who was 


f Ant. xx. viii. 4, 5. Bell. ii. xiii. 4. & Bell. ii. xii. 6. h Bell. ii. xii. 5. 
Ant. Xx. Vili. 5. i Ant. xx. vi. 3. Bell. ii. xii. 7. k Ant. xx. viii. 8. 
1 Ant. xx. viii. 5. Bell. ii. xiii. 3. m Ant. xx. viii. 9. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts. 121 


her influence with Nero himself; and as Agrippina 
was assassinated by Nero, in the month of March, 
U.C. 812, in the fifth year of his reign, so was Pallas 
himself put to death four years after, U.C. 815, in the 
eighth or the ninth®. His influence with Nero there- 
fore could not have been at its height later than the 
fifth of Nero; it had already begun to decline so early 
as his second, U. C. 808°. The removal of Felix then 
cannot be placed later than the fifth of Nero; nor 
consequently the appointment of Ishmael later than 
the fourth. It follows therefore that between the death 
of Jonathan, either in or soon after the first of Nero, 
and the appointment of Ishmael either in or before the 
fourth, there was no regular high priest. 

The duration of this interregnum may perhaps be 
limited as follows. The appointment of Ishmael is 
placed in the Antiquities after the dispute between the 
Jews and the Greeks of Cesarea; the dispute at Czesa- 
rea is placed after the appearance of the Egyptian false 
prophet; the appearance of the Egyptian false prophet 
is placed after the assassination of Jonathan; St. Paul’s 
arrival at Jerusalem was after that appearance 4150}, 
but two years, if not more, prior to the removal of 
Felix4; the removal of Felix was later than all these 
events, yet not later than the fifth of Nero. We may 
safely conclude then, that the death of Jonathan could 
not have taken place as not before the first so neither 
after the second of Nero; and the appointment of 
Ishmael as not before the second, so neither after the 
fourth of the same reign: and the critical period dur- 
ing which there was either no high priest, or some 
one usurping his office, or merely filling it for a time; 
will lie between the last half of the second, and the 


n Tacitus, Annales, xiv. 1. 4. 65. ο Ibid. xiii. 14. P Acts xxi. 37, 38. 
a Ibid. xxiv. 27. 


122 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


first of the third of Nero. That Ishmael was ap- 
pointed at the last of these times I think is implied by 
a remarkable mistake of Josephus himself. 

Antiquities iii. xv. 3. mention is made of a famine 
or dearth in Judzea, when Claudius was emperor, Ish- 
mael was high priest, and it was not long before the Jew- 
ish war: all which criteria cannot possibly concur toge- 
ther in the case of any famine in the reign of Claudius 
whatever; and more especially in that of the famine 
mentioned in the Acts, and considered at large Disserta- 
tion xv. vol. ii. 51—56. Ishmael was never high priest 
under Claudius at all; in the first year of whose reign 
Herod Agrippa appointed Simon called Cantheras’, and 
before the third, Matthias son of Ananus‘, and Elionzus 
son of Cantherast: and in the third or the fourth 
Herod of Chalcis appointed Joseph son of Cami or Ca- 
mudus", and in the sixth or the seventh Ananias the 
son of Nebedzeus; after whom the succession, until 
the time of Ishmael, was perpetuated in the person of 
Jonathan the son of Ananus. 

The high priest then during the great famine was 
Joseph the son of Camudus: and though Ishmael had 
been so, still what happened at the latest in the fourth 
of Claudius, twenty-two or twenty-three years before 
the beginning of the war, could not be said to have 
happened but a (ttle before it. The frequency of fa- 
mines, however, besides the great famine, at this period 
of contemporary history, is a well-attested fact; and 
in reality was only the completion of our Saviour’s 
prediction to that effect, in the prophecy delivered on 
mount Olivet. Suetonius alludes to Assiduas sterili- 
tates; and Tacitus to Frugum egestas, et orta ex eo 
fames ; both towards the end of the reign of Claudius: 


r Ant. Jud. xix. vi. 2. 5 Ibid. 4. Ὁ Ibid. viii. 1, 2. u Ibid. xx. i. 2, 3. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 123 


in which they are followed by Eusebius and Jerome and 
by Orosius also’ *. And if Dio does not specify the same 
things, it is because after U.C. 802, and the marriage 
of Claudius and Agrippina, he gives no particulars at 
all; but passes over the rest of his reign in silence. 
Yet in the Antiquities, directly after the appointment 
of Ishmael, in the description of the violences com- 
mitted by the higher orders of the priests on the in- 
ferior, there seems to be clear intimation of some 
period of dearth’. Josephus might mean this; though 
by a lapse of memory he assigned it to the time of Clau- 
dius, and not of Nero: a lapse of memory which wonld 
be easily accounted for, if this like the former hap- 
pened in the ¢hird year of the reigning emperor, and 
in the first year of the presiding high priest. And 
this famine being about nine years prior to the war, 
might well be said to have happened but a little 
before it. 

The power of appointing the high priest was vested 
at this time in the younger Agrippa; whose dominions, 
as limited under Claudius, had been considerably en- 
larged on the accession of NeroX. ‘Towards the end 
of the reign of Claudius he was absent at Rome’; and 
if the Agrippa, who is mentioned by Tacitus’, as com- 
manded by Nero to cooperate with Corbulo against 


* Certain of the coins of 
Alexandria, bearing the name 
of Agrippina, commemorate an 
εὐθηνία in the eleventh, twelfth, 
and thirteenth of Claudius, 
which, according to the Alexan- 
drine reckoning, would be, U.C. 
804,805,806. Vide Eckhel, iv. 52. 

In like manner, other Alex- 


v Suetonius, Claudius, 18. 
bius and Jerome, Chronica. 
ji. xili. 2. y Ant. xx. vi. 3. 


Tacitus, Annales, xii. 43. 
W xx. vill. 8. 


Bell. ii. xii. 7. 


andrine coins commemorate an 
εὐθηνία in the third, fourth, and 
fifth of Nero, according to the 
same reckoning—U. C. 810, 811, 
812. Eckhel, iv. 53. 

In each of these instances, 
the coins were probably struck 
to commemorate the recurrence 
of plenty after a time of dearth. 


Orosius, vii. 6. Euse- 
x Ant. Jud. xx. viii. 4. Bell. 
z Annales, xiii. 7, 8, 9. 


124 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


the Parthians and upon the Euphrates, was the same 
with Agrippa the younger; it is plain that, whether he 
was at Rome or not in the first of Nero, the execution 
of that commission would keep him at a distance from 
Judzea until the beginning of Nero’s second year at least. 
The observation of Tacitus, Quze, in alios consules 
egressa, conjunxi, demonstrates that Corbulo and his 
allies were engaged upon it at least till the summer 
of U.C.808. If after that the high priest Jonathan, 
as I consider the most probable state of the case, was 
assassinated at the feast of Tabernacles, or at the 
latest at the feast of the Passover next ensuing, and 
both in the second of Nero; the time when an high 
priest was indispensably wanted was the recurrence of 
the day of Atonement; and therefore the time, by 
which a successor to Jonathan would almost of necessity 
require to be appointed, would be just before that recur- 
rence, at the very end of the second of Nero. But the 
arrival of St. Paul at Jerusalem was certainly at a Pen- 
tecost*; and if that was the Pentecost between these ex- 
tremes, it was the Pentecost of the second of Nero, U.C. 
809. With this conclusion every note of time and 
every incidental circumstance, disclosed in the history 
and in any way connected with his arrival, will be 
found exactly to agree. 

I. The Sicarii>, a race of men who had not started 
up before the first of Nero, but who continued long 
after, would now be in existence, and be known as a 
distinct body. 

II. The regular high priest, Jonathan, had been 
very recently murdered; and no successor as yet had 
been appointed in his stead: Ananias, however, who 
had once been high priest (and for two or three years) 


ἃ Acts xx. 16, xxi. 27. b Acts xxi. 38. Suidas, Σικάριοι. Ant. Jud. xx. 
viii. 5. Bell. ii. xiii. 3. 


ὥς 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 125 


himself, and was probably the vicar of Jonathan even 
while he was living, was as likely as any one to be 
acting for him; and yet could not be known or re- 
cognised as the regular high priest. 

III. The Egyptian impostor, whose appearance is 
alluded to in the Acts, and the fact of which both the 
Antiquities and the War mention after the death of 
Jonathan’, must very lately have been defeated, or at 
least very lately have appeared in Jerusalem; a con- 
clusion which the suspicion of Lysias, that St. Paul 
might be this same person, is enough of itself to sug- 
gest. Josephus also shews that the impostor was not 
made prisoner, though his followers were attacked and 
dispersed. All this might have taken place between 


the Passover and the Pentecost of U.C. 809. * 


* As to the means of recon- 
ciling the account, which Jose- 
phus has given of this impostor, 
with the above allusion to his 
history in the Acts; I entirely 
agree in the solution proposed by 
Dr. Lardner. The interrogation 
of Lysias related to such of his 
followers, as he had originally 
led with him out of Jerusalem, 
which might be only four thou- 
sand; the account of his defeat 
in Josephus relates to those 
whom he was bringing back 
with him thither from the wil- 
derness, when Felix met him 
and put him to the rout; and 
these might be as many as thirty 
thousand. 

It is manifest from Josephus 
that he was once, but only once, 
in Jerusalem ; very probably at 
the feast of the Passover, U. C. 
809, and that, before his de- 
parture to the wilderness ; but 
that he was returning thither 


c Acts xxi. 38. Ant. Jud 


again, by way of mount Olivet, 
when he was attacked by the 
Roman governor. The state- 
ment of the numbers killed or 
taken prisoners, in consequence 
of this attack, relates to a part 
of his history not mentioned in 
the Acts; and however differ- 
ently it may be represented in 
the Antiquities compared with 
the War, it concerns the recon- 
ciliation of Josephus with him- 
self, not with St. Luke: yet Dr. 
Lardner’s solution of this dif_i- 
culty also appears to me perfect- 
ly just and natural. 

I think, however, that at the 
time of St. Paul’s arrival in Je- 
rusalem, he had not yet return- 
ed; nor did so until some time 
afterwards. The language of 
Lysias clearly implies that he 
had been indeed in Jerusalem, 
and had led out thence a body 
of men into the wilderness ; but 
it also implies that as yet no 


. XX, Vili. 6. Bell. ii. xiii. 5. 


126 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


IV. Felix was now the acting procurator, and he 
had performed such services to the community at large 
as might give occasion to the complimentary language 
of Tertullus’; for he had before this made prisoner 
one Eleazar, a chief captain of the Aycrai, who had 
previously infested the country with impunity for 
twenty years®; and he was still employed daily in 
capturing and putting to death numbers of the same 
description of persons '. 

V. He had been many years in office, as St. Paul re- 
minds him’; which may thus be proved. . 

Orosius places the appointment of Cumanus in the 
seventh of Claudius"; nor does Josephus, as we saw in 
Dissertation xv. vol.ii. p.52, militate against this suppo- 
sition. It is more probable, however, that his appoint- 
ment is to be placed actually in the summer of the eighth 
of Claudius. On this principle the disturbance at the 
Passover’, which followed soon after his appointment, 
may reasonably be supposed to have happened at the 
Passover in the ninth of Claudius, U.C. 802. Between 
this and the Passover mentioned in the War); which 
shews that the feast only generally alluded to in the 
Antiquities was a Passover *; including the fresh out- 
rage committed on Stephanus the emperor’s bondman, 
and the insurrectionary warfare with the Samaritans, 
there could be only one year’s interval: in support of 
which conclusion there is this additional reason, that 
the feast, in going up to which the Galileans were way- 
laid by the Samaritans, is called ἁπλῶς, ἡ ἑορτή |. 

The degree of estimation, in which the feast of Ta- 


more had been heard, or was then by Felix took place strictly 
known about him. His defeat when St. Paul was at Cesarea. 


ἃ Acts xxiv. 2, 3. e Ant. Jud. xx. viii. 5. Bell. ii. xiii. 2. f Ibid. 
g Acts xxiv. Io. Hy. ὅς. WAnt. Jud. «x. v,3. Bell 11, ΧΙ. 1 4.1. ΣῚ δὲ 
kK xx, vi. 2. 1 Bell. ii. xil. 3. 


a 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 127 


bernacles more particularly was held, justifies us ὦ 
priort in supposing the allusion to be to that feast. T's 
Σκηνοπηγίας ἐνστάσης, ἑορτὴ δ᾽ ἐστὶν αὕτη παρ᾽ ἡμῖν εἰς τὰ 
μάλιστα τηρουμένη---ΟὉ τῆς Σκηνοπηγίας καιρὸς, ἑορτῆς 
σφόδρα παρὰ τοῖς “ἸὩβραίοις ἁγιωτάτης καὶ μεγίστης---- 
Μηνῶν τε ὁ ἕβδομος, κατὰ πᾶν ἔτος, ἑορτῶν ἔλαχε τὴν με- 
γίστην *™,—The usage of Josephus", and the similar 
usage of the Rabbinical writers °, a posterior?, confirm 
the supposition. On this principle it would be the 
feast of Tabernacles, U. C. 802, in the ninth of Clau- 
dius, when the events in question happened. The next 
Passover, which was going on when Quadratus paid a 
visit to Jerusalem, was consequently the Passover of 
U.C. 803. the tenth of Claudius. 

Now, before he paid this visit, he had already sent 
the former high priest Ananias, if not also the newly- 
appointed high priest Jonathan, and the procurator 
Cumanus, all to Rome; to answer for themselves be- 
fore Claudius in common ?: they were sent therefore 
between the feast of Tabernacles, U.C. 802. and the 
Passover, U. C. 803. The result was that not only did 


* Plutarch, vi. 7o1. Apo- 
phthegmata: τῶν δ᾽ ᾿Ιουδαίων.... 
πρὸς τὴν μεγίστην ἑορτὴν αἰτησαμένων 
ἑπτὰ ἡμερῶν avoyas ™M— - 111. 669. 
Symposiaca, iv. 5: τῆς μεγίστης καὶ 
τελειοτάτης ἑορτῆς παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ὁ 
καιρὸς, κα, τ. A. For this reason 
the feast of Tabernacles in parti- 
cular is often called, ἁπλῶς, ἡ 
ἑορτὴ, or simply ἑορτή : of which 
usage, besides the instances pro- 
duced from Josephus and the 
rabbis, we have an example in 
the Predicatio Petri, Clemens 


Alex. ii. 760. 1. 23. Stromatum 
Vi. 5: καὶ ἐὰν μὴ σελήνη φανῇ, σάββα-- 
τον οὐκ ἄγουσι τὸ λεγόμενον πρῶτον" 
οὔτε νεομηνίαν ἄγουσιν, οὔτε ἄζυμα, 
οὔτε ἑορτὴν, οὔτε μεγάλην ἡμέραν. 
We may observe too, here, that 
in the allusion to the σάββατον, 
τὸ λεγόμενον πρῶτον, the same 
mode of mentioning and charac- 
terising a particular day, or a 
particular week, may probably 
be intended, which is exempli- 
fied in St. Luke’s use of the 


phrase δευτερόπρωτον. 


m Ant. Jud. xv. iii. 3. viii. iv. 1. Philo, Operum ii. 286. 1. 26. De Septenario et 


Festis Diebus. 
sion of the above allusion. 


mm Cf, Ant. Jud. xiii. vill. 2. which shews the time and occa- 
n Ant. xiii. xiii. 5. Bell. i.iv.3. Ant. xiv. xi. 5. 3, 4. 


Bell. i. xi. 6. Ant. xx.ix. 3. Bell i. xxii. 2. 0 Maimonides, De Adificio Templi, 
i. 16. Annott. De Sacris Solemnibus, ii. 4. Annott. De jurejurando, i. Annott. 
P Ant. xx. vi. 2. Bell. ii. xii. 6. 


128 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


the Jews obtain a favourable hearing from the em- 
peror, but Jonathan, by his personal intercession, is 
said to have got Felix the appointment to the procura- 
torship in the room of Cumanus 4. Ifso, he would be ap- 
pointed in the tenth of Claudius, U. C. 803. from which 
time to U. C. 809. in the second of Nero, he would have 
been six years in office ; a longer period than had fallen 
to the lot of any governor since Gratus or Pilate ; and 
perhaps to be attributed in part to the influence of his 
brother Pallas (through Agrippina) with Claudius. 

VI. Drusilla was now the wife of Felix. Drusilla 
was one of the daughters of Herod Agrippa and Cy- 
prus, and consequently was by both her parents a 
Jewess; and at the time of her father’s death, U. C. 796. 
she is said to have been six years old τ: in the thir- 
teenth of Claudius, U. C. 806. ten years after, she was 
married to Azizus king of EKmesa; who, however, 
died U.C. 807. or 1]. C. 808. in the first of Nero’: 
and even before his death Drusilla had been persuaded 
to leave him, and to marry Felix*; to whom she conti- 
nued united until U.C. 832°. in the reign of Titus, when 
both she, and a son whom she had borne him, perished 
in the eruption of mount Vesuvius. Suetonius, in 
allusion to this marriage among others, calls Felix, 
Trium reginarum maritum". It is certain then that 
he and Drusilla were living together in $i in 
the second of Nero, U.C. 809. 

VII. St. Paul had not been in Jerusalem for some 
years before this time’. When he last was there, it was, 
as I shall prove hereafter, U. C. 805. at the Passover 
in the twelfth of Claudius; from whence to the Pente- 
cost in the second of Nero, there would be four years’ 
and two months’ interval: and he came now, as we 


q Ant. xx. vi. 3. Bell. ii. xii. 7. Ant. xx. viii. 5. Υ Ant. xix. ix.3. 68 xx. 
viii. 4. Vii. 1,2. 6 Dio, Ixvi. 21.24. 26.18. Claudius, 28. ν Acts xxiv. 17. 


fa 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts. 129 


shall also see, charged with the contributions of the 
churches of Asia Minor, and of Achaia, towards the 
necessities of the church of Jerusalem ; that is, of his 
nation. 

VIII. Felix, who left Paul in confinement behind 
him with a view to conciliate the Jews, had some 
reason for wishing to oblige them: the dispute about 
Caesarea, in which he took so decided a part against 
the Jewish inhabitants and in behalf of the Greeks, 
and when so many lives were lost; must have hap- 
pened in the fourth year of Nero, and in the last year 
of his administration *. 

IX. When Paul was tried before Festus, Ishmael had 
been some time appointed ; and was certainly the act- 
ing high priest. And it is observable that this high 
priest, whosoever he was, is no longer called the high 
priest Ananias, as he had been repeatedly beforeY; but 
simply the high priest’. Yet Festus speaks still of 
the high priests 4, as if there were more than one of 
them ; and this also would literally be the case; since, 
though Ishmael might be the titular and ‘acting high 
priest, Ananias might yet be his vicar, and the next in 
dignity to him. He is called high priest by Josephus, 
even after the appointment of Jesus, the son of Dam- 
nzeus *; and he is still so called, even when Paul’s 
prophecy against him was accomplished, in his being 
assassinated by the partisans of Manahem, at the out- 
set of the Jewish war*. Nor must he be here con- 
founded with the younger Ananus; whose death is 
also mentioned, but at a later period and in a different 
way °, 

I have said nothing hitherto concerning the discre- 


w Acts xxiv. 27. x Ant. Jud. xx. viii. 7. Bell. ii. xiii. 7. y Acts xxiii. 2. 
xxiv.!. Z xxv. 2. Cf.xxv. 15. 8 Ant. xx. ix. 1, 2. Bell. ii. xvii. 9. Acts xxiii. 3. 
b Bell. iv. v. 1, 2. iv. iii. 9. 7. 


ΟΣ  νς K 


130 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


pancy respecting the successive administrations of Cu- 
manus and of Felix, which exists between the ac- 
counts of Josephus and those of Tacitus; because, how- 
ever great this discrepancy may be, it is unquestionable 
that a Jewish historian is more entitled to credit, in 
relation to the affairs of Judza, than a Roman: nor 
is this the only instance where Tacitus may be con- 
victed either of a want of correct information, or a 
culpable haste and inaccuracy, with reference to Ju- 
dea in particular. But as to Josephus—in this por- 
tion of his history he must have written in some de- 
gree from personal observation ; for he was thirteen 
or fourteen years old in the tenth of Claudius; and if 
we may believe his own account of himself, was so 
forward in intellectual proficiency, that even at that 
age the doctors of the Law used to consult him on dif- 
ficult questions “. 

The discrepancy after all is not an insuperable one. 
Tacitus attests that Quadratus was Prefect of Syria 
not only before or in the eleventh of Claudius, but 
after it ; and that in the twelfth Felix was governor of 
Judea, and had been Pridem inpositus *4, The coins 
of Quadratus, still extant, begin only from U. C. 808. & 
at which time it is certain he had been long in office. I 
should conjecture that he was appointed in tl ninth 


* When Felix is spoken of as 
pridem Judee inpositus, soon 
after the beginning of U. C. 805, 
it must imply that he had been 
appointed a year or two before ; 
not later perhaps than U.C. 
803. 

But Tacitus betrays his inac- 
curacy on these points, where 
he talks of the Galilwans being 
subject to Cumanus, and the 


£ Vita, 2. 


ad Annales, xii. 45. 54. xiv. 26. 


Samaritans to Felix, as if they 
were the complex of the nation. 
For, on this principle, who was 
procurator of Judea as such ὃ 

He does the same, Historie, v. 
9, where he confounds Drusilla, 
the daughter of Herod Agrippa, 
with Drusilla, a granddaughter 
of Antony and Cleopatra: un- 
less, indeed, Felix was married 
at the same time to both. 


e Eckhel, iii. 280. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 131 


of Claudius, U. C. 802; and that he had not long been 
come into the province when the Jewish and Sama- 
ritan deputies, in consequence of the dispute of the two 
nations, had their audience of him at Tyre. His pre- 
decessor, Cassius Longinus, had succeeded to Vibius 
Marsus after the death of Herod Agrippa, U. C. 796: 
and one of his coins proves him to have been in office 
U.C. 798. at least‘. Hence he might well be superseded 
in U. C. 802. Nor is this supposition inconsistent with 
the testimony of Tacitus’; who makes Cassius still 
president of Syria, when Meherdates was sent from 
Rome to be placed on the throne of Parthia, U.C. 802: 
and Cassius to be the person who conducted him to 
the banks of the Euphrates. It appears from the ac- 
count that this service was performed by the mid- 
summer of that year; so that it was possible for Cas- 
sius to be superseded in the ensuing autumn. 

Now it is not improbable that, when Cumanus was 
appointed in the eighth of Claudius, U. C. 801, (the 
very year before Claudius, a few days after December 
the 29th, celebrated his marriage with Agrippina 4, 
whom the influence of Pallas had raised to that dig- 
nity above her rivals;) or early in the next year, 
Felix also was sent out in some coordinate capacity; 
and that the high priest, Jonathan, who is said to 
have personally solicited his appointment to the procu- 
ratorship after Cumanus, U. C. 803, first became ac- 
quainted with him in Judza; and not at Rome. 

Be this however as it may, the two historians are 
agreed upon the main facts; that the Galilaans had 
gone to war with the Samaritans; that Roman soldiers 

f Eckhel, iii. 2896. ¢ Annales, xii. 11, 12. It appears from this account, that 
Meherdates must have been sent from Rome early, U. C. 802: have been con- 
ducted by Cassius to the Euphrates, about midsummer, the same year; and have 


entered Armenia in the autumn of that, or in the winter quarter of the next year. 
h Tacitus, Annales, xii. 5. 8. Suetonius, Claudius, 28, 29. 


K 2 


132 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


had been killed; that Quadratus was presiding gover- 
nor of Syria; that he had authority to try the Jewish 
procurator himself; that Felix was or might be pre- 
sent at the trial of Cumanus; and that all these things 
might happen about the ninth of Claudius: while Jo- 
sephus in particular will shew that the agitation in 
the province could not have been finally quelled ; and 
that partly by the punishment of the most turbulent 
among the Jews, and partly by that of the Roman 
tribune Celer; before the tenth i. 

Suetonius, by placing the appointment of Felix over 
Judea after the adoption of Nero, is so far in favour 
of Josephus*; for it is the practice of this biographer, 
though he does not relate the whole of any life in his- 
torical order, yet to relate such portions of it as he 
classes together, in the order in which they followed 
each other. Nero was adopted by Claudius, according 
to Tacitus, U. C. 803. meunte'; according to Sueto- 
nius, in the eleventh year of his age; which eleventh 
year was completed December the fifteenth, U. C. 
801." This would fix the time of his adoption to 
U. C. 802. eneunte, when he had entered on his twelfth 
year, at the latest; so that on this point Tacitus is at 
variance with Suetonius; and yet that Suetonius is 
more in the right may be proved from Tacitus him- 
self. 

At the time of this adoption Nero was committed to 
the tuition of Seneca™™; and to this tuition he had 
been committed fourteen years in the eighth of Nero"; 
that is, between October 13, U.C.814, and October 13, 
U.C.815. This might be the case, if the first year 
of the tuition was U. C. 801. exeunte, or 802. ineunte; 


i Ant. xx. vi. 2, 3. Bell. ii. xii. 3—7. k Claudius, 27, 28. 1 Annales, 
xii.25. m Nero, 7.6. Cf. Capitolinus, Verus Imperator, 1. mm Nero, 7. 6. 
n Annales, xiv. 53. 


+s 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts. 133 


but not if it was U.C.803.* Nero then must have 
been adopted in the ninth of Claudius at the latest ; 
and consequently Felix, who was appointed to Judza 
after his adoption, might be appointed in the tenth; 
but could not be before it. 

The second of the points of time, which we originally 
proposed to consider, is not less critical than the first : 
on the contrary, after what has been already esta- 
blished, it will be found perhaps to be more so. 

When St. Paul upon leaving Athens was arrived, for 
the first time, at Corinth; he met there with Aquila 
and Priscilla, who were recently come from Italy, be- 
cause Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart 
from Rome®. I have shewn elsewhere? that, in al- 
most every instance of a journey from Italy to Asia, 
Corinth was the regular thoroughfare: and if Aquila 
was a native of Pontus, it is probable that he was re- 
turning to Asia; a conjecture, which is so far con- 
firmed by the subsequent course of events, that it ap- 
pears he left Corinth at the same time with St. Paul, 
and afterwards settled at Ephesus 4. Nor had he long 
been arrived at Corinth when St. Paul also came thi- 
ther; nor consequently had the decree of Claudius, 
by which the Jews were expelled from Rome or Italy, 
been long in force. 

Now a great number of Jews, most of them /iber- 
tint generis ; that is, the descendants of such as, having 
originally been brought to Rome in the capacity of 
slaves, had recovered their freedom; were living there 
in the time of Augustus and of Tiberius, and even 

* Tacitus, it is true, speaks ning of U. C. 802. It would be 
of Seneca’s being appointed pre- fourteen years current from this 
ceptor to Nero at the time of time, any time after the begin- 


the marriage of Agrippina and ning of U.C. 815. 
Claudius, which was the begin- 


© Acts xviii. 1,2. P Dissertation ii. vol.i. 109. 4 Acts xviii. 18, 19. 24. 26. 
K 3 


134 Appendix, Dissertation Nineteenth. 


before that; in the quarter called Trans Tiberim’: 
eight thousand concurred in the petition against Ar- 
chelaus, which was sent from the mother country, 
U. C. 7515: four thousand were transported to Sar- 
dinia, U. Ο. 774 ὃ; and at the beginning of the reign 
of Claudius their numbers were become so consider- 
able, that it was not thought safe or practicable to 
expel them the city, though they were forbidden to 
assemble together" *. This being the case, it becomes 
presumptively an argument that they would not be 
expressly driven from Rome at any subsequent period, 
except for some great and urgent reason; and that 
they were so expelled some time in the reign of Clau- 
dius is attested in general by Suetonius, as well as by 
St. Luke’; though he may have mistaken the cause, 
or assigned it only in part, when he ascribes it to their 
constant disturbances, zxpulsore Chresto; for Chris- 
tianity, as we have seen “, had certainly reached Rome 
early in the reign of Claudius; and even in the time 
of Lactantius, Chrestus was still a common mistake 
of pronunciation for Christus * +. 

αὐτίκα οἱ eis 


* Dio, xxxvii.g. records ἃ si- Stromatum ii. iv: 


milar expulsion of all strangers 
from Rome, U. C. 689, because 
of the increase of their numbers. 

+ That the confusion of Chre- 
stus and Christus was a very early 
and a very common misnomer, 
is proved by the following pas- 
sages : 

Theophilus ad Autolycum, i. 
17: περὶ δὲ τοῦ σε καταγελᾷν μου, 
καλοῦντά με Χριστιανὸν, οὐκ οἶδας 
ὃ λέγεις᾽ πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι τὸ χρη- 
στὸν ἡδὺ καὶ εὔχρηστον καὶ ἀκατα- 
γέλαστόν ἐστι. Clemens Ale- 
xandrinus, Operum i. 438. 9: 


Suetonius, Tiberius, 36. Dio, lx. 6. 
ν᾿ Dissertation ii. vol. i. 117. sqq. 


τὸν Χριστὸν πεπιστευκότες χρηστοί 
τέ εἶσι, καὶ λέγονται. 

Tertullian, Operum v. 12. 
Apologeticus, 3: Sed et cum per- 
peram Christianus pronuntiatur 
a vobis, (nam nec nominis certa 
est notitia penes vos,) de suavi- 
tate vel benignitate compositum 
est. Ad Nationes, 1. 3. Ibid. 
130: Etiam cum corrupte a 
vobis Christiani pronuntiamur, 
(nam ne nominis quidem ipsius 
liquido certi estis,) sic quoque 
de suavitate vel bonitate modu- 
latum est. 


u Dio, loc. cit. Vv Claudius, 25. 


Xx De Vera Sapientia, iv. 7. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts. 135 


It is a critical coincidence, however, that Suetonius 
places this expulsion about the same time as the occa- 
sion when an embassy of Parthians and Armenians 
was present in Rome. This embassy, I have little 
doubt, was the embassy alluded to by Tacitus Y, U. C. 
802, when they came to ask for Meherdates. It is 
placed also about the same time with the restitution of 
their liberty to the Rhodians, taken away U. C. 797%; 
which restitution Tacitus places, U.C. 806, but Sueto- 
nius, U.C. 804, in some consulate of Claudius ; which 
must have been his fifth. 

Jerome, in his Commentary on Dan. ix. quotes 
from Apollinarius of Laodicea the following passage: 
Postea vero ab octavo Claudii Cesaris anno, contra Ju- 
dzos Romana arma correpta—. Ab octavo means 
after the eighth, and therefore im the ninth; just as, 
in a like expression of Tertullian’s*, 4 duodecimo, 
meant after the twelfth, and consequently, in the thir- 
teenth. Now, from whatsoever authority this state- 
ment was derived, it is supported by Orosius®; who 
distinctly places the expulsion of the Jews from Rome 
in the ninth of Claudius: and what is more, it is en- 
tirely in unison with the implicit testimony of Jo- 
sephus. The disturbance at the passover; the sub- 
sequent outrage on Stephanus, the emperor’s bond- 
man and fiscal procurator; the tumultuary warfare be- 
tween the Galileeans and the Samaritans; all events of 
the same year, U. C. 802: were the most natural and 
most likely causes of this act of severity towards the 
Jews; whose conduct, as regarded at Rome and until 
the rupture had been satisfactorily adjusted, partly by 
the exertions of the Jewish deputies and partly by the 
intercession of the younger Agrippa; would be looked 


y Annales, xii. ro. Z Dio, Ix. 24. a Annales, xii. 58. b Nero, 7. 
¢ Operum iii. 1114. ad calcem. d Dissertation xiii. vol. i. 457. © vii. 6. 


K 4 


136 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


on in the light of a direct rebellion. Tacitus expresses 
himself strongly to this effect; Arsissetque bello pro- 
vinciaf: and Josephus shews that, if actual war was pre- 
vented, it was only by the prayers, remonstrances, and 
entreaties of the rulers or chief Jews themselves; whose 
efforts and expedients to disarm the infuriated pas- 
sions of the common people he describes very much to 
the lifes. Certain it is, that a breach with the Roman 
government was never so near at any time before the 
final revolt as now, and in the last year of Caius; and 
to these two occasions in particular, I am persuaded 
that our Saviour alluded in the prophecy upon the 
mount, when he told the disciples that they should 
hear of wars and rumours or tidings of wars, but 
should see no actual war: the storm, once and again, 
should gather over Judea as if on the point of burst- 
ing upon it; and once and again, as the event proved, 
it should be seen to pass away without effect, because 
the end was not to be yet. 

The number of the Jewish inhabitants oF Rome was 
certainly too considerable to be tolerated there, with con- 
fidence or safety, if the mother country was in a state 
of revolt. But the news of what had happened in 
Judzea, especially of what had happened after the feast 
of Tabernacles; (which in U. C. 802. when the Passover 
was celebrated on April 5." began to be celebrated 
on September 30;) would not be received in Rome 
under two or three months afterwards; that is, before 
December, U. C. 802, or January, U. C. 803. The de- 
cree of expulsion might follow soon after this; and in 
two or three weeks’ time subsequently Aquila might 
arrive at Corinth *; where he had certainly been some 

* Polybius, xxvii.6 (Fragmen- {Π Acts, it is related that the sub- 
ta): upon an occasion like that in jects of Perseus, king of Mace- 


f Annales, xii. 54. & Ant, xx. vi. 1. Bell. ii. xii. 5. ἢ Dissertation vii. vol. i. 2332. 
D 54 5 33 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 137 


time, longer or shorter, before St. Paul came thither. 
If we place, then, their meeting at Corinth about the 
spring of U. C. 803, we place it in all probability near 
the truth. 

We have now, as I think, ascertained two dates, the 
earlier of which fixes the time of St. Paul’s first visit 
to the peninsula of Greece; and the latter the time of 
his last visit to Jerusalem, recorded in the Acts. With 
a view to the detail of intermediate particulars ; I will 
assume only that he set out on his second general cir- 
cuit, Acts xv. 36, about the same period in the year as 
on his first, viz. the Pentecost of U.C. 802, May 26; 
or between that time, and April 5, the date of the 
preceding Passover. The subsequent course and direc- 
tion of his journey along the extent of Asia Minor 
from Antioch, through Syria and Cilicia first; and by 
land as far as Alexandria Troas; and from thence 
through Macedonia, Thessaly, and Attica, until he came 
to Corinth; including the time taken up by his resi- 
dence in particular places, both those where such re- 
sidences are not specified, and those where they are, as 
at Troas, Philippi, Thessalonica, Beroea, and Athens: 
do necessarily require that we should allow the best 
part of a year for the transaction of every thing, be- 
tween Acts xv. 36. and xviii.1; though this interval 
is not too little: for it is clear that St. Paul did not 
make a practice of staying every where; and we may 
infer from the narrative in the Acts, compared also 
with the Epistles to Philippi and to Thessalonica', 
that he stayed as long in each of those cities as he did 
any where else; and yet the length of the stay at the 


donia, U.C. 583, were ordered to be gone from Italy ἐν τριά- 
away from Rome instantly, and κονθ' ἡμέραις. 


ir Thess. i. 6. ii. g. 2 Thess. iii. 7,8. Philipp. iv. 16. 


138 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


latter does not appear to have much exceeded three 
weeks *, 

In the year of our Lord 44, U. C. 797, in which St. 
Paul set out on his first circuit, the Passover was 
celebrated March 31; and the day of Pentecost fell on 
May 21: and St. Paul's first circuit, as we have as- 
sumed, began about that time. Between this time 
and the Pentecost, May 26, U. C. 802, which we have 
assumed to be the date of his second circuit, there was 
just a five years’ interval; to be filled up first, by the 
time occupied on the first circuit before the return to 
Antioch; that is, between Acts xiii. 4, and xiv. 26: 
secondly, by the residence at Antioch posterior to the 
return, but before the beginning of the dispute with 
the Judaizing teachers; that is, between Acts xiv. 27. 
and xv. 1: thirdly, by the mission to Jerusalem and 
the conference there, in consequence of this dispute ; 
viz. between Acts xv. 2, and xv. 29: and fourthly, by 
the return to Antioch, and the continuance of the re- 
sidence there, posterior to all the former events, but 
prior to the commencement of the next general circuit; 
that is, between Acts xv. 30, and xv. 35. For one 
and all of these transactions the period of five years is 
not too long an interval; especially, as independent of 
the duration of the circuit itself, the residence at An- 


tioch before and after the 
either affirmed or implied 
time!}. 


* Three sabbaths only are 
mentioned in the account of 
᾽ . r Ω 
Paul’s residence at Thessalonica ; 
but he might be there a longer 

time than three weeks in all. 
+ The details of these five years 
are of no importance to our 


k Acts xvii. 2. 


conference in Jerusalem is 
to have occupied no Kittle 


general argument, and so far 
may be distributed as we please. 
I cannot help conjecturing how- 
ever, that the time of the coun- 
cil of Jerusalem, at which the 
question, whether the Gentile 
converts to Christianity became 


1 Acts xiv. 28. xv. 35. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 189 


The arrival of St. Paul at Corinth, then, within a 
year after the commencement of his second journey, 
would be about the spring of U.C. 803; and conse- 
quently, in the first quarter of the tenth of Claudius, 
which began that year on January the 24th. The last 
places which he visited, and as the course of the his- 
tory proves, not many weeks before his arrival at 
Athens, were Philippi, Thessalonica, and Bercea; all 
which it is to be presumed would be visited U. C. 803: 
and it is some slight confirmation of this presumption, 
that the language ascribed to the enemies of Paul, first 
at Philippi and again at Thessalonica™, points to a 
period when Christianity must have pervaded the 
world, which it might be said to have done when 
it had once reached Rome; and also to the knowledge 
of some dogma or decree of the existing emperor, hos- 
tile to the Jews, and especially binding on Roman 
citizens: which might be that very edict of Claudius, 
which he issued about this time, commanding the Jews 
to leave Rome and Italy: and consequently laying 
them under a public ban, and forbidding Reman citi- 
zens in particular to give them any encouragement. 


subject, in consequence of their 


lower down—in the speech of 
conversion, to the Law of Mo- 


St. James, to be equivalent sim- 


ses, or not, was formally dis- 
cussed and settled; and which 
was therefore a cardinal period 
in the progress of the Christian 
scheme as concerned them ; is 
to be placed U. C. S00, or U.C. 
801, exactly at seven years’ dis- 
tance from the time of the con- 
version of Cornelius. This sup- 
position is manifestly possible ; 
and it derives some support 
from the language of St. Peter, 
Acts xv. 7. ἀφ᾽ ἡμερῶν ἀρχαίων, 
which is seen from verse 14— 


ply to τὸ πρῶτον, or at the utmost 
to aw ἀρχῆς. The fact alluded 
to in each instance is clearly the 
opening of the Gospel to the 
Gentiles, by the instrumentality 
of St. Peter in the conversion of 
Cornelius ; and this being spoken 
of as a somewhat remote event ; 
as what had happened a good 
while ago, or at first ; it is more 
naturally to be understood of a 
period of six or seven years, 
than merely of three or four. 


m Acts xvi. 21. xvii. 6, 7. 


140 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


It is not a less critical circumstance of coincidence 
that the first half of the ninth of Claudius, U.C. 802, 
when St. Paul set out on his second mission, was, as I 
have proved elsewhere, the close of a sabbatic year; 
which was always a year of scarcity among the Jews. 
Nor was it the case with the Jews only, that the ninth 
of Claudius was a year of dearth; but according to 
Eusebius in Chronico, the same was the case in Greece 
also. He speaks of a famine in Greece, in the ninth of 
Claudius, U. C. 802* ; when the modius or peck of corn 
(σίτου) rose to six drachmz or denarii in price; that 
is, to six times its usual value. The ordinary price of 
the modius of bread-corn was one drachma or denarius, 
and not more. Hence it is, that in the book of Revela- 
tions, to express the severity of a dearth, the choenix 
or three half-pints measure of corn alone, (that is, 
as much as would maintain one man for a day,) is put 
at a denarius in price; about ten times its usual 
rate". There are other occasions in the course of 
contemporary events, which might be cited from his- 
tory, as well after as before these times®, when the 
price of wheat rose much higher than usual; but 
scarcely any, under ordinary circumstances, when it 
seems to have been higher than on this occasion. The 
use which we may make of the fact in question is as 
follows. 


like manner, the fire of Rome, 
which certainly happened in the 


* The Armenian version of the 
Chronicon of Eusebius places 


this famine apparently Claudii 
vill. But such is its practice ; 
to place facts about a certain 
time. It is coupled with the 
mention of another great famine 
at Rome, which really happened 
in the ¢enth of Claudius. In 


n vi. 6. 


tenth of Nero, is put by this 
Chronicon in his ninth. And 
so, in various other instances. 
The Chronicon of Jerome, p. 
160, places it distinctly in the 
ninth of Claudius. 


© Josephus mentions one, Ant. xiv. ii. 2. Vide also Polybius, ix. 


44: Valerius Max. vii. vi. 6: Eusebius, Chronicon Arm. Lat. Ad annum 2024. 
Augusti 51. Cf. Jerome, Chronicon, p. 156: Eusebius, E. H. ix. viii. 355. Ὁ. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 141 


It might be collected from 2 Cor. xi. 8, 9, alone, 
that St. Paul came to Corinth at a time of dearth, or 
when he was likely to want the means of subsistence ; 
nor would he make a merit to the Corinthians of 
having taken nothing from them, if there was not 
some particular reason why he should. The same in- 
ference seems to be deducible from 1 Thess. ii. 9, and 
2 Thess. iii. 8: he might have been grievous to this 
church, if he had not purposely abstained from being 
so. What then are we to conclude? The wants of St. 
Paul at Corinth were supplied by the brethren who 
came from Macedonia?; and the Epistle to the Philip- 
pians proves that they were supplied from that part of 
Macedonia’. The time when this supply was brought 
to Corinth was consequently when Silas and Timothy 
arrived there from Macedonia’; and they brought it 
with them from thence. 

In like manner, the wants of St. Paul at Thessalonica, 
as the same Epistle proves, were supplied from Phi- 
lippi also: and though he came to Thessalonica almost 
on leaving Philippi’, and though he is said appa- 
rently * to have stayed at Thessalonica not more than 
three weeks, yet even there they had ministered once 
and again, that is, on two several occasions, to his 
necessities. 

St. Paul’s arrival at Thessalonica would be early in 
the winter quarter of U. C. 803, before which time 
the famine, if there was any such event as the failure 
of the harvests in the year preceding, would neces- 


* I say apparently ; for the before St. Paul, as in other 


probability is that he stayed 
longer. Dr. Paley thinks the 
three weeks’ residence specified 
relates to the time spent there, 


P 2 Cor. xi. 8, 9, 


q Phil. iv. 15, 16. 


places, and especially at Ephe- 
sus, ceased to preach to the 
Jews, and turned to the Gen- 
tiles. 


r Acts xviii. 5. 5. xvii. I. 


142 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


sarily have begun to be felt. His arrival at Corinth 
was early in the spring quarter of the same year; 
and the coming of the brethren from Macedonia to 
him there was certainly not long afterwards. Yet in 
this short time the Philippians, a single church, minis- 
tered thrice at least to his wants; twice in Thessa- 
lonica and again in Corinth. All this seems to inti- 
mate that there was some pressing occasion for so 
doing: something in the state of the times more likely 
to stimulate the benevolent zeal of St. Paul’s converts 
than usual: which the fact of a period of -scarcity, five 
or six times as severe as commonly, would explain and 
illustrate at once*. 

The course of events from the time of the arrival in 
Corinth may be ascertained as follows. 

St. Paul had been sometime there, before he ceased 
to preach to the Jews, and began to preach to the 
Gentile inhabitants of the city: he was there a year 
and six months longer, even dated from the time of 
his vision", before the insurrection of the Jews in the 
time of Galliov; and he remained there a good many 
days still, even after that®. It is clear, then, that we 
cannot compute the whole length of his stay at less 
than one year, and nine or ten months of another; 


* This conclusion is strength- 


he was likely again to want. Nor 
ened by the consideration that, 


ean I help conjecturing that the 


for aught which appears to the 
contrary, from the time of St. 
Paul’s visit to Greece, to the 
time of his first imprisonment at 
Rome, these are the only occa- 
sions on which even the most 
attached and most grateful of his 
converts, the Philippians them- 
selves, are seen to have rendered 
any such service to him. There 
was no such occasion until the 
time of that imprisonment, when 


t Acts xviii. r—7. 


ἃ 1014. 8—tr. 


true reason both why this church 
in particular was so early and so 
long among those who supplied 
his pecuniary wants ; and why 
St. Paul consented to be reliev- 
ed by them, when he made a 
point of not accepting relief from 
others ; was the friendship be- 
tween St. Paul and St. Luke, 
who, as I have shewn elsewhere, 
was probably an inhabitant of 
Philippi. See vol. i. 92. 


Welbulsra— 14. w Ibid. 18. 


2: 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 143 


which, being dated from the spring quarter of U.C. 
803, in the tenth of Claudius, will place his departure 
early in the winter quarter of U. C. 805; in the 
twelfth of the same reign. 

When he had left Corinth and was come to Ephe- 
sus, he was on his way to keep some feast *; concern- 
ing which, as it must have been some feast one year 
and nine or ten months at least distant from the spring 
quarter of U.C. 803, there can be little doubt that it 
was the Passover, U. C. 805, in the twelfth of Clau- 
dius, which fell that year on April 3: and by an ar- 
gument from the Epistle to the Galatians hereafter I 
shall further prove that it was so. Now the length of 
time necessary for a journey even from Troas to Jeru- 
salem, and even in the summer season; if we make 
the requisite allowances for such stoppages as would 
naturally take place by the way; cannot be computed 
at less than five or six weeksY, that is, than the inter- 
val between Passover and Pentecost: and if so, the 
length of time necessary for such a journey from Co- 
rinth, which was a great deal further distant, and 
partly in the winter season, when all travelling took 
up more time; cannot be computed at less than two 
months. About one month, then, before the Passover, 
τ. C. 805, that is, early in the month of March, 
St. Paul would be passing through Ephesus, having 
probably left Corinth early in the February preceding: 
he would accomplish his purpose by arriving in Jeru- 
salem at the beginning of April: and as he made no 
stay there, but simply went up and saluted the church, 
he would consequently return to Antioch between the 
Passover and the Pentecost of U.C. 805, that is, be- 
tween April 3, and May 24; about three years from 


x Acts xviil. 21. y Acts xx. 6. xx. 16. 


| ὅς 


144 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


April 5, or May 26, when we supposed that he left it 
last, U.C. 802. 

We have said nothing on the controverted point re- 
specting the vow which is mentioned Acts xviii. 18, 
because I do not think any certain conclusion can be 
grounded upon it. The grammatical construction re- 
quires that κειράμενος should be referred to Aquila, and 
not to St. Paul, as the proper subject of the vow ἢ: 
and it is probable that the vow itself was the ordinary 
vow of separation; viz. the Nazirezeatus—the mini- 
mum for which in respect of time was thirty days or 
one month, but the maximum was indefinite*. To 
shave the head, under ordinary circumstances, was to 
declare the consummation of this vow; and was pre- 
paratory to offering the sacrifices which the law re- 
quired in token of that consummation*. But here we 
have Aquila shaving his head at Cenchrez ; whereas 
the sacrifices could begin or be offered only at Jeru- 
salem. ; 

The doctrine of the Mishna with respect to the 
Nazireatus is peculiarly complex, and full of nice dis- 
tinctions. Among other things it is said that it could 
not be kept any where but in the land of Israel, Extra 
terram Israelis’; yet we find Aquila keeping it either 
at Corinth or at Ephesus: where he was left by St. 
Paul®. It is true, that the due continuance and com- 
pletion of the vow might be prevented by accidental 
pollutions ; in which case the Nazarite was required 
to shave his head, and to begin his computation of 


* Such is the grammatical re- Theophylact, 111. 141. A.in Acta, 
ference given to the word (ke- xviii.18: 157. ad calcem, in Acta, 
papevos) by Chrysostom, Cicu- xxi. 24.) 
menius, Theophylact, &c. (See 


2 Bell. Jud. ii. xv. 1. Mishna, iv. 346. 11. a Acts xxi. 23, 24. Ant. Jud. 
RIK Vile Ns b iv. 346. 11. Annott. ¢ Acts xvili, 19. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 145 


time afresh. Mere tonsure of the head under such 
circumstances destroyed the thirty days, but did not 
oblige to any ceremonial rite’. This might be Aquila’s 
case. But it is not necessary to suppose that he 
had made a vow of separation for a month only; he 
might have made it for a much longer time—called 
the Nazirzeatus magnus, a separation of sixty days: 
which would admirably agree to what we have sup- 
posed concerning the distance of time before the Pass- 
over, when Paul left Corinth ; viz. about two months; 
and also account for Aquila’s staying at Ephesus, while 
St.Paul continued his journey to Jerusalem. He would 
not go up to Jerusalem until the time of his vow was 
expired. 

If we are right as to the time when St. Paul left 
Corinth, the attempt of the Jews to prosecute him 
before Gallio was later than the autumn of U.C. 804: 
whence we may infer that it was in the first year of 
Gallio’s office. It is not necessary for us to trace the 
history of the province of Achaia, from the time of the 
partition of the provinces, U.C. 727, when Augustus 
assigned it to the people, to U.C. 768, when it was 
resumed by the emperor Tiberius; or to U.C. 797, 
when it was again restored to the people; or to U.C. 
819 or 820, when it was declared independent by 
Nero; or to U.C. 827 or 828, when, according to the 
opinion of Ecihel®, its liberty was abolished by Vespa- 
sian*. Nor is it necessary to prove that, though two 
only of the twelve popular provinces‘, viz. Asia Pro- 





* If Philostratus, indeed, (Vi- Plutarch, Flamininus, 12: Sue- 
ta Apollonii, v. 14. 252. D. 253. tonius, Vespasianus, 8: Pausa- 
A.) is to be believed, Achaia was nias, vii. 17. ὃ. 2. Prosper, in 
deprived of its liberty much Chronico, 706, dates its depri- 
earlier ; viz. U.C. 823. Vide vation U.C. 829. 


ἃ Mishna, iii. 164. 3. 165.5. 8 vi. 332. Cf. Jerome, in Chrenico, p. 163. 
ad Vespasiani v. f Strabo, xvii. 3. δ. 25. 707. 


VOL. IV. L 


146 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


per and Africa, were strictly proconsular; yet the 
governors of the remaining ten, who were of preetorian 
dignity, bore the title of proconsul officially. To this 
fact a cloud of historical witnesses might be produced, 
and it is eminently true of the governors of Achaia * 
and of Cyprus, to each of whom St. Luke has applied 
that title ἕ. 

It is very probable from one of the Epistles of Seneca, 
that his brother Gallio, whom he calls Dominum suum ; 
either because he was his elder brother, or in conse- 
quence of his having served the office of praetor or 
consul before that Epistle was written ; was sometime 
governor of Achaia: ΠΙᾺ mihi in ore erat domini 
mei Gallionis: qui quum in Achaia febrem habere cce- 
pisset, protinus navem adscendit, clamitans, non corpo- 
ris esse, sed loci morbum. 

If it is reasonable to assume that this was in the au- 
tumn, and that he was leaving his government, it might 
be in the autumn of U.C. 805; but not the autumn of 
U.C. 804. Paul might have been tried before him after 
the latter; but he could not have been so after the for- 
mer. Moreover, Corinth was the capital of the pro- 


* Lucian, Operum 11. 382. 
Demonax, 16: καὶ ἐβόων ἐπὶ τὸν 


ἐκ βουλῆς ἁρμοζόντων κλήρῳ τὴν 
“Ἑλλάδα, καὶ πεπιστευμένων τὴν ap- 


ἀνθύπατον ἰέναι: ὁ δὲ Δημώναξ, Μη- 
δαμῶς, ἔφη, ἄνδρες, πρὸς τὸν ἀνθύ- 
πατον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τὸν ἰατρόν. This 
is meant of the governor of 
Achaia, at the time. In like 
manner, Dio Chrysostom, Oratio 
xlvii. 232. ὃ. 15, speaks of the 
governor of Bithynia by the same 
title. Cf. Tacitus, Annales, xvi. 
18. 

The governor of Achaia is thus 
described in an extract from De- 
mostratus’ Adyot ἁλιευτικοὶ, quot- 
ed by Avlian, De Natura Ani- 


malium, xiii. 21: τῶν δέ τις τῶν 


δ Eckhel, iv. 237. 241. Acts xiii. 7, 8. 12. xviii. 12. 


χὴν ἑνὸς ἔτους, K,T.A. He still re- 
tained the title of ᾿Ανθύπατος 
in the reign of Julian, Valen- 
tinian, and Arcadius. See Am- 
mianus Marcellinus, xxii. 7, 
Zosimus, iv. p. 202. 
Confer Eunapius, 
De Vitis Sophistarum, Julianus, 
69—73, in the account of the 
trial before the proconsul of 
Greece, at Athens, there related. 
The time of this fact would 
be about the end of the third 
century. See likewise, ibid. 
Proeresius, p. 8o—84. 


» Epistole, 104. §. 1. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 14 


vince, and the proconsul’s place of residence; and 
Gallio was there when St. Paul was brought before 
him; which also implies that he was brought before 
him after or in the autumnal quarter of U. C. 804: for 
we shall see hereafter that, from the commencement of 
the spring quarter, the governors of provinces were 
not to be found stationary in the seat of the procon- 
sular government, but were employed in making the 
circuit of their provinces, and administering justice 
elsewhere. There can be little question that Gallio was 
serving Achaia as praetor: into possession of which 
province he might come three or four years after his 
year of office: and as his brother Seneca was made 
tutor to Nero, U. C. 802, it is nothing improbable that 
he might have been admitted to the praetorship even be- 
fore that. The number of pretors in the reign of Clau- 
dius annually was never less than ten, and sometimes 
as many as eighteen. 


* Dio, Ix. 25, asserts that from banishment, U.C. 802. 


Claudius strictly enforced the 
rule of not allowing any one to 
serve in the government of a 
province abroad, unti] some time 
after the expiration of his year of 
office at home. But he did not 
begin to do so before U. C. 798. 

It appears from the Consola- 
tio ad Helviam, xvi. 12, which 
Seneca wrote about U.C. 795, 
during his banishment ; that No- 
vatus, afterwards called Gallio, 
his brother, had already em- 
barked on public life, and had 
already attained to honours: 
Alter honores industria conse- 
cutus est: which probably de- 
notes some curule office. Seneca 
himself had previously attained 
to the questorship, Ibid. xvii. 
1: and, according to Tacitus, 
xii. 8, he obtained the pretor- 
ship in the year of his recall 


Gallio, as the eldest of the fa- 
mily, and as having been the 
first to engage in active life, 
seems to have taken the Jead in 
the career of honours. Both he 
and Seneca are spoken of as con- 
sulares, that is, persons who had 
been some time consuls, before 
the period of their death, U. C. 
818: Tacitus, Annales, xvi. 17. 
The former accordingly appears 
in the Fasti, as consul suffectus, 
U.C. 807, at the very beginning 
of the reign of Nero; and the lat- 
ter'er Kal. Jul. U.C. 815." The 
observation of Ausonius, there- 
fore, Dives Seneca, nec tamen 
consul, is not true, except as 
meaning that he was never con- 
sul ordinarius, ΟΥ̓ ἐπώνυμος. It 
may be to Gallio that Pliny al- 
ludes, H. N. xxxi. 33: Sicut 
proxime Annzum Gallionem fe- 


LQ 


143 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


The length of the stay at Antioch is not specified 
except in general terms; which may lead to the infer- 
ence that it was not considerable: yet we have shewn 
elsewhere’, that it was sufficiently long to allow for the 
coming thither of Peter from Jerusalem, and for the 
arrival of certain persons from James, while both he 
and St. Paul were still there together. It is probable, 
therefore, that the latter would not set out on his visit 
to the churches of Galatia and of Phrygia*; that is, 
upon that circuit of the upper regions, which ended in 
his finally settling at Ephesus; before the midsummer 
of this year at least. For that journey, therefore, be- 
ginning with Antioch, but embracing the tour of Asia 
as far as the Euxine sea, and possibly even as the Hel- 
lespont, we cannot allow much less than six or seven 
months. I assume, then, that Paul did not come to 
Ephesus, and settle there, agreeably to his promise the 
preceding year!, before the beginning of the thirteenth 
of Claudius, U.C. 806. 

After this arrival, three months were iit before 
the separation of the disciples, when Paul began to dis- 
pute daily in the schola of one Tyrannus; and two 
years more posterior to that, before the formation of 


cisse post consulatum memini- 
mus, if the terms, sicut proxime, 
will bear to be referred so far 
back as U. C. 807, whereas 
Pliny was writing U.C. 829 or 
830. Otherwise the allusion must 
be understood of some contem- 
porary of Pliny’s; perhaps an- 
other son of Annus Mella; 
just as, Dio, lxii. 29, Annus 
Cornutus the philosopher is men- 
tioned apparently as standing in 
that relation to him, as much as 
Lucan the poet. 

The Scholiast on Juvenal, v. 
109, says, Seneca was recall- 

i Dissertation ti. Vol. i. 110. 


k Acts xviii. 23. xix. I. 


ed from banishment post trien- 
nium: which, if he was banished 
U. C. 794, would be U. C., 
797- This may be a doubtful 
point. But it is very possible 
that Gallio might become pretor 
some years before his brother, 
even U.C. 796: in which case 
supposing the same rule to have 
applied to the preetors which we 
shewed vol. iii. 594, to apply to 
the consuls, his year of office for 
Achaia would coincide with U. C. 
804, as the narrative in the Acts 
supposes. 


1 Thid. xviii. 21. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 149 


the design to return through Macedonia and Achaia 
to Jerusalem, preparatory to a journey to Rome: and 
even after this, St. Paul himself still remained some- 
what longer in Asia, though he had sent Timothy 
and Erastus into Macedonia: until at last the disturb- 
ance excited in Ephesus by Demetrius, whether earlier 
or not than he had always intended, rendered it neces- 
sary or expedient for him to leave it ™. 

In this account then of the residence at Ephesus, 
there is a positive reckoning of two years and three 
months, which brings us from the beginning of the 
thirteenth of Claudius, U. C. 806, to the beginning of 
the spring quarter of U. C. 808, the middle of the first 
of Nero; and an indefinite reckoning of some time 
more, the length of which must be otherwise deter- 
mined. The entire duration of his residence is stated 
by St. Paul himself, in his farewell address to the 
elders of the Ephesian church when they met him at 
Miletus, as a τριετία, or period of three years"; which 
being understood, as it may be, of current years, and 
not necessarily of complete, will determine it to be 
more than two years but less than three: and I shall 
shew hereafter, by a comparison with the Epistles, 
that the two years and three months above specified 
terminated at or before a Passover at least; and that 
the stay of St. Paul, even after that, extended to or be- 
yond the ensuing Pentecost: which makes the whole 
length of his residence in Ephesus, from first to last, a 
period of two years and more than six months. This 
conclusion may be confirmed even by what passed in 
the city, immediately before his departure. 

In the speech of the townclerk, the γραμματεὺς, 
scribe, or recorder of the city, we meet with the 
phrase, aryopatot ἄγονται, kat ἀνθύπατοί εἰσινο. The Greek 


m Acts xix. 8, 9, 10. 21,22, 23—4I. XX. 1. n Ibid. xx. 31. © Ibid. xix. 38. 


io 


150 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


phrase, ἀγοραίους (scilicet ἡμέρας) ἄγειν, is analogous to 
the Latin, forum agere, or conventum agere?, and to 
our own of holding an assize or court. It occurs ῥητῶς 
in a rescript of Publius Servilius Galba preserved by 
Josephus; and what is almost the same, τὰς aryopaious 
ποιεῖσθαι, is to be met with in Strabo4; from the com- 
parison of which two passages together it seems to be 
requisite that we should correct ἄγοντι τὸν ἀγόραιον, in 
Josephus, by ἄγοντι τὴν ἀγόραιον Ἐ. Now we may in- 
fer from Strabo’, (and the supposition itself is but 
reasonable,) that the governors of particular pro- 
vinces, though they had one stated place of resi- 
dence, which was the metropolis or principal city of 
the province, were accustomed to travel up and down, 
during a certain part of the year, and to hold these 
courts, or ἀγοραίους, in other quarters besides the 
metropolis. For this purpose, a country was divided 
into droccjoes—Wwhich would so far answer to shires 
or counties—and one court, forum, conventus, ἀγορὰ 
or ἀγόραιοι, was commonly held for the inhabitants 
of every διοίκησις, at some principal city within the 
diocese; which would therefore answer to the as- 
size court for the shire or county, in the county towns. 
We may infer also, from Cicero, ocis citatis, that the 
times of these annual circuits were from the spring to 


* Suidas: ᾿Αγόραιος" ἡ ἡμέρα ἐν ἧ ὃ. 15: τοιγαροῦν μέγιστον νομίξω 


ἡ ἀγορὰ Tedeirac—Aristides, XXvi. 
524, 525: μετὰ ταῦτα Σεβῆρος μὲν 
S ~ ed , > \ + 

ἐκ τῶν ἄνωθεν χωρίων εἰς τὴν "Ede- 
σον κατήει, δικῶν ἀγορὰν ἄξων---- 
Ibid. 532. 1. 24: ἀγορὰ δ᾽ ἢν δικῶν 

7} Ἷ Ὶ τῷ 

(at Pergamus)—Dio Chrysostom, 
XXxv.69. §. 40.45: πρὸς δὲ τούτοις 
ai δίκαι κατ᾽ ἔτος ἄγονται παρ᾽ ὑμῖν 


(at Celene in Phrygia)—Ibid. 


\ > \ ΄ \ - a Ἢ 
πρὸς ἰσχὺν πόλεως τὸ τῶν δικῶν" καὶ 
πάντες ἐσπουδάκασιν ὑπὲρ οὐδενὸς 
οὕτω. μέτεστι δὲ αὐτοῦ ταῖς πρώταις 

, > “ > »” . 
πόλεσιν ἐν μέρει tap ἔτος. Cf. 
Oratio xl. 163. §. 40: 175. §.35 
—Philostratus, Apollonius, i. 9. 
14. B.: ev Tapoois δὲ dpa ἀγορὰν 
ἦγεν, (SC. ὁ ἄρχων τῆς Κιλικίας.) 


p Cicero, Ad Atticum, v. 21. vi. 2. Ad Fam. iii. 6. Suetonius, Julius, 30. 56. 


q Ant. Jud. xiv. x. 21. Strabo, xiii. 4. §. 12. 480. 


H.N. iii. 1—4. 25. Vv. 29—33- 


T iii. 2. 446. 5 Pliny, 


ὅς 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 151 


the summer quarter of the year‘: that is, from March 
to May or June: after which period, consequently, it 
was to be expected that the regular governor would 
not be found in his regular place of residence, but else- 
where *. 

Ephesus was certainly the metropolitan city of the 
province of Asia; though that province, if Josephus 
and Philostratus are to be believed, contained five hun- 
dred cities": nor was it without reason that it claimed 
to itself the title of [Ιρώτη, or Princeps, which is so 
frequently to be met with upon its coins’. The privi- 
lege of the κατάπλους, that is, the right of receiving the 
proconsul upon his entry by sea into his government, in 
their city first, was conceded to the Ephesians by 
law’. The ordinary place of the proconsul’s residence 
was consequently Ephesus: but after the month of 
February or March, it is probable he would not be 
found even there. Servilius was holding a court at 
Tralles, when he issued the edict before quoted; and 


* Cicero, In Verrem Actio 
oda, lib. v. 12: Cum vero estas 
summa esse jam coeperat, quod 
tempus omnes Siciliz semper 
pretores in itineribus consumere 
consueverunt, propterea quod 
tum putant obeundam esse ma- 
xime provinciam cum in areis fru- 
menta sunt, quod et familix 
congregantur, et magnitudo ser- 
vitii perspicitur, et labor operis 
maxime offenditur, et frumenti 
copia commonet, tempus anni 
non impedit, &c. 

Unless these reasons were pe- 
culiar to Sicily, the most com- 
mon time of these annual cir- 


t Vide also Suetonius, Julius, 7. 


478. Philostratus, Vite Sophistarum, ii. 547. C. Herodes Atticus. 
In an epigram of Antipater of Sidon, the 


li. 521. iv. 282. w Ibid. ii. 518. 


cuits would be critically that 
when the corn was threshed: 
which for the meridian of Ephe- 
sus would be May or June. 
Galba was holding one of 
these conventus at New Car- 
thage, when he heard of the re- 
volt of Gaul: Suetonius, Galba, 
g. Nero heard of the same revolt 
at Naples, on the anniversary of 
his mother’s murder; viz. about 
March 20: Suetonius, Vita, 40, 
34. Galba, then, was engaged on 
the conventus in question at the 
end of March or the beginning 


of April. 


u Ant. Jud. xiv. x. 11. Bell. ii. xvi. 4. p. 


Vv Eckhel, 


subject of which is the temple of Diana at Ephesus, he speaks of Ephesus as θοῶν 


βασίλειαν ᾿Ιώνων in his time. 


And his time was later than the destruction of Co- 


rinth by Mummius, B.C. 136. See Anthologia, ii. 16. xxxvi. and 20. L. 


L 4 


152 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


Julus Antonius was doing the same at Ephesus not 
later than the ides of February, when he issued that 
which on another occasion also is recited by Josephus *. 

Now the language of the townclerk implies neither 
that any courts of law were then open, nor any pro- 
consul was then on the spot; but quite the contrary. 
His words should be rendered, There are courts held, 
and there are proconsuls. Had he intended to say the 
courts were open and the proconsul was present; 
this would have required ai ἀγόραιοι ἄγονται, καὶ ὁ 
He asserts therefore merely what 
was commonly the practice; but not what was 
then going on. Nor, if he had meant that the pro- 
consul was on the spot, and not simply that there 
were such persons as proconsuls; would he have 
expressed himself in the indefinite manner, ἀνθύ- 
πατοί εἰσι: for proconsular Asia including Ephesus 
was never governed by more than one such deputy at 
a time*. And though, as the title of an office, the 
name of Γραμματεὺς is recognised upon the coins of 
Ephesus Y, and consequently the office itself is proved 
not only to have been an actual one, but one of dig- 
nity and authority, something like that of the first 
civil magistrate among them; still had the supreme 


3 , , 
ἀνθύπατος Tapert. 


* Much difficulty has been 
raised, in consequence of this 
allusion to proconsuls or depu- 
ties in the plural number; all 
which vanishes at once on the 
right construction of the passage. 

+ The ypappareds of Ephesus 
was doubtless a much more im- 
portant person in that city, than 
any of the three public officers 
at Athens, described under that 
name by Pollux, Onomasticon, 
viii, cap. 9, ὃ. 11. Cf. Suidas, 


x Ant, xvi. Vi. 7. 


in Τραμματεύς. The title occurs on 
a variety of ancient coins ; which 
proves it to have been an .oflice 
of dignity and importance. Ar- 
temidorus, himself an Ephesian, 
observes in reference to a cer- 
tain description of dreams, Onei- 
rocritica, ll. 31: ypapparevew δὲ 
δοκεῖν...διὰ τὸ προάγειν τὸν γραμ- 
ματέα. According to Strabo, viii. 


8. δι 3. 206: one γραμματεὺς 
and two στρατηγοὶ were the 
original directors appointed 


y Kckhel, ii. 519. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 153 


Roman governor been in the city at the time, it is not 
likely that the duty of quelling the disturbance, or of 
dismissing the assembly, (which Acts xix. 39, 40. de- 
monstrates to have taken place at an irregular time, and 
not on one of the stated days of such meetings*,) would 
have been left exclusively to him. When all Ephesus 
was in an uproar, the Roman governor, it might be 
presumed, would naturally have interfered. The pro- 
consul of Asia, at the time of the accession of Nero, 
was Marcus Junius Silanus; but he had been put to 
death immediately upon that accession’; nor can it be 
said with certainty by whom he was succeeded*. But 
this ought to constitute no difficulty; for the province 
would not be left long without a governor; and Silanus 
was made away with in a very short time after Oct. 13, 


the day of the accession of Nero, U. C. 807. 


to preside over the Achezan 
league. 

* It is scarcely necessary to 
remind the reader, that there 
were stated times for all such 
meetings as were held in the or- 
dinary course of things: and 
though extraordinary meetings 
might be summoned upon emer- 
gencies by the proper author- 
ities, yet that such concourses 
as these were tumultuous and 
irregular. At Athens, the νόμι- 
μοι OY κύριαι ἐκκλησίαι were held 
on the eleventh, the twentieth, 
and the thirtieth of the month. 
Vide Suidas, in ᾿ Ἐκκλησία κυρία, in 
Kupia, and in Σύγκλητος Ἐκκλησία: 
the Scholia on Aristophanes, 
Acharnenses, 19: and the note 
of Kuster, in Suidam, loco ci- 
tato. Suetonius, Augustus, 35. 
by an appointment of Augustus, 


a legitimus senatus could be 
held only on the Kalends and Ides 
of every month. The remark 
of the townclerk (v. 40) is very 
natural and appropriate: and 
may recall to the minds of some 
of my readers, the pithy advice 
of an ancient orator, Cephisodo- 
tus, addressed under similar cir- 
cumstances to an Athenian mob; 
μὴ πολλὰς ποιήσωσι τὰς συνδρομὰς 
ἐκκλησίας: Aristotle, Rhetorica, 
ili.to. Cf. Dio Chrysostom, Ora- 
tio xlviii. 236. ad principium. 

Aristides, Oratio xxvi. 531. 
1.5: ἱσταμένου δὲ τοῦ ἔτους καὶ 
γιγνομένης ἐκκλησίας τῆς πρώτης--- 
whence it appears that, at Smyr- 
na in particular, one of the 
times of an ordinary public 
meeting was, as we may infer, 
new year's day ; which at Smyr- 
na would be Sept. 24. 


y I will just observe here, that there is an ellipsis in this verse after σήμερον, 


viz. ἐκκλησίας, which the received translation has overlooked. 
would be, ἐγκαλεῖσθαι στάσεως, περὶ τῆς σήμερον ἐκκλησίας. 
11, Tacitus, Annales, xiii. 1. Dio, lxi. 6. 


The words in full 
z Pliny, H.N. vii. 
a Tacitus, Annales, xiii. 33. 


154 Appendiz. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


It is observable also that, in the same speech, the 
epithet of νεωκόρος is applied to the city of Ephesus?; 
and this title so expressed begins to appear on the 
coins of Ephesus first in the reign of Nero®*. In the 
course of time afterwards it came to designate itself 
dis, τρὶς, and even τετράκις vewxdpov. It is apparent 
likewise that the time, when this uproar took place at 
Ephesus, was some time when the Asiarchs were as- 
sembled in that city’. This name is descriptive of an 
office which was annual and elective, and of a body of 
men returned by a number of cities*, though probably 
not more than one was returned for each; the purpose 
of whose appointment being purely religious, and espe- 
cially connected with the annual solemnities in honour 
of the Ephesian Diana, they would not be found col- 
lected in Ephesus, except at a time when those solemn- 


ities were going on fF. 


* Since, however, these coins 
do not yet represent Nero as 
Augustus, they must have been 
struck in the reign of Claudius. 
Νεωκόρος is properly ὁ τὸν ναὸν 
κορῶν, id est σαρῶν. κορεῖν γὰρ 
τὸ σαίρειν παρὰ ᾿Αττικοῖς. Vide 
Suidas, Ζάκορος. Ion is introduced 
at the beginning of the play of 
Euripides, so called, performing 
this duty, in the capacity of veo- 
κόρος, for the temple at Delphi; 
that is, sweeping it, and sprink- 
ling it with water. In its gene- 
ral sense, however, the word 
might be defined, as it is by Sui- 
das elsewhere, vide Κόρη, Νεωκό- 
pos δὲ, οὐχ ὁ σαρῶν τὸν νεὼν, ἀλλ᾽ 
ὁ ἐπιμελούμενος αὐτοῦ. Cf. in Νεω- 
κόρος. It answers to warden with 
us. 

+ Vitruvius, De Architectura, 


b Acts xix. 35. 
e Strabo, xiv. 1. δ. 42. 576. 


¢ Eckhel, ii. 519. 520. Cf. iv. 288—306. 
f Eckhel, iv. 207—212. 


The existence of games called 


ii. 8: Trallibus, domum regibus 
Attalicis factam, que ad habi- 
tandum semper datur ei qui ci- 
vitatis gerit sacerdotium. This 
probably means the Asiarch ; 
especially as Strabo, loc. cit., 
tells us that some of the citizens 
of Tralles were sure to be serv- 
ing the office every year. 

Dio Chrysostom, xxxv. 66. ὃ. 
25: καθάπερ τοὺς ἱερέας τῶν παρ᾽ ὑμῖν 
τοὺς μακαρίους λέγω, τοὺς ἁπάντων 
ἄρχοντας τῶν ἱερέων, τοὺς ἐπωνύ- 
μους τῶν δύο ἠπείρων τῆς ἑσπέρας 
oAns—Ibid. 70. ὃ. 20: καὶ μὴν τῶν 
ἱερῶν τῆς ᾿Ασίας μέτεστιν ἡμῖν---- 
Aristides, xxvi. 518.]. 1: Θεό- 
Swpe, χαῖρε" καὶ ᾿Ασιάρχης, οἶμαι, 
mpoonv—Ibid. 531. 1.11: ἔργου 
εἴχοντο, οἱ παρεσκευασμένοι, κρο- 
τοῦντές τε καὶ τὴν ἱερωσύνην τὴν 
κοινὴν τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἀνατιθέντες μοι. 


5. Acts xix. 31. 


ἦξ 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 155 


Ephesia, and celebrated at Ephesus in honour of Diana, 
is a well-attested fact®; and concerning the time of 
the year when they were celebrated, it seems to be 
certain that it coincided with the spring or the sum- 


mer. 


There is a coin of Ephesus which relates to 


games there celebrated, and bears the inscription, 


E®ECION. NEQKOPON. OAYMIITA. OIKOY- 


The same office seems to be de- 
scribed, Oratio xli, περὶ ὅμο- 
νοίας ταῖς πόλεσιν: 776.1.3: ἡνίκα δ᾽ 
αὐτός τε ὁ νεὼς μείζων ἢ πρόσθεν 
ἕστηκεν, ἀρχή τε ἡ μεγίστη πασῶν 
καὶ ἅμα σεμνοτάτη καθέστηκε, κ'.τ.λΔ. 
...777.1.8.—Philostratus, Vite 
Sophistarum, i. 515. C. Scope- 
lianus: ἀρχιερεὺς μὲν yap ἐγένετο 
τῆς ᾿Ασίας, αὐτός τε καὶ οἱ πρόγονοι 
αὐτοῦ, παῖς ἐκ πατρὸς πάντες. ὁ δὲ 
στέφανος οὗτος πολὺς, καὶ ὑπὲρ πολ- 
λῶν ypnedrov—lIbid. 11. 593. B. 
Euodianus: ai δὲ οἴκοι τιμαὶ ἐς 
τοὺς ἀρχιερέας τε καὶ στεφανουμέ- 
vous. κὶ, τ. A.—Acta Polycarpi 
(Eusebius, E. H. iv. xv. 132. ad 
calcem) : ἐπεβόων καὶ ἠρώτων τὸν 
᾿Ασιάρχην Φίλιππον ἵνα ἐπαφῇ τῷ 
Πολυκάρπῳ λέοντα---- Ἀσίδος ἀρχιε- 
ρῆος ἀγακλύτου υἱέα Μίθρου | Λού- 
κιον, ἀθλοθετῆρα πάτρης Σμύρνης ἐρα- 
τεινῆς, | εὐγενίᾳ σοφίῃ τε κεκασμέ- 
νον ἔξοχον ἀνδρῶν, | Αὐσόνιον δάπε- 
δον, βωμός θ᾽ ὅδε, σῆμά τε κρύπτει. 
Anthologia, iv. 277. ᾿Αδέσποτα, 
pecxxvi. The high priesthood 
in question, or the office of 
Τραμματεὺς, was probably that 
στεφανηφόρος ἀρχὴ, at Smyrna, 
to which Philostratus alludes, 
Vite Sophistarum, 11. 608. D: 
kal στεφανηφόρον ἀρχὴν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς 
ἦρξεν, ἀφ᾽ ἧς τοῖς ἐνιαυτοῖς τίθενται 
Σμυρναῖοι τὰ ὀνόματα. 

As to the games of Diana of 
Ephesus, Thucydides mentions ra 


& Vide Meursii Grecia Feriata. 


᾿Ἐφέσια, 111. 104. ὃ. 5: and Xeno- 
phon, Anabasis, v. 3. ὃ. 7. et sqq. 
describes the festival which he in- 
stituted and observed every year 
at Scillus in Arcadia; in imitation 
doubtless of similar solemnities at 
Ephesus: the time of which was 
evidently the spring or summer 
quarter of the year. The Arte- 
misia and Ephesia are enume- 
rated among other feasts, as 
feasts of Diana in particular, by 
Pollux; Onomasticon, i. cap. 1. 
sect. 32. Dio, lxvi. 9, mentions 
that Vespasian gave the Ephe- 
sians permission to celebrate ἀγώ- 
va ἱερόν ; which, however, would 
be later than this time. 

If these games continued to 
the time of Achilles Tatius, then 
by comparing together, v. 8—1io. 
17. 22—vi. 3 of his Romance, De 
Leucippes et Clitophontis Amori- 
bus,it will appear that the ἱερομηνία 
of Diana at Ephesus was observ- 
ed six plus four months at least 
after the supposed arrival of Cli- 
tophon at Alexandria in Egypt ; 
and that arrival being after mid- 
summer in one year, the time 
of the ἱερομηνία in question would 
be about midsummer in the next. 

The same festival is alluded 
to by Xenophon, another of the 
Greek Romancers ; Ephesiaca, i. 


p- 194. 1. 4. 


ἢ Eckhel, ii. 521. Vide also Philostratus, 


Vitz Sophistarum, i. 530. D: 533. D: 541. A: Polemo. 


156 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


MENIKA. from which title we may infer that their 
proper time synchronised probably with the same part 
of the year, as the recurrence of the Olympiads; that 
is, with the first full moon after the summer solstice. 
This full moon, A. D. 55, U. C. 808, when the moon 
was eclipsed on July 27, at 5. 30, in the morning, 
could not fall earlier than June 27, previously: about 
which time we have shewn that, upon other grounds, 
it is probable St. Paul was still in Ephesus. To pro- 
ceed then with the course of our subject. 

After the departure of St. Paul from Asia, there is 
mention made of a residence of his in Macedonia, be- 
fore the next visit to Greece; and after the arrival in 
Greece, of a three months’ residence there, before the 
return to Macedonia again; and after this return, of 
his spending the days of unleavened bread at Philippi, 
before his departure finally to Troas, upon his way to 
Jerusalem'!, The Passover or Easter spent at Phi- 
lippi was consequently the Passover next after the de- 
parture from Ephesus; that is, just one year from the 
Passover of U.C.808, in the first of Nero alluded to 
above; and therefore was just three years after the first 
Passover dated with the time of the arrival originally, 
U. C. 806. It was consequently the Passover of U. C. 
809, in the middle of the second of Nero. How the time 
between that Passover and the departure from Ephe- 
sus, U.C. 808, was spent, will appear presently ‘from 
the Epistles. By the ensuing Pentecost, St. Paul was 
in Jerusalem: he was consequently in Jerusalem at the 
Pentecost of U.C. 809: and in U.C. 809, at the Pen- 
tecost of that year, in the midsummer of the second 
of Nero, we have already determined, on other and in- 
dependent data, that he must have been there. 

All these conclusions we may further establish and 


ACCS XX. 25195 Oe 


ἧς 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 157 


place beyond a question, by shewing their agreement 
with the internal evidence furnished by the Epistles of 
St. Paul, such as I consider to have been written be- 
fore this visit to Jerusalem; which are in my opinion 
the following six, stated in the order of succession ; 
the First and the Second to the Thessalonians; the 
First and the Second to the Corinthians; the Epistle 
to the Romans, or the Epistle to the Galatians. Each 
of these we will consider in its turn. 


I. On the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. 


It must be evident from those parts of this Epistle 
which mention the preaching of the Gospel in Mace- 
donia in general, and also at Philippi in particular‘, 
that it could not have been written before St. Paul’s 
visit to Philippi!, and to other parts of Macedonia, 
U. C. 802; and from iii. 1, that it could not have been 
written before his arrival at Athens, even after that™; 
and from i.1, 7, 8, (compared with 2 Cor. i. 18, 19.) 
which mentions Achaia as well as Macedonia, that it 
could not have been written before the visit to Corinth, 
U. C. 803", of which it must be superfluous to prove 
that it was the first, which St. Paul had yet made to 
the peninsula of Greece. 

Notwithstanding, therefore, the prima, facie evidence 
of 1 Thess. iii. 1, compared with Acts xvii. 15, 16, 
which proves that St. Paul both came to, and for a 
time was left at Athens; the Epistle could not have 
been written from Athens: and the allusion in it to 
his being in Athens would still be true, if he had been 
there, and had sent Timothy to Thessalonica from 
thence, though he afterwards wrote the letter in which 
he speaks of these things from some other place. 


1G Yippee tS B25 1 Acts xvi. 12. m xvii. 15. D xviii. 1. 


158 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


Now when he was first brought to Athens, he was 
brought alone; but he sent back a message by those 
who brought him, to Silas (or Silvanus) and Timothy, 
whom he had left at Beroea, that they should come 
and join him without delay. We may justly suppose 
they would comply with this wish; especially as it is 
said that he waited for them®. Yet it is not men- 
tioned that they did; on the contrary, they are said to 
have joined him, only when he was at Corinth’. In 
order to reconcile these different intimations together 
even in the Acts, we should be obliged to suppose that, 
after rejoining St. Paul at Athens, according to his de- 
sire, either Timothy or Silvanus, or both, were sent out 
by him somewhere again, before his own departure 
thence, and did not return to him a second time ex- 
cept at Corinth. This is precisely that state of the case 
which the first Epistle proves to have happened ; for 
Timothy had actually rejoined Paul at Athens, and 
actually been sent again from thence to Thessalonica, 
before he himself left it: and Timothy had rejoined 
him alone; or what is equally probable Silvanus had 
rejoined him at Athens also, and been sent again to 
some other quarter, while Timothy was despatched to 
Thessalonica‘; (otherwise St. Paul could not have said 
he had thought proper or rather been content to be left 
at Athens alone;) and Timothy had rejoined him a 
second time only recently, either at Athens, or if not 
there at some other place, whither St. Paul had pro- 
ceeded in his absence; after this very errand to Thes- 
salonica, and before the Epistle was written". The 
same thing is implied of Silvanus; for both Paul, and 
Silvanus, and Timothy, who are all joined in the salu- 
tation at the head of the Epistle’, must all have been 
together when it was written. 


ο Acts xvii. 16. Ρ xviii. 5. Guill. Ty i2s Y iii. 6. Β1. 1. 
>} 


*s 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 159 


Now, after Acts xviii. 5, when both these last are 
said to have come to him at Corinth, it is manifest 
they would be together in that place at least; where 
also it is proved by the Second Epistle to the Corin- 
thians* that they continued together throughout: and 
they are there said to have rejoined him from Macedonia 
generally; as the Epistle itself proves that Timothy 
in particular rejoined him from Thessalonica; which 
is the same thing. And if we compare all these places 
with 2 Cor. xi. 9, and Philipp. iv. 15, 16, we shall consi- 
der it more than probable that, when Timothy rejoined 
Paul from Thessalonica, Silvanus also rejoined him 
from Philippi; which too would be from Macedonia. 

These coincidences place it beyond a question, that 
the First Epistle to the Thessalonians was written 
after the arrival of St. Paul at Corinth, and after the 
return of Timothy and of Silvanus to him there; and 
consequently was written from Corinth itself: for 
there is no proof that St. Paul during this visit preach- 
ed in any other part of Achaia. Moreover, if 1 Thess. 
iii. 6,7, be compared with Acts xviii. 5. xviii. 11, we 
shall conclude that it must have been written at the 
very beginning of the visit; and not at some later 
period, when the year and nine or ten months, during 
which we supposed his stay to have lasted, were more 
or less advanced in their progress. Nor is ii. 18 any 
objection: for the emphasis laid on the ἐγὼ μὲν [Παῦλος 
clearly implies that he had wished this once or twice 
to rejoin them in person, and not merely by a messen- 
ger; and coming between ii. 17, which speaks of a se- 
paration πρὸς καιρὸν wpas—(that is, a very recent and 
as it might be supposed about to prove a very brief 
separation *) and iii. 1, 2, which speaks of the mission 


* As indeed it was, if Timo- stead from Athens, so soon after 
thy was sent to them in Paul’s _ his departure from Thessalonica. 


ti. 19. 


160 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


of Timothy, as the substitute of Paul; it shews that 
he means some wish which he had formed after his 
departure from Thessalonica indeed, but before his de- 
parture from Athens. 

We may venture to pronounce, therefore, with con- 
fidence, that the First Epistle to the Thessalonians 
was written from Corinth, U. C. 803, soon after St. 
Paul’s arrival, which we placed about the spring of 
the year. The time of the first determines presump- 
tively the time of the second; which being written ap- 
parently to correct a very important mistake, produced 
by the first", must have been written no long time 
after it; and, consequently, in U. C. 803. also. In fact, 
iii. 2. of the Second Epistle may probably allude even 
to Acts xviii. 6—10. It follows, consequently, that 
these two Epistles were the earliest of St. Paul’s Epi- 
stles in general; and there are passages in each of 
them which might suggest of themselves such a con- 
clusion ¥. = 


11. On the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 


The First Epistle to the Corinthians was written 
from Asia“; that is, from the province of that name 
in Asia Minor; and it was written from Ephesus in 
that province. It could not therefore be written be- 
fore the commencement of the residence at Ephesus Y, 
in the thirteenth of Claudius, U. C. 806. 

Again; it could not be written before Apollos had 
visited and preached at Corinth’; to which place it is 
evident that he proceeded from Ephesus*: nor yet be- 
fore he was come back again thence to Ephesus”. 
Now when Paul first arrived at Ephesus, U. C. 806, he 
was still at Corinth °: if so, we may take if for grant- 


a τ Thess. iv. 13—-v. 11. 2 Thess. ii. 1-- 12. v 1 Thess. v.27. 2 Thess. 
Ἧ1, 4. 11}. 17. w xvi. 18. X xv. 32. xvi. 8. y Acts xix. I. 
ZY ὍΣ. 1. 12. 10. ἅν, 55.6. 22H lve On ΣΙ LT. ® Acts xvili. 24. 27. 


b 1 Cor. xvi. 12. ¢ Acts xix. I, 2. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts. 161 


ed that the Epistle was not written immediately after 
St. Paul’s arrival, nor until some time in the course of 
the first year of his residence at least ; a conclusion 
which is impliedly confirmed by 1 Cor. iv. 11—13. 
compared with Acts xx. 31. 34: for St. Paul must 
have been some time at Ephesus, if this description 
of his mode of employment daily was natural and 
just. 

Again; the Epistle was written either at or just 
before the arrival of the period of the Passover; 
and before the ensuing Pentecost ¢: and it was written 
after Timothy had been sent to Corinth, and while he 
was still absent; but when St. Paul was waiting for 
his return at Ephesus, and for his return in com- 
pany with others; which implies that others also had 
been sent with him®. And that after this Timothy 
did actually rejoin St. Paul, before he wrote any second 
Epistle at least, appears from the Second to the Co- 
rinthians‘. If then the Epistle was written before 
the point of time specified at Acts xix. 22, which men- 
tions the fact of a mission of Timothy and Erastus 
into Macedonia; this mission, as concerns the former, 
and perhaps as concerns the latter too, must have been 
a second mission: a conclusion not at variance with the 
Epistle, nor impossible in the nature of things: and 
this I believe to have been actually the case. 

For first ; at a time posterior to the mission of Ti- 
mothy alluded to in the Epistle, St. Paul had not yet 
decided upon going up to Jerusalem, much less upon 
visiting Rome; but before the mission specified in the 
Acts he had already made up his mind to do both &. 

Secondly; when he wrote the Epistle to the Co- 
rinthians, he had not yet determined, though he might 


d 1 Cor.yv. 7,8. xvi. 8. eiv. 17. XVi. 12. XVi. 10, II. f 2 Cor. i. I. 
g 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4.6. Acts xix. 21. 


VOL. IV. M 


162 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


have given them some reason to expect he would de- 
termine, on passing through Macedonia, and so on to 
Achaia; much less upon making any stay there: but 
at the time of the mission in the Acts he had decided 
on doing both ἢ. 

Thirdly; after the mission of Timothy in the Acts, 
there is no mention of his rejoining St. Paul either at 
Ephesus or any where else, before they set out to- 
gether from Greece to go into Asia': which seems to im- 
ply that, after that mission, St. Paul rejoined Timothy, 
and not Timothy St. Paul. And this might easily be 
the case; for Timothy had been sent into Macedonia, 
and Paul left Ephesus to go to Macedonia‘; and wrote 
his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, (as we shall see 
by and by,) when Timothy was certainly with him, 
from thence. 

Fourthly; St. Paul’s original intention was to pass 
through Corinth into Macedonia, and back from Mace- 
donia to Corinth; and thence to set out for Judza!: 
the plan which he actually adopted was just the re- 
verse of this; passing to Corinth through Macedonia, 
and back again from Corinth to Macedonia™. 

Fifthly; he had never been at Corinth since his first 
visit"; yet he tells them that this was the ¢hzrd time 
he was coming or ready to come to them®; that is, the 
third time that he had promised to come to them. Now 
there is one such promise here, and another in various 
places of the First Epistle?; but there is no instance of 
a third, unless it was sent by Timothy at the time of 
the mission specified in the Acts, or at the time of some 
other mission, such as we are supposing, prior to and 
distinct from that. And this is much the more probable 
supposition: for there is no proof in the Acts‘ that 

h 1 Cor. xvi. 5. Acts xix. 21, 22. i Acts xx. 3, 4. k xx.) αὶ 1 2 Cor. 


105, 10: Mm Acts χὶχ. 21. 2X. Tie 3. n 2 Cor. i. 15. 23. i. I. Xill, 2. 
o 2 Cor. xii. 14. Xili. I. p 1 Cor. iv. 19. xi. 34. XVI. 2. 3. 5. q xix. 22. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 168 


Timothy was sent any where into Achaia, but there 
is proof in the Epistle, that he was sent to Corinth ; 
that St. Paul expected he would arrive there ; and that 
he would correct some conception, which had given oc- 
casion to the mistaken idea that St. Paul never intended 
to visit Corinth again"; and that to rectify this mis- 
take, as well as for other purposes, was one principal 
motive to his mission itself. And, 1 Cor. xvi. 5. the 
emphasis laid on Μακεδονίαν yap διέρχομαι, is another 
presumptive intimation that St. Paul had sent them a 
message to that effect already; which message some 
among them perhaps, might affect to disbelieve. More- 
over, from 1 Cor. xvi. 10, it appears that Timothy had 
not been sent long before the Epistle itself was writ- 
ten; and that St.Paul must have considered it possible 
the Epistle might arrive at Corinth before him. 

The drift of all these considerations is to shew that 
the First to the Corinthians was written before the 
point of time specified at Acts xix. 22: and conse- 
quently before the expiration of the two years’ and 
three months’ residence, as mentioned Acts xix. 8. 10. 
and xix. 21. at least. If it was written therefore about 
the time of a Passover, it was probably written before 
the actual arrival of Easter: nor in fact could it have 
been said with propriety, ὥστε ἑορτάζωμεν 5, unless the 
feast had been still to come. 

Now, when he visited Corinth, the writer considers 
it probable that he might spend a winter theret; 
which could not be the winter of the year then current, 
because it would be later both than the Passover and the 
Pentecost of that year". The Epistle then was writ- 
ten a year at least before the time when this winter 
was to arrive: and if this winter was that which St. 


r 1 Cor. iv. 17. xvi. Io. iv. 18. 8 Ibid. v. 8. t Ibid. xvi. 6. 
ἃ Ibid. xvi. 8. 


M 2 


164 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


Paul actually did spend in Greece, after he left Ephe- 
sus, and before the Passover spent at Philippi’, it was 
the winter of the second of Nero, U. C. 809. zneunte ; 
and consequently the Epistle, which was written one 
year at least before it, was written in or before the 
winter of the first of Nero, U. C. 808. zneunte : which 
conclusion may be rendered almost indubitably certain 
by the following consideration. 

The Epistle was written at a time when a collection 
for the church of Jerusalem either had been only re- 
cently begun, or was still incomplete and going on at 
Corinth”. The same collection had previously been 
going on among the churches of Asia; where its origin 
could not have been earlier than the time of St. Paul’s 
last visit to Galatia, which was in U.C. 805. This 
collection had been projected, and going forward at 
Corinth in particular, for a year before it was com- 
pleted in Macedonia*; and it was completed or about 
to be so in Macedonia, when St. Paul wrote his Second 
Epistle to the Corinthians: and it had been projected 
at least, if it had not for some time been going on, 
before he wrote his First: for the directions at xvi. 1. 
of the First Epistle, are manifestly given in answer to 
an inquiry of the Corinthians, among other things 
about which they had written Y, respecting also the 
mode to be adopted in making this collection ; and the 
collection, as we may presume, was in a great measure 
a proposal of their own, or St. Paul would not write 
to them in the Second Epistle, as he does write”. 

Now we have seen one instance of a similar collec- 
tion, which was made at Antioch. It was peculiar to 
this that it was made in or just after a sabbatic year, 
and against a period of dearth. We have seen also 


v Acts xx. 3. 6. w t Cor. xvi. I. x 2 Cor. viii. 3—4. viii. 10. ix. 2. 
y τ Cor. vii. 1. z 2 Cor. viii. 1o—15. ix. I—5. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts. 165 


that the third of Nero was very probably a year of 
dearth : and if we turn to the table of sabbatic years, 
which was given in volume ii. p. 234, it will appear that 
the thirty-second in order coincided with the second of 
Nero; from seed-time, U.C. 808, to the same time, 
U.C. 809. It was in this year, and at the Pentecost, 
U.C. 809, that the contributions so made and collected 
were brought by St. Paul to Jerusalem ; and they must 
have been made and collected at least before the ar- 
rival of the Passover, when he set out upon his 
journey from Philippi. They had begun to be col- 
lected a year before they were completed; and the 
time of their completion was at hand when St. Paul 
wrote the Second to the Corinthians: and they had 
been some little time in progress even when he wrote 
the First. The Second Epistle could certainly not 
have been written earlier than midsummer U.C. 808: 
therefore neither could the first later than the Passover 
of the same year. The truth is, as it appears to me, 
the collection was projected, and began to be made in 
Achaia about the autumn of U.C. 807: and St. Paul 
was written to upon this subject as well as on others, 
and returned his answer in the First Epistle to the 
Corinthians, early in the winter quarter of U.C. 808", 


* 


I have said nothing, in even others of more recent 


considering the time of the 
Epistle, respecting the allusion 
to the gymnastic exercises of 
antiquity, which occurs at ix. 
24; not because it is not capable 
of proof that the most cele- 
brated of these games in former 


date, as the Actia instituted by 
Augustus, U. C. 724, or 726, 
were still in being, and continued 
to be so long after this time  ; 
but because as their number was 
so great and their times so vari- 
ous, some of them might fall out 


times, the Olympia, the Pythia, 
the Isthmia, the Nemea, and 


every year; and none is re- 
ferred to in particular. The 


a Vide the Anthologia, ii. 207, 208. Philippi xlvi. in which many contempo- 
rary games are enumerated : ὃν Σμύρνα, καὶ δρῦς Mepyduou κατέστεφεν, | Δελφοὶ, 
Κόρινθος, Ἦλις, “Apyos, “Aktiov, κ', τ. A. 


M 3 


166 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


III. On the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. 


The Second Epistle to the Corinthians was not 
written before St. Paul had determined to go himself 
to Jerusalem, along with the bearers of the contribu- 
tions of the churches both of Asia and of Macedonia 
and Achaia; which however he had not determined 
to do when he wrote the First to the Corinthians*. It 
was not written therefore prior to the time when 
Timothy and Erastus were sent from Ephesus to Ma- 
cedonia’; nor consequently, as we may safely presume, 
prior to the Pentecost, before which St. Paul did not 
propose to leave Ephesus®; which we have seen was 
the Pentecost of U. C. 808, the first of Nero. 

Again; it was not written until St. Paul had both 
departed from Ephesus, and passed through Troas, 
and come into Macedonia; as in the regular history of 
the Acts he is supposed to come directly from Asia: 
and he was still there when it was written*. Nor was 
it written until Titus had both been sent to Corinth 
from Ephesus, after the writing of the First Epistle, 
and rejoined St. Paul again in Macedonia, subsequent 
to his departure from Asia; and from Macedonia had 
once more been sent to Corinth®. That it was written 
then from Macedonia, after St. Paul left Ephesus and 
before he passed into Greece; and consequently some- 
time between Acts xx. 1. and xx. 3; there can be no 
question: the only difficulty remaining concerns the 


same remark is applicable to tion, among such a people as the 
later instances of the same kind; Greeks or the Romans, were al- 
as 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8, and 2 Tim. ways in character ; whether sug- 
ii. 5. Allusions of this descrip- gested by the occasion or not. 


a 2 Cor. viii. 19. 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4. b Acts xix. 21, 22. c x Cor. xvi. 8. 
d 2 Cor. i. 8. ii. 12, 13. vii. 5—vili. 1—ix. 2. 4. Acts xx. I. e 2 Cor. vii. 6— 
8—14. viii. 6—16. 17—23. 


* 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 167 


time, or at what period of the interval, so included, it 
was actually written. 

Now that St. Paul spent some months in Macedonia, 
preaching the gospel there round about as far even as 
Illyricum, and exhorting the converts of those parts 
with many words, before he revisited Greece ; appears 
both from the direct narrative in the Acts, and as we 
shall see by and by, indirectly from the Epistle to the 
Romans. The time when he passed into Greece was 
about three months, or at the utmost four, before the 
Passover, March 10, U.C. 809, in the second of Nero: 
it is possible, therefore, that the Epistle was not written 
before the middle of the autumnal quarter of U.C. 808, 
the beginning of the second of Nero: and this appears 
to me to have been the case. 

For it has been proved that it was after the Pente- 
cost of U.C. 808 that St. Paul left Ephesus; and 
consequently it must have been in the summer quarter 
of the year that he came into Macedonia. There must 
have been some interval, and perhaps one of consider- 
able length, between the sending of the message, or the 
formation of the design, alluded to i. 15, 16,17; (which 
message, as we have rendered it probable, was sent by 
Timothy at a time not specified in the Acts;) and the 
writing of the Epistle. It must have been written the 
best part of a year at least after the collection had 
begun in Achaia, which is in fact, after the time when 
the First Epistle was sent’. It must have been writ- 
ten not long before St. Paul expected that he himself 
should be in Corinth": that is to say, not long before 
the commencement of the three months’ residence 
there. All these criteria determine its actual time to 
the last quarter of U.C. 808, and the first quarter of 

f Dissertation vii. vol. i. 333. & 2 Cor. viii. 10. ix. 2. h 2 Cor. 


ix. 3—5. 
M 4 


168 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


the second of Nero. And this conclusion being esta- 
blished, I shall point out its accordance with a remark- 
able note of time, contained in the Epistle itself: 
the date of the rapture which is stated to have oc- 
curred, πρὸ ἐτῶν δεκατεσσάρωνΐ, referred to the time of 
the Epistle, or to the year then current when it was 
written. 

It has been proved heretofore in its proper place, by 
a multitude of examples, that such notes of duration as 
these are not to be constrned either inclusively or 
exclusively of both their extremes; but if inclusively 
of the one, then exclusively of the other, and con- 
versely: upon which principle, the date of the rapture 
was the fourteenth year before—exclusive of the date 
of the Epistle; or the date of the Epistle was the 
fifteenth year subsequently—inclusive of the date of 
the rapture: and in either case, if the date of the 
Epistle was U.C. 808, the date of the rapture was 
U.C. 794. Now, at Acts xxii. 17-21, St. Paul affirms 
the fact of an ecstasy, the scene of which he places in 
the temple at Jerusalem, upon occasion of some visit 
there, which the context alone determines to be the 
Jirst visit after his conversion, when he stayed in Jeru- 
salem only fifteen days*. The time of this visit was 
proved to coincide with the Passover of the first of 
Claudius, U.C. 794, exactly fourteen years before the 
Passover of the first of Nero, U. C. 808, and fifteen 
before the Passover of his second, U.C. 809*. 


* It would make no difference 
to the truth of this coincidence, 
were the scene of the rapture in 
question supposed not to have 
been Jerusalem, during this first 
visit, but somewhere in Cili- 
cia, (whither St. Paul departed, 


i 2 Cor. xii. 2. 


when he left Jerusalem, and 
where he continued, until Bar- 
nabas brought him to Antioch 
the next year, U.C. 795,) pro- 
vided only the date of it was 
still U. C. 794. 


k Gal. i. 18. Acts ix. 26—3o0. 


ὥς 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts. 169 


IV. On the Epistle to the Romans. 


The Epistle to the Romans was written after the 
First to the Corinthians, aud by parity of consequence, 
as well as for other reasons which will shortly appear, 
after the Second. For Aquila and Priscilla, when this 
Epistle was written, were at Rome; but when the 
First to the Corinthians was written they were at 
Ephesus!. The same passage asserts that they had 
jeoparded their lives for the sake of Paul; which they 
might be said to have done, after the danger to which 
they, in common with the rest of St. Paul’s companions 
or fellow-labourers, or perhaps they in particular, had 
been exposed at the time of the uproar in Ephesus ™: 
but not, so far as it appears from the history, before 
that. 

Again; it was not written until after the time when 
St. Paul, having set out from Jerusalem, by his indivi- 
dual ministry had made an end of preaching the gos- 
pel round about as far as Illyricum™". Between the 
departure from Asia and the arrival in Greece, it has 
been shewn that there was an interval of five or six 
months ; which must have been spent by St. Paul in 
Macedonia®. Macedonia was contiguous to Illyri- 
cum; and a noble road, branching out from two heads, 
Apollonia and Dyrrhachium, both upon the Sinus 
Adriaticus and close upon the borders of Illyricum, 
stretched eastward right through the country for an 
extent of five hundred and thirty-five Roman miles; 
and afforded an easy access to all parts of Macedonia. 
Its name was the Via Egnatia; and its course is de- 
scribed by Strabo?. The expression of St. Paul, μέχρι 
τοῦ ᾿Ιλλυρικοῦ, does not imply that he had preached in 


1 Rom. xvi. 3, 4. 1 Cor. xvi. 19. m Acts xix. 23. n Rom. xv. 19. 
© Acts xx. I, 2. P Strabo vii. 7. ὃ. 4. 449—454- 


170 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


Illyricum itself as yet, but only as far as its borders ; or 
as we should express ourselves, wp to it: and this he 
would necessarily do if, as he is represented in the his- 
tory, he traversed the whole of Macedonia; for, be- 
ginning at its eastern extremity, by which only he 
could approach it from Asia, he must thus have pro- 
ceeded to its western, where it confined upon Illyri- 
cum. There is no period in the previous history of 
St. Paul’s travels, during which it was possible for the 
circuit of Macedonia to have been made; and in pass- 
ing thither now, he was merely completing a purpose, 
which it has been seen that he had formed some time 
before’. The Epistle to the Romans then was not 
written until the circuit of Macedonia was over. 

Again; it could not have been written before the 
three months’ residence subsequently in Greece was 
either completed or drawing to a close; for it was 
written when not only the mind of St. Paul had been 
made up about going to Jerusalem, and the collections 
for the church of that city, which were still pending 
when the Second to the Corinthians was written, had 
now been completed ; but when St. Paul was on the 
eve of departure ; that is, having no longer room, or 
occasion for staying, in the parts where he was at the 
time, was preparing to return to Judzea’. We may infer 
then that it must have been written at the close of the 
three months in question; and either from Corinth, 
where the three months were most probably spent, or 
at least from Cenchrez : in which case it was certainly 
written a little before the Passover of U.C. 809. And 
this conclusion may be confirmed in various ways, as 
follows : 

I. Among the salutations at the end of the Epistle, 
Erastus the steward, or οἰκονόμος of the city, saluteth 


q Acts xix. 21. Y xx. 3. 8 Rom. xv. 23. 25, 26. 27—21. 
3 3 fob) 7 3 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 171 


you, is one‘; and Erastus, as it might be conjectured 
from Acts xix. 22. and as it must be almost certain 
from 2 Tim. iv. 20. was either a native, or inha- 
bitant of Corinth; or both. In the same text Gaius 
or Caius is spoken of as the host or entertainer of 
Paul; and in the First to the Corinthians the name of 
Gaius is mentioned, as that of a Corinthian convert 
whom St. Paul had baptized in person", along with 
the name of Crispus; (whom the Acts shew to have 
been really an householder of Corinth’;) and also along 
with the name of Stephanas, whom a subsequent pas- 
Sage recognises as the first fruits of Achaia“. There 
must have been consequently another Gaius, a Corin- 
thian; besides the Gaius of Macedonia, and the Gaius 
whom the Acts specify by name as a native or inhabit- 
ant of Derbe*. We may observe also that in the phrase 
εὐδόκησαν γὰρ Μακεδονία καὶ ᾿Αχαΐα, and that οἵ ’Ezaive- 
TOV. . «ὅς ἐστιν ἀπαρχὴ τῆς ᾿Αχαΐας εἰς Χριστόν Y; this men- 
tion of Achaia after Macedonia, or of Achaia ἁπλῶς 
and without Macedonia, is some proof that the writer 
of the Epistle was himself in Achaia at the time; and 
was known to be so by those to whom he wrote. 

II. Among such others, besides Erastus and Gaius, 
as are also specified by name, and take part in the sa- 
lutations to the Roman church along with St. Paul; 
Timothy and Sosipater or Sopater were actually compa- 
nions of the writer, when he set out from Greece upon 
his journey into Asia’. And in addition to these, Jason, 
whose name also occurs at Rom. xvi. 21, and whom 
Acts xvii. 5, 6, 7, prove to have lived in Thessalonica ; 
as well as Aristarchus, whose presence with Paul, and 
whose relation to that city, are specified at Acts xx. 4; 
might likewise be of the number: especially if, while 


t Rom. xvi. 23. ui Cor. i. 14. V xviii. 8. wr Cor.i16. xvi. 15. 
X xix. 29. XX. 4. y Rom av. 26. xvi. 5. z Rom. xvi. 21. Acts xx. 4. 


172 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


Jason remained at Thessalonica, Aristarchus went on 
with St. Paul to Asia; and finally accompanied him 
even to Rome, and remained with him there during 
his imprisonment to the last ἃ, 

III. The Epistle was transmitted by Phoebe, a dea- 
coness of the church of Cenchreaz, and one who had 
personally ministered to St. Paul; which seems to im- 
ply that he had lodged at Cenchrez in her house”. If 
this inference is right, the exact time and place of the 
Epistle are both presumptively determined by it. It 
was written when St.Paul was at Cenchrez, and in the 
interim between his original purpose of setting out to 
Syria by sea, and the change of this purpose, in conse- 
quence of the conspiracy of the Jews; which determin- 
ed him on returning by land. And this resolution he 
executed accordingly; travelling through Macedonia as 
far as Philippi, and taking ship first on departing 
from thence. It was written then at the point of time 
specified at Acts xx. 3. when Paul was preparing ἀνά- 
γεσθαι εἰς τὴν Συρίαν ; for which purpose it is morally 
certain that he would be in Cenchrez not at Corinth. 
The discovery of the conspiracy of the Jews, who must 
have intended to execute their scheme against his life 
as soon as he had put to sea, was made in time to pre- 
vent his departure ; and compelled him to retrace his 
steps. 

It is entirely in unison with the alleged date of the 
Epistle, that the Romans are told St. Paul had longed to 
come to them for many years before‘; for he might have 
conceived this desire when he first became acquainted 
with Aquila and Priscilla, six years previously, U.C. 
803. It is equally consistent with the supposition of its 
place, and with the particular juncture of circum- 
stances under which it was written, that he desires 


a Acts xx. 4. xxvii. 2. Col. iv. το. Philem. 24. » Rom. xvi.t. © xv. 23. 


ὅς 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 173 


the cooperation of their prayers with his own, in order 
to be delivered or rescued from the malice of the unbe- 
lieving Jews’; for the conspiracy of their’s against his 
life might only just have come to light when he was 
writing. Nor is it any objection that mention is made 
among others of the household of Narcissus, τοὺς ἐκ τῶν 
Napxiccov®; ‘though this Narcissus should be con- 
sidered the same with the celebrated freedman of Clau- 
dius, whose death occurred within a month after the 
accession of Nero; sometime in November, U.C. 807. ἢ 
They of his household and ὄντες ἐν Κυρίῳ, who had 
been, that is, converted to the gospel, might still be de- 
scribed by their relation to Narcissus as before; and 
ἐκ τῶν Ναρκίσσου no more means of necessity, those 
who are now, than those who were once, of the people 
of Narcissus. ‘There is one more such allusion at 
verse 10. to persons ἐκ τῶν ᾿Αριστοβούλου. I cannot 
help suspecting that this was Aristobulus, the brother 
of Herod Agrippa and of Herod of Chalcis ; whose 
death is mentioned by Josephus in conjunction with 
that of the other two® in such a manner, as proves 
that it could not have been later, and probably was some- 
what earlier, than the time of the death of the latter ; 
viz. U. C. 801. in the eighth of Claudius. In this 
case, he also must have been dead U. C. 809. 


V. On the Epistle to the Galatians. 


The date of no Epistle has been more contested, and 
more variously represented, than that of the Epistle to 
the Galatians: and though I acknowledge the diffi- 


d xv.30,31. ¢€xvi.11. f Tacitus, Annales, xiii. 1. Seneca, ᾿Αποκολοκύντωσις, 
or Ludus de Morte Claudii Cesaris, xiii. 1. xi. 4. I consider the above opinion the 
most probable; though it is to be observed that in some ancient MSS. of the 
Epistle to the Romans, Narcissus here mentioned was described as a presbyter of 
the church of Rome, for the time being. See the Commentary on St. Paul’s 
Epistles, ascribed to Ambrose, Operum ii. Appendix, 109. C. & Bell. 11. xi. 6. 
He was alive U. C. 793. See Ant. xviii. viii. 4. 


174 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


culty which exists upon the subject of its determina- 
tion, still the uncertainty about it is not so great, but 
that two points may be presumptively established ; the 
first with almost demonstrative conviction, and the se- 
cond with an high degree of probability: first, that it 
could not have been written before U. C. 807; and, se- 
condly, that it could not have been written after U.C. 
809: the inference from which is that it must have been 
written U.C. 808, about the same time with the Second 
Epistle to the Corinthians, and the Epistle to the Ro- 
mans; but whether between the two, or before or after 
them both, it may not be possible, except conjecturally, 
to ascertain. | 

I. As the church of Galatia itself was not founded 
before U.C. 802, the tine of the second general circuit 
of St. Paul’; it is manifest that no Epistle could have 
been written to any such church before U. C. 802. 

II. The Epistle could not have been written before 
the time of the visit to Jerusalem, to which the Epistle 
itself alludes, ii. 1; and the time of this visit the very 
next verses, 11. 92, 7, ascertain in general as follows. It 
was the time of some visit to Jerusalem, posterior either 
to the first or to the second of St. Paul’s missions to the 
Gentiles, at least. I laid before them the Gospel which 
I am preaching among the Gentiles . . . . lest haply I 
should be running, or had been running, in vain— 
When they saw that I am entrusted with the Gospel 
of the Uncircumcision, just as Peter with the Gospel 
of the Circumcision—these expressions admit of no 
other construction than that St. Paul’s commission to 
the Gentiles had been both duly received, and duly 
acted upon already. The visit to Jerusalem, there- 
fore, when this interview with the rest of the apostles 
there took place, could not possibly be prior to the 


h Acts xvi. 6. 


4% 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 1'75 


first of St. Paul’s circuits among the Gentiles, and it 
must have been posterior even to his second; for it 
was some visit just fourteen years later than the time 
of the return from Arabia to Damascus, which followed 
directly upon his conversion, and was the beginning of 
his ministry in that city. 

That the time of this return is the date, to which 
we are to refer the fourteen years specified Gal. ii. 1, 
follows both from the reason of the thing; viz. that St. 
Paul naturally would refer to the date of his own con- 
version, and to that of the commencement of his min- 
istry, as the only proper point of time, to which the 
more memorable and cardinal incidents in the progress 
of his ministry afterwards ought to be referred; and 
also from the analogy of verse 18, of chapter the first. 
The visit there specified, at the end of three years, is 
referred to no other date. Now the time of the return 
to Damascus has been proved to synchronize with 
about the Passover of the second of Caius, U.C. 791: 
the time of a visit then just fourteen years posterior to 
that must have been the time of some visit about the 
period of a Passover, U. C. 805: and this is precisely 
the time at which, as we have proved already, St. Paul 
returned to Jerusalem from his first visit (in U.C. 
803.) to the peninsula of Greece. The coincidence 
between these dates, established as they are upon per- 
fectly independent data, places it beyond a question, 
that the visit upon the occasion recorded in the Acts, 
at xviii. 22, and the visit referred to in Galatians, at 
li. 1, were one and the same. 

It makes in favour of the same conclusion, that we 
might collect from the extraordinary earnestness to 
attend the approaching feast at Jerusalem, which St. 
Paul expressed in the Acts, that he had special rea- 


i xviii. 21. 


176 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


sons for wishing to be present at it; which reasons the 
Epistle explains at once, if St. Paul’s journey to Jeru- 
salem, ii. 1, 2, was produced by a revelation, that is, was 
undertaken in obedience to some direct command from 
the Spirit. Nor is it any objection that Barnabas 
accompanied St. Paul to Jerusalem on this occasion; 
though after their separation, U.C. 802", we read no 
more in the Acts of the former, or of his ever being in 
company with the latter. It is clear from the account 
of what passed in Jerusalem, that the object of the 
attendance of both was something, which intimately 
concerned them in their character of the Apostles car 
ἐξοχὴν of the Gentiles; in which capacity, even after 
their separation in the Acts, Barnabas is still acknow- 
ledged as the copartner of Paul so late as U. C. 808!: 
and is spoken of as still alive, and as we may justly 
presume still engaged in the same character, and in 
the same occupation, at the close of St. Paul’s first, 
if not also of his second imprisonment™. The same 
revelation then, which enjoined the attendance of St. 
Paul, as one of the great Apostles of the Gentiles, re- 
quired, we may suppose, the attendance of Barnabas, 
as the other also; and both on the same occasion, U.C. 
805. The Epistle, then, could not have been written 
before the time of this attendance. 

III. The Epistle could not have been written before 
the time of the visit of St. Peter to Antioch"; which 
time we proved elsewhere to have been in the course 
of the same year as this visit to Jerusalem also°; not 
longer perhaps after it, than the interval between the 
Passover, and the Pentecost ensuing. 

IV. The Epistle could not have been written before 
St. Paul’s second visit to Galatia, Acts xviii. 23; when he 


k Acts xv. 36—39. 11 Cor.ix.6. τὰ Col. iv. 10. 2 Tim. iv. 11. n Gal. 
11,11. ο Dissertation ii. vol. i. 109. sqq- 


3ς 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts. 1 


proceeded thither from Antioch, in the course of the 
same year with each of the preceding events, but after 
them both. The conclusions at which we have already 
arrived would prove this; but independent of them, it 
might be deduced from the plain import of Gal. iv. 13, 
alone: Ye know that in weakness of the flesh did 1 
preach the gospel to you, τὸ πρότερον : which means 
not simply, at the first, but, the former time, or the 
time before ; and consequently distinctly implies that 
he had been ¢wice in Galatia, but neither more nor less 
than f¢wice, before he wrote the Epistle. This use of 
τὸ πρότερον here is parallel to that of τὸ δεύτερον, and 
τὸ πάλιν, 2 Cor. xiii. 2: or of τὸ δεύτερον, Jude 5: or 
that of τὰς πρότερον ἡμέρας, Hebrews x. 32: and to many 
other instances which might be produced ; all referring 
to one or other of two occasions, but only two, as 
the subjects of comparison, and each of the same kind. 
The same reference to a second visit appears, though 
not with equal clearness, in the literal sense of ἐπιχο- 
pnyav?, which may be understood of some second sup- 
ply of the gifts of the Spirit, in addition to a first; such 
as might be expected upon a second visit of St. Paul. 
That weakness of the flesh which is alluded to here, 
as the description of bodily circumstances under which 
St. Paul first preached in Galatia, is referred to also in 
the First Epistle to the Corinthians4, as what had 
been observable during his residence at Corinth ; and 
it is a critical coincidence that he came from Galatia, 
on the first occasion, almost directly to Corinth. If 
both these allusions are to the same thing which is 
denoted by the thorn in the flesh"; the commencement 
of that infirmity is dated from or soon after the rap- 
ture, which we proved to have taken place U.C.794: 
and it was still in existence, when the Second to the 
Ρ Gal. iii. 5. qii. 3. r 2 Cor. xii. 7. 


VOL. IV. N 


178 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


Corinthians was written, U.C.808: There is given 
me a goad for the flesh; a messenger of Satan, to 
buffet me; that I be not elated beyond measure. Had St. 
Paul been speaking of something no longer in being, 
he would have said, There was given me a goad for the 
flesh ; a messenger of Satan, that he should buffet me, 
that I might not be elated beyond measure—iva με 
KodaiCor ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραιροίμην. 

It follows, then, that the Epistle could not have been 
written before St. Paul settled at Ephesus, U.C. 806. 

But fifthly; the Epistle could not have been written 
before the First to the Corinthians, U.C. 807: nor even 
before the Second, U. C. 808. 

For first, when the Epistle was written to the Gala- 
tians, St. Peter was personally known to them‘ ; whence 
we may infer that he had already been personally among 
them. But he was never personally among them be- 
fore the time of his great Evangelical circuit; on which 
circuit it has been proved elsewheret that he set out 
U.C. 805, and in the course of which, U. C. 806, or 
U.C. 807, he came to Corinth; having visited Galatia 
previously. 

Secondly, St. Paul had sometime given instructions 
to the church of Galatia, the same in themselves and 
manifestly for the same purpose, (the collection going 
forward in behalf of the Hebrew church,) which he 
repeated to the church of Corinth". Now no‘ such 
instructions of any kind are to be found in the Epistle 
to the Galatians; nor even an allusion from its begin- 
ning to its end, whence it might be conjectured that 
such a business as this collection was then going on at 
all. It is reasonable therefore to presume that St. 
Paul had either given himself, or sent by some other 
medium to the church of Galatia, the instructions in 


S Gal, i, 18, ii. 7—11- t Dissertation ii. vol. i. 113. u 1 Cor. xvi. I, 2. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 179 


question orally, before he wrote his First to the Corin- 
thians: and that the collection was made and com- 
pleted, before he wrote the Epistle to the Galatians. 
Now each of these suppositions is possible: for St. 
Paul came himself to Ephesus, U. C. 806, directly after 
a visit to Galatia; and he made this visit to Galatia, 
directly after his return to Antioch, U.C. 805. At 
the visit to Jerusalem the same year, before all these 
things, it was stipulated that the Gentiles should re- 
member the poor’; that is, the poor of the church of 
Jerusalem, for whom the collection was ultimately in- 
tended. A sabbatic year was about to arrive in U.C. 
808; and the collection against that year was begun 
in Achaia, U.C. 807, a year before its arrival: and 
when it was only beginning there, it had been going 
on some time in Galatia, and by parity of reason in the 
rest of the Asiatic churches. It was begun there then 
before the middle of U. C. 807, at the latest; and pro- 
bably it was begun earlier. St. Paul, it is true, was at 
Ephesus all the year U.C. 807; and perhaps all the 
year 806: but he might either leave directions with 
the church of Galatia, when he visited them himself, in 
U.C. 805, prospectively against this time; or commu- 
nicate with them, when the time arrived, by some other 
agent. And this appears to me to have been the case. 
For when St. Paul was present in Jerusalem, at the 
Passover, U. C. 805, Titus was with him; and there- 
fore as we may suppose would afterwards accompany 
him both to Antioch and to Galatia: yet either he did 
not return with him to Ephesus, U.C. 806, or if he did, 
he had been sent somewhither from Ephesus again, be- 
fore St. Paul wrote the First. to the Corinthians, U.C. 
807. For he was not with St. Paul when he wrote 
that Epistle; yet before St. Paul wrote the Second, he 
v Gal. ii, το. w Ibid. ii. 1. 


N 2 


180 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


had come from some quarter to Ephesus, accompanied 
by another of the brethren, (who is currently believed 
to be St. Luke,) and that, a brother charged, (χειροτο- 
νηθεὶς,} by common appointment, with the contributions 
of some Christian societies, distinct from those of Mace- 
donia and Achaia; which must consequently have been 
the Christian societies of Asia: he had been sent from 
Ephesus to Corinth; he had been expected to meet 
St. Paul (on his way back into Asia) at Troas; he did 
not meet him until St. Paul was come into Macedonia: 
he had departed again to Corinth from Macedonia, ac- 
companied also by the brother supposed to be St. Luke, 
out of obedience to a personal wish of St. Paul’s; and 
with a view to expedite and get ready the contribu- 
tions of Achaia, before St. Paul himself, accompanied 
by the brethren from Macedonia, might be expected to 
arrive at Corinth: and all this before the Second to the 
Corinthians was written*. 

We may conclude, therefore, that Titus and St. Luke 
were the persons by whose means St. Paul, though 
himself at Ephesus, had communicated on the subject 
of this contribution with the churches of Asia, and 
with that of Galatia among the rest; that this commu- 
nication was made early in U.C. 807; and that the 
contributions, so raised, were brought to Ephesus by 


x 2 Cor. vii. 8. 6. 13-16-viii. 6-16-24. ii. 12, 13. ix. 3-5. xii. 17, 18. Some 
of these texts (as viii. 23: ix. 3.5.) would imply that others besides St. Luke ac- 
companied Titus on this second occasion; and others (xii. 17, 18.) that some bro- 
ther (whether the same as in the second instance or not) accompanied Titus on 
his former mission to Corinth—that mission, on his return from which Paul ex- 
pected to have met him at Troas, (2 Cor. ii. 12, 13,) but did not meet him until he 
came into Macedonia (Ibid. vii. 5. 6.) 

It is to be observed, that by many of the ancient commentators the brother al- 
luded to, whose praise was in the gospel, was thought to he Barnabas. See Ccu- 
menius, in 2 Cor. vili. 18. i. 663. A. B: Ibid. το. 664, B. C. One thing, at least, 
appears to be plainly intimated by the comparison of 2 Cor. viii. 18 and 19, with 
22, that the brother, whose praise was 1n the Gospel, was different from the brother 
whom Paul had proved diligent in many things. ‘This latter, in my opinion, was 
most probably St. Luke: though I still should not suppose that the former could 
be Barnabas. Theodorit certainly understands it of Barnabas, see iii. 331: In 
2 Cor. viii. 19: and the brother, sent along with Titus to Corinth, of Apollos ; 
Ibid. 332. 22. Cf. Theophylact, ii. 287, C—E. In 2 Cor. viii. 18, 19. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 181 


the same parties, between the Passover and the Pente- 
cost of U.C. 808. When the Epistle to the Galatians 
then was written, which must have been after 1]. (Ὁ. 
807, eneuntem, at least, there is no reason to suppose 
the least allusion to this subject would be found in it. 

And this conclusion is further confirmed by the right 
version of ii. 10, the only text in the Epistle which 
can be construed into a contrary meaning: ὃ καὶ ἐσπού- 
daca αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι. Had St. Paul been referring 
in these words to any thing about which he was 
anxious at the very time when this meeting was held 
at Jerusalem, and much more about which he was 
anxious still; the merest tyro in the Greek language 
would know that he might be expected to have written 
ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδαζον αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι : OY else, ὃ Kal σπου- 
δάζω αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι. AS this is not the case, the tense 
of the verb, as it stands, must have either its purely 
indefinite and historical sense; or stand, as it so 
often does in Greek, for the preterite ἐσπούδακα : so as 
to mean; Which also I endeavoured with the requi- 
site diligence to do; o7 Which also I have endeavoured 
with the requisite diligence to do; or more agreeably 
to our idiom—The very thing which I also have been 
diligent to do. Compare Acts xi. 28. 30. xxvi. 10. 
where similar phrases occur. Each of these meanings 
implies that the thing itself, the matter of fact in ques- 
tion, the object of this diligence; which was that the 
Gentiles should remember the poor of Jerusalem; was 
already a past fact, and was not the object of that 
diligence any longer: with this difference between 
them, that, according to the former, it might be any 
length of time past; according to the latter, it must 
very recently have been effected. 

Thirdly, we may remark at Gal. iv. 10. the following 
allusion; Ye are observing days, and months, and sea- 

N 3 


182 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


sons, and years; where the mention of years unques- 
tionably denotes sabbatic years; and the assertion in 
general must imply that the Galatians either were ob- 
serving these, among other Mosaic rites, at the time 
when the Epistle was written, or were disposed to ob- 
serve them. Now from seed-time, U.C. 808, to seed- 
time, U. C. 809, was actually a sabbatic year; in the 
course of which, especially about the time of its feasts, 
as that of the Scenopegia or that of the Passover—there 
would also be days, in its sabbaths, and months, in its 
new moons, and seasons, in the stated times of its legal 
solemnities, which Galatian or other Christians, who 
had imbibed the principles of the Judaizing teachers, 
might think themselves bound to observe. There is a 
similar allusion at Col. ii. 16, but not with any such 
distinct assertion of an observance then going on. If 
the Epistle was written in the course of a sabbatic year, 
this allusion might be as true with respect to the Gala- 
tians, as it would be natural and just in the writer: and 
we have shewn that, though it could not have been 
written before U. C. 807, yet there is nothing in what 
has hitherto been said to prevent but that it might 
have been written in U.C. 808. 

For fourthly, in all the First Epistle to the Corin- 
thians from first to last, we can discover not one distinct 
allusion to the existence of Judaizing teachers; or to 
the prevalence of Judaizing principles in that church : 
whereas, in the Second Epistle, written about a year 
after the First, they are to be met with almost in every 
page Y. They appear also sufficiently clearly in the 
Epistle to the Romans, written after both the former ”. 
I cannot help inferring from this distinction, which is 
very perceptible and equally remarkable, that, these 
teachers and their principles were not yet got into 


y 2 Cor. li, 17. Vv. 12. X. 2. 7. 10. Xi 4. I2—15. 21—23. 2. Rom. xvi. 17—~20. 


*¢ 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 183 


Corinth when the First Epistle was written ; but were 
so when the Second was written. They came thither 
consequently in the interval between the Epistles: and 
herein we may observe a remarkable coincidence be- 
tween the Epistle to the Galatians, and the Second to 
the Corinthians. These teachers, as we may presume, 
would arrive in Galatia before they arrived in Corinth ; 
yet they were only just come among that church, 
when the Epistle was written: I marvel that ye are so 
soon beginning (of yourselves) to depart from him who 
called you in Christ’s grace, to another gospel, (which 
is not another, o7, as to which, there is not another,)— 
of yourselves, I say, unless there be some who are 
troubling you, and desiring to pervert the Gospel of 
Christ “—and again, Ye were running well; who hath 
hindered you? or rather, tripped you up» ?—and, But 
he who is troubling you shall bear the condemnation 
(of so doing), whosoever he may be’—and again, 


EA , ° A e ΄“ 
ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες υμας 4 *_and 


* The text above, ὄφελον καὶ 
ἀποκόψονται, «, τ. A. scarcely al- 
lows of being rendered literally: 
and certainly it is not rightly 
translated in the authorized ver- 
sion; 7 mould they were even 
cut off that trouble you. ‘The 
meaning of St. Paul will be suf- 
ficiently illustrated to the clas- 
sical reader by the following 
passages : 

Justin Martyr, Apologia i. 45. 
1.7: καὶ φανερῶς eis κιναιδίαν ἀπο- 
κόπτονταί τινες, καὶ εἰς μητέρα θεῶν 
τὰ μυστήρια ἀναφέρουσι. Dio Chry- 
sostom, XXxili. 10. ὃ. 30. 35: ὁ δὲ 
τοιοῦτος ἦχος τίνων ἐστίν ; οὐχὶ τῶν 
ἀνδρογύνων ; οὐχὶ τῶν τὰ αἰδοῖα ἀπο- 
κεκομμένων ; Dio Cassius, ΙΧχῖχ. 


a Gal. i. 6, 7. A We 


11: ἐβουλεύσατο μὲν παντάπασιν αὐτὸ 
ἀποκόψαι. De Elagabalo. Arrian, 
Epictetus, lib. li. 20. 296. 297: 
Kal οἱ ἀποκοπτόμενοι Tas γε προθυ.- 
μίας τὰς τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀποκόψασθαι 
οὐ δύνανται. ‘Theophilus ad Au- 
tolycum, iii. 6. 304: ἢ ”Arrou τοῦ 
aroxorrropévov—-ClemensAlexand. 
Operum i. 74.1. 10: Cohortatio 
ad Gentes, x: πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τῶν 
αἰδοίων ἀφηρημένους, κα, τ. Χ. Bar- 
desanes (apud Eusebium, Evan- 
gelica Preparatio, vi. 10. 279. 
D.): ἐν τῇ Συρίᾳ καὶ ἐν τῇ ᾿Οσροηνῇ 
ἀπεκόπτοντο πολλοὶ τῇ Ῥέᾳ᾽ καὶ ἐν 
τούτῳ μιᾷ ῥοπῇ ὁ βασιλεὺς ΓΑβγαρος 
ἐκέλευσε τῶν ἀποκοπτομένων τὰ 
αἰδοῖα ἀποκόπτεσθαι καὶ τὰς χεῖρας. 
καὶ ἐκ τότε οὐδεὶς ἀπεκόψατο ἐν τῇ 


184 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


again, O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, 
not to obey the truth*—and again, Are ye so foolish ? 
having begun in spirit, are ye now making an end in 
flesh * ? Have ye suffered so much to no purpose ? if, 
indeed, it be even to no purpose'—all which are clear 
intimations that these teachers, whether many or one, 
with the leaven of their principles, were only just come 
among the Galatians: and that St. Paul as yet did not 
know even who they were +. Now this is exactly the 
way in which he speaks of them in the Second Epistle 
to the Corinthians: the tenth chapter of that Epistle 
is a case to the point throughout: and at the fourth 
verse of the eleventh, he applies to some one of these 
teachers in particular the indefinite description of ὁ ἐρ- 
xouevos; Which implies that, though he might be ex- 
pected to come soon, he was not yet come to Corinth. 
Fifthly, the coincidence between the general argu- 
ment, reasonings, and sentiments, and partially even 
the expressions, of the Epistle to the Galatians, and of 
that to the Romans, is a presumptive proof that they 
were written about the same time; or with a view to 
the same purposes, arising in part from the same 
᾽Οσροηνῇ. Artemidorus, Ounei- 


rocritica, ii. 74: καὶ γάλλοι, οἱ 
ἀπόκοποι καὶ omddovres. The same 


15: Josephus, De Maccabeis, 
5: Origen, De Principiis, iv. 18. 
Operum i. p.180: Suidas, ’Avrio- 


author alludes to this kind of 
mutilation as a species of punish- 
ment in his time: iv. 67: ἀλλ᾽ 
ἐτμήθη τὸ αἰδοῖον, ὁ ἰδὼν τὸν ὄνειρον. 
Cf. GEcumenius, in Novum Te- 
stamentum, 1. 760. C. in Episto- 
lam ad Galatas, v. 12: Suidas. 
᾿Αποκόπους : "Appev : Βάκηλος : Γάλ- 
Nos. 

A similar sentiment occurs 
1 Cor. vii. 18: περιτετμημένος τις 
ἐκλήθη; μὴ ἐπισπάσθω : to illus- 
trate which compare 1 Mace. i. 


e Gal. iii. 1. 


xos. In like manner, Deuterono- 
MY XXlll. I. ἀποκεκομμένος occurs 
ἁπλῶς, for τὸ αἰδοῖον ἀφῃρημένος. 

* Coeepisti melius quam desi- 
nis: ultima primis | cedunt: 
dissimiles hic vir et ille puer. 
Dejanira Herculi, 23. 

7 Epiphanius, indeed, says 
the teachers in question were 
Cerinthus and his disciples. 
Operumi.111. C. Cerinthiani, ii: 
112. C. Ibid. iv: 114. B. Ibid. 


Vi. 


f iii. 3, 4. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 185 


juncture of circumstances, and the same kind of occasion. 
To establish the fact of this coincidence we may com- 
pare the passages in the margin’. There are other 
Epistles, as those to the Ephesians and to the Colos- 
sians and those to Titus and the First to Timothy re- 
spectively; of which a similar conformity is percep- 
tible, and which were certainly written together. I 
cannot indeed contend that the coincidence in the pre- 
sent instance is such, as would lead to the inference 
that one Epistle was written while the other was still 
fresh in the mind of the writer; but I think it is such 
even here as, among other arguments, to prove that 
both were written within a short time of each other: 
in which case the Epistle to the Galatians, as neither 
so elaborate, nor so regular, nor in all respects so deli- 
berate and premeditated a composition as that to the 
Romans, but manifestly written on the spur of the 
moment, under the first excitement of feeling pro- 
duced by an unexpected and disagreeable piece of in- 
formation, that of the defalcation of any of the writer’s 
converts from the sound and sober form of the faith 
which they had received from him; we may perhaps 
conclude was written by St. Paul first. 

Lastly, if it is reasonable to suppose that the Ju- 
daizing teachers would not leave Juda, to make con- 
verts professedly among the Gentiles, before the last of 
the Apostles, St. Peter, had himself set out upon his 


& Galatians ii. 6. with Romans iv. 3. 
- γ. — 12. ix. 6, 7. 
== 13h viii. I—4. 
IVs 53 0, ἢ- ὙΠ 1. ΠΡ ΤΣ 
— 4: —3 
— 28. ix. ἢ 
ν. 14. xiii. 8—ro 
—17 vii. 13—2 
— I9g—21 1. 28—31 
Viel 2. ΧΥ. I—3 


iii. 6---ὧν. 1—7. ii. 17—209. 
iv. 2I—31, iii. 9-- 


ν. i—6. 


186 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


great Evangelical circuit ; then if the progress of that 
circuit did not bring even him to Corinth before the 
beginning of U.C. 807. it is not extraordinary that 
those teachers also should not arrive there, or even 
in Galatia, before U.C. 808. Again, Galatians v. 11. 
is clearly incompatible with an early date; but very 
much in unison with Acts xx. 3. and Rom. xv. 30, 31. 
which are synchronous facts and allusions. Again, 
it is a very ancient tradition, and attested by the sub- 
scription of the Epistle itself, that the Epistle to the 
Galatians was written from Rome; and though the 
subscriptions to the Epistles in general are entitled to 
little consideration, yet if the Epistle was actually 
written when St. Paul was on his way to Rome, the 
tradition may so far have been correct. There is no 
intimation in any part of the Epistle that St. Paul in- 
tended to revisit the Galatians in person; but rather 
the contrary": and consequently that at the time when 
he was writing to them he had no means of addressing 
them, or of correcting their error, except by letter. 
This too, I think, would be the case after the point of 
time specified at Acts xix. 21. and from thencefor- 
ward, until he arrived at Jerusalem. It was not in- 
deed in the nature of things impossible that he might 
write the Epistle after this, when he was at Ceesarea ; 
but the first words of the exordium, IlatdXos .... καὶ of 
σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοὶ, imply that he was somewhere 
at large, and in the society of his usual companions 
and fellow-labourers, when he wrote it. He makes 
use of similar language at Acts xx. 34. speaking of 
those who had been his companions at Ephesus. Had 
the Epistle been written while he was any where in 
confinement, some allusion would have occurred in it 
to his bonds; whereas there is nothing of the kind. 


h Gal, iv. 18, 19, 20. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 187 


Nor do I consider the declaration, ἐγὼ yap τὰ στίγματα 
τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματί μου βαστάζω i, to be any 
exception to the contrary. It is proved, as I think, by 
2 Cor. x. 10. xii. 7, 8, 9. Gal. iv. 13, 14. that this allu- 
sion to the prints of the Lord Jesus, is an allusion to 
his thorn in the flesh. The principle of the allusion is 
illustrated by Philo Judzeus*. ἔνιοι δὲ... ἵενται πρὸς 
δουλείαν τῶν χειροκμήτων, γράμμασιν αὐτὴν ὁμολογοῦντες" 

2 2 , e ’ A “A ° , 2 Ψ ΙΒ} ΄“ 
OUK εν χαρτιδίοις, ως ἐπί Τῶν ἀνδραπόδων ἔθος. ἀλλ εν τοις 
σώμασι καταστίζοντες αὐτὴν σιδήρῳ πεπυρωμένῳ, πρὸς ἀνεξά- 
λειπτον διαμονήν. This custom was of great antiquity 
in Egypt; for Herodotus alludes to it in his own time! 

2 pa) δ rey Ψ κι , ? , 

---ες TO HV καταφυγὼν OLKETNS OTEW ἀνθρώπων ἐπιβάληται 
στίγματα ἱρὰ, ἑωῦτὸν διδοὺς TH Θεῷ, οὐκ ἔξεστι τούτου 


ἅψασθαι *. And the practice of so branding them- 


* Plutarch, Nicias, 29: καὶ rov- Criminals were sometimes 


τους ὡς οἰκέτας ἐπώλουν (the Athe- 
nians made prisoners by the Syra- 
cusans) στίζοντες ἵππον εἰς τὸ πρόσ- 
πον. Cf. Suidas in Σαμίων ὁ 
δῆμος. Hence slaves were also 
called orlypariat. Mitius id sane, 
quod non et stigmate dignum 
| Credidit — Juvenal, x. 183. 
Yet Herodotus, vii. 35. makes 
Xerxes actually treat the Helle- 
spont so. ‘The name of drrayas 
was given metaphorically to 
slaves so marked, because that 
species of bird had mottled or 
party-ccloured plumage: 866 
Suidas, ’Arrayas. It appears from 
Ambrose, Operum 11.1189. D. E. 
De Obitu Valentiniani, §. 58. 
that slaves, or servants, in his 
time, if Christians, would some- 
times bear the name of Christ, 
and soldiers that of the em- 
peror: Caractere Domini in- 
scribuntur et servuli, et nomine 
imperatoris signantur milites. 


HBG Ἢ 7: 


k Operum ii. 220. 1. 46. sqq. De Monarchia, lib. i. 


branded: as thieves with the 
word fur. Hence, apud Plau- 
tum, Trium litterarum homo. 
Lucian, De Dea Syria, iii. 
489. ὃ. 59: στίζονται δὲ πάντες, of 
μὲν ἐς καρποὺς, οἱ δὲ ἐς αὐχένας. 
καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦδε ἅπαντες ᾿Ασσύριοι 
στιγματοφορέουσι. In reference 
to the persecution of the Jews 
in Egypt by Ptolemy Philopa- 
tor, between B. C. 222 and 205, 
it is said, 3 Mace. 11. 29: τούτους 
Te ἀπογραφομένους χαράσσεσθαι καὶ 
διὰ πυρὸς εἰς τὸ σῶμα παρασήμῳ 
Διονύσου κισσοφύλλῳ, οὗς καὶ κατα-- 
χωρίσαι εἰς τὴν προσυνεσταλμένην 
αὐθεντίαν. Certain of the hereti- 
cal sects adopted a similar mode 
of distinguishing themselves. 
Treneus, i. xxiv. to1. 1. 28. De 
Carpocratianis: Alii vero ex ipsis 
signant, cauteriantes suos disci- 
pulos in posterioribus partibus 
exstantie dextre auris. Epi- 
phanius, Operum i. 106. ἢ). Con- 


lii, 113. 


188 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


selves was expressly forbidden the Jews™. St. Paul’s 
thorn in the flesh, whatsoever it was, did as plainly 
denote whose servant he was; by whose grace, not- 
withstanding this infirmity, his ministerial labours 
were crowned with success, and whose strength was 
made perfect in his weakness; as if the name of the 
Master whom he served, and whose property he was, 
had been branded or printed on his body. 

The result of these reasonings is to confirm our ori- 
ginal proposition, that the Epistle to the Galatians 
was not written before U.C. 807. nor after U. C. 809; 
and therefore most probably U.C. 808: but whether 
before the Second to the Corinthians, or after the 
Epistle to the Romans, or between the two, I cannot 
undertake to determine; nor in fact is it of any im- 
portance to do so. The same uncertainty must always 
exist with regard to the place where it was written, 
further than simply thus much; that if it was written 
in U.C. 808. it was written from some one or other 
of those quarters, in which St. Paul spent the whole of 


tra eosdem, v: σφραγῖδα δὲ ἐν καυ- δέ; ἐν Opaxn γέγονας ; ἔγωγε. ἑώρακας 


τῆρι, ἢ δὲ ἐπιτηδεύσεως ξυρίου ἢ 
ῥαφίδος, ἐπιτιθέασιν οὗτοι, οἱ ὑπὸ 
Kaprokpa, ἐπὶ τὸν δεξιὸν λοβὸν τοῦ 
ὠτὸς, τοῖς ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀπατωμένοις. 
To bear στίγματα, however, 
was not every where a mark of 
disgrace. On the contrary, like 
the practice of tattooing among 
certain of the Indian pee it 
was in some cases reckoned ho- 
nourable. Artemidorus, Onei- 
rocritica, i. 9: στίζονται mapa 
Θρᾳξὶν οἱ εὐγενεῖς παῖδες, καὶ παρὰ 
Γέτταις (eras) δοῦλοι----ἰ]. 12: 
πολλάκις δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ ἐθνῶν ὄντας, 
ἐν οἷς οἱ πλεῖστοι στίζονται. Dio 
Chrysostom, xiv. 442. §. 40: τί 


οὖν ἐκεῖ τᾶς γυναῖκας τὰς ἐλευθέρας, 
στιγμάτων τοσούτῳ 
πλείονα ἐχούσας στίγματα καὶ ποικι- 
λώτερα, ὅσῳἂν βελτίους καὶ ἐκ βελ- 
τιόνων δοκοῦσι; Yet a different 
account of the origin and import 
of these στίγματα of the Thra- 
cian women is given in the 
Greek Anthology; viz. that they 
were intended as a memorial 
and a punishment of their crime 
in murdering Orpheus. It con- 
cludes, ποινὰς δ᾽ Ὄρφῆϊ κταμένῳ 
στίζουσι γυναῖκας | εἰσέτι νῦν, κεί- 
νῆς εἵνεκεν ἀμπλακίης. Antholo- 
gia, i. 205. Phanoclis i. 


μεστὰς, καὶ 


m Ley. xix. 28. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 189 


this year: that is, the first part he spent in Asia, but 
the rest, and the chief part perhaps in Macedonia, if 
not in Achaia. And having arrived at this conclusion, 
we may resume the course of our subject, which was 
the continuance of St. Paul’s last journey from Greece 
to Jerusalem, U. C. 809. 

It will appear from the Table of Passovers in Disser- 
tation vii. that the Passover was celebrated U.C. 809. 
on March 19: and the Pentecost on May 9. It was by 
the time of this feast that St. Paul proposed to arrive 
in Jerusalem": and that he accomplished his purpose 
in the interval between his leaving Philippi, and his 
being apprehended in the temple, is evident from the 
presence of the Jews of Asia in Jerusalem, at the time 
of the latter event®. But the same Jews were not 
present at Czesarea also, when he was soon after exa- 
mined by Felix®. We may infer then that Pentecost 
was over by that time; and that those Jews were re- 
turned to their homes. As St. Paul had to travel from 
Corinth as far as Philippi by land, and as he spent at 
Philippi the Paschal week ; which would fall, accord- 
ing to the reckoning above made, between March 19. 
and March 26. znclusive; it is probable that he set 
out from Corinth about the end of February, and ar- 
rived at Philippi about the third week in March. His 
three months’ residence in Greece then terminated about 
the end of February, U. C. 809, and began conse- 
quently about the middle or the beginning of Decem- 
ber, U. C. 808: which is entirely agreeable to what 
we before concluded of the length of his stay in Ma- 
cedonia. 

Between the time of the arrival in Jerusalem, and 
the day of St. Paul’s first examination before Felix, 
there was exactly a twelve days’ interval?: the accu- 


n Acts xx. 16. Ὁ xxi. 27. xxiv. 18. IP Bisah ye 2 


190 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


racy of which calculation may be proved as follows. 
First, the day of the arrival; secondly, the day of the 
interview with James; thirdly, the day of St. Paul’s 
entering into the temple with the Nazarites; fourthly, 
the day when he was seized in the temple, some one of 
the seven days of purification; fifthly, the day when 
he was examined before the council; sixthly, the day 
which preceded the night of his mission to Czesarea ; 
seventhly, the day of his arrival at Cesarea; eighthly, 
the day when he was put on his first audience before 
Felix 4. Czsesarea was six hundred stades, or about 
sixty of our miles", distant from Jerusalem, and St. 
Paul would arrive there the day after he set out; for 
he reached Antipatris that very night, and Antipatris 
was more than midway between Cesarea and Jerusa- 
lem’. He was put on his first audience either the 
fourth or the fifth day after his arrival; and the only 
point, upon which there can be any uncertainty, is as 
to which of the seven days’ purification of the Naza- 
rites he was apprehended upon in the temple. 

The calculation above given will shew that it was 
about the third or fourth of the number. Those twelve 
days, however, as calculated above, were dated from 
the day of St. Paul’s coming to Jerusalem; but, per- 
haps, they should be dated from the day after that, 
the day of his entering in to James; which day after, if 
I am not mistaken, is to be pronounced the day of Pen- 
tecost itself. For St. Paul tells Felix that, in conse- 
quence of his long experience of the usages of the 
Jews, he could easily comprehend it was but twelve 
days’ time since he had come up to Jerusalem to wor- 
ship‘; which yet, with all that experience, Felix could 


GQACts χχὶ τ} θυ λον XK, SOs KEIN 2.129. 22. ρῶν.» r Jo- 
sephus, Ant. Jud. xiii. xi. 2. xv. ix. 6. Bell. 1. iii. 5. 85. Reland, Palestina, 
ii. Cap. ix. 444. t xxiv. II. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts. 191 


not comprehend, unless he had previously been aware 
‘that the day of Pentecost (which brought Jews from 
all parts up to worship) had fallen not more than 
twelve days before. 

On this principle, the day of St. Paul’s first audience 
would be about the twenty-first of May. The day of 
Pentecost was certainly then past, or the Jewish rulers 
would not otherwise have gone down to Cesarea from 
Jerusalem. It is of importance to establish this point ; 
for Paul was again examined by Felix some days after 
this first occasion, in the presence of Drusilla his wife; 
which examination would thus fall about the end of 
May or the beginning of June: and it is from this 
last examination that we are to date the begin- 
ning and continuance of the two years’ imprisonment 
at Czsarea". These two years therefore would ex- 
pire about the end of May or the beginning of June, 
U.C. 811; and this time of the year in particular, 
especially while the edict of Claudius or the rule of 
Tiberius, formerly alluded to’, was in force, was the 
most likely of all for the arrival of a new governor, 
and consequently for the departure of an old. From 
the middle of April to the beginning of June there 
would be six or seven weeks’ interval; the ordinary 
length of time necessary to travel in summer from 
Judza to Rome, or from Rome to Judea. And as: 
Pentecost, U. C. 809, fell upon May 9, so U.C. 811, it 
fell upon May 17, or at the latest upon May 18. 

From the time of the arrival of Festus, to the time 
when he decided upon allowing of the appeal of Paul 
to Czesar, there are express notices of more than seven- 
teen days at least”; which bring us past the middle 
of June. After this also, there was still some interval 
before the arrival of Agrippa at Czesarea; and there 


u Acts xxiv. 24. 27. v Dissertation ix. vol. i. 346. “ xxy. I. 6—12. 17. 


192 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


was a still longer interval occupied by the time of his 
stay there, before he requested to hear Paul; and 
last of all, there was his audience of Paul accordingly, 
on the day after that request *. Even after this au- 
dience there was yet some interval or other, before 
Paul, with the other prisoners, was actually delivered 
to Julius, preparatory to setting out to Italy’. On all 
these accounts it seems impossible to place his final de- 
parture for Rome, before the beginning or the middle 
of August, U.C. 811; which would consequently be 
towards the close of the fourth of Nero: and this con- 
clusion, I think, may be confirmed as follows. 

When he was arrived at Myra in Lycia, a ship of 
Alexandria was found there, sailing to Italy; in which 
he embarked’. Now this ship was laden with corn ἃ, 
the last thing with which it parted in the storm: and, 
consequently, it was with corn of that year’s har- 
vest. The harvest in Egypt was over before the an- 
nual rise of the Nile; that is, the summer solstice. 
Reliqua pars, says Pliny® on this subject, non nisi 
cum falce arva visit paulo ante kalendas Aprilis. per- 
agitur autem messis Maio*. The corn-ships, there- 
fore, with the produce of the year’s harvest, would 
usually set out for Italy in the month of June or July, 
and arrive in August or September. There is a lively 
description, in one of Seneca’s Epistles °, of the effect 


* Ai δέ που ἀσταχύων κενεαὶ φαί- 
νονται ἄρουραι | ἠελίου τὰπρῶτα συν- 
ερχομένοιο Λέοντι. Aratus, Phe- 
nomena, 150. The scholiast, ad 
vers. 137, observes, that barley 
harvest began when the sun was 
in Aries, that 1s soon after the 
vernal equinox. Ad versum 264. 
harvest time in Egypt is made 
to begin in the Julian April. In 


x Acts xxv. 13, 14. 23. 
b H.N. xviii. 47. 


Y XXvii. I. 
¢ Epistola Ixxvii. §. 1, 2. 


the Greek Anthology, (vol. iii. 
211.) there is a poetical enume- 
ration of the Egyptian months 
according to their names and or- 
der, and the physical or other cha- 
racteristics by which they were 
distinguished. | Pachon, which 
answered principally to May, is 
thus described : λήϊα δ᾽ αὐανθέντα 
Πάχων δρεπάνοισι φυλάσσει. 


Z XXvii. 5, 6. a xxvii. 38. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 193 


produced by the appearance of the first of these ships ; 
called tabellarie or packets. 

Moreover, when the wind was favourable, the usual 
route of the Alexandrian corn-ships, bound to Italy, 
was not in the direction which ¢hzs ship was taking, 
along the coast of Asia Minor from east to west; but 
across the Mediterranean by Malta and Sicily, from 
south-east to north-west, which was straight in the di- 
rection from Alexandria in Egypt to Italy. But this 
could not be done, unless the Etesian monsoon had 
ceased to blow, and the southern winds, by which it 
was commonly succeeded, had set in in its stead. Be- 
fore that, the ships which left Alexandria bound 
for Italy, according to the principles of the coasting 
navigation universally practised by antiquity, were 
compelled to pursue a very circuitous route, in order 
to take advantage of the Etesian winds. This seems 
to have been the case with the ship found at Myra, 
yet making a voyage, and that with corn, to Italy*. 


* Lucian, Navigium, seu Vo- 
ta, Operum iii, 254. cap. 9: Cf. 
cap. i: a ship, coming from 
Egypt, and laden with corn, is 
supposed to arrive in the Pi- 
reus at Athens, on its way to 
Italy, upon the seventieth day 
after it had left Alexandria ; 
having sailed all round the Me- 
diterranean, to take advantage 
of the Etesian winds: πρὸς ἀν- 
tlous τοὺς ἐτησίας πλαγιάζοντας. 
Philostratus, Heroica, 637. Β: 
πλέω μὲν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου Te καὶ Φοινίκης 
πέμπτην καὶ τριακοστὴν ἤδη που 
ταύτην ἡμέραν: which is evidently 
under similar circumstances, and 
is supposed to be said by one 
arrived no further than Elzus 
on the Hellespont. Cicero, Ad 
Atticum, vi. vili. complains, Nos 
Etesiz vehementissime tarda- 


VOL. IV. 


runt: and he might well say so, if 
he set out on his return from his 
province, U. C. 704, on the first 
of August, and wrote this letter 
only from Ephesus on the first of 
October. Atschines, Epistole, i: 
the voyage of Aischines, from 
Athens to Rhodes, though made 
in the middle of summer, yet 
from contrary winds, and other 
impediments, took up _ three 
weeks’ time at least. Under or- 
dinary circumstances, and with 
a fair wind, the passage might be 
effected in four days: Lycurgus, 
Oratio, §. 71, 72. We may form, 

in short, some idea of the delay 
which St. Paul would experi- 
ence from the Etesian winds, if 
what Posidonius relates of him- 
self, apud Strabonem, ili. 2. 384, 
be true: that, being opposed by 


194 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


That the Etesian winds in particular were blowing 
both when St. Paul left Sidon, and when he came in 
the direction of Cnidus*, is manifest from the relative 
position of Cyprus to the one, and of Myra in Lycia 
to the other; but more especially from the fact that, 
when the ship left Cnidus, instead of pursuing its 
former course, it sailed under the coast of Crete, in the 
direction of Salmone; and that because the wind was 
contrary!: for this was to sail directly before the 
Etesian wind, viz. from north to south. That the 
northern monsoon then was still blowing seems un- 
questionable ; but that it was about to be succeeded by 
the southern appears from the change of the wind, 
when the ship set out again from the Fair Havens in 
Crete towards Pheenice; for this was with a slight 
wind from the south™. | 

Now the time when the Etesian winds commonly 
ceased to blow, or continued to blow only very irregu- 
larly, is known to have been about the recurrence of the 
autumnal equinox, or the middle of the last week in 
September *. It may be presumed, then, that it was 


an Etesian wind from the east, 
he was three months in sailing 
from Spain, beyond the straits 
of Gibraltar, to Sardinia. Posi- 
donius was a contemporary and 
friend of Pompey the Great: 
Strabo, xi. 1. §. 5, 6. p. 362, 363, 
364. 

* Very different dates may 
be found assigned to the setting 
in of the winds in question ; 
from the middle of July to the 
first of August. In like man- 
ner their duration is differently 
represented from forty to fifty 
days. In the nature of things 
it was not to be expected that 
they should every year begin 


k Acts xxvii. 3, 4, 5. ἢ: 


and end alike. They would in 
general, however, continue until 
the month of September. Vide 
Pliny, H. N. ἢ. 47: Aristotle, 
Meteorologica, ii. 5: Columella, 
xi. 2: Geoponica,i. 9: Galen, 
ix. 153.C: Ammianus Marcel- 
linus, xxii. 15. p. 334: Suidas, 
ἜἘτησίαι: Scholia ad Arati Phie- 
nomena, 152: ad Germanici Ara- 
tea Phenomena, 282: ad Ger- 
manici Prognostica, p. 114, &e. 
Aratus, Phenomena, 152. after 
the two lines quoted supra, p. 192. 
with reference to the time when 
corn harvest of both sorts was 
over in Egypt, continues, Typos 
καὶ κελάδοντες ἐτησίαι εὐρέϊ πόντῳ | 


1 xxVil. 7. ™ xxvii. 13. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 195 


not before this time that St. Paul arrived at Crete: 
and the presumption as I think is confirmed by the al- 
lusion to the νηστεία, or tenth of the Jewish Tisri nas 
past some time, more or less, before they set out for 
Pheenice. 

In the year 1]. Ο. 811, A. D. 58, when the fifteenth 
of Nisan coincided with March 28, the fifteenth of 
Tisri coincided with September 21; and consequently 
the tenth of Tisri fell on September 16. If we suppose 
that, before the ship arrived at the Fair Havens, St. Paul 
had been about a month on the road, and that the day 
of the fast occurred either before or soon after they 
came thither; the time of his departure from Czsarea 
would be, as we conjectured, about the middle or even 
the beginning of August. It was the intention of the 
ship’s crew not to have continued their route that year 
from Crete, but to have passed the winter in the island; 
and when they set ont from the Fair Havens to Phe- 
nice, it was only that they might change their present 
winter quarters for others which were more conve- 
nient. This is a proof that, before they set out, the 
autumnal equinox, or September 24, was long past; 
the autumnal equinox being the time after which the 
sea was usually considered shut *. .They had apparently 


ἀθρόοι ἐμπίπτουσιν" ὁ δὲ πλόος οὐκ- 
έτι κώπαις | ὥριος" εὐρεῖαί μοι 
ἀρέσκοιεν τότε νῆες, εἰς ἄνεμον δὲ 
τὰ πηδὰ κυβερνητῆρες ἔχοιεν. Apol- 
lonius Rhodius, Argonautica, ii. 
500—5 29. gives a mythological 
account of the origin of these 
winds—which he represents as 
a providential dispensation of 
Jupiter to temper the heat of the 
dog-star: Τοῖο δ᾽ ἕκητι | γαῖαν 
ἐπιψύχουσιν ἐτήσιοι ἐκ Διὸς αὖραι | 


The 


ἤματα τεσσαράκοντα, K, τ. Δ. 


Scholiast, in loco, observes: τὰς 
τῶν ἐτησίων ἀνέμων ἡμέρας οἱ μὲν 
τεσσαράκοντα, ἄλλοι δὲ πεντήκοντα 
φασὶν, ὡς Τιμοσθένης. ἄρχονται δὲ 
πνεῖν ὄντος τοῦ ἡλίου ἐν τῷ τοῦ καρ- 
κίνου τέλει πνέουσι δὲ δι’ ὅλου τοῦ 
λέοντος, καὶ λήγουσιν ἐν τῷ διμοίρῳ 
τῆς παρθένου. Cf. ad vers. 500. 
supra. 

* PhiloJudzus, Operum1i.5 48. 
14. De Virtutibus: διαγγελείσης 
οὖν τῆς ὅτι νοσεῖ φήμης, ἔτι πλοΐμων 
ὄντων" ἀρχὴ γὰρ ἦν μετοπώρου, τε- 


n Acts xxvii. 9. 


O 


9 


“αἰ 


196 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


taken up their abode for the winter at Lasza; and it 
was against the prophetical warning of St. Paul that 
they ventured to exchange it for another: he would 
have had them remain where they were; the pilot and 
the master of the vessel thought there could be no 
danger in removing as far as Phoenice. 

It is extremely probable, then, that they must have 
set out from the Fair Havens about the middle of our 
October, if not later; and as the storm which immedi- 
ately surprised them lasted fourteen days or more ὃ, 
they would be wrecked on Malta at last about the be- 
ginning, if not nearer to the middle of our November*. 


λευταῖος πλοῦς τοῖς θαλαττεύουσιν, 
ἀπὸ τῶν πανταχύθεν ἐμπορίων εἰς 
τοὺς οἰκείους λιμένας καὶ ὑποδρόμους 
ἐπανιοῦσι, καὶ μάλιστα οἷς πρόνοια 
τοῦ μὴ διαχειμάξειν ἐπὶ ξένης ἐστίν. 

Hesiod, Opera et Dies, 671: 
Σπεύδειν δ᾽ ὅττι τάχιστα πάλιν οἷ- 
κόνδε νέεσθαι" | μηδὲ μένειν οἶνόν 
τε νέον καὶ ὀπωρινὸν ὄμβρον, | καὶ 
χειμῶν᾽ ἐπιόντα, νότοιό τε δεινὰς 
ἀήτας, | ὅς τ᾽ ὥρινε θάλασσαν ὁμαρ- 
τήσας Διὸς ὄμβρῳ | πολλῷ, ὀπω- 
ρινῷ" χαλεπὸν δέ τε πόντον ἔθηκεν. 

Oppian, Halieutica, v. 312: 
Φορτὶς ὅπως εὐρεῖα πολύζυγος, ἣν τε 
θαλάσσης | ἀνέρες ἐξερύσωσιν ἐπὶ 
τραφερὴν ἀνάγοντες, | χείματος i- 
σταμένοιο, μεταπνεῦσαι καμάτοιο | 
ποντοπόρου" βριθὺς δὲ πόνος ναύ- 
τῇσι μέμηλεν, K, τ. A. 

Aristophanes, Aves, 709: Σπεί- 
pew μὲν ὅταν γέρανος κρώζουσ᾽ ἐς 
τὴν Λιβύην μεταχωρῇ, | καὶ πηδάλιον 
τότε ναυκλήρῳ φράζει κρεμάσαντι 
καθεύδειν. 

* The storm, which St. Paul 
encountered, and which ulti- 
mately cast him upon the island 
of Malta; exhibits all the ap- 
pearances of such a storm, as in 
a multitude of instances may be 


shewn to have coincided with 
the period in the natural year 
called the Πλειάδων δύσις ; which, 
period, from the frequency of 
such convulsions of the elements 
at that juncture in particular, 
was considered and spoken of 
anciently as the most dangerous 
period for navigation in the 
whole year. 

Hesiod, Opera et Dies, 616: 
Ei δέ σε ναυτιλίης δυσπεμφέλου 
ἵμερος αἱρεῖ, | εὖτ᾽ ἂν Πληϊάδες, 
σθένος ὄβριμον ᾿Ωρίωνος | φεύγου- 
σαι, πίπτωσιν ἐς ἠεροειδέα πόντον, | 
δὴ τότε παντοίων ἀνέμων θύουσιν 
ἀῆται" | καὶ τότε μηκέτι νῆας ἔχειν 
ἐνὶ οἴνοπι πόντῳ, K, τ. Ἃ. 

Anacreon, Epigrammatum 3 : 
Kai oe, Κλεηνορίδη, πόθος ὦλεσε 
πατρίδος αἴης, | θαρσήσαντα νότου 
λαίλαπι χειμερίῃ" ὥρη γάρ σ᾽ ἐ- 
πέδησεν ἀνέγγυος" ὑγρὰ δὲ τὴν 
σὴν  κύματ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἱμερτὴν ἔκλυσεν 
ἡλικίην. 

Theocritus, Epigrammatum ix. 
3: Δείλαιε Κλεόνικε, σὺ δ᾽ εἰς λιπα- 
piv Θάσον ἐλθεῖν | ἠπείγευ, κοίλης 
ἔμπορος ἐκ Συρίης" | ἔμπορος, ὦ 
Κλεόνικε, δύσιν δ᾽ ὑπὸ Πλειάδος 
αὐτὴν | ποντοπορῶν, αὐτῇ πΠλειάδι 


© Acts xxvii. 27. 


% 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 197 


In the fourth month after this shipwreck, (for so I un- 
derstand the note of time at verse 11. of chap. xxviii. 


ovykaredus. Cf. Idyll. vii. 52—53. 
Also, Anthologia, ii.7. Antipatri 
Sidonii viii. 

Vegetius, De Re Militari, v. 
9: A Novembri autem mense 
crebris tempestatibus navigia 
conturbat Vergiliarum hiemalis 
occasus. 

Horace, Carminum iv. xiv.20: 
Indomitas prope qualis undas | 
Exercet Auster, Pleiadum cho- 
ro | Scindente nubes. Cf. i. 
XXVliil. 21, 22: Epoden x. 9g, 
Poe χν..7, 9: 

Ovid, De Arte Amandi, i. 
409: Differ opus. tunc tristis 
hyems, tunc Pliades instant: | 
Tune tener xquorea mergitur 
Heedus aqua. 

Epistolz de Ponto, ii. vii. 57 : 
Fit fuga temporibus levior: pro- 
jectus in equor | Arcturum subii 
Pleiadumque minas. 

Propertius, ii. xvi. 49: Vi- 
distin’ toto sonitus percurrere 
cxlo? | Fulminaque etherea de- 
siluisse domo? | Non hee Pleia- 
des faciunt, neque aquosus 
Orion, | Nec sic de nihilo ful- 
minis ira cadit. Cf. iii. v. 35, 
36. Also Statius, Silvarum i. iii. 
95,96: vi. 21, 22: Claudian, De 
Bello Getico, 209 —211, &c. 

The Vergiliarum occasus is 
placed by Pliny, H.N. ii. 47, 
ΧΙ. 15. Xvili. 60. 74, upon No- 
vember 11: by Servius, ad Geor- 
gica, 1. 219, on November 8. The 
Geoponica, i. 1, place it Nov. 2: 
and Galen, Operum ix. 8. D. on 
Nov. 13, &c. Cf. Scholia ad 
Arati Phenomena, 254 and 264 : 
and ad Germanici Prognostica, 
page 114» 115. 

Accordingly, Herodotus, viii. 
117.115. if not vi. 44. there is an 


account of storms, which must 
have happened about the begin- 
ning of November, and there- 
fore about the Πλειάδων δύσις. So 
likewise, in Diodorus Sic. xx. 69. 
and xx. 73,74: with which last 
we may compare Plutarch, Vita 
Demetrii, 19. Lucian, Toxaris 
sive De Amicitia, ii. 527. 19. de- 
scribes a similar storm. Demos- 
thenes, Oratio1.§. 30: ἔτι δὲ συν- 
ἐβη τῆς νυκτὸς, ὥρᾳ ἔτους, ὕδωρ καὶ 
βροντὰς καὶ ἄνεμον μέγαν γενέσθαι" 
tm αὐτὰς γὰρ τὰς Πλειάδων δύσεις 
οἱ χρόνοι οὗτοι ἦσαν : of a storm, 
encountered off the coast of 
Thrace, §. 25, more than forty- 
five days μετ᾽ ᾿Αρκτοῦρον, that is, 
about the beginning of Novem- 
ber. 

But the most remarkable ex- 
ample of a storm, nearly resem- 
bling that which St. Paul expe- 
rienced, is supplied by Aristides, 
ἱεροὶ λόγοι, Oratio xxiv. 483. ].1ο-- 
20. He set out from Patre in A- 
chaia—im’ αὐτὴν ἰσημερίαν (that is, 
the autumnal) ἀράντων τῶν xpn- 
στῶν ναυτῶν... «ἄκοντος ἐμοῦ, Kal ἀν- 
τιλέγοντος ἐξ ἀρχῆς, K, T.A.—and 
when they were surprised by the 
tempest, he represents himself 
as tossed, like St. Paul, fourteen 
days and nights in the Atgean 
sea before he arrived at Mile- 
tus: τέτταρες πάλιν αὗται πρὸς 
ταῖς δέκα ἡμέραι καὶ νύκτες, χει- 
μῶνος κύκλῳ διὰ παντὸς τοῦ πελά- 
γους φερομένων, K,T.A. 

And as there was one defi- 
nite time when the sea became 
shut, so there was another when 
it was supposed to be reopened. 
Pliny, ii. 47: Ver ergo aperit 
navigantibus maria...is dies se- 
xtus est ante Februarias Idus. 


o 3 


198 


Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


Mera δὲ τρεῖς μῆνας ἀνήχθημεν,) which would consequently 
be some time in February or March, U.C. 812, they 
resumed their journey; and in something more than a 


Servius, ad Virgilii Georgica, i. 
138: Sed Pleiades ortu suo pri- 
mz navigationis tempus osten- 
dunt. unde Greece Pleiades di- 
cuntur, ἀπὸ τοῦ πλέειν: Latine 
Vergiliz, ἃ verni temporis signi- 
ficatione, quo oriuntur. 

Hence Propertius—O utinam 
hiberne duplicentur tempora 
brume, | Et sit iners tardis na- 
vita Vergiliis: i. vii. g. Cf. 
Theocritus, xiii. 25-29: Hesiod, 
Opera et Dies, 676-684: Horace, 
iii. vii. 1-5: iv. xii. 1,2. Theo- 
phrastus, Ethici Characteres, περὶ 
ἀδολεσχίας : Kai τὴν θάλατταν ἐκ Διο- 
νυσίων πλώϊμον εἶναι: that is, 
with the ninth month in the 
Attic year, Elaphebolion, an- 
swering to February and March. 

Vegetius, De Re Militari, v 
9: Ex die igitur tertio Iduum 
Novembris (the time of the set- 
ting of the Pleiads in Cesar’s 
calendar) usque in diem sextum 
Iduum Martiarum maria clau- 
duntur. And, even after this, 
he proceeds to say: Post nata- 
lem vero ut ita dicam naviga- 
tionis, qui sollemni certamine 
publicoque spectaculo multarum 
gentium celebratur, plurimorum 
siderum ipsiusque temporis ra- 
tione usque in Idus Maias peri- 
culose maria tentantur: non 
quod negotiatorum cesset indu- 
stria, sed quia major adhibenda 
sit cautela. 

Catullus, xlvi. 1—4: Jam ver 
egelidos refert tepores; | Jam 
aay furor squinoctialis | nf 
cundis zephyri silescit auris. | 
Linquantur Phrygii Catulle 
campi, ἄς. The vernal equinox 
in Catullus’ time was nominally 


the middle of May. Ovid also, 
Fasti, iv. 131, observes of the 
month of April, Vere monet 
curvas materna per aquora pup- 
pes | Ire, nec hibernas jam ti- 
muisse minas. 

Repeated allusions to this sea- 
son, occur in the Greek Antho- 
logy. Thus, i. 168. Leonid 
Tarentini lvii:: ὁ πλόος ὡραῖος" 
καὶ γὰρ λαλαγεῦσα χελιδὼν | ἤδη 
μέμβλωκεν, x χαρίεις Ζέφυρος. kK, 
TouNe 

Again, ii. 16. Antipatri Sidonii 
XXXVI1: ἀκμαῖος pobin νηΐ δρόμος, 
οὐδὲ θάλασσα | πορφύρει τρομερῇ 
φρικὶ χαρασσομένη" | ἤδη δὲ πλάσ- 
σει μὲν ὑπώροφα γυρὰ χελιδὼν | 
οἰκία, λειμώνων δ᾽ ἁβρὰ γελᾷ πέταλα. 
Ke gpa 

Again, ii. 248. Marci Argen- 
taril xxiv: λῦσον am εὐόρμων δο- 
Axa πρυμνήσια νηῶν, | e’rpoxa δ᾽ 
ἐκπετάσας λαίφεα ποντοπόρει, | ἔμ- 
πορε. χειμῶνες γὰρ ἀπέδραμον, ἄρτι 
δὲ κῦμα | γλαυκὸν θηλύνει πρηὔγελως 
Ζέφυρος. K, τ λ. Cf. Ibid. 253. 
Satyrii Thyilli v. vi: iii, 214. 
Theeteti ii: Ibid. 219. Μῆνες 
Ῥωμαίων, 9, 10: iv. 23. Agathiz 
lvii: Ibid. 60. Pauli Silentiarii 
lvii. Cf. also Oppian, Gynege- 
ticon i, 117—121. 

As, then, judging ede the 
first of these criterions, weshould 
conclude that St. Paul was cast 
upon Malta about the middle of 
November ; so, by the help of 
the latter, we may consider it 
most likely that he would not 
resume his voyage before the 
beginning of March: and this 
would be actually about the mid- 
dle of the fourth month, dated 
from the time of the shipwreck. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 199 


fortnight afterwards, which might possibly be at the 
beginning, or else at the middle of March, St. Paul ar- 
rived at Rome?. His two years’ residence there sub- 
sequently must be dated from this point of time: and 
beginning with March U.C. 812, it would expire with 
March U.C. 814. 

Upon the arrival of Julius in Rome, he delivered his 
prisoners to the officer whose duty it was to receive 
them, and who is called the στρατοπεδάρχης ; a very 
appropriate denomination for the commander-in-chief 
of the Prztorian cohorts or the Imperial guard; which, 
since the time of Sejanus in the reign of Tiberius, in- 
stead of being distributed in different parts of the city, 
had been collected together and quartered in a στρατό- 
πεδον, or camp by themselves’. The commander of 
these forces, from U. C. 804, the eleventh of Claudius, 
to U. C. 815, the eighth of Nero, was Burrus"; and 
this is one argument among others that the time of 
St. Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome could not have 
borne date later than the eighth of Nero: for, upon the 
decease of Burrus, the command was divided between 
two, Fenius Rufus and Sofonius Tigellinus; as it had 
been, even before his appointment, between Lusius 
Geta and Rufius Crispinus*. Had the command been 
divided at the time of St. Paul’s arrival, the extreme 
accuracy of St. Luke, I am persuaded, would have in- 
duced him to write τοῖς στρατοπεδάρχαις, not τῷ στρατο- 
πεδάρχη. Nor is it improbable that the centurion Ju- 
lius was a centurion of one of these cohorts ; and that 
the σπείρα Σεβαστὴ“, to which he belonged, is but a 

* Dio. lx. 18. 23. lxi.3. U.C. (whom Tacitus, xii. 42, calls Ru- 
796, the commander of the Pre- _ fius Crispinus:) U. C. 807, Bur- 


torian guard was Catonius Jus- rus: appointed according to Ta- 


tus: U.C. 797, Rufrius Pollio, citus, U. C. 804. 


p Acts xxviii. 12—15. ᾳ Tacitus, Annales, iv. 2. τ ἈΠ A πιὶν. ἘΣ 
Dio, xi. 3. s Acts xxvii. I. 


O 4 


200 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


Grecised form of expression for the Latin, Cohors 
Pretoria. I do not deny that Augusta, which would 
be in Greek Σεβαστὴ, was one of the commonest names 
both of legions and cohorts: but if we compare this 
description of Julius and hzs cohort with that of Cor- 
nelius and his*, ἐκ σπείρης τῆς καλουμένης ᾿Ιταλικῆς, it be- 
comes an argument, that if St. Luke had meant in the 
former a particular cohort, which bore the name of 
Σεβαστὴ, as he certainly meant in the latter a particu- 
lar cohort, which bore or once bore the name of ’Ira- 
λικὴ, he would have expressed himself accordingly ; ἐκ 
σπείρης τῆς καλουμένης Σεβαστῆς. 

During the whole of St. Paul’s imprisonment, the 
command of these cohorts would still rest with Bur- 
rus; which, from the personal character of Burrus 
himself, may account both for the lenity of his impri- 
sonment previously, and for his release at last. The 
character of his successors, and especially of Tigellinus 
the more influential of the two, was of a very different 
kind. Not but that the character of Nero himself, be- 
fore the death of his mother, in his fifth year, and of 
Burrus, in his eighth, was far from being developed 
in all its atrocity ; but as yet stood fair and unsullied : 
so much so, that it is an observation of later times 
upon his reign, as it appeared for some years at first, 
Procul differre cunctos principes Neronis quinquennio*: 


* The above observation is 
ascribed to Trajan, by Aurelius 
Victor, in Nerone. Cf. also, the 
Epitome of Victor, in Nerone, 
which cites the words as, Di- 
stare cunctos principes Neronis 
quinquennio. Seneca, De Cle- 
mentia, 1. ὃ. 6: Sed ingens tibi 
onus imposuisti ... principatus 
tuus (he is addressing Nero) ad 
anni gustum exigitur. 


The fifth of Nero, it is} true, 
was the date of the death of his 
mother, before referred to. But 
that parricide was committed 
after or during the quinquatrus, 
or Ludi Minerve, (Suetonius, 
Nero, 34.§.6. Dio, xi. 16.) which 
began on March 1g, see Ovid, 
Fasti, iii. 809: and if, as is proba- 
ble, St. Paul had already arrived 
in Rome by that time, jno such 


t Acts x. I. 


4, 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 201 


and within this favourable period it was so ordered by 
Providence, that the two chief of the Apostles, St. Peter 
and St. Paul, for the first time both came to, and de- 
parted again from Rome. And here, having arrived 
at the end of the history in the Acts, we might also 
make an end of the history of St. Paul, as well as of 
the present Dissertation. But there still remain some 
of his Epistles, concerning the times of which we have 
hitherto said nothing; and yet the determination of 
the times of which, when we consider the very different 
opinions which are entertained with respect to some of 
them, may justly be regarded as necessary even to the 
confirmation of our previous conclusions. For the sake 
then of completing a subject, the importance of which 
it is not easy to overrate, and which would otherwise 
be manifestly imperfect, I will take the liberty of dwell- 


ing on these points a little longer. 


The Epistles which St. 
during any part of his two 


event could have happened be- 
fore the close of the details of 
the history in the Acts. Nor 
did the death of Agrippina 
make any immediate difference 
in the public character of Nero; 
who openly threw off the mask 
first after the death of Burrus, 
in his eighth year, when Paul 
had been one year released. 
The course of our investiga- 
tions has thus brought St. Paul 
to Rome in the spring of U.C. 
812. I will just observe here, 
that the Apocryphal correspond- 
ence supposed to have passed 
between Paul and Seneca (Vide 
the Codex Apocryphus, 892— 
9094.) by the dates which some 
of those letters exhibit, shews it 
to have been the opinion of the 
writer, whosoever he was, that 


Paul wrote from Rome, 
years’ imprisonment, I be- 


St. Paul was at Rome, U. C. 
811, and after it. See the tenth 
of these Epistles, which bears 
date, U.C. 811: and the xi. 
which bears date U. C. 812. 
The twelfth is dated U.C. 817, 
and the thirteenth and four- 


teenth, very probably, U. C. 


814. All this period, except- 
ing U. C. 811, and 817, St. 
Paul might actually be at 
Rome. Jerome was acquaint- 
ed with these Epistles; and 
therefore gives Seneca a place 
among his ecclesiastical writers : 
Quem non ponerem, says he, in 
catalogo Sanctorum, nisi me 
116 Epistole provocarent, que 
leguntur a plurimis, Pauli ad 
Senecam, et Senecz ad Paulum. 
Vide Operum iv. Parsiia.106. De 
Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, xii. 


202 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


lieve were only the following four, Ephesians, Colos- 
sians, Philemon, and Philippians. The Epistles which 
he wrote at any time between the close of that impri- 
sonment and his death, must consequently be the re- 
maining four: Hebrews, Titus, the First to Timothy, 
and the Second to Timothy. And all these, I think, 
were written in the order in which they are here re- 
cited. The proof of these positions may be made out 
as follows: 

I. Each of the first four of these Epistles contains 
internal evidence of two facts respecting the situation 
of the writer when he wrote them; first, that he was 
in confinement; secondly, that he was in confinement 
at Rome". 

II. The remarkable coincidence, both in sentiments 
and language, between the Epistle to the Ephesians 
and the Epistle to the Colossians, is sufficient to de- 
monstrate that both were written together; and the 


ὅς 


identity of the person, by whom they were sent, is a j 


still more decisive intimation that they were sent toge- 
ther V. 

III. If it is reasonable to suppose that Epaphras, 
who is mentioned by that name in the Epistle to the 
Colossians, and Epaphroditus, who is mentioned by 
that in the Epistle to the Philippians, are one and 
the same person, (which I think cannot well be dis- 
puted,) then this Epaphras, or Epaphroditus, was one 
of the church of Colossz; and he had come to Rome 
before the Epistle to the Colossians was written; and 
he was left at Rome when that Epistle was sent¥*. 


+ As Epaphras would thus be Nymphas, for Nymphodorus, 
only an abbreviated form of the Apollos, for Apollonius, Zenas 
name of Epaphroditus, (like for Zenodorus, Artemas for Ar- 


ἃ Ephes. iii. 1. 13. vi. 19, 20. Col. i. 24. ii. 1. iv. 3. 9, 10. 18. Philem. 9, ro. 
13. Philipp: 1. 7. 12, 13, 14.20. 26. 30. il. 12. 23, 24. 26, 27. v Ephes. vi. 
21,22. Col.iv. 7, 8. w Col. i. 7. iv. 12, 13. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts. 203 


Nor is there any reason to suppose that he had yet 
been taken ill. But before the Epistle to the Philip- 
pians was written he had certainly fallen sick ; and on 
recovering from his sickness he was sent back with the 
Epistle to Philippix. If so, and if Epaphroditus in 
the Epistle to the Philippians is the same person with 
Epaphras in the Epistle to the Colossians; the former 
Epistle was both written and sent some time or other 
after the former. Epaphroditus, it is true, came to 
Rome charged with the contributions of Philippi to 
the relief of Paul’s pecuniary wants *; but he seems to 
have done this as a voluntary commission Y, which any 
one, if he was so inclined, might undertake; and he 
seems to have been on his way through Philippi some- 
where else when he undertook it, as even a native or 
inhabitant of Colosse might be. Nor is there any ex- 
pression respecting Epaphroditus, in the Epistle to 
the Philippians, which would identify him with that 
church, as there is concerning Epaphras, in the Epistle 
to the Colossians, which proves him to have belonged 
to that 2. 

IV. For the same reason, the Epistle to the Philip- 
pians was later than the Epistle to Philemon; for 


temidorus, Antipas for Anti- whose fellow-townsman he was 


pater, Menas for Menodorus, 
Metras for Metrodorus, Theudas 
for Theodosius, &c. Cf. Theo- 
phylact, iii. 384. A. in secun- 
dam Petri, i. 1. Qcumenius in 
Novum Testamentum, ii. 520. 
B. in secundam Petri, i. τ, &c.) 
it may be, because he was a na- 
tive of Colosse, that St. Paul, 
writing to the Colossians, calls 
him by the more familiar name 
of Epaphras ; but when speak- 
ing of him to the Philippians, 


x Philipp. ii. 25, 26. 30. iv. 18. 


y Philipp. ii. 25. 29, 30. 


not, gives him the more formal 
name of Epaphroditus. 

I consider it no objection that, 
Philemon 23, Epaphras is called 
Paul’s fellow-prisoner. It is 
added, ‘‘in Christ Jesus ;” and 
that St. Paul might describe by 
such terms, only the spiritual 
bond of a community of faith, 
or the voluntary sympathy and 
attachment of one friend in be- 
half of another—appears from 
Rom. xvi. 7: Coloss. iv. το. 


Ζ Col. iv. 12. 


204 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


Onesimus, himself a member of the church of Colosse, 
was sent to Colosse along with Tychicus, as joint 
bearer of the Epistle; and he was sent at the same time 
with the Epistle to Philemon; and the mention of 
Archippus in both these Epistles alike, with the allu- 
sion to the church in his house; is a proof that all 
these parties, Onesimus, Philemon, and Archippus, be- 
longed to the Colossian church alike*®. These two 
Epistles then, Colossians and Philemon, were certainly 
written and sent together; and the name of Timothy 
is premised to them both; and the names of Epaphras, 
Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, and Lucas, are all sub- 
joined to them both. If so, they were both written 
before the Epistle to the Philippians; and the only 
question remaining is first, whether they were both 
written before, or both written after the Epistle to 
the Ephesians, or both at the same time with that; 
and secondly, at what period of St. Paul’s two years’ 
imprisonment they must each have been written re- 
spectively. 

Now there are two or three reasons more particu- 
larly, which may incline us to place the Epistle to the 
Ephesians at the head of the rest in point of time: 
first, because the Epistle to the Colossians resembles an 
epitome of it, or in those parts where they most agree 
together is the shorter and conciser of the two: se- 
condly, because there is no mention of Epaphras in the 
Epistle to the Ephesians, as there is in the Epistle to 
the Colossians: and thirdly, because there is no men- 
tion of Timothy in the Epistle to the Ephesians, as 
there is in every other of the Epistles, written from 
Rome on this occasion, besides. In the Epistles to 
the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Philippians 


a Col. iv. 9. 17. Philem. 2. to. b Col. i. 1. Philem. 1. Col. iv. 10. 12. 
14. Philem. 23, 24. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts. 205 


respectively, his name is combined with St. Paul’s at 
the outset of the Epistles themselves. It is morally 
certain then that, had he been present when the Epi- 
stle to the Ephesians was written, his name would 
have appeared at the head of that likewise. And 
with respect to Epaphras, it was from him that St. 
Paul heard of the faith of the Colossians ὃ; and this 
fact appears in the Epistle: and it was from some 
quarter or other that he heard of the faith of the 
parties addressed in the Epistle to the Ephesians, but 
not as it appears from Epaphras. I infer, then, that 
between the time of St. Paul’s writing the Epistle to 
the Ephesians, and that of his writing the Epistles to 
the Colossians and to Philemon respectively, both 
Epaphras and Timothy came to Rome; and I see no 
reason to suppose that they might not come in con- 
Junction. They seem both to have been at Philippi 
together, before the mission of Epaphroditus in parti- 
cular from thence ἃ, 

It is clear that Timothy did not accompany St. Paul 
to Rome, but only Aristarchus of Thessalonica and 
St. Luke®. It is clear also that, when the last of these 
Epistles, viz. that to the Philippians, was written, Ti- 
mothy was free and at large; and yet, from the Epi- 
stle to the Hebrews‘, it seems equally clear that he 
must sometime have been in confinement at Rome. 
The Epistle to the Ephesians then was written just 
before Timothy and Epaphroditus arrived from Phi- 
lippi; and the Epistles to Colosse, and to Philemon, 
just after. Now Philemon is told to provide Paul a 
lodging £; and though this does not imply that he was 
then at liberty, or might be expected immediately to re- 
turn to Asia, yet I think it must imply that- humanly 


¢ Col. 1. 4. 7, 8, Ὁ. ἃ Philipp. ii. 1g—24. e Acts xxvii. 2. f xiii. 23. 
& 22. 


206 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


speaking be believed he should soon be set at liberty; 
and consequently might be expected to return in the 
course of time. The same kind of anticipation is ex- 
pressed in the Epistle to the Philippians ἢ. 

It is hereby implied, therefore, that St. Paul’s two 
years’ imprisonment was drawing to a close: and if this 
was actually the case when he addressed the words in 
question to Philemon, it follows as a necessary conse- 
quence, that all these Epistles were written within the 
last twelve months of the imprisonment, U.C. 813: the 
Epistle to the Ephesians probably about: midsummer, 
just before the time when Timothy and Epaphroditus 
were most likely to arrive in Italy from Asia; the 
Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon just after 
that time; but all three eariy enough to be sent to 
their respective destinations by a common bearer: 
and the Epistle to the Philippians last of all, after 
Epaphroditus had fallen sick and recovered; which 
sickness, if we may hazard a conjecture, is a proof 
that it was written and sent about the autumnal quar- 
ter of the year. For it is by no means improbable 
that his sickness was a fever, due to the peculiar un- 
healthiness of Rome at the close of the summer quar- 
ter*. Nor is it any objection that the Philippians 


* Horace, Epistole, i. vii. 2.5. | purpureo subrubet uva mero: | 


Sextilem totum mendax deside- 
ror . ae ee 
Beil . dum ficus prima, 
calorque | Designatorem decorat 
lictoribus atris, &c. Cf.i.xvi.16: 
and Carminum il. xiv. 15, 16: 
Sermonum ii.vi.19: Georgica, iii. 
479: and Servii Comm. in loc.: 
Statius, Silva, 11. 1. 215—217. 
Ovid, De Arte Amandi, ii. 315 : 
Sexpe sub autumnum, cum for- 
mosissimus annus, | Plenaque 


Cum modo frigoribus premitur, 
modo solvitur zstu, | Aére non 
certo corpora languor habet. 

On one occasion, Suetonius, 
Nero, 39: Tacitus Annales, xvi. 
13. U.C. 818, mention occurs of 
a mortality which began at Rome 
in the autumn, and swept away 
30,000 victims. 

The rising of the dog-star was 
another unhealthy period. Phil- 
argyrius, ad Georgica, iv. 425: 


h Chap. i. 26, 27. 11. 23, 24. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 207 


are supposed to have heard of his illness before the 
Epistle was written‘. This might easily be the case; 
nor is it said or implied that any thing had since been 
heard from them. They might have had one account 
from Rome, sent or carried by some persons who left 
it while Epaphroditus was sick; which account upon 
his recovery was speedily followed by the Epistle; but 
it is not said that either St. Paul or he had had any 
account in return from them. The anxiety of Epaphro- 
ditus was naturally produced by the circumstance that 
he knew they might already have heard of his illness: 
(an illness too to which he had exposed himself, though 
not a Philippian, for their sake; to supply the lack of 
their service ; that is, in performing what was neces- 
sary to the completion and effect of the service which 
they wished to render to St. Paul;) but that they could 
not yet have heard of his recovery. 

It follows, consequently, that St. Paul wrote no Epi- 
stles in the first year of his imprisonment; nor per- 
haps was it a priori to be expected that he would 
do so. The practice of corresponding by letter with 
the churches, especially those of their own _ plant- 
ing and where they had preached in person, was not 
the familiar usage of the Apostles: nor do we find 
them resorting to it, except upon grave and even una- 
voidable occasions. Now such occasions were not likely 
to occur in the first year of St. Paul’s imprison- 
ment; particularly if, as I think there is reason to be- 


Hac oriente maximi calores ο ii: que orta plerumque pesti- 


ex his graves morbi: ideoque 
Rome omnibus annis sacrum Ca- 
narium fit per publicos sacerdo- 
tes. Servius, ad Aneid. iii. 141: 
Syrius stella est in ore Canis 
posita: qu annis omnibus ori- 
tur circa octavum Kalendas Ju- 


f Chap. 


lentiam toto anno facit; ple- 
rumque paucis diebus; inter- 
dum innoxia nascitur. Cf, Al- 
neid. x. 273, and Servius in loe. 
Scholia, ad Arati Phzenomena, 
433. and ad Germanici Aratea 
Phenomena, 282. 332. 


li. 26. 


208 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


lieve, all the letters which he wrote to parts beyond 
the sea, or to churches in remote situations, for the 
convenience and facility of transmission, were written 
and dispatched in the spring or summer quarter of the 
year. 

Before we dismiss the consideration of these four 
Epistles, we may make some observations on the Epi- 
stle to the Ephesians in particular. The internal evi- 
dence of that Epistle, without any other proof, ought 
to satisfy every one who is acquainted with the pre- 
vious history of St. Paul, that it is improperly so en- 
titled. The language addressed to the persons for whom 
it was intended *, could not be the language in which St. 
Paul would naturally address the church of Ephesus 
above all others; a church of his own planting, and 
where three years of his personal ministry day and 
night had been spent not long before; to whose elders 
he delivered a parting address, in the course of that 
very journey to Jerusalem, which ended in his im- 
prisonment at Rome; and who were doubtless well 
aware of every thing which had befallen him since. 
The Epistle to the Ephesians, in these and other re- 
spects, is absolutely a twin Epistle to the Epistle 
to the Colossians; and that Epistle, as we have the 
writer’s own assurance for knowing, was written to a 
church which had never seen his face in the flesh!. 
Let the strain of each of these Epistles be carefully 
contrasted with that of the Epistle to the Philippians ; 
written soon after them both, but confessedly to a 
church, (Jike that of Ephesus,) which St. Paul himself 
had planted. Every thing in the one is in character 
with that fact; every thing in the other two is out of 
character as referred to it. There is not a syllable in 
the Epistle to the Philippians which is not strictly ap- 


k Ephes. i. 13, 14, 15. 11]. r—Q—ir. 21. 1 Gols, x. 


4 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 209 


plicable to the preceding and existing relations of 
the writer and of the parties addressed; or rather, 
which without that knowledge of the past and the 
present history of each, supplied to us by the Acts, 
would not be almost unintelligible at the present day, 
instead of appearing as it does so apposite and natural, 
so beautiful and pathetic, and yet so unstudied and 
inartificial. Not so the Epistle nominally addressed 
to the Ephesians. Every thing passes there not as be- 
tween teachers and converts, bound together by mu- 
tual ties of acquaintance, good offices, and endear- 
ment; but as between strangers in the flesh, though 
brethren in Christ : and every thing there also is just 
and natural on that supposition, but quite the reverse 
upon the contrary. 

If the words, ἐν ᾿Εἰφέσῳ, did not appear in the front 
of the Epistle, no one would suspect its relation to that 
church in particular: and as to the right of the words 
to stand where they do, we may be satisfied with refer- 
ring the reader to the critical editions of the Epistle. 
It is sufficient for us to observe that, in an Epistle 
designed to be catholic whether in a more or a less ex- 
tended sense, and consequently not meant to be confined 
to one community of Christians more than another ; 
the words of the exordium, without ἐν ’Eqéc@, viz. τοῖς 
ἁγίοις, τοῖς οὖσι, Kal πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ “Iycov, To the 
saints and faithful in Christ Jesus, who are, would be 
as appropriate as any which could have been chosen. 
There were persons in the time of Jerome, who un- 
derstood τοῖς οὖσιν accordingly. The grounds of this 
opinion are ascertained by Basil against Eunomius ; 
viz. in the absence of ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ and the presence of τοῖς 
οὗσιν, ἁπλῶς, in ancient copies, which he himself had 
seen. It is manifestly absurd to understand his testi- 
mony in any other sense; since he declares that it had 

VOL. IV. P 


210 


Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


been so handed down by those before him, and that he 
had found it so himself in ancient copies *. 

Now what had these predecessors of Basil deli- 
vered, and what had he found himself in ancient co- 
pies? What he had found in these ancient copies 
was, τοῖς ἁγιοῖς, τοῖς οὖσιν----ἰδιαζόντως ; that is, without 


* The entire passage from Ba- 
sil is as follows: Operum ii. 
57-C.D: Contra Eunomium, ii. 

Kai γάρ που καὶ ἑτέρωθι ὁ αὐτὸς 
οὗτος ἀπόστολος, 6 ἐν πνεύματι Θεοῦ 
λαλῶν, μὴ ὄντα ὀνομάζει τὰ ἔθνη, 
διὰ τὸ τῆς γνώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστε- 
ρῆσθαι, εἰπών" ὅτι τὰ μὴ ὄντα ἐξε- 
λέξατο ὁ Θεός. ἐπεὶ γὰρ dv καὶ 
ἀλήθεια καὶ ζωὴ ὁ Θεὸς, οἱ τῷ Θεῷ 
τῷ ὄντι μὴ ἡνωμένοι κατὰ τὴν πίστιν, 
τῇ δὲ ἀνυπαρξίᾳ τοῦ ψεύδους οἰκειω- 
θέντες διὰ τῆς περὶ τὰ εἴδωλα πλά- 
νης, εἰκότως, οἶμαι, διὰ τὴν στέρη- 
σιν τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς 
ζωῆς ἀλλοτρίωσιν, μὴ ὄντες προση- 
γορεύθησαν. ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ᾿Εφεσίοις 
ἐπιστέλλων, ὡς γνησίως ἡνωμένοις τῷ 
ὄντι δι’ ἐπιγνώσεως, ὄντας αὐτοὺς 
ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών" τοῖς 
ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χρι- 
στῷ Ἰησοῦ. οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ πρὸ 
ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν 
τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρή-- 
καμεν. 

Hieronymus, Operum iv. Pars 
i. 323. ad medium: In Ephes. 1: 
Quidam curiosius quam necesse 
est putant ex eo quod Moysi di- 
ctum sit: Hee dices filiis Israel : 
Qui est misit me ; etiam eos qui 
Ephesi sunt sancti et fideles, es- 
ΒΘ: 6185 vocabulo nuncupatos. ut 
quomodo a sancto sancti, a justo 
justi, a sapientia sapientes; ita 
ab eo qui est, hi qui sunt appel- 
lentur, et juxta eumdem Apo- 
stolum elegisse Deum ea qux 
non erant, ut destrueret ea qu 
erant .... alii vero simpliciter 


non ad eos qui sunt, sed qui 
Ephesi sancti et fideles sint, 
scriptum arbitrantur. 

Without supposing this use of 
τοῖς οὖσιν, ἁπλῶς, to have any re- 
ference to the text in Exodus; it 
may still be insisted on as parallel 
to the following examples: Acts 
ν. 17: ἡ οὖσα αἵρεσις τῶν Σαδδου- 
xaioyv—Acts ΧΙ]. I: κατὰ τὴν οὖ- 
σαν ἐκκλησίαν----Αοἵβ XXviii. 17: 
τοὺς ὄντας τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων πρώτου----- 
Romans xili. 1: ai δὲ οὖσαι ἐξου- 
σίαι.---ἰ Ἐσθλῶν μὲν yap dm ἐσθλὰ 
μαθήσεαι:': ἢν δὲ κακοῖσι [συμ- 
μιχθῆς, ἀπολεῖς καὶ τὸν ἐόντα νόον. 
Theognis, 3 5--- τὴν μὲν οὖσαν ἡμέ- 
ραν | μόλις κατέσχον, K,7.r. So- 
phocles, CEdip. Tyr. 781—Tas 
οὔσας T ἐμοῦ | καὶ τὰς ἀπούσας ἐλπί- 
δας διέφθορεν. Electra, 30 --- Μηδὲ 
πρὸς κακοῖς | τοῖς οὖσι, λύπην πρός 
γ᾽ ἐμοῦ λύπης λάβοι. Trachiniz, 
2320--νεστι γάρ τις καὶ λόγοισιν 
ἡδονὴ [ λήθην ὅταν ποιῶσι τῶν ὄν- 
των κακῶν. 'Thyestes, apud Sto- 
beum—Séca τόδ᾽ εὕρημ᾽ ἐς τὸν 
ὄντα νῦν χρόνον. Euripides, Ion, 
1348—Tov ὄντα δ᾽ εἴσει μῦθον. 
Electra, 344—Thucydides, vi. 
92: τήν Te οὖσαν Kal τὴν μέλλουσαν 
Sivauev—Maximus Tyrius, Dis- 
sertatio xxiii. 4: τὰς οὔσας περὶ 
θεῶν §d£as—Artemidorus, O- 
neirocritica, ii. 37: καὶ ἡ οὖσα 
(scil. σελήνη) ὅταν ἀπολλύηται: iii. 
45: τῆς οὔσης εὐπρεπείας παραιρού- 
μενα: iv. 18: τῆς τε οὔσης πολυ- 
τελεστέραν : ibid. 23: τῶν δὲ ὄν-- 
τῶν ὀνείρων. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 211 


ev ᾿Εἰφέσῳ : and what his predecessors had handed down 
was the reason of this peculiarity, such as he just be- 
fore stated. It is ridiculous to suppose that he would 
mention the testimony of manuscripts, except for 
a various reading; or the testimony of the more 
ancient manuscripts, except for a various reading 
which differed from that in the modern. The oppo- 
nents of our opinion suppose τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν “Edécw to 
have been always the reading; and if so, in ancient 
copies as well as in modern. What then could Basil 
find in the former, which was not also in the latter ? 
and if there was no difference between them, why 
should he oppose one to the other; or why in fact 
should he appeal to manuscripts at all? It is of little 
importance, therefore, that the words in question are 
said to be found in all the manuscripts of the New 
Testament now extant; for there is no manuscript 
now extant whose age is as great as that of Basil; and 
in Basil’s time, the more ancient manuscripts were, 
the more as it seems were they free from this inter- 
polation.- Yet this reading is not strictly speaking in 
the Vatican. 

It is also with singular infelicity, that the authority 
of Ignatius has been pressed into the service of the op- 
posite side; as if he recognised the Epistle to the 
Ephesians by that name and with that designation in 
his own time. This inference is founded on the allu- 
sion, in das Epistle to the Ephesians, to St. Paul; fol- 
lowed soon after by the words, ὃς ἐν racy ἐπιστολῇ μνη- 
μονεύει ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦο ἢ’, We need not say any 
thing here of the opinion of those who would read 
μνημονεύω instead of μνημονεύει, and consequently refer 

* Patres Apostolici, 856. ΕΠ. ιομακαρίστου, οὗ γένοιτό μοι ὑπὸ 
857. A. Ἐρίβίοϊα ad Ephes. τὰ ἴχνη εὑρεθῆναι ὅτ᾽ ἂν θεοῦ ἐπι- 
xii: Παύλου συμμύσται τοῦ ἅγι- Tuya ὃς ἐν πάσῃ K, τ. Δ. 


ασμένου, τοῦ μεμαρτυρημένου, ἀξ- 


PQ 


212 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


the words to Ignatius himself, and not to St. Paul: we 
may contend only that, the text being taken as it 
stands, it cannot be rendered otherwise than, Who in 
every epistle maketh mention of you in Christ Jesus: a 
rendering which will necessarily imply that no one 
epistle is meant more than another. ‘There is the same 
difference in Greek between ἐν racy ἐπιστολῇ, and ἐν 
πάση τῆ ἐπιστολῇ, as in Latin between en omni epistola, 
and in tota epistola* ; and the old translator of the 
Epistle into Latin, whosoever he was, so far shews that 
he had a more correct knowledge of Greek than Dr. 
Lardner and others, by rendering the passage accord- 
ingly: Qui iz omni epistola memoriam facit vestri in 
Jesu Christo®. 

It is an acknowledged principle of Greek construc- 
tion that the article is indispensable with a particular 
and specific reference, as this is supposed to be to one 
certain epistle of St. Paul’s, among the complex of his 
epistles in general. The reference here is equivalent 
to a quotation; and the article can never be dispensed 
with before a quotation. The two passages which Dr. 
Lardner has cited?,as instances of what he considers a si- 
milar construction, one from the fifth chapter of Ignatius’ 
Epistle to the Ephesians, and the other from Ephesians 
ii. 21, are very unfortunately chosen; since when they 
are properly rendered they both make against himself. 

With respect to the first, καὶ πάσης ἐκκλησίας : it 
would betray a great ignorance of the proper meaning 
of the word ἐκκλησία, and equal inattention to its pri- 
mitive use, to restrict it every where to the specific 


* Servius ad Aineid. i. 185: auditorium habet  scholasticos, 
Inter ¢otwm et omne hoc interest; hoc est, plenum est auditorium 
quod totum dicimus unius cor-  scholasticis: omne auditorium 
poris plenitudinem ; omnedeuni- _habet scholasticos, id est, omnia 
versis dicimus: ut puta: totum auditoria. 


© Patres Apostolici, 944. E. P Credibility, xvi. chap. 13. 308. 


5: 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 213 


sense of what we mean by the Church; when it is 
much oftener to be understood simply of an assembly 
or congregation. Used in the former sense, it might 
require the article with πᾶσα ; used in the latter, it does 
not. The passage, then, ought to be rendered, If the 
prayer of one or two is of so great force, how much 
more both that of the bishop, and of all an assembly *. 

With respect to the latter, the Vulgate text reads πάσα 
ἡ οἰκοδομὴ, as it is; but admitting that the article, on 
the authority of the best manuscripts, ought to be re- 
jected, still we may reply as before; that St. Paul is 
speaking of no particular building, and therefore needed 
not to employ the article: on the contrary, he is speak- 
ing of any such οἰκοδομὴ, ἁπλῶς; and therefore was 
bound to leave it out. For this οἰκοδομὴ is a descrip- 
tion of the visible church; which visible church is 
every where founded on one and the same θεμέλιον or 
base, the Apostles and Prophets; and is cemented by 
one and the same corner stone, Jesus Christ; but con- 
sists itself of an infinite number of particular buildings, 
as many as there are particular Christian societies ; 
any one of the former of which may be called a build- 
Ng, OF οἰκοδομὴ, συναρμολογουμένη ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, just 
on the same principle that any of the latter may be 
called a Church. 

Now it is indisputably clear from Colossians iv. 16, 
that, at the same time when St. Paul wrote or dis- 
patched the Epistle to the Colossians, he wrote and 


dispatched an Epistle to 


* Εἰ yap ἑνὸς καὶ δευτέρου προσ- 
εὐχὴ τοσαύτην ἰσχὺν ἔχει, πόσῳ 
μᾶλλον ἥ τε τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, καὶ πάσης 
ἐκκλησίας : Ad Ephes. ν. Patres 
Apostolici, §55. A. It is observ- 
able that the longer epistle in 
the corresponding place has πά- 
ons τῆς. Chrysostom, Operum i. 


the church of Laodicea; 


469. D. De Incomprehensibili 
Dei Natura, Homilia iii. 6. falls 
undesignedly into the same sen- 
timent, and almost into the 
same expressions : εἰ δὲ εὐχὴ μόνου 
τοσαύτην ἔχει δύναμιν, πολλῷ μᾶλ- 
λον ἡ μετὰ πλήθους. 


P3 


214 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


which Epistle, in point of time, must consequently 
have synchronized with the Epistle to the Ephesians ; 
and which, it is needless to observe, must either be the 
same with the Epistle to the Ephesians, or have perish- 
ed. The reputed existence of such an Epistle is a very 
ancient tradition of ecclesiastical history. An Epistle of 
that name was admitted by Marcion into Azs canon of 
Scripture; and one is alluded to in the very antique frag- 
ment ascribed to the Latin Presbyter Caius4; the author 
of which, whosoever he was, was contemporary with 
Pius, the tenth Bishop of Rome, and flourished early in 
the second century *. The name of Laodicea occurs five 


* Reliquiz Sacre, iv. 5. 1.11: 
the author of this “fragment 
speaks of an Epistle to the Lao- 
diceans, it is true, and bearing 
the name of St. Paul; but, 
p- 4; line 31, he distinguishes it 
from that to the Ephesians, and 
ascribes it to Marcion and _ his 
followers. He speaks also of an 
apocryphal epistle to the Alex- 
andrians. 

An Epistle of St. Paul to the 
Laodiceans is mentioned, over 
and above the rest of the cano- 
nical books of the New Testa- 
ment, in the Tractatus of A‘lfri- 
cus Abbas, De Vetere et Novo 
Testamento. Reliquie Sacre, 
1025-12. 

Tertullian, i. 425. Contra 
Marcionem, v.11: Pretereo hic 
et de alia epistola, quam nos ad 
Ephesios perscriptam habemus, 
heretici vero ad Laodicenos. 

Ibid. 448. cap. 17: Ecclesie 
qvidem veritate, epistolam istam 
ad Ephesios habemus emissam, 
non ad Laodicenos; sed Mar- 
cion ei titulum aliquando inter- 
polare gestiit. ‘These testimonies 
would imply that Marcion’s epi- 
stle to the Laodiceans was ac- 


tually the canonical epistle to 
the Ephesians, with the title 
only changed. 

Epiphanius, among the fen 
Epistles of St. Paul, received 
by Marcion, mentions the Ephe- 
sians as the seventh in order: i. 
309. D. 310. A. Marcioniste, ix. 
Yet he says he had besides καὶ τῆς 
πρὸς Aaodtkéas λεγομένης μέρη. This 
statement is repeated 321. D. 
where the Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians is notwithstanding men- 
tioned as well. 374. B. a verse 
from it, as received by Marcion, 
is quoted, which agrees substan- 
tially with what occurs in the 
Epistle to the Ephesians. 

Hieronymus, iv. Pars ii. 104. 
De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, v: 
Legunt quidam et ad Laedicen- 
ses, sed ab omnibus exploditur. 
Theodorit, iii. 501. in Epist. ad 
Coloss. iv. 16: τινὲς ὑπέλαβον καὶ 
πρὸς Λαοδικέας αὐτὸν γεγραφέναι" 
αὐτίκα τοίνυν καὶ προσφέρουσι πε- 
πλασμένην ἐπιστολήν. ὁ δὲ θεῖος 
ἀπόστολος οὐκ ἔφη καὶ τὴν πρὸς 
Λαοδικέας, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδι- 
Kelas" ἐκεῖνοι γὰρ πρὸς αὐτὸν περί 
τινων ἔγραψαν. εἰκὸς δὲ αὐτοὺς ἢ τὰ 
ἐν Κολασσαῖς γενόμενα αἰτιάσασθαι, 


ᾳ Reliquie Sacra, iv. 5. 1. 11. 21—24. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 215 


times in the Epistle to the Colossians"; and once it is 
classed with Colossze and Hierapolis also; both cities 
of Phrygia, as well as Laodicea, and both contiguous 
to each other and to it’. It is clearly implied of this 
city, as well as of Colossze and of Hierapolis, that it 
had never seen Paul’s face in the flesh: nor do we 
know that during the whole of his residence at Ephe- 
sus he preached in the province of Asia, distinct from 


Ephesus; that is out of Ephesus itselfs *. 


ἢ τὰ αὐτὰ τούτοις νενοσηκέναι. διὸ 
καὶ ταύτην εἶπε τὴν ἐπιστολὴν (that 
to the Colossians) κἀκείνοις ἀνα- 
γνωσθῆναι. The distinction which 
Theodorit draws here between 
πρὸς Λαοδικέας and ἐκ Λαοδικείας 
is not a very happy one: and 
when he further supposes that 
the Laodiceans had themselves 
previously written to St. Paul, 
he supposes that of which there 
is no evidence whatever. 

An Epistola ad Laodicenos is 
extant in Latin; and a Greek 
Epistle under the same name, 
may be seen in the Codex Apo- 
cryphus of Fabricius: p. 873— 
879. 

* I consider it no objection to 
this assertion that Philemon, in 
the Epistle which bears his 
name, is told that he owed even 
himself to St. Paul (19.) though 
this should be thought to imply 
that he was converted by St. 
Paul: and though it should also 
be conceded that Philemon be- 
longed to Colosse. It would not 
follow of necessity that he was 
converted at Colossz: it would 
be equally probable that he might 
have been converted at Ephe- 
sus. My opinion, however, is 
that he was converted at Rome ; 


It is also 


after Onesimus, who was his 
slave and had accompanied him 
thither, had run away from him 
there: and when he was gone 
back to Colosse, Onesimus, who 
might be already acquainted with 
St. Paul, by some fortunate co- 
incidence was also reclaimed to 
a sense of his duty by St. Paul ; 
and was sent home again, a con- 
vert to the gospel, with the in- 
tercessory letter to his master. 

It contributes strongly to con- 
firm this conjecture, that Poly- 
carp, in his Epistle to the Phi- 
lippians, addresses them as fol- 
lows: Ego autem nihil tale sensi 
in vobis, vel audivi, in quibus 
laboravit beatus Paulus: qui 
estis in principio Epistole ejus. 
de vobis etenim gloriatur in om- 
nibus Ecclesiis, que Deum sola 
tune cognoverant: nos autem 
nondum noveramus: cap. xi.apud 
veterem interpretem. Patres 
Apostolici, 1013. B. Now if 
Smyrna, of which Polycarp was 
bishop when he wrote these 
words, had not yet received the 
gospel when St. Paul was writing 
to the Philippians, much less 
any city, still more remote from 
Ephesus, and less connected 
with it than Smyrna was. 


r Col. ii. 1. iv. 13. 18, 16. Cf. Strabo, xii. 8. δ. 13. 228, 229. ὃ. 16. 236, 237. 


§. 17. 239. xiii. 4. δ. 14. 484, 485. 


s Acts xix. 1o—26. xx. 18. 20. 31. 34. 


P 4 


216 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


implied that, to whomsoever St. Paul wrote in the 
Epistle to the Ephesians, he had only just heard of the 
reception of the gospel and of its success among them ; 
and the same thing is true of the Epistle to the Colos- 
sians, concerning whose faith and gospel proficiency he 
had lately received information from their fellow- 
townsman or fellow-citizen Epaphras‘: and it was 
the pleasure which these tidings gave him that pro- 
duced the Epistles to each. All this is very conceiv- 
able of an Epistle addressed to Laodicea, but perfectly 
incredible of an Epistle directed to the Ephesians. 

It is much more reasonable, to suppose that the 
present Epistle to the Ephesians is misealled, than 
to assume an Epistle to the Laodicenes, which once 
did exist, but has since been lost. The mistake, 
which assigns it to Ephesus, though undoubtedly an 
ancient one, might be produced by this fact; viz. that 
it was sent by Tychicus, whom 2 Tim. iv. 12, appears 
to represent as an Ephesian; though whether he was 
so or not must always be doubtful; for Acts xx. 4, 
describes him merely as one of the province of Asia; 
and from a comparison with xxi. 29, and 2 Tim. iv. 
20, we might just as much conclude that he was a Mile- 
sian. It might contribute to the same mistake, that 
the Second Epistle to Timothy, which was certainly 
written from Rome, and speaks of Tychicus’ being sent 
from Rome, as it seems, to Ephesus, was supposed by 
many anciently, as well as in modern times, to have 
been written during St. Paul’s first imprisonment; at 
which time the Epistle to the Ephesians was certainly 
both written and sent. 

It is possible, indeed, that the Epistle was sent ori- 
ginally both to Hierapolis and Laodicea in conjunc- 
tion; and that the name of either in particular was 


τ Ephes. i. 15—iv. 20. 21. Col. i. 4—g. 23. ii. 6—8. iv. 12, 13. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 917 


not at first inserted, because it was intended for each ; 
though, as to conjecturing that it was a circular Epi- 
stle, designed for a number of churches, if Ephesus 
was one of that number, and they were not exclusively 
Hierapolis, Laodicea, and Colossz ; this conjecture can 
never resolve the difficulty, but leaves it open to as 
many perplexities as before. I shall conclude then 
with one more remark. Laodicea of Phrygia was one 
of the cities, which in the first half of the seventh of 
Nero, U.C. 813, were overthrown by an earthquake"; 
from the effects of which however it recovered of 
itself. If there is no allusion to any such event in 
the Epistle, it is because, as we have already had rea- 
son to conclude, the Epistle must have been written 
before it happened *. 

Again; with regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
which has been ascribed to so many authors, to Bar- 
nabas, to Clement, to Luke, to Apollos+: it is the 


* The earthquake at Laodi- 
cea might have happened about 
midsummer, U.C.813, in the 
last half of the sixth of Nero. 
The Comitia, alluded to by Ta- 
citus, oc. cit., might be held in 
July or August. Even thus, 
the date of the earthquake would 
be later than that of the Epistle. 
Yet earthquakes were supposed 
to be most liable to happen in 
spring or autumn: Vide Aristo- 
tle, Meteorologica, ii. 8, p. 62. 1. 
16, and Pliny, H. N. ii. 82. 
Strabo, xii. 8. §. 16. 237, 238. 
observes, εἰ γάρ tis ἄλλη καὶ 
ἡ Λαοδίκεια εὔσειστος. It suf- 
fered in fact from such convul- 
sions, under both Augustus and 
Tiberius. See Strabo, loc. cit. Eu- 
sebius, Chronicon Armeno-Lati- 
num, places the earthquake in the 
ninth of Nero; two years and 


more too late. He joins Hierapo- 
lis and Colosse in the same ca- 
tastrophe. Marcellinus Comes, 
also, ad A.D. 494, mentions 
the overthrow of Laodicea, Hie- 
rapolis, and two other cities all 
at once, by an earthquake in the 
fourth of Anastasius. 

t Clemens Alexandrinus, ii. 
1007. 1. 46: Adumbrationes in 
1 Petr. v.14: Sicut Lucas quo- 
que et Actus Apostolorum stylo 
exsecutus agnoscitur, et Pauli ad 
Hebreos interpretatus Episto- 
lam. 

The author of the fragment, 
ascribed to Caius, Reliquiz Sa- 
cre, iv. 4, 5, &c. does not reckon 
up the Epistle to the Hebrews 
among those of St. Paul. Caius 
himself did not consider it his. 
See Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. vi. 
20, 223. A. and Hieronymus, iv. 


u Tacitus, Annales, xiv. 27, 28. 


218 


Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


most reasonable of all suppositions, and that which is 
most in unison with both internal and external testi- 


Pars ii. 117. De Scriptoribus 
Ecclesiasticis, lix. Photius, Co- 
dex 48, p. 12, asserts that this 
statement of Caius was contain- 
ed in the Dialogue with Proclus, 
the Montanist, in which he enu- 
merated only thirteen Epistles of 
St. Paul, not including that to 
the Hebrews among the rest. 

Tertullian, iv. 427. De Pudi- 
citia, 20: Exstat enim et Bar- 
nabe titulus ad -Hebreos...et 
utique receptior apud ecclesias 
epistola Barnabz illo apocrypho 
Pastore moechorum. 

According to Photius, Codex 
121. p. 94. Hippolytus, the bi- 
shop and martyr, did not con- 
sider the Epistle to the He- 
brews to be St. Paul’s. Codex 
232. p. 291. 1. 12, the ἀντικείμενα 
of Stephen Gobarus assert this 
both of him and of Irensus: 
the contrary of Clemens Ro- 
manus and Eusebius; καί φα- 
ow, it is added, αὐτὴν ἐκ τῆς 
Ἕβραιδος μεταφράσαι τὸν εἰρημένον 
Κλήμεντα (that is, Clemens Ro- 
manus). Eusebius, E. H. iii. 
38, giving an account of the 
writings of Clemens Romanus, 
ascribes the reception of the 
Epistle principally to his au- 
thority; and so far leans to the 
hypothesis that Clemens, not 
St. Luke, was the translator of 
it, as to perceive a resemblance 
between the style of the Greek 
of the Epistle, and that of Cle- 
ment to the Romans. The au- 
thor of the Hypotyposes, on the 
contrary, thought the style of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews resembled 
that of the Acts; see Eusebius, 
ἘΠῚ: vis 14.°2150C: ἢ: 

Hieronymus, i. Paulino: Pau- 


lus Apostolus ad septem scribit 
Ecclesias: octava enim ad He- 
breos a plerisque extra nume- 
rum ponitur. Operum 11. 608— 
ad calcem; Epp. Critice: Tliud 
nostris dicendum est, hance Epi- 
stolam que inscribitur ad He- 
bros, non solum ab Ecclesiis 
orientis, sed ab omnibus retro 
Ecclesiasticis Greci sermonis 
Scriptoribus quasi Pauli Apo- 
stoli suscipi, licet plerique eam 
vel Barnabez, vel Clementis arbi- 
trentur: et nihil interesse cujus 
sit, quum Ecclesiastici viri sit, 
et quotidie Ecclesiarum lectione 
celebretur. quod si eam La- 
tinorum consuetudo non recipit 
inter Scripturas canonicas ; nec 
Grecorum quidem Ecclesia A po- 
calypsin Johannis eadem liber- 
tate suscipiunt, et tamen nos 
utramque suscipimus: nequa- 
quam hujus temporis consuetu- 
dinem, sed veterum Scriptorum 
auctoritatem sequentes, qui ple- 
rumque utriusque abutuntur te- 
stimoniis, non ut interdum de 
apocryphis facere solent (quippe 
qui et gentilium litterarum (swp- 
ple non) raro utantur exemplis) 
sed quasi Canonicis et Ecclesias- 
ticis. Cf. iii. 684. ad medium: in 
Jerem. xxxi: iv. Pars i. 125. 
ad calcem, 126. ad principium, 
in Matt. xxvi: Pars ii. 574. ad 
medium, Epp. 1. Pars 118, 103. 
De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, 
v: Epistola autem que fertur 
ad Hebreos non ejus creditur, 
propter styli sermonisque dis- 
sonantiam ; sed vel Barnabe, 
juxta Tertullianum ; vel Luce 
Evangelista, juxta quosdam ; vel 
Clementis, Romane postea Ec- 
clesiz Episcopi, quem aiunt ipsi 


ὥς 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts. 219 


mony, to conclude that it was itself the authentic pro- 
duction of St. Paul; composed, like the Gospel of St. 
Matthew, as was naturally to be expected, originally 
in the vernacular language of the Hebrew church, to 
which it was addressed; and, like St. Matthew’s Gos- 
pel also, was afterwards translated into Greek: which 
translation, if we must acquiesce in some one of the 
various conjectures which have been, or may be formed 
concerning its author, I should be more inclined to as- 
cribe to St. Luke, than to any other source. We can 
find nothing in the Epistle, which may be considered to 
militate against the supposition that it was the work 
of St. Paul, except this one passage: Tas ἡμεῖς ἐκφευξό- 
μεθα, τηλικαύτης ἀμελήσαντες σωτηρίας: ἥτις, ἀρχὴν λα- 
βοῦσα λαλεῖσθαι διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου, ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων εἷς 
ἡμᾶς ἐβεβαιώθη Υ: in which the writer, whosoever he 
was, appears to identify himself with the hearers only 
of the Apostles. But even St. Paul might express him- 
self in this way συγκαταβητικώς ; especially as one who 
was not by his office, and who nowhere represents 
himself as an Apostle of the Circumcision; but on 
the other hand both was by his office, and according 
to his own uniform representation of himself is said 
to be the Apostle, car’ ἐξοχὴν, of the Uncircumcision. 
In this way it is that the Apostles may often be found 
identifying themselves with their converts; and ex- 
pressing sentiments as applicable both to them and 


adjunctum sententias Pauli pro- 
prio ordinasse et ornasse ser- 
mone. 


in Novum Testamentum, ii. 312. 
C. who adds, Luke. So like- 


wise Origen, according to Euse- 


Theodorit, iii. 544. Prefatio 
in Epistolam ad Hebr. : γέγραφε 
δὲ αὐτὴν (ὁ Παῦλος) τῇ Ἑ βραίων 
φωνῇ ἑρμηνευθῆναι δὲ αὐτήν φασιν 
ὑπὸ Κλήμεντος. Cf. CEcumenius 


bius, E. H. vi. xxv. 227. ad 
Jjinem. Cf. also the Reliquize 
Sacre, i. 472, and CEcumenius, 
loco citato, ti. 313, Ὁ. 314, A. 


Walle 


220 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


themselves in common, which strictly construed apply 
only to the parties addressed. It is still true that 
St. Paul, though he might receive his commission from 
our Lord himself, and be made acquainted with Chris- 
tian facts and doctrines by direct inspiration from 
above; had never heard our Lord or seen him, while 
he was conversant in his ministry upon earth. The 
same consideration of what he himself was by his 
office, and what they were whom he was about to ad- 
dress, might give occasion also to the omission of his 
name, and of the usual form of his salutations, at the head 
of the Epistle; but, as to supposing that he was writ- 
ing anonymously, and that the Hebrew Christians did 
not very well know from what source the Epistle ema- 
nated; it is both absurd in itself, and directly contra- 
dicted by the Epistle. 

The time and the circumstances when, and under 
which, it was written, are a more uncertain, and so far 
a more important point, than the question who was its 
author: and yet, with respect to these, we may safely 
collect first, that it was written from some part or other 
of Italy, but not as it appears from Rome; secondly, 
it was written when the author himself was at large, 
but before he had returned to Judea; thirdly, it was 
written just after the release of Timothy, who must 
consequently have been previously in confinement; 
and while the writer was waiting somewhere or other 
in Italy, expecting that he would come to him shortly, 
but not without some degree of uncertainty as to whe- 
ther he would or not, before the time when he him- 
self must be departing”. 

Now if our conjecture before stated, with respect to 
the first arrival of Timothy at Rome, was correct, 
he did not arrive there before the middle of U.C. 813; 


w Hebr. xiii. 24. 23. 19. 23. 


ὅς 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts. 221 


that is, the last half of the sixth of Nero; and when 
he arrived there he certainly did not arrive as a pri- 
soner. But if there be any meaning in this allusion 
of the writer to the Hebrews to the fact of his being 
released or set at liberty; it must imply that he was 
previously in confinement: it is absolutely impossible 
that he could otherwise have been released. It follows, 
then, that between the time of the arrival of Timothy 
at Rome, (soon after which the Epistles to the Colos- 
sians, to Philemon, and to the Philippians were all 
written, and at the moment of writing which Timothy 
was at large,) and the time of writing the Hpistle to 
the Hebrews, when he had been just released, he must 
have been imprisoned, or in some manner or other put 
under restraint at Rome. 

It is no objection to the fact of such an imprison- 
ment that we have no account of it in the Acts; for 
the history of the Acts probably expires before it took 
place: nor, indeed, is there any mention in the Acts 
of any thing, which happened at Rome, during St. 
Paul’s two years’ sojourn there, excepting the little 
which transpired at the very beginning of the period*. 


* Τ am aware that the words 
in the original, which I under- 
stand to speak of Timothiy’s re- 
lease from confinement, are con- 
strued by many commentators, 
of his having taken his leave, 
set out on his journey—and the 
like. The verb, ἀπολύω, is cer- 
tainly so used, in the first sen- 
tence of the song of Symeon ; 
though even there it has still 
ultimately the same proper no- 
tion of release or liberation. 

Without entering upon the 
critical discussion of the term, 
I will observe only that the con- 
struction in question involves 


an absurdity, of which we can- 
not suppose that the writer 
himself could be guilty. If all 
that the words imply, is the 
fact that Timothy had set out 
from some quarter, upon some 
journey, why does he add, that 
if he joined him in time, they 
would both endeavour to revisit 
Judea in company? ‘If he 
come quickly.” If the writer 
himself was in Italy, waiting to 
be joined by Timothy, knowing 
that Timothy was already on 
his road to him, he could scarce- 
ly speak in terms of so much 
uncertainty about his joining 


222 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


For the same reason, neither can any objection to this 
fact be taken from Philippians ii. 19-24, and much 
less from Philemon 22. The actual imprisonment of 
Timothy, if it ever happened, must have happened 
after each of these Epistles; and it is manifestly pos- 
sible that St. Paul, who was still uncertain about the 
issue of things as it concerned himself 5, might labour 
under a similar uncertainty respecting the disposal of 
Timothy. It is by no means certain that, much as 
might be revealed upon some subjects to the Apostles, 
they were aware beforehand of every thing which 
should happen to themselves; and much less to their 
friends or followers. That perfect knowledge of the 
future was the prerogative of our Saviour only. We 
have St. Paul’s assurance to the elders of the Ephesian 
church, that he was then going up to Jerusalem, not 
knowing the things which should happen to him there: 
and though he adds, Save that the Holy Ghost wit- 
nessed in every city that bonds and tribulations await- 
ed him; this does not alter the truth of the assurance: 
for it is abundantly clear from a comparison with 
other passages, that he means by this witnessing, no 
revelations made to himself, but communications made 
to others in different cities, and through them to him- 
self Y. 

And this, in defect of any other, would still be a 


him, within a certain time, or he would make such an use of 


not. Not so, however, if he 
merely knew that he was at 
liberty to set out; that he was 
his own master, and might tra- 
vel in any direction, and within 
whatever time, he pleased. He 
might know thus much about 
him ; and yet not know whether 


x Philipp. i. 27. ii. 23. 


his freedom, and with such dis- 
patch, as to join himself by a 
given time; especially if he had 
himself only a set time to wait 
in, whereas Timothy was not 
obliged to be gone from wherever 
he was, within a certain time. 


¥-Atte'xx.' 22; 235 ΧΧὶς 4.17. 


ὅς 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 223 


sufficient answer to the inference deducible from Acts 
xx. 253; as though, after such a declaration, St. Paul 
never could visit Ephesus again. The inference, how- 
ever, goes on the supposition that the words are to be 
rendered ; And now, behold, I know that none of you, 
among whom I went preaching the kingdom of God, 
will see my face again: whereas, it is my own convic- 
tion both from the order of the terms, and from the 
emphasis laid on the ὑμεῖς πάντες, that they ought to be 
rendered; And now, behold, I know that ye will not 
all of you, among whom I went preaching the king- 
dom of God, see my face again. The fulfilment of this 
prediction would require no more than that some of 
the persons, then present, should never see St. Paul 
again. And this might easily be the case ; for between 
the time of this address, U.C. 809, and that when 
St. Paul was first at liberty to come back to Asia in 
U. C. 816, there were eight years complete, or nearly 
so at least: and in eight years’ time, great changes 
might take place any where and in any society. 

In fact it must have been the case: for first, after 
St. Paul’s departure, grievous wolves were to come 
among the church of Ephesus, who should not spare 
the flock; and, secondly, St. Paul was addressing the 
elders of the Ephesian church, and them, as it would 
seem, exclusively. Ephesus then and its church, at 
this time, were not in want of elders; but when St. 
Paul wrote his First to Timothy, which was long 
after this time, Ephesus and its church were either 
still in want of elders, or had but recently been sup- 
plied therewith. What then had become of the elders 
whom he was now addressing ? could all be still alive, 
or still present in Ephesus? Is it not a natural in- 
ference that between the time of this address and the 
date of the Epistle to Timothy, the previously undis- 


224 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


turbed and quiet order of the Ephesian church had 
been agitated in some manner or other, and the in- 
tegrity of its community had suffered in the loss even 
of some among its governors themselves; which loss 
could be repaired only by the appointment of fresh 
ones ? 

It is possible then that Timothy, for some reason 
or other, might be placed in confinement at Rome, after 
the Epistle to the Philippians itself was written; and 
if so, in the latter half of U. C. 813, at the earliest: 
and therefore if /zs imprisonment, a priori, was likely 
to last as long as St. Paul’s had done, his release was 
not to be expected before the same time in 1]. C. 815, 
at the soonest. Let us suppose that this was the case ; 
and, consequently, that the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
written soon after this release, was written either in 
the last half of U. C. 815, or in the first of U. C. 816. 
The probability of both these suppositions may be fur- 
ther confirmed as follows. 

It is manifest from Rom. xv. 24—28, that St. Paul 
had projected a visit to Spain, even before he designed 
to go to Rome; or rather, that the visit to Rome was 
something ἐκ παρέργου with respect to this visit to Spain; 
something which he intended to do by the way in com- 
parison of that, and over and above, though prepara- 
tory to, the execution of his original purpose. And 
still more evident it is that, for those who were tra- 
velling either. by land or by sea from Asia, or from 
Greece, to Spain; Italy in general, and even Rome in 
particular, would lie directly in the line of the course 
which they must take. 

Now if St. Paul had deliberately conceived the de- 
sign of such a visit before he went up to Jerusalem ; 
and if he went up to Jerusalem, though with a parti- 
cular ignorance yet under a general assurance that 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts. 225 


bonds and persecutions awaited him; what reason is 
there to suppose that the retention of his original design 
would be prevented by his subsequent imprisonment ? 
Its execution would necessarily be delayed, so long as 
his imprisonment lasted; but when his imprisonment 
was over, and he was at liberty to go wheresoever he 
would, the proximity of Spain would be an addi- 
tional motive to completing his purpose of visiting it. 
We cannot think St. Paul's intentions of this kind 
were ever lightly formed, or consequently likely to be 
easily abandoned: nor perhaps would the implicit as- 
sumption of some such fact, in the course of his evan- 
gelical ministry after his confinement at Rome, as a 
visit to Spain, (for which assumption he himself had fur- 
nished such strong grounds of credibility ὦ priorz,) ever 
have been called into question; if those, who have 
treated of the history of St. Paul’s ministry, had not 
almost generally fallen into the mistake of bringing 
him to Rome too late; and therefore had not allow- 
ed a sufficient interval of time, between the close of 
his imprisonment and the latest possible date of his 
death, for the transaction of this purpose, and of many 
others, which must also have intervened. We have 
obviated this inconvenience by tracing the commence- 
ment of his imprisonment to the spring of U.C. 812, 
and consequently its termination to that of U.C. 814: 
between which, and the earliest date of the close 
of his ministry which it would be possible to admit, 
U.C. 818, there is yet four or five years’ interval. 

The tradition that he visited Spain is one of the 
most ancient, and perhaps the most authentic, of any 
such traditions which ecclesiastical history has per- 
petuated; for it may be traced up to the time of 
the presbyter Caius, contemporary with the Roman 
bishop Pius, who speaks of Paul’s departure from the 

VOL. Vv. Q 


226 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


city to Spain, as a certain and undeniable matter of 
fact”; and even beyond his time, to the age of Clement, 
the second or third bishop of Rome, and the contem- 
porary of St. Paul himself*. For though Clement does 
not mention Spain by name, yet if we consider that he 
was writing from Rome, and that he must be speak- 
ing of the extreme boundary of the west relatively to 
the geographical position of Rome; it will be as certain 
that, by this description of the limits to which St. Paul’s 
personal labours had extended, he meant Spain, as if 
he had expressly named it *. 


* At procul extremis terrarum 
Cesar in oris | Mortem sevus 
agit.— Lucan, Pharsalia, iv. 1. 
De Hispania. 

... Ultima nuper | Litora terra- 
rum, nisi tu Melibeee fuisses, | 
Ultima visuri, trucibusque ob- 
noxia Mauris | Pascua Geryonis, 
liquidis ubi cursibus ingens | 
Dicitur occiduas impellere Betis 
arenas. | Scilicet extremo nunc 
vilis in orbe jacerem, | Ahdolor! 
et pecudes inter conductus Ibe- 
ras, | Irrita septena modularer 
sibila canna. Calpurnius, Ecloga 
iv. 38. 

Seneca, Naturalium Que- 
stionum, Lib. i. Preefatio, ὃ. 11 : 
Quantum enim est, quod ab ul- 
timis litoribus Hispaniz usque 
ad Indos jacet? Thus it is, that 
Constantine in his circular Epi- 
stle, apud Eusebium, Vita Con- 
stantini, 11. 28. 457. C. describes 
the utmost limits of the world to 
the west: ὃς ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς Bper- 
τανοῖς ἐκείνης θαλάσσης ἀρξάμενος, 
καὶ τῶν μερῶν ἔνθα δύεσθαι τὸν 
ἥλιον ἀνάγκῃ τινὶ τέτακται, κ', τ. Δ. 
Cf. iv.9. 531. A: and 50. 551.C 
where the Britons and Indians 
are enumerated and opposed to 

Z Reliquiaw Sacre, iv. 4. 1. 18. 
stola ia. y. 


each other, the one as the last to 
the west, the other as the last to 
the east. In like manner, Am- 
brose, i. 329. D. E. De Abra- 
hamo ii. vil. ὃ. 40. commenting 
on Genesis xiii. 17. observes: 
Utique intra momentum ter- 
ram istam Persarum interclusam 
imperiis, ab Indiz quoque litto- 
ribus ad Herculis, ut aiunt, co- 
lumnas, vel Brittanniz extrema 
confinia non potuit perambulare : 
which also recognises Spain or 
Britain as proverbially the ut- 
most bound of the known world 
to the west, answering to India 
on the east. Cf. Virgil, Ecloga 
i. 67. Et penitus toto divisos 
orbe Britannos. 

Μετὰ τὴν διετίαν εἰς Σπανίαν ἀπελ- 
θὼν ἐκήρυξε, καὶ ὑποστρέψας εἰς 
“Ρώμην ἐμαρτύρησε : Scholium ad 
caput ult. Actorum ἃ Matthei 
positum. Cyril of Jerusalem 
speaks of Paul’s preaching the 
gospel in Spain: Operum 25 3.1.8. 
Catechesis xvii. cap.13. So like- 
wise Epiphanius, i. 107.C. Carpo- 
cratiani, vi. Jerome, Operum ii. 
686. ad caleem: Epp. Critice : 
Paulus sagitta fuit Domini, qui 
postquam ab Jerosolymis usque 


a Philipp. iv. 3. Clemens Romanus, Epi- 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 227 


After these two almost contemporaneous testimonies 
to the fact in question, I should consider it superfluous 


ad Illyricum missus arcu Do- 
mini, huc illucque volitavit, ad 
Hispanias ire festinat : ut velox 
sagitta sub pedibus Domini sui 
orientem occidentemque proster- 
nat—aill. 307, ad principium, in I- 
saiz xl: Si enim in toto orbe con- 
sideremus varias nationes, et ab 
Oceano usque ad Oceanum, id est, 
ab Indico mari usque ad Britan- 
nicum: &c.—319. ad calcem, in 
Isai xliii: Apostolos enim vi- 
dens Jesus..vocavit...ut de 
piscatoribus piscium faceret ho- 
minum piscatores, qui de Jeru- 
salem usque ad Illyricum et Hi- 
spanias Evangelium predicarunt 
—1412. ad medium, in Amos v: 
Qui (Paulus) vocatus a Domino, 
effusus est super faciem uni- 
verse terre, ut preedicaret Evan- 
gelium de Jerosolymis usque ad 
Illyricum, et edificaret non super 
alterius fundamentum, ubi jam 
fuerat predicatum, sed usque 
ad Hispanias tenderet, et mari 
rubro imo ab Oceano usque ad 
Oceanum curreret,imitans Domi- 
num suum et solem justitiz, de 
quo legimus: A summo ccelo 
egressio ejus, et occursus ejus 
usque ad summum ejus ; ut ante 
~ eum terra deficeret quam stu- 
dium predicandi—iv. Pars i. 
178. ad medium, Hedibie: De- 
nique Apostolus Paulus qui de 
Jerusalem usque ad Il]lyricum 
preedicavit, et inde per Romam 
ad Hispaniam ire festinat, gratias 
agit Deo: &c.—353. ad calcem, 
in Ephes. iii: Videbat quippe 
se de Jerusalem usque ad Illy- 
ricum Evangelium pradicasse, 
isse Romam, ad Hispanias vel 
perrexisse, vel ire disponere—iii. 
104. ad medium, In Isaiz xi: 


Quod de unius Pauli Apostoli 


exemplo intelligamus, qui... ut 
ipse scribit, ad Hispanias alieni- 
genarum portatus est navibus. 

It has been conjectured that 
St. Paul wrote this, in some 
epistle not extant. But his 
tpse scribit may be understood 
of his writing to the Romans, 
and telling them that it was his 
intention to visit Spain by Rome; 
and the Alienigenarum portatus 
est navibus, of his being brought 
to Rome, which was so far on 
his way to Spain, in ships of the 
Gentiles ; the two last of them 
ships of Alexandria, the first un- 
doubtedly a Gentile ship also, of 
some kind or other. 
Theodorit,Operumi.1424,1425. 
in Ps. 116: ὁ δὲ μακάριος Παῦλος... 
ὕστερον μέντοι καὶ τῆς Ἰταλίας ἐπέβη, 
καὶ εἰς τὰς Σπανίας ἀφίκετο, καὶ ταῖς 
ἐν τῷ πελάγει διακειμέναις νήσοις τὴν 
ὠφέλειαν προσήνεγκε. The con- 
text, however, proves that the 
assertion of the journey to Spain 
is founded on St. Paul’s decla- 
ration to the Romans ; and that 
of the visit to the islands, on his 
Epistle to Titus, which speaks of 
his having beenin Crete. Theodo- 
rit, Operum iii. 451. in Philipp. 
1. 26: ἐκεῖθεν δὲ (sc. from Rome) 
εἰς Tas Σπανίας ἀπελθὼν, καὶ τὸ θεῖον 
κἀκείνοις προσενεγκὼν εὐαγγέλιον, 
ἐπανῆλθε, καὶ τότε τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀπε- 
TH On—695, 696. In 2 ad Tim. iv. 
17: ἡνίκατῇ ἐφέσει χρησάμενος εἰς τὴν 
Ῥώμην ὑπὸ τοῦ Φήστου παρεπέμῳθη, 
ἀπολογησάμενος ὡς ἀθῶος ἀφείθη, 
καὶ τὰς Σπανίας κατέλαβε, καὶ εἰς 
ἕτερα ἔθνη δραμὼν τὴν τῆς διδασκα- 
Alas λαμπάδα προσήνεγκε. Cf. iv. 
goo. Grecorum Affectuum Cu- 
ratio, Disputatio viii. 

The testimony of Chrysostom 
is not less express ; who always 


Q2 


3ς 


228 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


to insist upon any others, which depended on the au- 
thority of later times. I will observe only that the 
testimony of the Latin Presbyter supposes Paul to go 
to Spain from the city ; and that of Clement supposes 
him to evangelize the whole of that country: he could 
not otherwise have preached the gospel to the extreme 
bounds of the west ; which the ancients universally con- 
sidered to be the Straits of Gibraltar at least. I think, 
then, that upon the strength of these two testimonies we 
are authorized to assume, first, that St. Paul set out to 
Spain at the close of his imprisonment at Rome; and 
secondly, that he was long enough in Spain to have, 
more or less, evangelized the whole country. He 
would set out then soon after the spring of U. C. 814; 
and he would not accomplish his purpose, or be able to 
leave Spain again, under two years’ time at least. The 
extent and populousness of the country, and the very 
great probability that Christianity had not been pre- 
viously introduced into it, justify us perhaps in assert- 
ing this. 

Now that, when he had made an end of the circuit of 
Spain, he would come back again to Italy, before he re- 
turned to Asia, is just as much a matter of course, as 
that he would come to Italy at first, before he would 
proceed to Spain. The time of his return to Italy, if 
the data on which we ground our conclusions are 
true, would be either the latter half of U.C. 815, or 
the first half of U.C. 816, and both in the ninth of 
Nero: and this is the very time at which we have al- 


speaks of St. Paul’s visit to 
Spain as of a matter of fact too 
well known to be called into 
question. The following passage 
of his works is all to this effect 
which I should think it necessary 
to quote: Operum xii. 2. E. in 


Epistolam ad Hebros Preefatio, 
1: δύο μὲν οὖν ἔτη ἐποίησεν ἐν Ῥώμῃ 
΄, > > , > > \ 

δεδεμένος" εἰτα ἀφείθη, εἶτα eis τὰς 
Σπανίας ἦλθεν: εἶτα εἰς ᾿Ιουδαίαν 
Ζ 

EN L's 
{py a Ν © \ ΄ > 
Ρώμην, ore καὶ ὑπὸ Νέρωνος avy- 


ρἔθη. 


καὶ τότε πάλιν ἦλθεν εἰς 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 229 


ready shewn it to be probable that St. Paul was writing 
the Epistle to the Hebrews; and writing it, as the 
Epistle itself proved, from Italy. It is some confirm- 
ation of each of these conclusions, that the well- 
known inscription in Gruter>, the time of which is 
synchronous with the tenth of Nero, the date of the 
first general persecution of Christianity; if it be ad- 
mitted to be genuine, proves that the gospel had been 
introduced into Spain at least by the tenth of Nero; and 
I think it is some argument of the genuineness of the 
inscription itself that, if we are right in the conclu- 
sions already established, Christianity must have been 
introduced there by St. Paul himself, as early as the 
seventh. 

The date of the Epistle to the Hebrews will thus be 
determined to the ninth of Nero; and that it was the 
latter half of the ninth, not the former, and conse- 
quently 1]. C. 816, not U.C. 815, may further be 
shewn as follows: 

I. The writer was preparing to leave Italy and to 
return to Asia at the time®; which we may suppose 
he would not do except in the spring or summer quar- 
ter of the year. 

II. That when the Epistle was written a persecution 
was going on against the church of Judzea, has been 
made to appear elsewhere ὁ: and yet that it was a per- 
secution of no long standing may be collected from 
xii. 4: Ye have not yet resisted unto blood—avticar- 
éoTnte—more properly, Ye have not yet been set in 
opposition unto blood—while striving against the sin 
of apostasy; that is, Ye have not yet been placed in 
circumstances under which, while striving against the 
sin of apostasy, it would be necessary for you to resist 
unto blood. It appears from x. 34, that the violence 


D cexxxviii. ἢ. 9. ¢ xiii. 19. 23. ἃ Dissertation ii. Vol. i. 160. 168. 


Q 3 


%* 


230 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


of the persecution as yet must have been limited to the 
spoiling or plundering of their goods. But whatsoever 
it was, that it was the second which they had hitherto 
experienced appears also from x. 32. which refers to 
some former persecution, and yet only to one former ; 
and therefore in all probability, to the persecution in 
the time of Saul. 

Now, as that former persecution was begun by 
the martyrdom of Stephen, so may it be inferred 
from xiii. 7. was this second by the martyrdom 
of those, who are called the ἡγούμενοι of the church, 
and who are said to have spoken to them the word 
of God; the end of whose conversation among 
them, that is, the exit or mode of departing from 
the world which they had finally experienced; they 
are commanded to remember, in order to imitate 
their faith: dva0ewpotvres—literally, reviewing ; but 
as a spectacle, which is over and over again brought 
before the eyes. This description can apply to none 
in general so justly as to the Apostles of Christ; nor 
to any of these in particular, (as not only Apostles 
of Christ, but also the ἡγούμενοι of the Hebrew 
church,) so properly as either James, the one the brother 
of John, and the other the brother of our Lord; the 
former martyred at a time when others of the Apo- 
stles were still left with the Hebrew church, and the 
latter their first bishop, and himself in the course of 
time a martyr. Both these martyrdoms may be here 
intended ; but that the latter in particular is meant 
seems to me to follow not only from the reason of 
the thing, but from the coincidence of the time of the 
martyrdom with that of this allusion to it. 

We have two accounts of the martyrdom of James, 
the first bishop of Jerusalem and surnamed the Just ; 
one by Hegesippus an ancient Christian writer, and 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts. 231 


the other from Josephus 5. The former of these places 
it at the time of a Passover; and the latter when the 
younger Ananus was high priest, and in the first year 
of the administration of Albinus, but before he was ar- 
rived in the province*. The first year of Albinus 
may be determined as follows. 

The history of Jesus the son of Ananus’ demon- 
strates that Albinus was already procurator and in 
Office, at or after the feast of Tabernacles, πρὸ τεσσάρων 
ἐτῶν τοῦ πολέμου : and seven years, and five months 7, 
before the time when this Jesus himself perished, dur- 
ing the siege of Jerusalem, U. C. 823. That siege was 
begun at a Passover; and consequently at the Pass- 
over of U.C. 823: Albinus therefore was procurator 
and in office at or soon after a feast of Tabernacles, se- 
ven years and five months before this Passover ; which 
could be at the feast of Tabernacles U.C. 815. only, 


* T am aware that the words 
which relate to James, in 
this account of Josephus—rov 
ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ, τοῦ λεγομένου 
Χριστοῦ: Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῴ---- 
have been considered an interpo- 
lation ; but I have seen no ar- 
gument in disproof of their ge- 
nuineness, which is not abso- 
lutely gratuitous, and resolvable 
into the ipse dixit of the critic. 
If all these words are to be given 
up, the whole section must be 
pronounced spurious; for this 
part and the rest must stand 
and fall together. The words 
τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ may very 
possibly be an interpolation ; but 
we have no proof that the re- 
mainder, τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ" “Id- 


κωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, is justly to be 
considered so ; nothing in short 
but suspicion and mere possibi- 
lity—in opposition to the weight 
of internal and external testi- 
mony from manuscripts, quota- 
tions, and recognitions, as far 
back as we can trace the history 
of the passage; which is en- 
tirely on the other side. See in 
particular Origen, Contra Cel- 
sum, i. 47. Operum i. 362. last 
line..363. 1.3. and In Mottheum, 
x. 17: Operum iii. 463. C. 

+ Photius, Codex 47. page τι. 
1. 37—40. reads six years and 
three months: ἔτη ς΄. and μῆνας 
γ΄. an easy corruption of the ge- 
nuine numbers, ἔτη ζ΄. and μῆ- 
vas ε΄. 


e Eusebius, E. H. ii. 23. which includes, in general terms, also the account of 
Clemens, in the Hypotyposes: Ant. Jud. xx. ix. 1. Cf. Syncellus, i. 638. 3, sqq: 
See also Jerome, iv. Pars ii. 101, 102. De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, ii: and the 
Chronicon of Pollux, 192. 194. f Bell. Jud. vi. v. 3. 


Q 4 


| ὥς 


232 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


the beginning of the ninth of Nero—seven years and 
six months, before the Passover, U. C. 823. when the 
city was invested by Titus ; and three years and six 
or seven months, or what might be called in current 
language, four years, before the time in U.C. 819, 
when the war broke out. 

This feast of Tabernacles was undoubtedly the feast 
alluded to next after the arrival of Albinus; as the 
very circumstance of its not being specified by name 
would of itself imply 5: it was likewise the feast next 
after the death of James; at the time of which or 
soon after it, Albinus was in Alexandria, and still on 
his way to the province. As he was travelling through 
Alexandria, it is clear he had set out from Rome tak- 
ing advantage of the Etesian winds; and consequently 
not before the middle of July, when those winds com- 
monly began to blow. Ananus was deposed from the 
priesthood in consequence of the death of James itself; 
but he was deposed by Agrippa, not by Albinus, and 
at a time when Albinus had not arrived on his way 
further at the utmost than Alexandria. By the aid of 
the Etesian winds, he could not fail to be in Alexan- 
dria some time in the month of August. Pliny men- 
tions instances of Prefects who under similar circum- 
stances made the passage from the fretum Siculum to 
Alexandria in seven days, and even in six; and from 
Puteoli, in nine ἢ. 

Now Ananus had been three months in possession 
of the priesthood, before he was deposed; and he was 
deposed, as we have seen in the last half of the eighth 
of Nero, U. C. 815; the time of his removal coinciding 
with the month of July or August, in that year. The 
tradition of Hegesippus, then, that James was put to 
death at the time of the Passover, may be correct, but 


g xx. ix. 3. Vide Supra p. 126, 127. h H. Nii xix. ἃς 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 233 


it must have been at the Passover of U.C. 815, for 
Ananus might then have been in office: and thus much 
we may assert with confidence; viz. that he was in 
office if not at the Passover, at least at the Pentecost of 
U. C. 815; the former of which fell out upon April 
11. and consequently the latter upon June 1. And if 
St. James was put to death by Ananus, and put to 
death at some Jewish feast, it must have been at one 
of these two. Jesus the son of Damnzus was ap- 
pointed by Agrippa in his stead; and as Ananus was 
certainly deposed, so must a successor to him have 
been appointed, in the interval between the next feast 
of Tabernacles, October 6, and the last at least of the 
other two feasts. 

Though therefore the account of Hegesippus contains 
other particulars, which appear to me to offend against 
probability; yet in the main facts he is so well sup- 
ported by Josephus, that we may implicitly believe 
him. The death of James, then, and the first year of 
Albinus, were consecutive upon each other, and both 
coincided with U. C. 815, the latter half of the eighth 
of Nero. The assertion therefore of Jerome‘, that St. 
James suffered in the seventh of Nero, though it is 
grounded apparently on the alleged authority of Jose- 
phus, and also on that of the Ὑ ποτυπώσεις of Clemens 
Alexandrinus, is entitled to no credit; for Josephus 
certainly does not warrant this inference ; nor if the 
truth were known perhaps did Clement *. 

Festus, who succeeded to Felix in the fourth of Nero, 
died in office’; but before his death he sent the high 

* The date of the Paschal U. C. 822. A. Ὁ. 69. which 


Chronicon, for the death of would be the first of Vespasian. 
James, is still more in error: See i. 460. 1.7. 
i De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, /oco citato. Cf. however, the Armenian Chroni- 


con of Eusebius, ad annum Neronis vii. and Syncellus, i. 634. 3. k Ant. Jud. 
ἘΣ ΙΧ Ἐς 


234 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


priest, Ishmael, and certain others of the chief of the 
Jews, to Rome!; two of whom, including Ishmael, 
were subsequently detained by Poppaza; whom Jose- 
phus calls the wife of Nero. This may be the mission 
alluded to in the Life of Josephus™, ascribed by a lapse 
of memory to Felix instead of Festus ; though that is 
by no means a necessary supposition. In consequence 
of the detention of Ishmael, the priesthood was con- 
ferred by Agrippa on Joseph, surnamed Cabi, the son of 
Simon ®™; and on the death of Festus, upon Ananus the 
younger ; who held it as before stated only three 
months °. 

It is clearly implied by this account, that Joseph 
continued in possession of the priesthood a very short 
time; and when ke was appointed, Festus was still 
alive, Ishmael was in detention at Rome, and Poppzea 
was then, or according to the usage of Josephus, might 
be reputed and called even then, the wife of Nero. Now 
she was formally espoused by Nero, in the eighth year 
of his reign, U.C. 815, within twelve days after the 
divorce of Octavia?; and not long before the begin- 
ning of the month of June; the ninth of which was 
the time of the death of Nero, as well as of Octavia 
subsequently to the divorce’. But from the intimacy 
which had long subsisted between them, she might be 
called, and would be considered by Josephus, as his 
wife, from U. C. 811. and thenceforward "; as early as 
the fourth of Nero. 

If then we suppose that Ishmael was sent to Rome 
in the seventh of Nero, before 1]. C. 814. medium ; and 
Joseph was appointed high priest in the eighth, after 
U.C. 814. ab auctumno ; that Festus died, and Ananus 
was appointed to succeed Joseph, about the spring of 


1 Ant. xx. viii. 11. m Vita, 3. n Ant. xx. vill. 11. ΟἾΝΟΣ: Ke 
Ρ Tacitus, Annales, xiv. 60. Suetonius, Nero, 35. ὃ. 8. 4 Annales, xiv. 60— 
64. Suetonius, Nero, 57. §. 1. r Tacitus, Annales, xiii. 45. 


ὅς 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts, 235 


U. C. 815; and that he was again deposed, and Albinus, 
being sent after midsummer, arrived in the province 
before the feast of Tabernacles, October 6, U. C. 815, 
at the close of the eighth or at the beginning of 
the ninth of Nero: we make no supposition which is 
not both possible in itself, and entirely consistent with 
the accounts of Josephus. It is true that Festus, on 
this principle, must have been three years and up- 
wards of six months in office prior to his death; but it 
is also true that Felix was upwards of eight years in 
office, before Festus; and that Albinus, who must have 
been appointed at midsummer, U.C. 815, was not su- 
perseded by Gessius Florus before U. C. 817. at the 
earliest, and possibly not before U.C. 818: for Poppza, 
to whom the latter is said to have owed his appoint- 
ment, did not die much before the close of the first six 
. months of U.C. 818*; soon after which event Nero 
put the consul Atticus Vestinus to death, and married 
Messalina his wifes. The war is said to have broken 
out in the second year current of the administration of 
Florus; which might still be true of the first part of 
ΤΠ. C. 819. when the war broke out, though that ad- 
ministration had begun only in U.C. 818. 

The propriety then of the allusion at Hebrews xiii. 7. 
though we should understand it to refer to the death of 
St. James—if the Epistle was written in U. C. 816, a 
year after the event, must be apparent; and 1 think 
this coincidence between the matter of fact, and the 
allusion to it in the Epistle, is a strong argument that 
the latter was then written. The reference to the bonds 

* Poppeadied at thetimeofthe and June. The Fasti exhibit the 
Neronea: which (Tacitus, An- name of a consul suffectus in the 


nales, xiv. 20. xvi. 6. 2.4. 12.) room of Vestinus, ew Kal. Jul. 
were celebrated between April 


s Tacitus, Annales, xvi. 6. 12,13. Suetonius, Nero, 35. §- 4. 15. ὃ. 6.12. ὃ. 8. 
t Ant. Jud. xx. xi. I. 


ἦς 


236 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


of the writer " is clearly an allusion to some past, and 
not to any present circumstance of his personal his- 
tory ; which also would be in character in reference 
either to the confinement of St. Paul at Czesarea, six or 
seven years before, or to his imprisonment at Rome, 
three or four. The same conclusion is implied by 
x. 25. and x. 37; which can be understood of nothing 
except the approaching visitation of the Jews; for that 
was also the period of deliverance to their Christian 
brethren: and in the spring of U. C. 816. the visitation, 
which began about the same time U. C. 819, was only 
three years remote. And having arrived at these con- 
clusions respecting the preceding Epistles, we will pass 
to the remaining ones, which are three in number; 
the two Epistles to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus. 

I. If these Epistles were really written the last 
of all, they must each of them have been written be- 
tween the date of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the 
time of the death of St. Paul; concerning which more 
will be said hereafter. 

II. The Second to Timothy was unquestionably the 
last of the three, and was written in the year of Paul’s 
second imprisonment, and very probably just before 
his death; first, because it was written when the 
writer was again in chains’; and when he either was, 
or had been again in Rome: secondly, because it 
was written when the writer had a strong and lively 
presentiment in his mind, that the time of his de- 
parture was come; that is, that his martyrdom was 
at hand*; under which presentiment, and as con- 
soled by the pleasing reflection that his part had been 

* This appears particularly in note, is at hand—however near— 


his use of the term ἐφέστηκε, but, is come, or actually arrived. 
verse 6; for that does not de- 


Ὄπ. 34s Vo (Dims ieGept zat On) πῆι ἢ, 10, Wl 12 w 2 Tim. i. 17. 
? 3 / 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts. 237% 


faithfully and successfully fulfilled, he exults accord- 
ingly*. 

III. The resemblance perceptible both in the gene- 
ral design, and in the particular structure of the Epi- 
stle to Titus, and of the First Epistle to Timothy, is a 
satisfactory proof that they must have been written 
either together, or within a short time of each other; 
so that the time and the place of the one are presump- 
tively to be considered the time and the place of the 
other. Now when St. Paul wrote to Titus, Titus was 
in Crete’; when he wrote to Timothy, Timothy was 
at Ephesus’; and St. Paul had left them in each of 
these places respectively himself. St.Paul then had both 
visited Crete, and passed through Ephesus before he 
wrote to either of them. When however he left Ti- 
mothy in person at Ephesus, he was himself on his 
way to Macedonia’; and when he wrote his Epistle 
to him afterwards, his business in that country was at 
an end*; for he hoped to rejoin him shortly. We may 
infer, then, that he wrote to Timothy either from Ma- 
cedonia, or from some other quarter in its vicinity. 

IV. Now when he wrote the Epistle to Titus, as 
Titus himself was in Crete, so was St. Paul in the 
neighbourhood of some Nicopolis; for that he was 
not at that time zz this Nicopolis appears from his 
language, ἐκεῖ yap κέκρικα παραχειμάσαι; not, ἐνταῦθα 
yap κέκρικα παραχειμάσαι. The winter, too, which he 
proposed to spend there, must still have been at some 
distance; for Titus was to come to him while he was 
wintering there ;. and Titus was still in Crete: and 
St. Paul was to send him a message, even after the re- 
ception of the Epistle, to tell him at what time to 
come. It is clear, then, that he must have written to 


x 2 Tim. iv. 6. 8. y Titi. 5. z y Tim. 1. 3. ay Tim. iii. 14. 
b Tit. iii. 12. 


238 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


him on the present occasion either in the summer sea- 
son, or at the latest early in the autumnal quarter of 
the year. 

V. There was no Nicopolis, in the neighbourhood of 
Macedonia, at which St. Paul could propose to winter, 
if he was now any where in that quarter; except the 
well-known city, founded by Augustus to commemo- 
rate his victory at Actium*. WNicopolis, situated on 
the confines of Thrace and of the first division of Ma-. 
cedonia, and known by the name of Nicopolis ad Nesum 
or Nessum, Nestum or Mestum ; though otherwise a 
central city, and very likely to be selected for a winter 
residence by one who was previously in Macedonia, 
being founded by Trajan was not as yet in being “7. 
The same thing is true of Nicopolis ad Iatrum or ad 
Istrum; and very probably of Nicopolis ad Hamum. 
Nor, besides the Actian Nicopolis, was there any city of 
note so called, and contemporary with St. Paul, except 
Nicopolis in Armenia, founded by Pompey, U. C. 688, 
and Nicopolis in Egypt, founded by Augustus, U. C. 
724.91. 


* The foundation in ques- 
tion is thus celebrated in an epi- 
gram of Antipater of Thessalo- 
nica, a contemporary poet: Aev- 
κάδος ἄντι μὲ Καῖσαρ, id ’ApBpa- 
kins ἐριβώλου, | Θυῤῥείου τε πέλειν, 
ἀντί τ᾽ ᾿Ανακτορίου, | "Apyeos ᾿Δμ- 
φιλόχου τε, καὶ ὁππόσα ῥαίσατο κύ- 
κλῳ | ἄστε᾽ ἐπιθρώσκων δουρομανὴς 
πόλεμος, | εἵσατο Νικόπολιν, θείην 
πόλιν" ἀντὶ δὲ νίκης | Φοῖβος ἄναξ 
ταύτην δείκνυται ᾿Ακτιάδος, Antho- 
logia, 11.104. Antipatri xxxiil. 

+ Cf. Ammianus Mareellinus 
XXvii. 4. and xxxi. 5. p. 628, 


¢ Cellarii Geographia, ii. xv. 857. viii. 370. xv. 859. 


where he tells us Trajan founded 
this Nicopolis, Indicium victorie 
contra Dacos: consequently ei- 
ther U.C. 856. or U.C. 859.4 

1 The name of Nicopolis was 
given to many ancient cities ; and 
besides those enumerated, Appi- 
an, De Rebus Syriacis,57, speaks 
of one founded in Armenia by 
Seleucus Nicator: there was an- 
other in Judea, built on the site 
of an Emmaus: (Reland, Pale- 
stina,426.758—760. Cf.Sozomen, 
y. 21. 629. D. 630. B:) which, 
however, was not in being before 


d It is, however, to be 


observed, that Cellarius Jocis citatis, and Eckhel, ii. 16. describe this Nicopolis as 
the same with Nicopolis ad [strum or Iatrum. e Dio, xxxvi. 31—33, li. 18. 
Strabo, xii. 3. 8. 28. 122. xvii. 1. ὃ. 10. 510. Appian, De Bello Mithridatico, 105 : 
Suetonius, Augustus, 18: Josephus, De Bello, iv. xi. 5: Orosius, vi. 4. Proco- 
pius, De Addificiis, iii. 4, 58. A. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 239 


Let us suppose that St. Paul means the Nicopolis of 
Epirus. He was not there when he wrote to Titus; he 
might be there when he wrote to Timothy : and where- 
soever he was when he wrote to either, it was some- 
where not far from where he was when he wrote to 
the other. Before he wrote to Timothy, he had been 
in Macedonia; and when he wrote to Titus, he was in 
the neighbourhood of Nicopolis; and each of these 
things would be the case, if he left Titus in Crete be- 
fore he proceeded to Ephesus, and Timothy in Ephe- 


sus when he proceeded to 


the time of Antoninus, sur- 
named Elogabalus, or Alexan- 
der Mamexe; that is, A. D.221.¢ 
A Nicopolis in Bithynia is men- 
tioned by Stephanus Byzantinus, 
and by Pliny, H.N.v. 43 ; whose 
words, however, appear to me to 
imply, that in his time, and, con- 
sequently, as we may presume 
in that of St. Paul, it was not 
in existence. Deinde Nicopolis 
(se. fuit) a qua nomen etiamnum 
sinus retinet. 

Besides these, there was a Ni- 
copolis noticed by Stephanus, un- 
der the article ᾿Ισσὸς, and by Eu- 
stathius ad Dionysium Periege- 
tem,119: which was founded to 
commemorate Alexander’s vic- 
tory over Darius: and another, 
not far from its vicinity, in the 
region of Syria called Seleucis, 
which is mentioned by Strabo, 
xiv. 4. §. 19. 715: and by Pto- 
lemy, Geographica, iv.148f. Nei- 
ther of these, however, was a 
city of note or consequence at 
the present time, in comparison 


Macedonia; and wrote to 


of the Actian Nicopolis; con- 
cerning which Strabo observes, 
vii. 7. ὃ. 6. 460: ἡ μὲν οὖν Νι- 
κόπολις εὐανδρεῖ, καὶ λαμβάνει καθ᾽ 
ἡμέραν ἐπίδοσιν: whereas the other 
two had fallen in great measure 
into obscurity. Cf. Dio, 1. 12. 
Nor is it to be supposed that 
St. Paul, writing from Macedo- 
nia, or its immediate vicinity, 
would think or speak of passing 
the winter at any Nicopolis, but 
that which was close at hand, viz. 
the Epirote or Actian. Hierony- 
mus, iv. Pars 18, 407, 408. Pre- 
fatio in Titum: Scribit igitur 
Apostolus ...de Nicopoli, qu in 
Actiaco littore sita, &c. This city 
was still in being in the reign of 
Justinian ; see Procopius, De 2 - 
dificiis, iv. 1.68. C. Cf. Socrates, 
E. H. vii. 10. 346.C. and Eva- 
grius, E. H. ii. 18. 322. D. who 
mentions Atticus, bishop of Ni- 
copolis, as one of those who 
were present at the council of 
Chalcedon, A. D. 451. 


e If this was the Emmaus, mentioned by Josephus, De Bello, vii. vi. 6. it will 
appear that something like a colony was planted there, U. C. 826, though the 
name of the place was not changed. This might be the city in behalf of which 
Julius Africanus undertook the embassy, in the reign of Elogabalus, which led 
to the foundation of Nicopolis on that site, A. D. 22t. See Eusebius and Jerome, 
in Chronicis: and the other authorities cited by Reland. f The site of this Ni- 
copolis is doubtful, whether in Cilicia or in Seleucis. Its coins would shew it in 
the latter, see Eckhel, iii. 322. Strabo places it in Cilicia: so does Ptolemy. 


3ς 
240 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


Titus from Macedonia before he went to Nicopolis, 
and to Timothy ,from Nicopolis as soon as he left Ma- 
cedonia. 

Nor is it any objection that he speaks of rejoining 
Timothy again in person‘; for he might intend this to 
be understood of rejoining him after the winter; and 
if he wrote to him just before or during the winter, it 
could be understood in no other sense. Besides which, 
he still considers it possible that he might be delayed!; 
and he writes to him by way of precaution, lest this 
should be the case; that so Timothy might know how 
to demean himself in the church of God, without St. 
Paul’s presence as well as with it. We may conclude, 
then, that the Epistle to Titus was written from Mace- 
donia; and that the First Epistle to Timothy was 
written soon after it from Nicopolis. And about the 
same time when St. Paul wrote to Timothy, though 
probably before it, it may be conjectured that he sent 
either Artemas or Tychicus, according to his promise, 
with his message to Titus in Crete. 

VI. If we compare together the places noted in the 
margin’, they must render it unquestionable that no 
such Epistle as the First to Timothy could have been 
written before the second of Nero, when the men speak- 
ing perverse things had not yet risen up in the Ephe- 
sian church ; nor consequently before the seventh, when 
St. Paul was first released from imprisonment; ‘nor if 
we were right in the date assigned to the Epistle to 
the Hebrews", before U.C. 816, when Timothy himself 
was in Italy, and not in Asia, and had only just been 
set at liberty. Nor, as we may venture to say, is there 
within the compass of time embraced by the Acts, any 
instance of a journey of St. Paul’s from Asia in gene- 


e y Tim. iii. 14. f Ibid. 15. & 1 Tim. i. 3—i. 19, 20. v. 15. Vie 3, 4. 
1o. 21. Acts xx. 30. h Heb. xiii. 23. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts, 241 


ral, much less from Ephesus in particular, at which 
it would be possible, without a contradiction to the 
history itself, to suppose that Timothy was left be- 
hind, while St. Paul went into Macedonia. There is 
no instance within that time, upon which Timothy 
was left any where behind him at all, especially for 
such a purpose and in such a capacity as are implied 
in the Epistle; viz. to preside over the house or house- 
hold of God, and to ordain bishops, presbyters, or 
deacons. The whole strain of the Epistle in general, 
and of certain passages more than others in particu- 
lari, is sufficient, on the contrary, to prove that this 
was the first time, for which he had yet been left 
in so arduous and responsible a situation, without 
the benefit of the presence and direction of St. Paul. 
In other words, it was now only that he had been ap- 
pointed the bishop of Ephesus, and perhaps of the 
Asiatic churches in its vicinity: and it is manifest 
that, as he had been just appointed to this station, 
when the First Epistle was written, so was he still in 
possession of it, and still engaged upon its duties 
either at Ephesus in particular or in Asia generally, 
when the Second also was written*. 

VII. The winter which St. Paul proposed to spend at 
Nicopolis! before he wrote to Titus, and which we have 
supposed that he was actually spending there when he 
wrote to Timothy; if it was some one posterior to 
the date of the Epistle to the Hebrews, U. C. 816, 
when St. Paul was in Italy, could not be the winter of 
U. C. 816, but at the earliest, of the year U.C.817, 
the next to that: for it was some winter posterior to 
the return from Italy ; to a visit to Crete; to a visit to 
Asia; and to a visit to Macedonia; and perhaps, if 
Hebrews xiii. 19, and xiii. 23, are to be understood in 


δὲ y Tim. ili. 15. iv. 12—16. k 2 Tim. i. 18—ii. 2.14, 15. iii. 14. iv. 12, 
13. Mittin ab a7 
VOL. IV. R 


242 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


their natural and obvious sense, before them all to a 
visit to Judea. A winter posterior to all these trans- 
actions we can scarce place earlier than two years’ 
time from U. C. 816, eneunte ; which will bring us to 
the close of U.C.817, in the first quarter of the ele- 
venth of Nero. There is no proof in the Acts of the 
Apostles that St. Paul was ever at Crete, or preaching 
the gospel there, before his voyage to Rome. We may 
presume, then, that the visit which he had recently 
paid it was his first visit; and Tit. i. 5, which speaks 
of his remaining there, to complete what St. Paul him- 
self had left unfinished, seems to confirm the conjec- 
ture. On this principle these two Epistles could not 
have been written before U. C. 816; and were probably 
written in U.C. 817: the Epistle to Titus in the sum- 
mer or autumn, the Epistle to Timothy at the begin- 
ning of the winter. 

VIII. Besides this visit to the island of Crete, and the 
subsequent winter spent at Nicopolis; the gospel must 
sometime have been preached in Dalmatia, and churches 
have been founded there also by St. Paul, before his 
second imprisonment:at Rome™. Dalmatia was a pro- 
vince of lyricum; and Illyricum, as we have seen 
already, had not been evangelized, at least by the 
ministry of St. Paul, before the second of Nero, when 
he wrote his Epistle to the Romans; nor consequently 
could be so before the seventh; nor, if St. Paul, as we 
supposed, went straight from Rome into Spain, before 
the ninth. Macedonia lay contiguous to [lyricum and 
Epirus; and Nicopolis, where St. Paul proposed to 
winter, after writing to Titus, and where he was pro- 
bably wintering when he wrote to Timothy, was 
equally well situated either for the close of an evan- 
gelical circuit, which had already embraced Ilyricum 


= 
m 2 Tim. iv. 10. 


ὅς 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 248 


as well as Macedonia, in the course of that same year ; 
or for the commencement of one, which should em- 
brace it in the next. And this I consider the more pro- 
bable supposition of the two; viz. that St. Paul had 
not yet visited Illyricum, when he wrote either to 
Titus or to Timothy, but that he did so, when he left 
Nicopolis, in the course of the year ensuing. 

IX. The general lateness of these two Epistles in 
particular is implied by many internal evidences, 
which some persons may consider minute and super- 
ficial; but which appear to me to be critical and 
striking. 'The constitution of the visible church had 
now finally assumed that settled state, under the go- 
vernment of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, in 
which it was destined to continue; and to give it 
which seems to have been the chief employment of the 
last few years of St. Paul’s ministry, and as we saw 
elsewhere", very probably of St. Peter’s. The lan- 
guage, sentiments, and manner of both are perceptibly 
different from those of the earlier Epistles. They have 
much less of the air and character, which indicate the 
nascent, and therefore the extraordinary state of Chris- 
tianity ; and a great deal more of what would apply to 
its actual condition, at every period of its existence since. 
These two Epistles to Timothy and to Titus respec- 
tively are just what a grave and serious teacher of the 
gospel, endued with an adequate authority, might 
write under similar circumstances, and upon similar 
topics, with very little modification, even at the pre- 
sent day. They display throughout an experience of 
the practical effects of Christianity, which could be 
produced only by time. There is no enthusiasm, no 
glow, no warmth of colouring about them; they are 
serious and earnest, but cool and dispassionate. They 

n Dissertation ii. vol. i. 166. 


R 2 


944 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


have even a melancholy cast. They contain complaints, 
which must have been the results of past disappoint- 
ments, as well as presentiments, which are the fruit 
of the foreboding of evil to come. It is clear that the 
writer considered the present state of things in the 
church to be worse than the former; and the future as 
likely to be worse than the present. The passions and 
vices of men had already defeated in practice the natural 
good effects of the gospel; and they would still more 
oppose and thwart them hereafter. Nor is it any ob- 
jection that, both in the First and in the Second Epi- 
stle°®, Timothy is addressed as still a young man: for if 
he was even twenty, U.C. 802°, when Paul first took 
him with him, instead of what is more probable, not 
more than fifteen or sixteen; he would be only thirty- 
six or thirty-seven, and might be only thirty-one or 
thirty-two, U.C. 819. 

The time of the Second Epistle to Timothy, as we 
have already observed, coincides with that of St. Paul’s 
second imprisonment at Rome, and probably also of 
his death: upon which question we will now enter. 

The truth of the general proposition that both St. 
Paul and St. Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome, and 
under the reign of Nero; is so well authenticated and 
by such a cloud of witnesses, that it would be the 
height of scepticism to disbelieve it, and an unneces- 
sary waste of trouble to produce the testimonies to it. 
But as to the more particular, circumstantial assertion, 
that they suffered at Rome in the same year, and much 
more on the same day in the same year, of Nero; tes- 
timony is not uniform to that point: antecedent pro- 
bability is strongly in opposition to it: we meet with 
no traces of it in the earliest and most authentic 
Christian writers, and it begins to appear first, like 


ον Lim, iv. 12. 32+ Dim: a. 225 p Acts xvi. /. 


ὅς 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 245 


many other precarious assumptions of the same kind, 


only in the later and the least entitled to credit*. 


* Clemens Romanus, Epi- 
stola ad Corinthios Prima, i. 
5: λάβωμεν mpd ὀφθαλμῶν ἡμῶν 
τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἀποστόλους. Πέτρος 
διὰ ζῆλον ἄδικον οὐχ ἕνα οὐδὲ 
δύο, ἀλλὰ πλείονας, ὑπέμεινεν πό- 
νους, καὶ οὕτω μαρτυρήσας ἐπορεύ- 
θη εἰς τὸν ὀφειλύμενον τόπον τῆς 
δόξης. διὰ ζῆλον ὁ ἸΤαῦλος ὑπομονῆς 
βραβεῖον ἀπέσχεν, ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φο- 
ρέσας, ῥαβδευθεὶς, λιθασθεὶς, κῆρυξ 
γενόμενος ἔν τε τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ 
δύσει, τὸ γενναῖον τῆς πίστεως av- 
τοῦ κλέος ἔλαβεν, δικαιοσύνην δι- 
δάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ 
τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθὼν, καὶ μαρτυ- 
ρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, οὕτως 
ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κόσμου, καὶ εἰς τὸν 
ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη, ὑπομονῆς γε- 
νόμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός. 

The natural inference from 
this passage, is not only that 
Peter and Paul did not suffer 
together, but that Peter suffered 
before Paul. Dionysius bishop 
of Corinth, (Eusebius, E. H. 11. 


On 


1.3—9,) bears witness to the fact of 
these two apostles’ suffering κατὰ 
τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν ; as well as to their 
visiting Corinth and Rome, κατὰ 
τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν. But he says 
nothing of their suffering on the 
same day, and in the same year. 

Gaius or Caius the presbyter, 
(apud Eusebium, E.H. ii. 25.67, 
68: Syncellum, i. 644, 645,) ἐγὼ 
δὲ τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ἀποστόλων ἔχω 
δεῖξαι. ἐὰν γὰρ θελήσῃς ἀπελθεῖν ἐπὶ 
τὸν Βατικανὸν, ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν 
᾿Ωστίαν, εὑρήσεις τὰ τρόπαια τῶν 
ταύτην ἱδρυσαμένων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. 

Petrus Alexandrinus, (apud 
Reliquias Sacras, 111. 332. 12:) 
οὕτως ὁ πρόκριτος τῶν ἀποστόλων 
Πέτρος... .ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐσταυρώθη. ὁμοίως 
καὶ ὁ περιβόητος Παῦλος...ἐν τῇ αὐ- 
τῇ πόλει καὶ αὐτὸς μαχαίρᾳ τὴν κε- 
φαλὴν ἀπεκείρατο. 

Clemens Alexandrinus, ii. 808. 
1]. 7. Stromatum vii. 17, attests 
the fact of the death of the apo- 
stles, and in particular of St. 


25.68. A. B: Syncellus,i.645. Paul, ἐπὶ Νέρωνος. 1]. 869. 21. 


a In the Codex Apocryphus of Fabricius, p. 440. Apostolica Historia, i. cap. 20. 
St. Peter’s history is thus summed up: Cujus corpus Marcellus, unus ex disci- 
pulis ejus, nullius exspectans sententiam, propriis manibus de cruce deposuit, et 
pretiosissimis aromatibus conditum in suo ipsius sarcophago collocavit, in loco qui 
dicitur Vaticanus, juxta viam triumphalem, ubi totius orbis veneratione celebratur 
in pace: which last words seem to have been borrowed from Jerome’s De Scri- 
ptoribus Ecclesiasticis, i. or Jerome’s from them: Sepultus Roma in Vaticano, 
juxta viam triumphalem, totius orbis veneratione celebratur. In like manner, 
St. Paul’s: Ibid. 455. ii. 8: Cujus corpus Lucina, Christi famula, secundo ab urbe 
milliario, via Hostiensi, in proprio predio differtum aromatibus sepelivit. passus 
est autem iii. Kalendas Julias, duobus jam a passione Petri elapsis annis. Cf. the 
Peregrinatio Pauli, apud Gicumenium, i. 193. A. 

The site of the tomb of St. Peter, and of the church afterwards erected to his 
memory, according to Frocopius, De Bello Gotthico, i. το. A. D. 537, was on the 
via Aurelia, near the Aurelian gate. Cf. Ibid. 22. Hard by was the mausoleum 
of Hadrian, minutely described, ibid. 22. and commanding the bridge leading to 
St. Peter’s church, iii. 36. 434. 1. 18—21. In Procopius’ time the gate was called 
St. Peter’s: and in like manner, the gate leading to Ostia, near which was the 
tomb and the church of St. Paul, (Ibid. ii. 4,) was called St. Paul’s. It appears, 
Ibid. 4, that this church was fourteen stades, or a mile and an half, distant from 
the city: and that both this by the Ostian gate, and St. Peter’s by the Aurelian, 
were without the city, a στοὰ or covered way, conducting from the city to either 
of them. 

R 3 


246 


Appendia. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


these accounts, unless more unexceptionable testimony 
can be produced in its favour, we need not hesitate, if 


Stromatum vii. 11, he relates 
the following anecdote in refer- 
ence to the death of St. Peter: 
φασὶ γοῦν τὸν μακάριον Πέτρον, θεα- 
σάμενον τὴν αὑτοῦ γυναῖκα ἀγομένην 
τὴν ἐπὶ θάνατον, ἡσθῆναι μὲν τῆς 
κλήσεως χάριν, καὶ τῆς εἰς οἶκον ἀνα- 
κυμιδῆς' ἐπιφωνῆσαι δὲ εὖ μάλα 
προτρεπτικῶς τε καὶ παρακλητικῶς, 
ἐξ ὀνόματος προσειπόντα' μέμνησο 
αὕτη τοῦ Κυρίου. Cf. Eusebius, 111. 
1.71.A. Β: 30.102. ἃ. B. Am- 
brose also, Operum 11. 866. F— 
867.B. Sermo Contra Auxentium, 
§. 13, supplies another tradition- 
ary anecdote inrelation to the cir- 
cumstances which more remotely 
preceded that event ; more espe- 
cially our Lord’s reputed ap- 
pearance to him as he was quit- 
ting or preparing to quit Rome: 
the original of which tradition 
was contained in the third Book 
of Hegesippus. 

Still there is here no mention 
of St. Paul. 

Tertullian, i.193: Contra Mar- 
cionem, iv. 5: Videamus...quid 
etiam Romani de proximo so- 
nent: quibus evangelium et Pe- 
trus et Paulus sanguine quoque 
suo signatum reliquerunt. 11. 28: 
De Prescriptionibus [eretico- 
rum, 24: Bene quod Petrus Paulo 
et in martyrio adequatur. 11.46: 
Ibid. cap. 36: De Romana Ee- 
clesia: Felix ecclesia, cui totam 
doctrinam apostoli cum sanguine 
suo profuderunt: ubi Petrus 
passioni Dominice adequatur : 
ubi Paulus Johannis exitu coro- 
natur: ubi apostolus Johannes, 
pestea quam in oleum igneum de- 
mersus nihil passus est, in insu- 
lam relegatur. ii. 387: Contra 
Gnosticos, 15: Vitas Casarum 
legimus : orientem fidem Rome 


primus Nero cruentavit. tune 
Petrus ab altero cingitur, cum 
cruci adstringitur. tunc Paulus 
civitatis Romane consequitur 
nativitatem, cum illic martyrii 
renascitur generositate. iv. 188: 
De Baptismo, 4: Nee quicquam 
refert inter eos quos Jounnes in 
Jordane, et quos Petrus in Ti- 
beri tinxit. v.16: Apologeti- 
cus, 5: Consulite commentarios 
vestros. illic reperietis primum 
Neronem in hane sectam tum 
maxime Rome orientem Czesa- 
riano gladio ferocisse. sed tali 
dedicatore damnationis nostre e- 
tiam gloriamur. v.60: Apolo- 
geticus, 21: Discipuli quoque 
diffusi per orbem ... Rome po- 
stremo per Neronis  sevitiam 
sanguinem Christianum semina-— 
verunt. 

Hippolytus, περὶ τῶν ιβ΄. ἀπο- 
στόλων, Operum ii. 30, 31, and 
Origen, Selecta in Genesim, 
tom. iii, Operum ii. 24. B, (Cf. 
Eusebius, E. H. iii. 1,) both 
bear witness to the fact of Peter 
and Paul’s suffering under Nero 
respectively ; but they are silent 
as to their suffering together. 
Vide also the abstract prefixed 
to C&cumenius in Novum Te- 
stamentum. 

Lactantius, Divine Institutio- 
nes, iv. 21. 380, speaks of the 
death of Peter and Paul under 
Nero in conjunction, and of both 
before the Jewish war ; but does 
not say that they suffered in the 
same year: Itaque post illorum 
obitum, cum eos Nero intere- 
misset, Judzeorum nomen et gen- 
tem Vespasianus extinxit, fecit- 
que omnia que ili futura pree- 
dixerant. 

The author De Mortibus Per- 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks; Chronology of the Acts. 247 


the nature of the case requires, to call this tradition 


into question. 


secutorum, cap. li. p. 845, having 
spoken of the diffusion of the 
Gospel Per omnes provincias et 
civitates, down to the beginning 
of the reign of Nero, as he im- 
plies, without obstruction or mo- 
lestation, adds; Cumque jam 
Nero imperaret, Petrus Romam 
advenit, et. editis quibusdam mi- 
raculis, que virtute ipsius Dei, 
data sibi ab co potestate, facie- 
bat, convertit multos ad justi- 
tiam, Deoque templum fidele ac 
stabile collocavit. qua read Ne- 
ronem delata ... primus omnium 
persecutus Dei servos, Petrum 
eruci adfixit, et Paulum interfecit. 

Chrysostom repeatedly attests 
the fact of Paul’s and Peter’s 
suffering at Rome, the former 
by being beheaded, the latter, 
crucified, and that with his head 
downwards. <A tradition, in- 
deed, of very regular occurrence 
with respect to the mode of his 
death in particular. See Euse- 
bius, E. H. iti. 1: Demoiistratio 
Evangelica, iii. 5.116. C: Hie- 
ronymus, De SS. Ecclesiasticis, 
i. Operum iv. rot. ad princi- 
pium: Ambrose; i. 626. A. De 
Interpellatione Job, i. i. ὃ. 2°. 
Operum ii. 494. C. De Laudibus 
Pauli Apostoli Hom. iv. he esti- 
mates the length of St. Paul’s 
ministry at not quite 30 years. 
Operum viii. to. D. Spuria, in 
Petrum et Paulum, cap. 2, Paul 
is supposed to serve Ged 35 
years, and die at 68; a statement 


The year in which St. Peter and St. 


which is very probably not genu- 
ine. Ibid. the martyrdom of both 
is placed on the same day, June 
29. Operum i. 48. D. E. De Vita 
Monastica lib. i. cap. 3, the 
death of St. Paul is attributed 
to the anger of Nero; because 
he had converted a concubine 
of his, with whom he was accus- 
tomed to have intercourse οὐ 
κατὰ φύσιν, and had reclaimed 
her from the practice of this 
enormity : or as Gicumenius, in 
Nov. Test. ii. 281. }). in 2 ad 
Tim. iv. 16, reports, because he 
had converted his butler. 

This last authority, Commen- 
tarius in Nov. Test. i. 187. D— 
188. C. closes the Commentary 
on the Acts, by specifying sun- 
dry dates from the Chronicon of 
Eusebius, (Cf. the Peregrinatio 
Pauli subjoined, 193. B—195. 
D,) viz. that St.Paul was called in 
the nineteenth of Tiberius, the 
year after the Passion ; that the 
length of his ministry was 35 
years; and that he suffered in 
the thirty-sixth year after the 
Passion, the thirteenth of Nero, 
ἅς. Neither here is any men- 
tion made of Peter. The Mar- 
tyrium prefixed to Gcumenius 
places the martyrdom of St. Paul 
at Rome, under Nero, June 29, 
A. ἢ). 66, U.C. 819. Vide vol. 
iii. 632. 

Theophylact, iii.172. E. In Acta 
Apost. xxv. 15: ἐτέχθη μὲν γὰρ 
ὁ Κύριος, καθὼς οἱ χρόνοι δηλοῦσιν, 


r Crucifixion with the head downwards was one among the other modes of in- 


flicting that punishment. 


Seneca, ad Marciam, xx. 3: Video istic cruces non 
nnius quidem generis, sed aliter ab aliis fabricatas. 


capite quidam conversos in 


terram suspendere, alii per obscoena stipitem egerunt, alii brachia patibulo explicu- 


erunt. 


R 4 


248 


Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


Paul most probably suffered, whether conjointly or 
separately, must be otherwise determined. 
I. If it is reasonable to suppose that neither of 


ἐπὶ Λὐγούστου Καίσαρος" ἀπέθανε 
δὲ μετὰ λβ΄. ἔτη ἐπὶ Τιβερίου Avyov- 
στου. ὁ δὲ Παῦλος ἀπέθανεν ἐπὶ Νέ- 
ρωνος, μετὰ λβ΄. ἔτος τοῦ θανάτου 
τοῦ Kupiov. Theophylact places 
the passion U.C. 784: therefore 
he places the death of St. Paul 
UC. 916. 

Sulpicius, Sacra Historia, 1]. 
41. ὃ. το, supposes Paul and 
Peter both to suffer in the per- 
secution under Nero, and appa- 
rently about the same time ; but 
says nothing of their suffering 
at the same time, or on the same 
day. 

Zonaras,i.570.A.xi.13, tells us 
that there were always two opin- 
ions respecting the deaths of Pe- 
terand Paul; oneof which placed 
them both on the same day in 
the same year, the other on the 
same day, but in different years. 
So likewise Theodore Metochi- 
ta, Historia Romana, p. 78. 

Prudentius was one who en- 
tertained this latter opinion. O- 
perum i. 283. περὶ στεφάνων xii. 
3. Festus Apostolici nobis redit 
hic dies triumphi, | Pauli atque 
Petri nobilis cruore. | Unus u- 
trumque dies, pleno tamen in- 
novatus anno, | Vidit super- 
ba morte  laureatum. | Il. 
Prima Petrum rapuit senten- 
tia legibus Neronis, | Pendere 
jussum preminente ligno. | 921. 
Ut teres orbis iter flexi rota 
pereucurrit anni, | Diemque e- 
umdem sol reduxit ortus; | Evo- 
mit in jugulum Pauli Nero fer- 
vidum furorem, | Jubet  feriri 
gentium magistrum. 

So likewise Augustin, 111. pars 
ii@, 8. C: De Consensu Evan- 


gelistarum, i. 16: Et occurrit 
eis Petrus et Paulus, credo quod 
pluribus locis simul eos cum illo 
(Jesu scilicet Christo) pictos vi- 
derent, quia merita Petri et 
Pauli etiam propter ewmdem pas- 
sionis diem celebrius solemniter 
Roma commendat. And it ap- 
pears from his Sermo de San- 
ctis, 28, that he supposed this 
to be the same day in different 
years. 

Accident has frequently brought 
to pass as remarkable coinci- 
dences. Timoleon’s great victo- 
ries were all gained on his birth- 
day, Thargelion 23 or 24: Cor- 
nelius Nepos, Timoleon, 5 : Plu- 
tarch, Camillus, 19. Ovid and his 
brother were born on the same day 
in successive years: Tristium, iv. 
x. g—12. Rutilius and Didius 
were both defeated and killed on 
the same day in successive years: 
Ovid, Fasti, vi. 563-568. Lucul- 
lus defeated Tigranes onthe same 
day in one year, on which the 
Cimbri had defeated and killed 
Cepio in another: Plutarch, Lu- 
cullus, 27: Apophthegmata, Ope- 
rum vi. 764: Camillus, 19. Cy- 
prian bishop of Carthage, and 
Cornelius bishop of Rome, both 
suffered martyrdom on the same 
day in different years, the 18th 
Kalends of October: Jerome 
De SS. Ecclesiasticis, Ixvii. O- 
perum iv. pars il. 119. 

A leollection of such coinci- 
dences is given in Ahian, Varie 
Historie, 1. 25. Compare also 
Plutarch, Camillus, 19: Diodorus 
Sic. xiii. 108: Plutarch, Sympo- 
siaca, viii. 1. Operum viii. 859. 
et 566. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 249 


them suffered before the persecution of Christianity, in 
the reign of Nero, was first set on foot; and if it is 
still more certain that both of them suffered sometime 
in the reign of Nero; the extreme limits within which 
the martyrdom of each must be comprehended will be 
1]. C. 817, in the tenth of Nero on the one hand, and 
U.C. 821, in the fourteenth on the other. They could 
neither of them suffer before the nineteenth of July in 
the former year‘, when the city of Rome was set on 
fire, nor after the ninth of June in the latter, which 
was the day of the death of Nero. The persecution of 
the Christians at Rome was certainly begun in conse- 
quence of that fire’; but when once begun, it seems 
to have been continued independent of it. Suetonius 
attests the fact of the persecution of Christianity under 
Nero, as well as Tacitus; but with no allusion to the 
charge or suspicion of their having set fire to the city: 
Afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum supersti- 
tionis novee ac maleficse: and the same thing is true 
of the implicit testimony of Juvenalt, 

Pone Tigellinum—teda lucebis in illa, 

Qua stantes ardent, qui fixo gutture fumant, 

Et latus mediam sulcus diducit arenam. 
And we have seen from the language of several of 
the contemporary Epistles", that persecutions against 
Christianity were going on, more or less generally, 
in the provinces, before the commencement of this at 
Rome. 

IJ. It is an ancient tradition that St. Paul, after 
his conversion, preached the gospel five and thirty 
years, until the time of his death’. but if the date of 
that conversion was, as we placed it, U. C. 790, it is 
impossible that this statement should hold good of St. 


q Tacitus, Annales, xv. 41. r Ibid. 38-44. s Nero, 16. Ὁ Sat. i. 155. 
u Dissertation ii. vol. i. 160. 168. v Hippolytus, Operum i. Appendix, 31. 


250 Appendix, Dissertation Nineteenth. 


Paul; for five and thirty years from U.C. 790, would 
place his martyrdom U. C. 825, some time in the third 
or the fourth of Vespasian. And if the term of thirty- 
five years is inapplicable to the length of his min- 
istry, how much more that of thirty-seven! But, if 
what is thus asserted of St. Paul be understood of 
St. Peter, the tradition may possibly be true; for five 
and thirty years from U. C. 783, would place Aes mar- 
tyrdom U. C. 818; sometime in the eleventh of Nero. 

III. The last half of the twelfth of Nero, U.C. 819, 
as we elsewhere proved, was the beginning of the 
Jewish war; that is, it was the beginning of the days 
of vengeance, the punishment of the national im- 
penitence and infidelity: and consequently it implied 
that the period of their trial previously was past. 
Now with the consummation of this period, it is rea- 
sonable to presume that, in the purposes of the Divine 
Providence, the close of the personal ministry both of 
St. Peter the great Apostle of the Circumcision, and of 
St. Paul the great Apostle of the Uncircumcision, would 
coincide also: on which principle, it was not, ὦ priort, 
to be expected that, after the beginning of U.C. 819, 
either of them should be still alive, or still at liberty 
to carry on his evangelical labours as before. 

IV. If the ministry of St. Peter expired U. C. 
818, and began U.C. 783, it lasted just five and 
thirty years. If the ministry of St. Paul began 
where we placed it, U.C. 791, and expired likewise, 
U.C. 819, it continued just seven years less. Now 
there was reason, ὦ priori, as we observed else- 
where™, to expect that some such ratio or proportion 
would be found to hold good, between the lengths of 
their ministries respectively, and the separate duration 
of each. 


w Dissertation xv. vol. ii. 63. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 251 


V. The language of testimony is so far in unison 
with both these conclusions, that of all the dates which 
are, or which can be assigned to the year of the mar- 
tyrdom either of St. Peter or of St. Paul, the best sup- 
ported is one or other of these two only, U.C. 818 
and 1]. (. 819*; in one of which, therefore, so far as 
we are disposed to be governed by testimony, we 
must place the death of both; or in the former we 
must place the death of the one, and in the latter the 
death of the other. 

VI. There is as much authority for placing the death 
of St. Peter in U.C. 818, and the death of St. Paul in 
U.C. 819, respectively, as for placing the death of both 
in either of those years conjointly. Rufinus, in Divum 
Hieronymum Y—Petrus Romane ecclesiz per viginti 
et quatuor annos prefuit—which being dated from 
the time when he was currently believed in the age of 
Jerome to have first come to Rome, viz. U.C. 795, 
places the last year of his bishopric, and by parity of 
reason the year of his death, in the twenty-fourth year 
current, U. C. 818 *. 


* Prosper, in Chronico, also 
supposes Peter to have sat at 
Rome twenty-five years, dated 
apparently from the first of 
Claudius, U. C. 794: Operum 
703. Eusebius does not dis- 
tinctly state, in his Ecclesiastical 
History, in what year St. Peter 
suffered martyrdom. When he 
says, however, (111. 13,) that 
Linus the first bishop died in 
the second of Titus, U.C. 833, 
having previously sat twelve 
years, he virtually supposes that 
Peter died in the fourteenth of 
Nero, U.C. 821. The Chro- 
nicon Armeno-Latinum places 
the death of St. Peter and St. 


x Lardner, Credibility, xvi. chap. xi. 


Paul ad annum Abrahami 2083, 
Olympiad 211 ὃ. A. Ὁ. £4, sup- 
posed to answer to the thirteenth 
of Nero. Yet inthe same Chro- 
nicon, the appointment of Linus, 
as the first bishop after Peter, is 
placed in the twelfth of Nero. 
Theodore Metochita and Zo- 
naras (locis citatis) reckon Euse- 
bius among those who placed the 
martyrdom of Paul and Peter on 
the same day, and in the same 
year. Cf.the note, p.245. TheCa- 
talogus Pontiticum Romanorum 
(Chronicon Paschale, ii. xvii. 
198) dates the death of both, this 
same day, June 29, but Coss. Ne- 
rone et Vetere, that is, U.C. 808. 


y Operum v. 296. ad caleem. 


252 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


Jerome supposes Peter to suffer on the same day 
with Paul, in the thirty-seventh year after the ascen- 
sion%. Referred to U.C. 78%, this date of St. Paul’s 
martyrdom, in the thirty-seventh year current, would 
be U.C. 819 *. 

Hippolytus, περὶ τῶν ιβ΄. ἀποστόλων ἃ, places the 
martyrdom of St. Paul five and thirty years after his 
conversion; which conversion, he dated in the year 
after the ascension, U. C. 783. This date, as we stated, 
may be true of the length of the ministry of Peter ; 
but cannot be so of the length of the ministry of St. 
Paul; and as referred to the former would place its 
close, U. C. 817, or U.C. 818. 

Orosius asserts that the pestilence at Rome, which 
began in the last half of U.C. 818", set in after the 
martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul; which 
might be true of the martyrdom of Peter, if that was 
U.C.. 818, but is contradictory to other and earlier 
testimony, if understood of the martyrdom of Paul. 
In like manner, Sulpicius Severus places the death of 
both just at the time when the Jews were breaking out 
into open revolt °, viz. U.C. 819, eneunte ; which on 
the same supposition would not be true of the time of 
the death of St. Peter, but might be so of that of the 
death of St. Paul. 

Epiphanius places the death of St. Peter and of St. 
Paul both in the twelfth of Nero, but not both at the 
same time in that year’: and this would still be true, 
if Peter had suffered in the first half of that year, the 

+ But Jerome’s date for the xii. where he places the death 
ascension is U.C. 784: and he οἵ Seneca, Ante biennium quam 
reckons back from the four- Petrus et Paulus coronarentur 
teenth of Nero both for the martyrio. Seneca was put to 
death of St. Paul, and that of death, U. C. 818, Neronis xi. 
Peter. Cf. also 106, 107. cap. eweuntle. 

z De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, 5. a Operum, ut supra. b Tacitus, 


ah iles, Xvi. 13. Suetonius, Nero, 39. Orosius, vii, 7. ¢ Sacra Historia, ii. 
41, 42. 4 Operum i. 107. C.D. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 253 


second half of U. C. 818, and Paul in the second, the 
first half of U.C. 819. 

Lastly, the internal evidence of the Second Epistle to 
Timothy is most in unison with this supposition, at 
least as regards St. Paul. 

For first, it was certainly written from Rome‘; and 
written to Timothy as either at Ephesus, or some- 
where in Asia‘. Secondly, it must have been written 
in the spring quarter of the year; for it desires Timo- 
thy would come to him quickly, and that before the 
winter should arrive®. The mention of the winter 
may be understood even of the autumnal equinox; and 
it must be understood of some time soon after that, be- 
fore the close of the autumnal quarter. Now if a letter 
from Rome was to reach Timothy at Ephesus, in time to 
produce his arrival at Rome after its receipt before the 
recurrence of either of those periods, and especially by 
that of the earlier of the two; it could not be written 
and sent later than the midsummer previously at the 
utmost. If so, St. Paul, when he wrote his last letter 
to Timothy, must have been at Rome between the 
spring and the midsummer of some year; which for 
argument’s sake we will suppose was U.C. 819. 

Now it is clear that he had not long been come to 
Rome; he must recently have been in Asia: the passages 
noted in the margin are sufficient to prove that». If so, 
he wrote the letter in question very soon after his arrival 
in the city : whence, if he wrote it in the spring quar- 
ter of U.C. 819, he must have arrived at Rome in the 
spring quarter of this same year. Moreover, it is also 
clear from iv. 20—especially as compared with Rom. 
xvi. 23—that St. Paul, before he came to Rome, had 
passed through Corinth; and from various passages it 


e 2 Tim.i. 17. iv. 21. f iv. 12, 13. 19, 20. i. 15,16. 18. S iv. 9. 1K. 21. 
h 1. 15—18. iv. 10—13, 14, 15. 19, 20. 


254 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


appears that before he arrived there, he had been in, 
or was brought from Asia‘. It is clear also from iv. 
16, 17, that, either in Rome or somewhere else, he had 
had one audience at least of Nero, before he wrote the 
letter; for Nero only, and deliverance from him, can 
properly be meant by the “ion, and the lion’s mouth, 
from which he says that he had been rescued. The 
very same metaphor is applied in Josephus‘, by Mar- 
syas the freedman of Herod Agrippa, to Tiberius. 
The use too of the particular tense, ἐῤῥύσθην, in speak- 
ing of this deliverance, implies that it was a recent 
event; for ἐῤῥύσθην is properly, I have been delivered. 
The whole passage means that he had been saved out 
of the jaws of a lion; that is, from a most imminent 
danger, and when there was apparently no chance of 
his escaping alive. 

Now, it is a critical coincidence that, from the be- 
ginning to the midsummer of U.C. 819. Nero would 
be found at Rome; but after that time he would not; 
because, soon after the departure of Tiridates, who ar- 
rived at the beginning of the year, he set out on his 
visit to Achaia!; and he was still in Achaia, when he 
dispatched Vespasian, after the defeat of Cestius Gal- 
lus, in the last quarter of U. C. 819. to Judea ™. Nor 
did he return to Italy before the last year of his 
reign in U.C. 820 5», 


* Dio, lxiii. r—7: Tiridates 
must have arrived at Rome 
early in U.C. 819: for he was 
nine months on the road ; and, 
therefore, if he set out, as it is 
most probable that he did, about 
spring, U.C. 818, he came to 
Rome at the beginning of U. Ὁ. 
819. 


11.185. Los elves, Lae 20, 


De Pello, ii. xx. 1. iii. 1. 3. iv. Ὡς 


k Ant. xviii. vi. 10. Cf. Ps. xxii. 21. 
1—§. Tacitus, Annales, xvi. 23, 24. Suetonius, Nero, 13. 19. 22, 23. 
n Suetonius, Nero, 25. 40. Dio, lxiii. 19. 


Now, as Corbulo, according 
to Dio, (cap. 6,) was still in pos. 
session of the supreme com- 
mand, at the time of Tiridates’ 
return to the East ; but was re- 
called and put to death by Nero, 
at Cenchree, early the next 
year, U. C. 820 (Dio, Ixiii. 17); 
we may conclude that Tiridates 
1 Dio, Ixiii. 

m Jos. 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts. 255 


If, then, it is reasonable to suppose that the first au- 
dience of St. Paul was before Nero himself and at 
Rome; it was an audience between the spring and 


the summer of U. C. 819. 


He seems to have written 


his Epistle to Timothy soon after the result of the au- 
dience, and consequently in the course of the same 
quarter; which agrees with what has been already 


set out on his return before 
midsummer, U. C. 819. The 
command in question, which 
Corbulo was still retaining, was 
not the government of Syria in 
particular, but the proconsular 
authority over all the Last, 
which had been previously given 
him. The governor of Syria, as 
such, must have been Cestius 
Gallus, whom Josephus proves 
to have been in office at the 
Passover, U. C. 819: and whose 
coins (Eckhel, iii. 281, 282) ex- 
tend ab auctumno, U. C. 818, 
ad auctumnum, U.C. 819. 
Pliny has a statement, H. N. 
xxxiv. 18: Circumtulit et Nero 
princeps Amazonem...et paulo 
ante C. Cestius consularis  si- 
gnum, quod secum etiam in pre- 
lio habuit: which appears to 
imply that Nero did not leave 
Rome for Greece, until after 
the time of Cestius Gallus’ de- 
feat by the Jews, October, U.C. 
819. But there is probably 
some inaccuracy in this state- 
ment. Nero's object in visit- 
ing Greece was that he might 
exhibit at the different games. 
His coins accordingly, and in 
particular those of Egypt, com- 
memorate his victories at the 
Olympia, Pythia, Isthmia, Ac- 
tia, Nemea, Hera, ἅς. (see 
Eckhel, vi. 278, 279, &c.) be- 
ginning, afterthe Egyptian mode 
of reckoning, ab auciumno, U.C. 


819, and extending, after the 


same, to the autumn of U.C. 
820. The regular Olympic 
year should have been that be- 
fore his departure, U.C. 818: 
but Eusebius, Chronicon Arme- 
no-Latinum, i. p. 308, it is ob- 
served of the 211th Olympiad, 
(the one in question,) Non est 
instituta, eo quod Nero tardavit 
illue advenire ; deinde vero post 
duos annos constituta est. Philo- 
stratus (Apollonius, v. 2. 213. C. 
D.) has the same statement re- 
specting the putting off of the 
regular Olympiad one year, to 
accommodate the emperor. Cf. 
Suetonius, Nero, 23. The only 
question, then, would be whether 
the time also of celebrating it 
was delayed to a later period of 
the year, or whether it took 
place as usual at the midsum- 
mer. If so, Nero would be in 
Greece by the midsummer of 
U.C. 819: and after that time 
St. Paul would not find him at 
Rome. 

Pliny’s Paulo ante in allusion 
to Cestius may imply only that 
he took the statue in question 
with him when he set out for 
his government ; which might 
be U.C. 818: as well as that 
he had it with him in the ac- 
tion afterwards, U.C. 819. This 
statue of Cestius’, and the Ama- 
zon carried about by Nero, are 
not to be confounded, as one 
and the same. 


256 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


established. But before this, it is clear from i. 15. that 
he must have had some trial or examination in Asia 
also; with the nature and results of which Timothy 
himself was acquainted, so that he is only reminded of 
them. If that was the case, we may reasonably con- 
jecture that it was at his first apprehension, and pro- 
bably before the proconsular governor ; who, in the 
first half of the twelfth of Nero, U.C. 818, seems to 
have been Lucius Antistius Vetus, consul along with 
Nero U.C. 808, or more probably, Barea Soranus °. 
But this is a point of no consequence. ὦ 

It is with much more probability to be conjectured 
that, if Paul was apprehended and tried in Asia before 
he was sent to Rome, he was apprehended and tried at 
the very beginning of U.C. 819; and it is probable, as 
in the former instance, that he was subsequently sent 
to Rome, to be tried in person before the emperor, be- 
cause he was a Roman citizen. His privilege, as that 
of such a citizen, seems to have been respected in the 
manner of his death at least, which all authorities are 
agreed in attesting was decapitation ; whereas that of 
St.Peter, who was not a Roman citizen, was crucifixion. 

The day of the martyrdom, both of St. Paul and of 
St. Peter, is traditionally reported to have been June 
29, and the tradition may be so far founded in fact, as 
that the 29th of June might be the day of the martyr- 
dom of one of them, if not of the other: and if St. Paul 
actually suffered upon any second audience and soon 
after his first, it might actually be the day of ἠδ mar- 
tyrdom: for his first audience must have been earlier 
than the month of June at least. 

When Nero set out to go to Achaia, he left his 
freedman Helius at the head of affairs, entrusted with 
absolute powers ἢ; and Helius continued at Rome in 


o Tacitus, Annales, xvi. 10. 23. p Dio, Ixiii. 12—19. Suetonius, Nero, 23. 
Tacitus, Annales, xiii. 1. 


3: 


Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ; Chronology of the Acts, 257 


possession of this authority, until a short time 
before the emperor’s return. The character and 
cruelty of this man were as atrocious as those of his 
master; and every day, during his administration, 
witnessed some execution or other *. By one of these 
two, it seems most probable that St. Paul was put to 
death, and soon after writing his Epistle to Timothy 
itself; for there is no reason to ‘suppose that he sur- 
vived until Timothy, in obedience to his wish, came to 
Italy. On that principle, though we have rendered it 
probable that he arrived in the spring, he must have 
survived until after the autumnal equinox at least. 

This circumstance in the situation of the times, 
when St. Paul suffered, viz. that the Roman empire, 
or the city of Rome, was then subject to more than one 
master, seems to be implied in the words of Clemens 
Romanus, ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων ἵ, the meaning of which has 
been much perverted. The expression may be under- 
stood of Nero and Helius; and it is but parallel to a 
similar observation of the historian Dio’s, with refer- 
ence to the same state of things’: οὕτω μὲν δὴ τότε ἡ 
τῶν ἹΡωμαίων ἀρχὴ δύο αὐτοκράτορσιν ἅμα ἐδούλευσε, Né- 
ρωνι καὶ ᾿Ηλίῳ. 

As to St. Peter—when he first carne to Rome before 
his death, and how long he had been there when that 
happened; whether he was brought there as a pri- 
soner, or whether he was apprehended in Rome it- 
self; before whom he was tried, and at what time 
of the year he suffered; these are points on which 
we are destitute of positive information, and can ad- 
vance only conjectures. The total absence of any al- 
lusion to him, in the Epistle to Timothy, seems to me 
a strong presumptive argument that he was either not 

* Dio, lxiv. 3. he was put to death by Galba, U.C. 821. 
r Ad Corinthios Epistola ia. loco citato. 5 ]xiii. 12. 
VOL. IV. 5 


*¢ 


258 Appendix. Dissertation Nineteenth. 


alive, or not present at Rome when that Epistle was writ- 
ten; and this we may presume would be the case, if the 
reasons, which we have assigned, render it probable that 
he died sometime in U.C. 818, and not in U. C. 819. 

As to the time of his death, it is possible that it 
might happen U.C. 818, about the same time as St. 
Paul’s in the next, U.C. 819. It is a singular cirecum- 
stance in reference to this point, that the Chronogra- 
phia of Nicephorus*', in contradistinction to many 
other ancient computations of the same thing, makes 
the length of his sitting at Rome two years’ time. 
If this implies that he came there two years before 
his death, it implies that he came there U.C. 816, 
or at the latest, U. C. 817; and this would agree very 
well with the probable date of his Second Epistle, 
which might thus be written from Rome just before, 
or in the midst of the persecution against Chris- 
tianity; and the allusion to his own death, as at hand", 
would in that case be any thing but out of place. 
There is no way, as it appears to me, of accounting 
for the assertion of Nicephorus, except this; either 
that Peter stayed two years at Rome on his first visit, 
or came back thither two years before his death on his 
second; in which case he might be said to have sate 
there two years. The first of these facts has, indeed, 
been rendered probable elsewhere’; but the latter ap- 
pears more naturally to be what Nicephorus meant. 
In this case, the date of his martyrdom would be U.C. 
818, A. D. 65, as that of St. Paul’s was the ensuing 
year, U.C. 819, A. Ὁ. 66*. 


* The same chronologer, and that of St. James, stoned by 
(Syncellus, i. 746. 18,) places the Jews, each about the same 
the martyrdom of Peter and__—‘ time. 

Paul at Rome, under Nero, 


t Apud Syncellum, i. 768. 5. u 2 Pet. i. 13, 14, 15. v Dissertation ii. 
vol. i. 114, 115. 


APPENDIX. 





SUPPLEMENT TO DISSERTATION XV. AND 
APPENDIX DISSERTATION XIX. 
On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 


THE Exposition of the Prophecy of the Seventy 
Weeks, which has just been completed, has been prin- 
cipally directed to shew the historical fulfilment of the 
prophecy, agreeably to those principles of interpreta- 
tion which were previously laid down. A careful re- 
vision of that Exposition, which I have thought it 
necessary to institute at the end of the whole, has in- 
duced me to think, that though nothing perhaps can 
be added to the completeness of the proof of the fulfil- 
ment of the prophecy, in all its parts; the principles 
on which the interpretation proceeds are too generally 
stated to be considered placed on a solid and substan- 
tial footing; and that in order to shew their reason- 
ableness and their truth, it is advisable to explain and 
defend them somewhat at large. With this view, I 
propose to resume the discussion of the prophecy; yet 
so as to avoid all unnecessary repetition, and to confine 
myself as much as possible to such points as are strictly 
supplementary. 

It will be found of material advantage to this dis- 
cussion, that we should possess the means of referring 
both to the original text of the prophecy, and to some 
of the most esteemed of the versions, distinct from 
our own, which were made of it in ancient times. I 
shall produce, therefore, first of all, the text of the 
prophecy, from Kennicott’s Hebrew Bible, and side by 
side our own Bible translation, with the marginal 
variations: afterwards the versions of Theodotion and 
of the Septuagint, both from tle text of Holmes’ edi- 

5.2 


260 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. ΄ 


tion of the Septuagint, with the various readings of the 
Alexandrine MS. from Grabe; and such fragments of 
the versions of Aquila and Symmachus, or of any other, 
as are to be found in Montfaucon’s edition of the Hex- 
apla: and lastly, the Latin version of the Syriac and 
the Arabic, and the text of the Latin Vulgate, from 
Walton’s Polyglott. 
DANIEL IX. 24—27. 
Hebrew Text. English Buble. 

Oar Ee yaw 24 24 SEVENTY WEEKS 


855 Sunp wy dyn qo» by yom 
py cash meen conAby pwan 
sean pin conn) cornby poy wah 

swap wip muah 


awd 525 ΜΝ po down yom 25 

yay pas mwn sy cobuny moody 

awh Din Dww Dywoun myo 
SONY pyar pom nh An 


Dw) oww oyowe sn) 26 

nynw wapm ym 15 psy mewn ΠῚ) 

yo WA AOWA Wh) RON PA OY 
:myonw myn mondo 


are determined upon thy peo- 
ple, and upon thy holy city, 
[to finish the transgression, || Or, to re- 
and || to make an end of sins, “ἔπ. 
τὰς φὴς || Or, to seal 

and to make reconciliation for yp. 
imiquity, and to bring in ever- 
lasting righteousness,andtoseal 
up the vision and tprophecy, + χοῦ. pro- 
and to anoint the most Holy. phet- 

25 Know therefore and un- 
derstand, that from the going 
forth of the commandment to 
restore and to build Jerusa- 
lem, unto the Messiah the 
Prince, shall be seven weeks, 
and threescore and two weeks: 
the street tshall be built again, + 77¢5, shal 
and the ||wall, even {1 trou- return and 

; be built. 

blous times. || Or, breach 

26 And after threescore and ® ditch. 

: + Heb. in 
two weeks shall Messiah be gtrait of 
cut off, || but not for himself : *™es- 

lo ofsth 3 || Or, and 
and the people of the prince shall have 
that shall come shall destroy »othing- 
the city and the sanctuary ; 
and the end thereof shall be 
with a flood, and unto the end AS, 
of the war ||desolations are de- shall be cut 


igh off by deso- 
termined. lations. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 261 


Hebrew Text. 
sms ynow comb nna pain 27 
by ΤΣ nat mau naw ΠῚ 
myn mda Wn Donwn tlowpw Fpo 
stony by nn 


English Bible. 
27 And he shall confirm the 
covenant with many for one 
week : and in the midst of the 
week he shall cause the sacri- 
fice and the oblation to cease, 
and ||for the overspreading of || 07 with 


ὃ 5 _ the abomin- 
abominations he shall make ὁξ able armies. 


Theodotion. 


24 ‘EBAOMHKONTA ‘EBAOMAAES 
συνετμήθησαν ἐπὶ τὸν λαόν Gov, 
ἈΦ. τὰ Ν , Ἂς ς / B a 
καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν", TOU 
la c / 5 Ν 
συντελεσθῆναι) ἁμαρτίαν" καὶ 
a 7] Or 7 Ν 
τοῦ σφραγίσαι" ἁμαρτίας, καὶ 
ἀπαλεῖψαι τὰς ἀδικίας“ καὶ τοῦ 
ἐξιλάσασθαι ἀδικίας, καὶ τοῦ ἀγα- 
γεῖν δικαιοσύνην αἰώνιον᾽ καὶ 
an , “ \ / 
τοῦ σφραγίσαι ὅρασιν Kal προφη- 
την, καὶ τοῦ χρῖσαι ἅγιον ἁγίων. 
25 Καὶ γνώσῃ καὶ συνήσεις, 
ἀπὸ ἐξόδου λόγου τοῦ ἀποκριθῆ- 
“ “ c 
ναι, καὶ τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι Lepov- 
Ν. ed fal « " 
σαλὴμ, ἕως Χριστοῦ ἡγουμένου, 
ἑβδομάδες ἑπτὰ, καὶ ἑβδομάδες 
ἑξήκοντα δύο: καὶ ἐπιστρέψει 
eee l4 -“ Ν 
καὶ οἰκοδομηθήσεται πλατεῖα, καὶ 
τεῖχος, καὶ ἐκκενωθήσονται οἱ 
καιροί. 
/ 
26 Kal pera τὰς ἑβδομάδας 
τὰς ἑξήκοντα δύο, ἐξολοθρευθή- 
σεται! χρίσμα, καὶ κρίμα οὐκ 
ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ" καὶ τὴν πόλιν 
καὶ τὸ ἅγιον διαφθερεῖ σὺν τῷ 


a Codex Alex. Ἰσραήλ. 
ε ἀνομίας. € περίτειχος. 


B σου. 


desolate, even until the con- 
summation, and that deter- 
mined shall be poured upon 
the desolate. 


The Septuagint. 


2-44 “EBAOMHKONTA ‘EBAOMAAES 
ΟῚ 4 35. τ \ , \ 
ἐκρίθησαν ἐπὶ τὸν λαόν σου, καὶ 
ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν Σιὼν, συντελε- 
σθῆναι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τὰς 
5 ig We Ve) tal 
ἀδικίας σπανίσαι, Kal ἀπαλεῖψραι 
Ν »} 7 \ “ Ν 
τὰς ἀδικίας, καὶ διανοηθῆναι τὸ 
“ - Cae / 
ὅραμα, καὶ δοθῆναι δικαιοσύνην 
le \ Co Ν 
αἰώνιον, καὶ συντελεσθῆναι τὰ 
c ὃ Ἂς / \ > 
ὁράματα Kal προφήτην, καὶ εὑ- 
φράναι ἅγιον ἁγίων. 

25 Καὶ γνώσῃ, καὶ διανοηθή- 

\ 9 θή \ ς fé 

on, καὶ εὐφρανθήσῃ, καὶ ευρὴ- 
σεις προστάγματα ἀποκριθῆναι, 

\ ’ / c Ν 
καὶ οἰκοδομήσεις ἱερουσαλὴμ, 
πόλιν Κυρίῳ. 


r /, 
26 Καὶ μετὰ ἑπτὰ, καὶ ἑβδομή- 
Nee. / / ’ 
κοντα καὶ ἑξήκοντα δύο ἀποστα- 
> a 

θήσεται χρίσμα, Kal οὐκ ἔσται, 
rn al Ἂς 

καὶ βασιλεία ἐθνῶν φθερεῖ τὴν 
, Ν Ν WA Ἂς Lal 
πόλιν καὶ TO ἅγιον μετὰ TOU 


Ὕ συντελέσαι. ὃ ὅρασιν ἁμαρτίας. 


ῃ ἐξολεθρευθήσεται. 


Ν Φ 


262 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


Theodotion. 
ἡγουμένῳ TO ἐρχομένῳ", ἐκκοπή- 
σονται ἐν κατακλυσμῷ, καὶ ἕως 
τέλους πολέμου συντετμημένου' 
τάξει ἀφανισμοῖς. 

27 Καὶ δυναμώσει διαθήκην 
πολλοῖς ἑβδομὰς μία" καὶ ἐν τῷ 
ἡμίσει τῆς ἑβδομάδος κ ἀρθήσεταί 
μου θυσία καὶ σπονδὴ, καὶ ἐπὶ 
τὸ ἱερὸν βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώ- 
sear” καὶ ἕως τῆς συντελείας 
καιροῦ συντέλεια δοθήσεται ἐπὶ 
τὴν ἐρήμωσιν. 


Aquila. 


Alius. 


The Septuagint. 

A. Ν 4 «ες / 
χριστοῦ: καὶ ἥξει ἡ συντέλεια 
αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ ὀργῆς, καὶ ἕως καιροῦ 
συντελείας, ἀπὸ πολέμου πολε- 
μηθήσεται. 

27 Καὶ δυναστεύσει ἣ διαθήκη 
εἰς πολλοὺς, καὶ πάλιν ἐπιστρέ- 

Ν 5 / . 

wet, καὶ ἀνοικοδομηθήσεται εἰς 
πλάτος καὶ μῆκος, καὶ κατὰ συν- 

ψ' nr x Se Ν Ν 
τέλειαν καιρῶν" καὶ μετὰ ἑπτὰ καὶ 
ἑβδομήκοντα καιροὺς. καὶ ἑξή- 
κοντα δύο ἐτῶν, ἕως καιροῦ συν- 
τελείας πολέμου, καὶ ἀφαιρεθή- 
σεται ἣ ἐρήμωσις, ἐν τῷ κατι- 
σχύσαι τὴν διαθήκην ἐπὶ πολλὰς 
ἑβδομάδας, καὶ ἐν τῷ τέλει τῆς 
ἑβδομάδος ἀρθήσεται ἡ θυσία, 

c Ἂς \ Sen x € | 
καὶ ἣ σπονδὴ, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν 
βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων ἔσται 
ἕως συντελείας, καὶ συντέλεια 
’ “ΕΝ XN be 

δοθήσεται ἐπὶ THY ἐρήμωσιν. 


Symmachus. 


24 ᾿Εδοκιμάσθησαν. 
᾽Εκρίθησαν. 


24 ᾿Επὶ τὸν λαόν σου, 

ἌΣ 3 ΔΆ, « ’ 
καὶ ἐπὶ πόλιν ἡγιασμένην σου, 

n / Ἂς 5 
τοῦ συντελέσαι τὴν ἀθεσίαν, 
τοῦ τελειῶσαι ἁμαρτίαν, 
καὶ τοῦ ἐξιλάσασθαι ἀνομίαν. 

26 Καὶ μετὰ τὰς ἑπτὰ ἐβδο- 
μάδας, καὶ ἑξήκοντα δύο, ἐξολο- 
θρευθήσεται ἠλειμμένος, καὶ οὐκ 
ἔστιν αὐτῷ. 

\ Ν. , \ Ν iA 

καὶ τὴν πόλιν καὶ TO ἅγιον 
διαφθερεῖ λαὸς ἡγουμένου ἐρχο- 
μένου. 


θ καὶ. 4 συντετετμημένου. 


24 Κατὰ τοῦ λαοῦ σου, 
καὶ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας σου. 


26 Καὶ μετὰ τὰς ἑβδομάδας 
c Ν Ν c / / 5» , 
ἑπτὰ καὶ ἑξήκοντα δύο, ἐκκοπή- 

ry A \ > ee iy, 
σεται Χριστὸς, Kal οὐχ ὑπάρξει 


αὐτῷ. 


κ καταπαύσει θυσιαστήριον καὶ θυσίαν, καὶ ἕως 


πτερυγίου dard ἀφανισμοῦ καὶ ἕως συντελείας καὶ σπουδῆς τάξει ἐπὶ ἀφανισμοῦ καὶ 


δυναμώσει διαθήκην πολλοῖς ἑβδομὰς μία, καὶ ἐν τῷ ἡμίσει τῆς ἑβδομάδος. 


A ἔσται. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 263 


The Arabic. 

24 SEPTUAGINTA 
HEBDOMADES pre- 
finite sunt super po- 
pulum tuum, et super 
urbem sanctam, ut ab- 
sumantur peccata, et 
obsignentur peccata, 
et deleantur iniquita- 
tes, et impetretur ve- 
nia pro impietate, et 
adducatur justitiasem- 
piterna, et obsignetur 
visio et prophetia, et 
ungatur Sanctum san- 
etorum. 

25 Scias etiam et in- 
telligas: Ab egressu 
sermonis, ut respon- 
deat et wdificetur Je- 
usque ad 
Christum ducem, sep- 
tem 


rusalem, 


hebdomades e- 


runt, et sexaginta 
duze hebdomades : 
tune iterum eedifica- 


bitur platea et mu- 
rus, et terminabuntur 
tempora. 

26 Et post septem 
hebdomades et sexa- 
ginta duas hebdoma- 
des 
ctio, et non erit in eo 
judicium, et destruet 


eradicabitur un- 


urbem et locum san- 
ctum una cum duce 
venturo: et exscin- 


dentur diluvio: usque 


The Vulgate. 

24 SEPTUAGINTA 
HEBDOMADES ab- 
breviate sunt super 
populum tuum, et su- 
per urbem sanctam 
tuam, ut consumme- 
ΠῚ prevaricatio, et 
finem accipiat pecca- 
tum, et deleatur ini- 
quitas, et adducatur 
justitia sempiterna, et 
impleatur et 
prophetia, et ungatur 


visio, 
Sanctus sanctorum. 


25 Scito ergo, et ani- 
madverte: Ab exitu 
sermonis, ut iterum 
edificetur Jerusalem, 
usque ad Christum 
ducem, hebdomades 
septem, et hebdoma- 
des sexaginta due e- 
runt: et rursum edi- 
ficabitur platea, et mu- 
ri in angustia tempo- 
rum. 


26 Et post hebdo- 
mades sexaginta duas 
occidetur Christus: et 
non erit ejus * popu- 
lus, qui eum negatu- 
rus est. et civitatem 
et Sanctuarium dissi- 
pabit populus cum 
duce venturo: et finis 
ejus vastitas, et post 


The Syriac. 

24 SEPTUAGINTA 
HEBDOMAD 4 mo- 
rabuntur super popu- 
lum tuum, et super 
civitatem sanctitatis 
tuam, ut aboleantur 
scelera, et consuman- 
ut re- 
mittatur iniquitas, et 
adducatur justitia que 
est ab eterno, ut com- 
pleantur visio et pro- 


tur peccata ; 


phetz ; et usque ad 
Christum, Sanctum 
sanctorum. 

25 Igitur scias et in- 
telligas: Ab egressu 
verbi usque ad reedi- 
ficationem Jerosoly- 
me, et ad adventum 
Christiregis,hebdoma- 
de septem erunt, et 
hebdomade sexaginta 
dus: fum iterum edi- 
ficabit Jerosolymam, 
et vicos atque plateas 
ejus usque ad finem 
temporis. 

26 Post hebdomadas 
autem sexaginta duas 
occidetur Christus, et 
non erit penes ipsam: 
Civitas etiam sanctita- 
tis destruetur cum 
rege venturo, et exi- 
tium ejus erit cum 
erasione usque ad fi- 


nem belli sententiz 


* Jerome, Operum i. p. 1013. A. these words, “ populus, qui 
eum negaturus est,” are omitted. 


S 4 


264 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


The Arabic. 


ad finem belli pra- 
scripti disponetur va- 
statio. 

27 Confirmabit au- 
tem pactum multis he- 
bdomas una: et in me- 
dio hebdomadis ces- 
sabunt altaria et sa- 
crificia; et usque ad 
extremitatem erit va- 
stitas, et usque ad fi- 
nem. statimque dis- 
ponet ad vastitatem, 
et pactum confirma- 


The Vulgate. 
finem belli statuta de- 
solatio. 


27 Confirmabit au- 
tem pactum multis 
* hebdomada una: et 
in dimidio hebdoma- 
dis deficiet hostia et 
sacrificium: et + erit 
in templo abominatio 
desolationis : et usque 
ad consummationem 
et finem persevera- 
bit desolatio 1. 


The Syriac. 


vastitatis. 


27 Et grave reddet 
foedus multis hebdo- 
mada una,et dimidium 
hebdomade, abolebit- 
que sacrificium et ob- 
lationem: denique su- 
per extremitates abo- 

zncumbet 
usque ad 
consummationem sen- 
tentiz manebit in va- 


minationis 
vastitas : 


bit multis hebdomas 
una: et in dimidio 
hebdomadis auferetur 
sacrificium meum, et 
libamen meum: et su- 
per Sanctuarium erit 
abominatio ruin: et 
usque ad consumma- 
tionem temporis im- 
ponetur finis ruine. 


* Jerome, loco citato: “ he- 
bdomada una.” 

+ Jerome, loco citato: ‘in 
templo erit.” 

1 The modern Latin Vulgate, 
as is well known, is Jerome’s 
revision of the ancient Italic, 
or Latin Vulgate, or rather an 
entirely new version of the Old 
and New Testament by him. 
If the reader thinks it a desi- 
deratum, not to possess the text 
of the prophecy as it stood in 
this ancient Vulgate—detached 
portions of it might be gleaned 


stitate. 


from the works of the Latin 
Fathers older than Jerome*—but 
the whole of it, as it happens, is 
preserved in one of the extant 
remains of the most ancient of 
these Fathers, Tertullian, Ad- 
versus Judos, cap. 8: Operum 
ii. 293. We may presume, at 
least, that this is a version of the 
prophecy which Tertullian took 
from the Vulgate of his own 
time, rather than one which he 
made for himself. In any case, 
the reader may be curious to see 
it, and to compare it with the 


« See in particular, the Libellus, De Mundi Duratione, of Quintus Julius Hila- 
rio, quoted vol. i. 464. The date of this work, indeed, is A. D. 397, four years later 
than Jerome’s version of the Prophets: yet the author of it was, undoubtedly, not 
acquainted with this version. The old Italic version, however, it is to be observed, 
there is every reason to suppose was made from the Septuagint, or other Greek 
versions, not from the Hebrew, as Jerome’s was. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 


265 


I shall offer no remarks on these versions at present, 


above ; 
rome’s. 

LXX hebdomade _breviate 
sunt super plebem tuam, et super 
civitatem sanctam, quoadusque 
inveteretur delictum, et signen- 
tur peccata, et exorentur zjusti- 
tiz, et inducatur justitia xterna. 
et ut signetur visio et prophe- 
tes, et ut ungatur sanctus san- 
ctorum. 

Et scies et perspicies, et in- 
telliges a profectione sermonis, 
integrando et reedificando Hie- 
rusalem usque ad Christum du- 
cem, hebdomades Lxi1 et dimi- 
dia, et convertet et edificabitur 
in leticiam, et convallationem, 
et innovabuntur® tempora, 

Et post hebdomadas has 
LXXII. et exterminabitur unctio, 
et non erit, et civitatem sanctam 
exterminabit cum duce adveni- 
ente, et concidentur quomodo in 
cataclysmo usque in finem belli, 
quod concidetur usque ad interi- 
tum : 

Et confirmabit testamentum 
in multis. hebdomada una, et di- 
midia hebdomadis auferetur me- 
um sacrificium et libatio, et in 
sancto execratio vastationis, us- 
que ad finem temporis consum- 
matio dabitur super hac? vasta- 
tione. 

It is evident that the above 
version approaches more nearly 
to Theodotion’s standard of the 
Hebrew text, than to that of the 
Septuagint. But that it was 
not taken from Theodotion im- 
plicitly, appears from the differ- 
ences between them; and will 


especially with Je- 


a * Tnnovabuntur.’ 


hae,” or “‘hane :’ 
ane used for the Greek article. 


still further appear by com- 
paring it with another Latin 
version of the same prophecy, 
not many years later than this of 
Tertullian’s, and still preserved 
in the De Pascha Computus, 
ascribed to Cyprian ; the date of 
which is A. D. 243. Vide the 
treatise in question, p. 689, 

LXX hebdomades breviate 
sunt super populum tuum, et 
super civitatem illam sanctam, 
ut consummetur peccatum, et ut 
signentur peccata, et deleatur 
injustitia, et expientur injustitie, 
et ut reducatur justitia eterna, 
et ut signetur visio et prophetia, 
et ut ungueatur sanctum san- 
ctorum. 

Et cognosces et intelliges, ab 
exitu sermonis ut respondeatur, 
et ut edificetur Hierusalem, us- 
que ad Christum ducem, hebdo- 
mades vii et hebdomades Lx11: 
et convertetur et sdificabitur 
platea, et murus, et exinanientur 
tempora : 

Et post hebdomadas has Lx11, 
disperibit unctio, et judicium 
non est in eo: et civitatem, et 
illum sanctum corrumpet cum 
illo duce qui veniet, et exciden- 
tur in cataclysmo, et usque ad 
finem belli breviati exterminii.4 

Et confirmabit testamentum 
multis hebdomas una: et in 
dimidio hebdomadis auferetur 
meum sacrificium et libatio, et 
super illum sanctum execratio 
vastationum, et usque ad con- 
summationem temporis consum- 
matio dabitur super hanc? vasta- 
tionem. This 


” Among the various readings of the text οἵ Theodotion in 
the latter part of this verse, one is, ἐκκαινωθήσονται., for ἐκκενωθήσονται. 


εὐν: Super 


’ as if in the Greek were read, τήνδ᾽, not τὴν ἐρήμωσιν. But hic is 
So just before, post has. 


¢ This version is 


not noticed in the edition of the Septuagint, from which I have quoted the text of 


Theodotion. 


ἃ “ Breviati exterminii : 


uy συντετμημένου ἀφανισμοῦ. Τάξει, 


which follows συντετμημένου in the Greek οἵ Theodotion, is wanting in some copies 


of that version. 


᾿Αφανισμοῦ also is among the various readings for ἀφανισμοῖς. 


266 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, Sc. 


further than to observe that the Arabic, besides being 
the most recent one, is scarcely to be considered distinct 
from Theodotion’s, especially according to the Alexan- 
drine MS. upon which it appears to have been founded; 
and as to the Septuagint version in particular, it exhi- 
bits too much confusion and perplexity, and differs too 
widely from the Hebrew text, especially after the first 
verse, to deserve the name of a faithful representation 
of the original, at least as it now stands; and if it was 
not made from a copy of the Hebrew very different from 
the present Vulgate, it must have been so much cor- 
rupted since, as to retain few or no traces of what it 
might once have been. 

It is of obvious importance to any future scheme of 
interpretation of the prophecy, that we should begin 
with satisfying ourselves of the number of weeks 
which it contains; for whatever may be meant by 
those weeks, their number is the first thing to be de- 
termined. To judge from the version of the Septua- 
gint, there would appear to be reason to conclude that 
this number was represented, if not at the beginning 
of the prophecy, yet somewhere in the course of it, at 
seventy and seven: but to judge from the concurrent 
testimony of all the other versions, we should equally 
conclude that it could no where be represented at more 
than seventy. This difference is not of slight import- 
ance: and having to choose between the two repre- 
sentations in question, it seems only reasonable that 
we should prefer the concurrent testimony of five of 
the above versions, to that of one; especially as such 


This version is Theodotion’s 
almost word for word ; and it is 
worth while to observe the scru- 
pulousness with which the au- 
thor of it has. endeavoured to 
preserve the article, where it 
stood in the Greek text, in his 
Latin translation also; render- 


ing it by i//e in some instances, 
and by Ac in others: as Beza has 
done in his version of the New 
Testament, and our own transla- 
tors, in one or two instances ; ren- 
dering it by that instead of the, 
Traces of the same peculiarity ap- 
pear in Tertullian’s version also. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 


267 


reasons may be assigned for the probable origin of the 
difference between these versions and the Septuagint, 
that we may fairly consider the authority of this last 
pro tanto to be superseded and set aside*. 


* The Septuagint version of 
the Book of Daniel in particu- 
lar, it is well known, was ex- 
cluded by Origen from his ela- 
borate edition of the Hexapla ; 
and that of Thecodotion substi- 
tuted in its stead. From that 
time forward, this version gradu- 
ally fell into disuse ; and in mo- 
dern times it was considered to 
be irrecoverably lost, until a 
copy of it was discovered in the 
Chisian library at Rome, con- 
tained in a MS. supposed to be 
almost nine hundred years old ; 
and from this it was published 
exe): 77-2. 

A comparison of this version 
in its present state, with the He- 
brew text, would shew that Ori- 
gen had good reason to deny it 
a place in the Hexapla, at least 
in preference to that of Theodo- 
tion. To go no further than the 
present prophecy: what a mul- 
titude of interpolations occur 
in the compass of four verses— 
to which there is nothing to an- 
swer in the Hebrew—and what a 
singular confusion is there of the 
last three verses in particular with 
each other! Under such circum- 
stances, the authority of the 
Septuagint, where it differs both 
from the Hebrew and from the 
other versions, as it does more 
particularly in the translation of 
the numeral notes at the begin- 
ning of verse 26, (the threescore 
and two weeks,) must® go for 
nothing. It is not easy to con- 
ceive what the reading of that 
Hebrew copy could have been, 
according to which the begin- 


ning of verse 26 would be faith- 
fully rendered by καὶ μετὰ ἑπτὰ, 
καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ ἑξήκοντα δύο--- 
without any word which might 
answer to weeks, and couse- 
quently so as to be absolutely 
ungrammatical: or the middle 
of verse 27, by καὶ μετὰ ἑπτὰ καὶ 
ἑβδομήκοντα καιροὺς, καὶ ἑξήκοντα 
δύο €rav—which. is scarcely gram- 
matical only on the supposition 
that καιροὺς ἐτῶν are to be con- 
strued tugether—in the sense of 
times or seasons of years. 

In the midst of this uncer- 
tainty, the only point on which 
we can rest with satisfaction is 
the fact that even the Septua- 
gint has rendered the numeral 
ἜΝ at the beginning of the pro- 
phecy, declaratory of the num- 
ber of weeks contained in it ge- 
nerally, by ἑβδομήκοντα ἑβδομάδες 
—agreeably both to the appa- 
rent, and certainly to the possi- 
ble sense of the original, and also 
to the construction which eacli 
of the other versions has put 
upon it. This is quite sufficient 
to convince us that that numeral 
note at least is rightly interpret- 
ed in them all. And as to the 
difference in the other instance, 
at the head of verse 26, it may 
be partly accounted for by the 
fact that ΟΣ written without 
points, is capable of denoting 
both seventy and weeks. It isa 
possible case, that the Hebrew 
text at the head of verse 26. 
might have been interpolated 
from verse 25; that is, that 
the numeral notes at the end 
of the first clause of verse 25. 


x 


268 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


It will not, I presume, be denied, that seventy weeks 
may be a just version of the numeral note at the be- 
ginning of verse 24: and it seems only a reasonable 
presumption beforehand, that if no more than seventy 
are specified at the outset, no more than seventy will 
be found to be specified in the sequel: and this couclu- 
sion is so far confirmed by the sequel, that no number 
greater than seventy appears to be mentioned in the 
course of the prophecy, though others may be so which 
are less; and still more, that how many numbers 
soever smaller than seventy may be specified in the 
course of the prophecy, yet all put together are only 
equal to seventy, or at the utmost to seventy and one 
half. It would seem to be a natural inference from 
this relation of the numbers to each other, that seventy 
—the number premised at the outset—is the total, and 
the numbers less than seventy, mentioned in the se- 
quel, are its component parts. In this case, it would 
naturally be to be expected that the several smaller 
numbers, specified in the sequel, put together, should 


might have been repeated at 
the head of verse 26. Trans- 
lated back into Hebrew, the Sep- 
tuagint version of verse 26. must 
have stood Dww ovr ΤΣ NM) 
oyus—in which the second and 
third words might have been 
fetched from the middle of verse 
25. And though the second of 
them denoted WEEKS where it 
stood in verse 25, it might be con- 
strued to denote seventy, in the 
new place, from the ambiguity of 
the word in question, alluded to. 

The same explanation may be 
given of the repetition of these 
numbers, at the middle of verse 
27—for, however they might get 
into that position, they are ob- 
viously made up of Ayaw ΠῚ 
pm yawi, aud some word answering 


to καιρούς: and oun oww follow- 
ed by some word toanswer to ἐτῶν. 
Now both these might have been 
derived upon the whole from verse 
25. or the beginning of verse 26 
—with the exception of the two 
words answering to καιροὺς and 
to ἐτῶν respectively. As to the 
second of these, Dt in Hebrew 
is capable of being rendered in 
Greek by δύο or by ἐτῶν, for it 
may denote both. The repeti- 
tion of this word by any means 
in the text would account for 
the ἐτῶν at once. <As to the 
other, answering ἴο καιροὺς, which 
in Hebrew would be ony or 
pynyn, this word actually ap- 
pears, as a various reading, in 
Kennicott in loco; to whom I 
refer the reader. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 269 


just be equivalent to the one larger number, premised 
at the outset; for it would naturally be to be expected 
that the whole should be equal to its parts. 

Now as the whole number specified at the outset is 
seventy, but the minor numbers mentioned in the se- 
quel are seven, and sixty and two, and one—all together 
equal to seventy; then if there was any relation be- 
tween these numbers to each other, and if the numbers 
were only distinct—that the prophecy did not contain 
less than seventy weeks might justly be taken for 
granted; but whether it might not contain more would 
admit of a question. Considering the modes of speak- 
ing in general, and particularly the idiom of the He- 
brew language, no one could undertake to say before- 
hand that even though the true number of weeks al- 
ways intended were seventy, and some other number 
small and insignificant in comparison of seventy; it 
would not always have been expressed by seventy, in 
any general statement premised to the whole; especially 
when that general statement at the outset was about to 
be followed by the definition of particulars in the sequel 
—which would shew the number that was actually 
intended. No one, therefore, could undertake to say 
beforehand, that the general statement of seventy 
weeks, which occurs at the head of the prophecy, on 
the principle of expressing in round numbers, what 
might really be meant of the round number and a 
fraction, might not possibly be intended of seventy 
weeks and one half, and would not have been similarly 
expressed if it was. And this possible sense of the 
general statement at the outset, is so far shewn, by the 
numbers in detail which follow, to be the actual sense ; 
that besides the seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks, 
and one week, all together equal to seventy weeks, 
which therein occur, an allusion is found to an half 


270 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


week—which is either included in the one week, or 
distinct from it. In the one case, the number of weeks 
is seventy, in the other, it is seventy and an half. And 
as the last of these cases is just as possible, and just as 
agreeable to the prima facie sense and meaning of the 
original, as the first; we may take it for granted, for 
any thing that has yet appeared to the contrary, that 
though the prophecy cannot contain less than seventy 
weeks, it may contain as many as seventy and an half. 

Again, supposing the sum total of weeks contained 
in the prophecy to have been thus determined as nei- 
ther less than seventy nor greater than seventy and an 
half; the next consideration would seem to he, Whe- 
ther these weeks were continuous or interrupted ? 
Whether they were to be regarded as forming all to- 
gether an unbroken series and succession of weeks, of 
the number in question, or only in parts? It cannot 
be denied that the determination of this point is a very 
necessary preliminary to any future exposition of the 
prophecy: it cannot be denied too that great diversity 
of opinion has existed and may exist about it: that 
some expositors of the prophecy, both ancient and mo- 
dern, have treated the weeks as continuous, others as 
discontinuous; and that the greatest difference of re- 
sults has been introduced into their respective schemes 
of interpretation accordingly. 

Now though it is barely possible that the ‘weeks 
might have been intended to be discontinuous; it is 
much more probable that they were always designed 
to be continuous. Arguing on the principles of com- 
mon sense, and from the obvious, prima facie con- 
struction of language; we can conceive no reason why 
such and such a number of weeks should be said to be 
determined for such and such purposes; if these pur- 
poses were not always intended to be brought to pass 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 271 


and accomplished within these weeks, and, consequent- 
ly, (if these weeks may only be assumed to denote a 
certain space of time,) the weeks to be as definite as the 
purposes which were to be accomplished within them. 
Now a definite time, considered in relation to definite 
purposes, must be continuous: for the time being as 
fixed as the purposes, and each determinately related 
to the other, it is manifest that the time and the pur- 
poses must begin and proceed pari passu ; the one can 
no more be interrupted than the other: while the pur- 
poses are pendent, the time must be current, and while 
the time is current, the purposes must be pendent ; 
and neither can be fully accomplished, or come to an 
end, before or without the other. 

This connection between the time assigned for the 
transaction of such and such effects, and the purposes 
always intended to be brought to pass within it, is 
clearly implied by the turn which the version of Theo- 
dotion, and it would seem that of Aquila, in conformity 
to the idiom of the Greek language, have here given to 
the words of the original at the commencement: ἐβδο- 
μήκοντα ἑβδομάδες συνετμήθησαν ἐπὶ τὸν λαόν σου, καὶ ἐπὶ 
τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν, TOT συντελεσθῆναι ἁμαρτίαν, ieee Aes 
that is, Seventy weeks have been determined upon thy 
people, and upon the holy city, for the sake of such and 
such purposes. <A set time had been prescribed for set 
purposes; and the one as determinate as the other. 
The connection between the two things is likewise im- 
plied in the version which appears to have been given 
almost unanimously to the original of the word defer- 
mined ; ἐκρίθησαν in the Septuagint and one of the 
Hexapla, ἐδοκιμάσθησαν in another of the Hexapla, pre- 
finite sunt in the Arabic, morabuntur in the Syriac, 
determined in our own Bible. The Vulgate alone has 
rendered it by abbreviate sunt, and Theodotion by 


272 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


συνετμήθησαν : between which and the former it would 
be difficult to say which was more agreeable to the 
literal sense of the original *. But whether the version 
be ἐκρίθησαν, or ἐδοκιμάσθησαν, OY συνετμήθησαν, or de- 
termined, one thing is plainly implied in each case ; 
the appointment of a set time for corresponding pur- 
poses, and therefore the time as definite as the pur- 
poses : and, consequently, the time regarded in relation 
to the purposes, continuous ; especially, if the purposes, 
for which it is supposed to be set, are themselves con- 
nected, and all of such a nature as to be accomplished 
at once, or in regular succession one after another ; 
which is the case with the purposes specified in the 
prophecy, as will more fully appear hereafter. 

Among the most natural presumptions, then, which 
we might bring with us to the consideration of this 
celebrated prophecy, this would be one ; that if it con- 
sisted of a determinate number of weeks, devoted to 
certain corresponding purposes, and these weeks only 
denoted a certain lapse and succession of time; they 
would be found to be continuous—this lapse and succes- 
sion of time, while it lasted, must be regular and unin- 
terrupted. Nor is it a ground of objection to the rea- 
sonableness of this presumption, prima facie, that the 
whole number of weeks is divided into parts ; if those 
parts are only equal to the whole. ‘There may be rea- 
sons for dividing the whole into these parts, or there 
may not. But the fact of the division proves nothing, 
while the parts may precede and follow each other in 
such an order as to make up one continuous whole. 


* The original verb is ἽΠΙΠ 
incidit, concidit, and so defini- 
vit, determinavit, or the like. 
Referred to this sense, which is 
that of cutting in two, or cutting 
to pieces, συντέμνειν, ἴῃ the sense 


of to cut short or abridge, ab- 
breviare, is as much derivative 
or secondary, as to define, to de- 
termine, to prescribe, or the like. 
Hilario, ut supra, renders it by 
ancise sunt. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 273 


The seven weeks may join on to the sixty and two 
weeks ; and the sixty and two weeks to the half week 
and one week; and the sum total may be a continuous’ 
whole of seventy weeks, or seventy weeks and an half, 
as before. 

Again, supposing the number of weeks to be seventy, 
or at the utmost seventy and an half, and supposing 
this number of weeks to be continuous; another preli- 
minary consideration would be, What are we to under- 
stand by the weeks themselves? In answer to this 
question, indeed, there is not likely to be much differ- 
ence of opinion: still it is one of those points which 
every commentator on the prophecy must either take 
for granted, or begin with settling beforehand ; and it 
is not quite so self-evident, as to be obviously taken for 
granted. For weeks, in all languages, are properly pe- 
riods of sevens, and periods of sevens of days; and if 
the notion of periodic intervals of this description 
would manifestly be inapplicable in a case like this, it 
is clear that the word weeks cannot retain here its spe- 
cific sense of periods of seven days each; though, if 
there is any propriety in the use of such a term at all, 
to denote any other period, it must still retain its 
proper general sense of periods of sevens of some kind. 
And if it must denote a period of sevens of some kind, 
and those periods some kind and description of an uni- 
form measurement of time; it would be for us to con- 
sider whether, under the circumstances of the case, it 
could, without a manifest impropriety, be supposed to 
be used for a period of sevens of any kind and descrip- 
tion of the uniform measurement of time, short of that 
of years. The measurement of time by any intervals 
less than days, would be more improper, under the 
circumstances of the case, than that by days; and the 

VOL. IV. Je 


274 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


measurement by weeks, under the same circumstances, 
would be scarcely less applicable than that by days; 
and the measurement by months, scarcely less so than 
that by weeks. In this case, the sense of periods of 
sevens of any other description of the uniform measure- 
ment of time, (which, generally speaking, is by hours, 
or days, or weeks, or months, or years,) except the last, 
being excluded ; what remains to be understood as the 
sense intended, but periods of sevens of years? 

Some commentators, indeed, have maintained that 
the Hebrew miyaw among its other senses, may pro- 
perly, and ex vi termini, denote weeks of years : which, 
if true, would decide this question at once. I cannot, 
however, agree with this opinion; to which I should 
consider it a great objection, that this possible sense of 
the word, so necessary to the true understanding of the 
original, has never once been divined, nor expressed, 
by any of the ancient versions, even those which in 
other respects are the most exact, and shew them- 
selves the best acquainted with the true sense and 
meaning of the original. But, indeed, there is no ne- 
cessity to call in the aid of nice, critical, or verbal dis- 
tinctions, to determine a point, which may so obviously 
be left to common sense as this; that a word, which 
must denote a periodic measurement of time by in- 
tervals of seven of some kind or another, and under 
the circumstances of the case, regard being had to the 
scope and comprehension of the prophecy in all its 
parts, cannot, without a palpable absurdity, be under- 
stood of any periodic measurement of time by in- 
tervals of sevens, short of years, must be understood of 
sevens of years. If days had been alluded to in the 
prophecy by name, then regard to the idiom of the 
language of prophecy, a luminous instance of which 


4s 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 275 


mode of speaking we have considered and explained 
at large elsewhere*; might have suggested that weeks 
of days might possibly always have been intended of 
weeks of years. But there is no more mention in the 
prophecy of days than of years; of nothing but weeks 
and halves of weeks; that is, periods of sevens and 
halves of sevens, which yet, under the circumstances of 
the case, cannot have their proper meaning of periods 
of sevens of days at least. 

Again, supposing it to have been concluded before- 
hand, on probable grounds, that the prophecy was one 
of seventy weeks, or at the utmost of seventy and an 
half; that these weeks were weeks of years; and that 
those weeks and those years were continuous; a very 
important preliminary consideration would still re- 
main, What are we to understand by those years them- 
selves? in other words, how many different senses 
might be given to the same word year; and how many 
different computations of time might each pass by the 
name of a year; and among these various senses, and 
various computations, which is the most likely to be 
the one intended? A classical reader would not re- 
quire to be reminded that, among some of the nations 
of antiquity, the name of a year might be given toa 
day, to a month, to a period of three, or of four, or of 
six months, respectively; and actually was so, if an- 
cient testimony is to be believed, at one period of their 
history. He would not require to be told of the year 
of ten months which once prevailed, and for a consider- 
able length of time, among so celebrated a people as 
the Romans; and even among others of the nations of 
Italy, more ancient than the Romans. 

And though these possible senses of the word year, 


€ Supplement to Dissertation xii. Appendix. 


T 2 


276 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


and these possible computations of time denoted by it, 
should all be set aside, as none of them likely to be in- 
tended in the present instance; still there is one sense 
of the term, and one calculation of the interval of time 
denoted by it, which no one could undertake to say be- 
forehand might not have been intended ; I mean the 
lunar year. No one requires to be told that the lunar 
year is not only a possible computation of time, which 
might be adopted by any nation, and would answer the 
purpose of a year, if it were; but the year which once 
was actually in use among many of the nations of anti- 
quity. In particular, it must be an obvious reflection 
that, from the time of the Exodus downwards, the 
lunar was that form of the year which, by Divine ap- 
pointment, superseded all others among the Jews at 
least, with a view to the purposes of their peculiar po- 
lity both religious and civil, and more especially to the 
religious: a consideration which will doubtless be re- 
garded, prima facie, a strong presumptive argument 
that the years in this prophecy of Daniel should turn 
out to be lunar, rather than any other; because the 
lunar would seem to be preeminently the sacred year; 
the year at least established by the Divine ordinance 
among the Jews, the countrymen of Daniel himself. 
Accordingly, it seems to have been the persuasion of 
most of the commentators on the prophecy anciently, 
that the years in question were lunar, and were to be 
calculated accordingly; nor have commentators been 
wanting even among the moderns, who have enter- 
tained the same opinion. It cannot therefore be con- 
sidered unimportant to any interpretation of the 
prophecy beforehand, that we should inquire, What 
kind of year is to be understood by the years of 
which it speaks? Very different senses, it would ap- 
pear, may be affixed to the same word, year; and 


On the Prophecy of tie Seventy Weeks. Q77 


very different results, it is self-evident, must be the 
consequence, as we aflix to it ¢his sense or that in 
particular. 

Now, though I should be far from contending that 
it was, @ priori, absurd or impossible, that the lunar 
year might be intended; yet, I think it may be fairly 
maintained that, under the circumstances of the case, it 
is not probable ; and that, for this simple reason, that 
in the popular use of language, nothing can be meant, 
or naturally understood to be meant, by an allusion to 
years, generally and indefinitely mentioned, but the 
natural, solar or tropical year; the year which is de- 
termined by the periodic recurrence of the seasons, at 
the same distance of time asunder ; the year which is 
measured by the revolution of the heavens, from the 
same fixed point of space to the same fixed point 
again; the interval which is comprehended between 
the ingress of the sun into any one of the signs of the 
zodiac, and the return of the sun to the same. No 
one, we might venture to say, in any language or 
among any people, in speaking of a calculation of time 
by years, generally aud indefinitely stated, would un- 
derstand any form of the year but this. The lunar 
year in particular would nowhere be understood to 
answer to this description; because the lunar year is 
nowhere the natural measure of the recurrence of the 
seasons, or of the periodic revolutions of the heavenly 
bodies, like this. Now when the angel Gabriel in the 
present instance speaks of such and such weeks, that is, 
such and such weeks of years, being determined for 
such and such purposes ; he uses common or popular 
language; and therefore he requires to be understood 
in the common or popular seuse of it. He speaks of 
years, and of the events of years, as men ordinarily do 
when they talk of the lapse of time to come; under- 

T 3 


278 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


standing by years nothing but the natural measure 
thereof, nothing but years absolutely, whatever that 
may be. If the lunar year is not absolutely the year, 
it cannot be the year intended in the use of such lan- 
guage. The solar year is absolutely, and under all 
circumstances, the year; and therefore it may be the 
year intended. 

It is scarcely indeed conceivable that an angel, speak- 
ing in allusion to the year, as such, should mean any 
thing but the simple and natural form of the year, the 
solar or tropical year; or that an angel in particular 
should, under any circumstances, recognise any form 
of the year, as the year, but that. As to the argu- 
ment in favour of the lunar year, as the sacred year 
among the Jews in particular, I think it can have little 
weight in the present instance, not merely because at 
the time of this interview of Daniel’s with the angel, 
not only the Jewish form of the year, but every other 
Jewish ordinance was in abeyance; not merely be- 
cause Daniel was now in Chaldza, and not in his own 
country; but simply for this reason, that none of the 
purposes, with a view to which the ancient form of the 
year among the Jews had been changed by Divine ap- 
pointment, and superseded by the lunar, was concerned, 
or about to be concerned, in the present prophecy, or in 
the purposes contemplated by it beforehand. No 
Jewish ordinance, or Jewish observance, is included in 
these purposes whatever ; nothing, in short, that would 
require the Jewish measurement of time to be taken 
in any sense into account. If the lunar is that form 
of the year, by which this prophecy calculates future 
time, it must be not because the lunar was peculiarly 
the Jewish or sacred year, but because it was the 
year absolutely. And ¢hzs it never can be supposed 
to be. 


* 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 279 


Polychronius *, an ancient Christian commentator 
on the book of Daniel, argues from the fact of Daniel’s 
fasting three full weeks, which it appears must have 
included the time from the 14th to the 21st of the 
first sacred month at least‘; that he could not have 
considered himself bound to observe the feast of the 
Passover, in the land of his captivity and in the 
third of Cyrus, B. C. 534%: why then should he have 
considered it incumbent upon him to reckon future 
time by the Jewish sacred year more particularly, 
under the same circumstances, in the first of Darius, 
B.C. 538? But, indeed, the question is not, In what 
manner the prophet Daniel might have considered it 
incumbent upon him to reckon future time, if it had 
been left to himself to choose his own mode of com- 
puting it, but, In what manner the angel Gabriel may 
most probably be supposed to have done so? for Da- 
niel is only the recorder of the words of the angel, 
and whatever be the calculation of time recognised in 
the prophecy, it is not Daniel’s but the angel Ga- 
briel’s: and no one, I should think, will consider it 
probable that an angel, speaking of the course and suc- 
cession of time to come, and measuring its duration by 
weeks of years, would understand by that allusion any 
thing but the ordinary and natural measurement of 
time to come, by years, the periodic revolution of the 
solar or tropical year. So natural, indeed, does this 
presumption appear, that nothing but the force of pre- 
judice, or the necessity of defending an hypothesis, 
could generate, it might be supposed, the least re- 


* Bishop of Apamea and the 40. 248, 249; consequently con- 
brother of Theodore of Mopsu- temporary with the fourth and 
estia; vide Theodorit, E. H. v. fifth century. 


f Daniel x. 2—4. g Scriptorum Deperditorum Vaticana Collectio, i. Po- 
lychronius, in Daniel. x. 142. E—K. 


T 4 


280 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, 8. 


luctance to admit its reasonableness and propriety at 
once. In the minds of unprejudiced inquirers, how- 
ever, it will never be deemed a ground of objection 
beforehand, to the probable success of a particular 
scheme of interpretation, that it proposes to treat the 
years of the prophecy, as what they are, or, prima fa- 
cie, appear to be; and it may always, on the other 
hand, without injustice, be regarded, ὦ priorz, a suspi- 
cious circumstance in a proposed interpretation, how- 
ever plausible and ingenious it may turn out to be in 
other respects, that it cannot hold good, except by 
contravening, 7 lémine, this first and most obvious of 
the principles which we should expect to be recog- 
nised beforehand in every scheme of the interpreta- 
tion of the prophecy—the acceptance of its years in 
their natural, prema facie, sense, of solar or common 
years, and nothing else. 

Commentators on the prophecy, however, have ima- 
gined another form of the year, which though neither 
a lunar nor a solar, some of them appear inclined to 
prefer to either. To this year, they have given the 
name of the Prophetical; as if the prophetical year in 
particular must be something different from every 
other form of the year besides: and they suppose it to 
consist of 360 days; which is six days more than the 
lunar, and almost six days less than the solar. Under 
a persuasion, too, that this was the form of year in 
use in Chaldaza or Babylon, they call the same year 
the Chaldaic; and because Daniel was now in Chal- 
dzea or Babylon, they seem to take it for granted, that 
he must adopt of course the Chaldaic or Babylonish 
year, as the basis of his own calculations of time to come. 

But, admitting for argument’s sake the supposed 
matter of fact, that this kind of year was actually now 
in use at Babylon, and admitting that Daniel was now 


ὥς 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 281 


there ; still we may contend it would not follow that 
Daniel must have used this particular form of the year 
in the present instance; for the question would not be, 
as we before observed, What form of the year Da- 
niel was most likely to use, if left to himself, but 
what form of the year the angel Gabriel was most 
likely to intend, in a general allusion to it: and if it 
is highly improbable that an angel, under such cir- 
cumstances, would mean any thing but the true simple 
and natural notion of the year, this prophetical or 
Chaldaic year in particular could never be that which 
he intended. This prophetical or Chaldaic year has 
less claim to the description of the true, simple, and na- 
tural notion of the year, than even the lunar. A lunar 
year of 354 days is an actual reality. It measures, or 
may be considered to measure, the recurrence of one of 
the heavenly bodies at least, from the same fixed point 
in space to the same fixed point again: but a Chaldaic 
year of 360 days is a nonentity. It measures the pe- 
riodic revolution of none of the heavenly luminaries. 
It is too much for the annual motion of the moon; 
and too little for that of the sun or of the stars. 

It cannot indeed be denied, in the face of ancient 
testimony, that a civil year of 360 days was actually 
once in use, among some of the nations of antiquity, 
and peradventure the Chaldees, among the rest: but it 
may also be maintained in perfect accordance to the 
same testimony, that it was never in use except at a 
period when the science of astronomy was very im- 
perfectly understood ; nor ever except under an idea 
that this form of the civil year, inadequate as it was, 
represented the length of the true solar or tropical 
year: the sun’s annual motion through the signs of 
the zodiac being supposed at that time to be accom- 
plished in 360 days exactly, at the rate of 30 days or 


282 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


one month to each. More accurate observations cor- 
rected this mistake; and ascertained the true interval 
of time taken up by the motion in question to be 365 
days, and part of a 366th. From the time that this 
discovery was made, even that form of the civil year 
which consisted nominally of twelve months of thirty 
days each, or 360 days in all; consisted in reality of 
twelve months of thirty days each, and five super- 
numerary days, intercalated at the end of the year, 
and either making part of the twelfth month, or con- 
stituting a fraction of a month by themselves—or 365 
days in all. 

There was a tradition once current in the church, 
and resting on the authority of the Book of Enoch, 
that this discovery of the true length of the tropical 
year was first communicated by the angel Uriel, to 
the patriarch Enoch, and by the patriarch Enoch to 
the rest of the world’. And without wishing my 
reader to ground his faith in this, or in any other article 
of his belief, upon the Book of Enoch; I will yet take 
the liberty of declaring my opinion, that this form of 
the civil year, of 365 days and no more, is the most 
ancient that ever was in use among mankind; that it 
was the year of the antediluvian world before the 
flood, and the year of the postdiluvian down to the 
Exodus at least ; as I think might be proved with an 
high degree of probability from scripture itself ; and 
that it continued to be in use among the Egyptians in 
particular, under the name of the Sothiacal year, the 
Thoth, or new year’s day of which, was perpetually re- 
ceding one day every fourth year, as low down as we 
have the means of tracing it—which is considerably 
beyond the gospel era. 


h Vide the Book of Enoch, chapter Ixxi—Ixxxi. Yet it is repeatedly asserted 
in this book, as it stands at present, that the true length of the solar or tropical 
year is 364 not 365 days. 


ΖΞ: 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 283 


Now, as the Chaldees were not behindhand with 
the Egyptians in the science of astronomy; and as 
there is good reason to believe that much of the know- 
ledge on this subject, possessed by the ancient Egypt- 
ians, was borrowed originally from the Chaldees; we 
may take it for granted that the Chaldees knew as 
much of the true constitution of the year, as the Egypt- 
ians, long before the time of Daniel. The Chaldaic year, 
long before the time of Daniel, is known to have con- 
sisted already of 365 days, or 12 months of 30 days 
each, with five supernumerary days, or ἡμέραι ἐπαγόμε- 
vat,as much as the Egyptian: and the common origin 
of the Chaldaic and the Egyptian year of 365 days at 
least, with the moveable Thoth, or new year’s day in 
question, always shifting backwards—and the recipro- 
cal coincidence between a given date in the one and a 
corresponding date in the other—are demonstratively 
proved by this one fact, that the years of the celebrated 
era of Nabonassar, which began to bear date at Baby- 
lon upon February 26, B.C. 747, were years of this 
description, forming part of a corresponding series of 
Egyptian or Sothiacal years, beginning and proceeding 
alike’. How absurd, then, must it be to suppose, 
that B. C. 538, in the first of Darius, 209 years after 
this celebrated era had begun to be current at Baby- 
lon, and when innumerable astronomical observations 
had been made in conformity to it—many of them 
preserved to this day in the works of Ptolemy and 
others—the Chaldaic or Babylonian year could still 
have been one of 360 days, if it ever was? or though 
it might nominally still consist of twelve months of 
thirty days each, or 360 days in all, it was not bona 
fide a year of 365? as if the addition of five days at 
the end of 360 made no difference. How absurd, too, 


i Vide Dr. Hales’ Analysis of Sacred and Profane Chronology, vol. i. p. 142. 


284 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, Se. 


to imagine that, whatever degree of astronomical know- 
ledge the Chaldees of this time possessed, the same or 
still more was not possessed by the prophet Daniel, 
who during the first three years of his captivity at 
Babylon, between B. C. 606 and 604, had been ex- 
pressly instructed in all the learning of the Chaldees*; 
and in the second of Nebuchadnezzar, B. C. 603, had 
been promoted to the head of the governors of all the 
wise men, including the astrologers, which means the 


astronomers, generally! *. 


* In the Book of Daniel—and 
in the account of his visions, 
properly so called—the allusions 
which occur, requiring to be un- 
derstood of periods of time, of 
some kind or other, are to the 
time, times, and the dividing of 
time, or time, times, and an 
half, vii. 25. and xii. 7. respec- 
tively ; and to the 2300 days, 
vili. 14: and the 1290 days, xii. 
11: and the 1335 days, xii. 12. 
Besides these, there is the allu- 
sion to the 21 days of the prince 
of the kingdom of Persia’s op- 
position to Gabriel, x. 13: and 
to the seven times of Nebu- 
chadnezzar’s dream, iv. 16. 23. 
32: neither of which, however, 
should we have occasion in this 
instance to take into account. 

As to the rest, even those 
which specify a certain number 
of days,much greater than 360— 
as the 2300, tlie 1290, the 1335, 
respectively—so long as it is 
still undecided among commen- 
tators, whether these are lite- 
rally periods of days, or periods 
of years to be understood by 
days, so long it must always be 
an arbitrary supposition to as- 
sume that they are literally pe- 


k Chap. i. 3—5. 17--20. 


riods of days which were al- 
ways intended to be literally re- 
duced to years, at the rate of 
360 days to each. Not one of 
these numbers is an exact mul- 
tiple of 360, or the half of 360. 
That which comes nearest to it, 
1299, exceeds such a multiple 
(1260), by 30, and 1335, the 
next to that, exceeds it by 75. 
Hence, supposing even the other 
two allusions to the time, times, 
and an half—combined with 
these in the same record of pro- 
pheey—to be allusions to pe- 
riods of three years and an half ; 
it would not follow that these 
three years and an half in each 
instance were intended to be equi- 
valent to any of those periods of 
days, literally understvod, or 
those periods to be reduced to 
years, at the rate of 360 days to 
each. Such a reduction would 
not be possible: and therefore 
these periods of days, even if 
literally understood, must in- 
clude more than three such years 
and an half at least. And as to 
those two periods of a time, 
times, and an half, themselves; 
if they must denote years and 
halves of years, why should they 


lii. 1. 48. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 


285 


But were there any better foundation for this ima- 
ginary Chaldaic or prophetical year, in the truth of 


denote any thing but natural 
years and halves of natural 
years? It seems to be agreed 
upon, that the same word in the 
Chaldaic, as applied to describe 
the interval of Nebuchadnez- 
zar’s madness — denotes seven 
such periods of natural years: 
and if natural years is its mean- 
ing in that instance, why should 
it denote any thing else in these? 

In the Book of Daniel, there- 
fore, we may safely assume, that 
there is no clear proof of this 
supposed reckoning of intervals 
of time greater than a year, by 
the prophetical or Chaldaic year, 
as it is called, of 360 days, but 
no more. It would be more to 
the purpose to quote Revelation 
xi. 3. xii. 6. compared with xi. 
9.11: xii. 14: xi. 2. xili.5: where 
1260 days, three days and an 
half, a time, times, and half a 
time, and forty-two months, are 
all mentioned, apparently as 
synonymous with each other. 
Whether they are actually syno- 
nymous, indeed, this is not the 
proper place to inquire. They 
cannot he so, unless the 1260 
days in the one instance be un- 
derstood literally, and the three 
days and an half in another 
be understood figuratively. But, 
admitting that they were syno- 
nymous, the style of St. John 
would be no necessary criterion 
of that of Daniel. Besides, the 
same period of time being ex- 
pressed in so many different 
ways, each must be understood 
in reference to the other, and 
each might be determined by a 
regard to the other. The 1260 
days might be one of those modes 


of describing the interval in ques- 
tion, because 42 months was an- 
other; there being no readier 
way of expressing 42 months in 
days, than by 42 natural periods 
of 30 days each. And 42 months 
might be one of those modes, 
because a time, times, and an half 
was so likewise: for a time, times, 
and an half, understood of three 
years and an half, if expressed 
in months, could not be more 
simply expressed than by 42 
months, at the rate of 12 months 
to each. But in none of these 
cases, especially in the first, 
would it follow that, in reducing 
these periods to each other, or 
determining the absolute length 
of time expressed by any of 
them, allowance was not to be 
made for the true length of the 
natural year, as greater than one 
of 360 days at least. 

In any case, there must be a 
wonderful difference between 
calculating a very small period 
of time comparatively speaking, 
according to this artificial stand- 
ard, and a very large one: be- 
tween calculating three years and 
an half, for instance, and four 
hundred and ninety-three or 
ninety-four. For what is the ut- 
most difference between the true 
and the apparent time, that 
would be entailed in the former 
case? a difference of seventeen 
days. And what in the latter? a 
difference of nearly seven years. 

Besides—when a period of 
time, whether longer or shorter, 
is expressed by days; if these 
days are figuratively to be un- 
derstood of years—they prove 
nothing upon the present ques- 


ΤῈ 


286 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


history, than there seems to be; it would still be a 
great objection to those schemes of interpretation of 


tion. If they are to be lite- 
rally understood of days—they 
are to be so; by which I mean, 
the days, at least, are natural 
days, and neither more nor less 
than what is ordinarily meant by 
a day—for commentators have 
not yet imagined a prophetical 
natural day, as they have done a 
prophetical natural year. In this 
case, the absolute length of time, 
denoted by such a period, is the 
absolute number of the days con- 
tained in it. Days may be an 
actual measure of time, as much 
as years ; and days are naturally 
a prior measure of time to years. 
Days too are a much more pre- 
cise and definite measure of time 
than years: and it seems to mea 
reasonable conjecture why pro- 
phetical periods have been much 
more generally expressed by 
days than years, even when in- 
tended to be literally under- 
stood—and the best explanation, 
too, of the secondary or figura- 
tive use of the same mode of 
speaking, when days are put for 
years—that days, as a measure of 
time, are the natural and prior, 
the more precise and definite, in 
comparison of years. 

On this account, even when 
a definite period of time, like 
this in St. John, is expressed at 
one time by 1260 days, at an- 
other by 42 months, at another 
by a time, times, and an half— 
the true measure of its extent 
must be the 1260 days—from 
the first of the number to the 
last. The other measures are to 
be interpreted by this, and not 
this by those: and as so inter- 
preted, while the 1260 days re- 


main fixed and definite, and can 
signify neither more nor less 
than that number of days, from 
first to last, amounts to; the forty- 
two months will denote some- 
thing as much less than forty- 
two actual months, and the time, 
times, and an half, something as 
much less than three actual years 
and an half, as 1260 is less 
than the sum total of actual 
days contained in the forty-two 
months, or three years and an 
half. Nor will it follow from 
this that the time, times, and an 
half, denote any thing but natu- 
ral divisions of time; and conse- 
quently natural years: only that 
they are natural years compared 
in this instance with a certain 
number of natural days—and as 
far as that assumed number of 
natural days coincides with the 
actual number contained in these 
years, so far they are supposed 
to be commensurate, but no fur- 
ther. 

Nor would it follow that be- 
cause natural years, when thus 
specially compared with an ab- 
solute number of natural days, 
less than themselves, require, pro 
tanto, to be understood as abridg- 
ed in their natural length; and 
to admit of being spoken of ac- 
cordingly—an allusion to years 
indefinitely, without any such 
special comparison with an ab- 
solute number of days, would 
admit of being similarly quali- 
fied, or similarly understood : 
which is the mistake committed 
by those, who understand the al- 
lusion to the weeks of years in 
the prophecy, absolute and un- 
qualified as it is, of prophetical 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 


287 


the prophecy which are based upon this calculation of its 
years, that the apparent length of time comprehended 


by it would differ materially from the true. 


It would 


appear to contain such and such a number of years, but 
it would really contain much less. And this difference, 
under the circumstances of the case, between the appa- 
rent length of time, and the true, would be much greater 


for long intervals of time than for short. 


Now unless 


this difference were intimated beforehand, and the 


years of 360 days each. Had 
the length of time embraced by 
the prophecy been expressed by 
days, and not by years, there 
would have been no ambiguity 
about such a statement ; nor any 
difficulty in ascertaining the true 
length of time in question: for 
it would have been a very easy 
thing to reduce these days to 
years or fractions of years; 
though no one in that case 
would have thought of reducing 
them to any thing but the cor- 
responding number of literal 
years, or parts of years. And 
had the length of time in ques- 
tion been expressed by days and 
also by years; the true length 
of time would still have required 
to be understood as expressed 
by the former, and not by the 
latter. The latter, consequently, 
it would have been understood, 
would require to be accommo- 
dated to the former, and not the 
former to the latter ; that is, esti- 
mating each in terms of the 
other, if the two measures of 
time did not absolutely coin- 
cide—we should have been ex- 
pected to conclude that the years 
were so much less than their true 
length of natural years, as the 
given number of days was less 
than the actual amount of the 
days contained in that number 


of natural years. We should not 
have been required to imagine a 
new standard of the year, to 
meet such a case—but we should 
have been expected to consider 
the natural standard, pro tanto, 
abridged and diminished below 
its natural extent; but merely 
that one mode of speaking might 
square with another—and the 
same absolute length of time, 
both as expressed by days, its true 
measure, and as expressed by 
years, its apparent measure, 
might so far be expressed alike. 
A fortiori could no one have 
been expected to understand an 
allusion to years absolutely, as 
a measure of time, of an allusion 
to any thing but natural years ; 
and as neither qualified nor mo- 
dified in any manner whatever, 
to natural years of neither more 
nor less than their natural 
length: which nevertheless they 
would do, who should first un- 
derstand the years of this pro- 
phecy, of years of an arbitrary 
and fictitious standard, the pro- 
phetical, consisting of 360 days; 
and then sit down to reduce the 
years of this description, and the 
number of days contained in 
them—to years of the natural 
standard, consisting of 365 days 
and a fraction. 


4% 


288 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 

means of correcting it suggested ;' the prophecy, gene- 
rally expressed as it is, and construed according to the 
prima facie sense and meaning of its words, would 
lead to very erroneous results. Let the standard of 
the computation of time in the prophecy be supposed 
the prophetical or Chaldaic year, as it may; still the 
staudard of computation which must measure the abso- 
lute length of time embraced by it, or the exact inter- 
val comprehended between the point where it begins 
and the point where it ends, will be after all the solar 
or natural year: for there is no absolute measure of 
time, and of the exact interval comprehended between 
one event and another, but that. These two standards 
are not the same; yet the one must be reduced to the 
other, if the prophecy is to be understood: for if the 
prophecy reckons by prophetical time, but the course 
of events is determined by solar time, the exact inter- 
val comprehended between the point where it sets out, 
and the point where it ends, can never be ascertained 
without an adjustment of the one to the other. To re- 
duce prophetical years of 360 days each, to solar years 
of 365 days, five hours, forty-eight minutes, and fifty- 
one seconds, (which is the standard of the mean length 
of the solar or tropical year, according to Delambre,) is 
a work which can scarce ever be exactly effected, be- 
cause the two standards of time in question are more 
or less incommensurable; so that such and such a num- 
ber of years of the former description can never be ex- 
actly expressed by such and such a number of years 
of the latter. But whether a given number of pro- 
phetical years admitted of being reduced to a per- 
fect equality to a corresponding number of solar years, 
or not; it may fairly be taken for granted, that the 
prophecy would be addressed from the first to hear- 
ers or readers, and would be expected to be studied 
from the first, and more or less understood, by hearers 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 289 


and readers, multitudes of whom would never be ca- 
pable of such reduction—would never be possessed of 
astronomical skill and information sufficient to qualify 
them for the task. It is much to be doubted, indeed, 
whether there was any where in the world, at the 
time of the delivery of this prophecy, or ever would 
be, before the time of its fulfilment arrived, a sufficient 
degree of astronomical skill and proficiency to qualify 
for the task of reducing 490 prophetical years of no- 
minal time, to the corresponding number of solar years 
of actual time: for the knowledge of the true length of 
the solar or natural year, such as it is possessed by 
moderns, as the result of the combined labours and 
observations of more than four thousand years, would 
be requisite for that purpose. Yet without this know- 
ledge, and without this previous adjustment of one of 
these standards of reckoning to the other; however 
plainly the prophecy might have specified the number of 
its weeks of years, it never could be understood what 
was the absolute length of time intended by it: however 
clearly it might have been defined where the decursus 
of its weeks was to begin, it never could be foreseen 
where they were destined to end. ‘The prophecy, 
therefore, would lose its chief value, and certainly its 
most characteristic feature of distinction ; which is that 
of serving as a chronological record of the future, and 
fixing events and their seasons with historical precision 
beforehand. And all this, as the necessary consequence 
of employing an anomalous standard of time, which 
had nothing to answer to it either in the solar or the 
lunar motions, over a space of nearly five hundred 
years to come; where, the longer the interval mea- 
sured by the fictitious standard, the greater the devia- 
tion from the interval actually measured by the true; 
when the whole might so easily have been obviated, 
VOL. IV. U 


290 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


and every end and purpose contemplated by this dis- 
closure of the future, and this definition of times and 
seasons beforehand, so effectually provided for, by 
speaking in conformity to the common use of words, 
and intending to be understood in the common accep- 
tation of them. 

Again, supposing the number of weeks in the pro- 
phecy to be seventy, or seventy and one half; sup- 
posing these weeks continuous; supposing them to be 
weeks of years; and supposing these years to be 
common or natural, in the ordinary sense of the word : 
the next point for preliminary consideration would be, 
Where must they be considered to begin, and where 
must they be supposed to end? that is, though the 
prophecy itself may supply no date, as such, to mark 
its own commencement or its own termination, which 
was hardly to be expected; it would still be for us 
to consider beforehand, whether it may not possibly 
supply something else, which may serve the same 
purpose as a numeral note of time might have done. 

Now to consider each of these questions distinctly— 
since the beginning of a certain interval of time is one 
thing, and the termination of it is another—we should 
have to determine in the first place, whether it might 
not be safely collected from the Hebrew text, sup- 
ported by the concurrence of all the ancient versions, 
beforehand; that the particular event, defined by the 
prophecy as the point of departure from which the 
whole series of its weeks was to take its rise, was the 
going forth of some word or commandment: and in 
the next place, whether by this word or command- 
ment, it might not be fairly presumed some decree or 
edict, properly so called, was intended ; and by the go- 
ing forth of the word or commandment, the publish- 
ing, issuing, or promulgating the edict or decree in 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 291 


question, And as all edicts or decrees, properly so 
called, are the work of persons in authority, it would 
have to be considered whether the going forth of a 
word of this description could have any other meaning 
than the publishing of the formal act of some one of the 
reigning princes, or of those in authority under them ; 
as alone competent to the promulgation of edicts or 
decrees as such. 

And supposing this question to have been decided 
in the affirmative, it would be necessary, in the next 
place, to consider, Whether the object or purpose, for 
which this word is supposed to go forth in the pro- 
phecy, that is, this edict of some one of the reigning 
princes of the time, to be issued, is not so plainly de- 
fined, that we might safely undertake beforehand to 
say what it must be? The English version has de- 
clared this object to be, “ To restore and to build Jeru- 
salem ;” the version of Theodotion to be, τοῦ ἀποκρι- 
θῆναι Kat οἰκοδομῆσαι ‘lepoveadyu; the Vulgate or Je- 
rome’s, Ut iterum eedificetur Jerusalem: between none 
of which and the rest is there any difference except 
what is merely verbal ; one and the same part of the 
original, in this instance, being construed by our 
translators in the sense of fo restore, by Theodotion, 
and as it would seem the Septuagint, in the sense of 
to answer, by Jerome or the Vulgate as simply equi- 
valent to the idiomatic Hebrew mode of expressing 
the idea of again: while in understanding the general 
object or purpose of which this restoring or this an- 
swering was a part, and an auxiliary part, to be one 
and the same, viz. the building of Jerusalem, all these 
authorities are agreed *. And that this one object or 


* The origin of the version of — easily explained, if we consider 
Theodotion, in this instance, and _ the idiomatic Hebrew way of ex- 
of the Septuagint, if that alsowas pressing ἀποκριθῆναι in Greek. 
τοῦ ἀποκριθῆναι, like his, is very This is by 127 2wn “ to cause a 


uU 2 


ὅς 


292 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


purpose must have been the main thing contemplated 
in the going forth of the word, or the promulgation 
of the edict in question, originally, may be fairly col- 
lected from the renewed allusion to it, as a thing not 
simply to be contemplated, but to be actually consum- 
mated, which occurs in the course of the prophecy, 
directly after: “ The street shall be built again, and 
the wall, even in troublous times :” where also, how- 
ever much our different versions may vary in the 
sense they have given to the last words of this declara- 
tion, they are all agreed in their rendering of the allu- 
sion to the building again of the street, and the wall. 
This second allusion to such a topic ascertains and 
defines still more clearly the object for which it was 
first mentioned. It would not be said that the street 
and the wall should be built again, if one thing at least, 
contemplated by all that was supposed to have pre- 
ceded, were not that they mzght be built again: but it 
might well be so said, if it was. 

Among the most obvious presumptions, then, which 
we might form beforehand, and bring with us to the 
further examination of this memorable prophecy, one 
would be this: That whatever be the length of time 
embraced by it, and wheresoever it might be found to 
end, it could not take its rise from an earlier point of 
time, than the going forth of some decree of some one 
of the reigning princes of the time, with this specific 
object in view, to restore and to build Jerusalem ; or, 
as we might render the first of these words *, “ To 


word to return’—that is, to 
answer. Hence, as the first words 
of the 25th verse, were, From 
going forth of a word, 2wmn), 
“‘to cause to return,” it was the 
easiest of all constructions to 
suppose an ellipsis of 725: as if 
the word went forth to cause a 


word to return, that is, to pro- 
cure an answer: which is the 
construction that Theodotion 
and the Septuagint seem to have 
put upon the text. 

* sw, the proper meaning 
of which is rather ‘‘ to cause tio 
return,” than to restore. Among 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 293 


cause to return, and to build Jerusalem ;” a decree both 
to be issued with that object in view, and actually to 
be followed by the effect, if it was to be true, as the 
prophecy proceeded to affirm, that “ The street should 
be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times,” 
or as the marginal version of our own Bible, and the 
Vulgate, have it, “even in strait of times.” Now 
the going forth of a decree of this nature would be of 
necessity a public act; especially the decree of some 
one of the reigning princes of the time: and the public 
acts of persons in authority, especially the edicts and 
decrees of the reigning princes, are solemn and formal 
things, the dates of which are either specified on the 
front of the acts themselves, or may be otherwise 
ascertained, generally speaking, with historical pre- 
cision: the issuing of which consequently is well cal- 
culated to answer the purpose of chronological notes of 
time. 

Supposing, therefore, the proper point of departure 
to the series of the Seventy weeks, to have been thus 
ascertained, from its internal evidence, to be the histori- 
cal date of the issuing of some edict or commandment 
of one of the reigning princes, with this express ob- 


the meanings of the verb in this was Jerusalem: whereas, in my 


tense, To bring or lead back, is 
the first enumerated by Gese- 
nius, and To restore, the fifth ; 
the onlytwoinstances of its use in 
this last signification, quoted by 
him in illustration of it, being 
the present text of Daniel, and 
Isaiah i. 26. The sense of caus- 
ing to return, or bringing back, 
is just as applicable to that text 
of Isaiah, as to this of Daniel. 
The version of, “ to restore,” 
supposing that to be adopted, 
would lead to the inference that 
the subject of the event to come, 
contemplated by the prophecy, 


opinion, it was not so much Jeru- 
salem in particular as the cap- 
tive Jews in general. The caus- 
ing to return is to be under- 
stood of the causing to return 
from captivity—the bringing 
back to their own country of a 
certain body of the Jews, who be- 
fore were exiles from it: and 
this causing to return or bringing 
back is just as applicable to the 
final end of the mission of Ezra, 
as to that of the mission of Ze- 
rubbabel, and is just as true of 
the effect of the one, as of that 
of the other. 


uv 3 


294 Appendia. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


ject in view; the next thing to be inquired would 
be, Where are we to look for this commandment it- 
self, and what means do we possess of fixing and de- 
termining its date? Premising only, that as the pro- 
phecy itself was delivered in the first of Darius, only 
two years previously to the final transition of the Ba- 
bylonian empire into the Persian—unless it was de- 
stined to have an immediate fulfilment, the public act 
or decree of any of the reigning princes, later than the 
date of the prophecy, must be the public act or decree 
of some one of the kings of Persia at least ; there are 
three public acts or decrees, if not a fourth, which all 
commentators are unanimous in referring to kings of 
Persia, on record in the same scriptures which contain 
the account of the prophecy; any one of which might 
appear at first sight to answer the description in the 
prophecy, as the going forth of an edict or command- 
ment of the reigning king, with this special object in 
view, to cause to return, and to rebuild Jerusalem: 
the decree of Cyrus, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22, 23: Ezra 
ji. 1—4: vi. 3, 4, 5: the decree of Darius, Ezra vi. 
6—12: the decree of Artaxerxes, Ezra vii. 11—26: 
and the decree of Artaxerxes, if that also must be 
added to the number, Nehemiah ii. 7,8. It happens, 
also, that the dates of these several edicts are so clearly 
defined by the decrees themselves, or by other criteria, 
in the years of the reigning kings—that there can be 
no doubt that the first bears date in the first of Cyrus: 
the second in the second of Darius; the third in the 
seventh of Artaxerxes: and the fourth in the twentieth 
of Artaxerxes. It is either agreed upon among com- 
mentators, likewise, or it admits of being proved with 
so high a degree of probability as scarcely to allow of 
a question, that by Cyrus, in the first of these in- 
stances, we are to understand the first Persian king of 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 295 


that name; by Darius, in the second, the fourth, Da- 
rius Hystaspis ; and by Artaxerxes, in the third and 
fourth, the sixth, Artaxerxes Longimanus: and this 
being the case, the chronology of the reigns of these 
princes has been ascertained and defined with so much 
exactness, that we may assume it as an unquestionable 
point, that the first of Cyrus must bear date from 
B. C. 536, the second of Darius, from B.C. 521, or at 
the latest, B. C. 520: the seventh of Artaxerxes Longi- 
manus, from B. C. 458, and the twentieth of the same 
prince, from B.C. 444: and the edicts or decrees which 
were issued in each of these reigns respectively, will 


bear date from the same times also*. 


* The first king of Persia, of 
whom any mention occurs in the 
Book of Ezra, is Cyrus, 1. 1— 
iv. 5: the next is the king de- 
nominated Ahasuerus, iv. 6: the 
third, Artaxerxes, iv. 7: the 
fourth, Darius, iv. 5. 24—vi. 12. 
If these kings succeeded each 
other in the order in which their 
names are recited, and allusions 
to them occur in the course 
of the history—(which is cer- 
tainly the most natural supposi- 
tion of all—) then by the first, 
Cyrus, the founder of the em- 
pire, being understvod to be 
meant, the king called Ahasu- 
erus, next to him, is Cambyses 
his son and successor; Arta- 
xerxes, the next to Ahasuerus, 
must have been Smerdis, the 
Magian ; and Darius, the next to 
him, Darius Hystaspis. There 
is nothing in the Book of Ezra 
which can possibly shake these 
conclusions : so that we may as- 
sume them as implicitly true. 
And as to the beginning of these 
several reigns—the first of Cy- 
rus will be considered by and 


U 4 


by. At present we may assume 
it to be fixed to B. C. 536. The 
reign of Cambyses cannot be 
placed earlier than B.C. 530, 
nor later than B. C. 529 ; though 
I hope to shew in a subsequent 
Dissertation, that it may bear date 
in the former of these years. In 
like manner the reign of Smer- 
dis the Magian bears date B.C. 
522. The reign of Darius Hy- 
staspis is commonly dated B. C. 
521: but I hope to shew in the 
subsequent Dissertation alluded 
to, that it really bore date B.C. 
522. 

The next king of Persia men- 
tioned in Ezra is Artaxerxes, 
whose name first occurs, pro- 
leptically, at vi. 14, and in the 
regular course of the history at 
vii. 1—and thenceforward, to the 
end of the book. It is needless 
to add, that this Artaxerxes was 
Ezra’s own contemporary; and 
as it appears from a comparison 
of the Book of Ezra with the 
Book of Nehemiah, see chap. 
viii. I—xii. 26. 36, Nehemiah’s 
contemporary also. 

Opinions 


296 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


Now it is evident that edicts or decrees of the reign- 
ing princes of the time, bearing date in such different 


Opinions have been divided 
whether this Artaxerxes was the 
sixth king of Persia, (that is, 
the sixth, if we omit the name 
of the usurper Artabanus,) Ar- 
taxerxes Longimanus, the son of 
Xerxes and grandson of Darius 
Hystaspis, or the eighth, (if we 
omit in like manner the short 
reigns of Xerxes ii. and Sogdi- 
anus,) Artaxerxes Mnemon, the 
son of Darius Nothus. But the 
fact last mentioned, that Ezra 
and Nehemiah were contempo- 
raries, and both lived in the reign 
of an Artaxerxes, the one in his 
sixth and seventh, the other in 
his twentieth and thirty-second, 
is demonstrative prouf that they 
both lived in the reign of the 
same Artaxerxes ; and therefore 
both under Artaxerxes Longi- 
manus, or both under Artaxerxes 
Mnemon ; the only two kings of 
Persia called by that name be- 
tween Xerxes and Artaxerxes 
Ochus, or Darius Codomannus ; 
each of whom too reigned forty 
years, and upwards. And this 
being the case, if Nehemiah was 
contemporary with the reign of 
Artaxerxes Longimanus, so was 
Ezra; and that Nehemiah was 
so—such reasons were assigned, 
Dissertation xvi. vol. ii. 102— 
107, as appear to me competent 
to prove it; to which I refer 
the reader. 

The Artaxerxes of Ezra was 
consequently Artaxerxes Longi- 
manus, if he flourished himself 
in the seventh of the same Ar- 
taxerxes, of whom Nehemiah 
flourished in the twentieth. Add 
to this, that Ezra vi. 14. couples 
Cyrus, Darius, and some Arta- 


xerxes, together, as all concur- 
ring more or less in a common 
purpose, which concerned the re- 
building of the temple; and that 
he means by this Artaxerxes the 
Artaxerxes of his own time, may 
be fairly collected both from the 
reason of the thing, and from 
the testimony of vil. 1. 7, 8.11. 
13—23. ix.g. This is incredible 
of Artaxerxes Mnemon, but not 
so of Artaxerxes Longimanus. 
In the same text he speaks of 
the same elders as building and 
finishing the temple, through the 
reigns of all these kings—which 
was a possible circumstance, be- 
tween B.C. 536, the first of Cy- 
rus, and B. C. 458, the seventh 
of Artaxerxes Longimanus, (a 
period of seventy-eight years in 
all,) and certainly between B.C. 
521, the second of Darius, and 
the same date, (an interval of 
sixty-three years,) but we may 
venture to say, impossible be- 
tween either of these dates and 
the seventh of Artaxerxes Mne- 
mon, B. C. 399; 137 years in 
the one case, and 122 in the 
other. Add to which, that it is 
incredible either that the temple 
should have continued more or 
less unfinished—or Jerusalem 
more or less unbuilt—or the 
constitution of things both in 
church and state, more or less 
unsettled—to so late a period in 
Jewish history, after the return 
from captivity under Cyrus, as 
the seventh of Artaxerxes Mne- 
mon, B. C. 399. Add, too, that 
every king’s reign in succession, 
between Cyrus and Darius, be- 
ing mentioned in its turn pre- 
viously, even that of the usurper 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 297 


years respectively, cannot all be assumed as the ἀρχὴ 
or point of departure to one and the same series and 
succession of events: it is evident also that great will 
be the difference, both as to the beginning and as to the 
termination of that succession, as we fix upon one in 
preference to another. It is to be presumed, however, 
that some one of them must be the true date always 
intended by the prophecy, though each of them cannot 
be; or else we must fall into the absurdity of sup- 
posing that nothing still future, however well qualified 
to answer the description of the going forth of a word, 
to cause to return, or to build, was contemplated by the 
prophecy beforehand, or nothing which history, either 
sacred or profane, has given us the means of deter- 
mining. Let us, therefore, consider each of these de- 


Smerdis, who reigned little more 
than six months ; it is very im- 
probable that not one of the 
kings should be mentioned sub- 
sequently, who came between 
Darius and Artaxerxes Mnemon, 
before Artaxerxes Mnemon him- 
self; which yet must be the case 
if the Artaxerxes of Ezra was 
Artaxerxes Mnemon: for it is 
very improbable that the reigns 
of six kings, through the inter- 
mediate period from B.C. 486, 
the last of Darius, to B.C. 399, 
the seventh of Artaxerxes Mne- 
mon—Xerxes, Artabanus, Arta- 
xerxes Longimanus, Xerxes li. 
Sogdianus, and Darius Nothus— 
one of whom reigned twenty 
years, another forty, and a third 
nineteen years at least—should 
have brought forth nothing so 
intimately connected with. Jew- 
ish affairs, as of necessity to oc- 
casion their being mentioned. 


Add, too, that the Book of Ezra 


both stands at present, and al- 
ways has stood in the order of 
collocation, before the Book of 
Nehemiah: and not one of the 
historical books of the Old Tes- 
tament can be proved to stand 
out of its place, in the order of 
time, relatively to the rest. The 
Book of Ezra, then, was always 
understood to belong to an ear- 
lier period in Jewish history 
than the Book of Nehemiah ; so 
that if the Book of Nehemiah 
belongs to the reign of Arta- 
xerxes Longimanus, that of Ezra 
could never belong to the reign 
of Artaxerxes Mnemon. This 
being the case—the beginning 
of the reign of Artaxerxes Lon- 
gimanus is fixed to the spring or 
summer quarter of B. C. 464: 
See Dissertation xv. vol. ii. 16, 
17: and the seventh of his reign 
bears date from the same time 


B.C. 458. 


4 


298 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


crees and their dates, in its turn; beginning with the 
last in order, the decree supposed to have been given 
in favour of Nehemiah, Β. C. 444. 

Though the date of the mission of Nichctitiils has 
been repeatedly assumed as the point of departure to 
the prophecy of the Seventy weeks; it cannot be 
denied that there is, and must always be, the greatest 
apparent improbability, @ priori, that the date of an 
event, which cannot be placed either earlier or later 
than B.C. 444, should ever turn out to be the true 
point of commencement to a series of seventy weeks of 
years, extending over an interval of 490 years at least ; 
if the whole was destined to come to a close, in any 
sense, about the period of the Gospel era. Very great 
ingenuity, and more of accommodation and contrivance 
than can possibly be consistent with the plain construc- 
tion of language, and the straightforward reckoning of 
time, it is evident, must be necessary to bring 490 
years within the compass of 444, or within any rea- 
sonable distance of such limits. And this single con- 
sideration must always be, prima facie, a strong 
ground of presumption beforehand, that no scheme of 
interpretation can possibly be found to answer the con- 
ditions of the prophecy, in an unstrained and natural 
manner, which bears date from the mission of Nehe- 
miah, B. Ὁ. 444. 

The truth is, if we have rightly collected from the 
internal evidence of the prophecy itself, that one of the 
first and most cardinal of these conditions is, its bear- 
ing date from the going forth of some word or com- 

mandment, that is, the date of some public act, the 
promulgation of some edict or decree, of one of the 
reigning princes of the time; it may justly be matter 
of surprise, that commentators on the prophecy have 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 299 


referred so generally to the decree of Artaxerxes in 
favour of Nehemiah, as if the existence of such a de- 
cree, whatever we might think of its claims to be con- 
sidered the date of the prophecy, were an acknowledged 
fact, which no one could think of disputing: whereas, 
if any such decree was ever given, it is certainly no 
where on record—and without proof of its existence 
on record somewhere, it must always be a gratuitous 
assumption, that it was ever actually given. 

All that is actually on record in the Book of Nehe- 
miah, with respect to his own mission, amounts to 
this: That having, humanly speaking, by accident— 
that is, through the report of his kinsman Hanani, and 
certain others of the men of Judah—heard at Shushan, 
or Susa, in the month Chisleu, in the twentieth of 
Artaxerxes, an account of the state of things in Ju- 
dea at the time—that the remnant that were left of 
the captivity there in the province were in great af- 
fliction and reproach: that the wall of Jerusalem also 
was broken down, and the gates thereof were burned 
with fire—he was much moved and distressed by this 
report: so much so that four months after this, in the 
month Nisan, in the same twentieth of Artaxerxes, when 
it was his duty to attend upon the king in his capacity 
of cup-bearer—the king was struck by his appearance, 
which was that of a person labouring under much 
sorrow and depression of spirits, who beforetime had 
not been sad in his presence. It appears from the ac- 
count that one person only was present besides at the 
time, viz. the queen, who was sitting by the king. We 
need not enlarge upon the particulars of the conver- 
sation between the king and Nehemiah, which ensued. 
Let the result be summed up in the words of Nehe- 
miah: And the king said unto me, (the queen also sit- 
ting by him,) For how long shall thy journey be? and 


300 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


when wilt thou return? So it pleased the king to send 
me; and I set him a time™. 

Now what is there in all this account, so far as it 
has yet proceeded, to justify us in considering it any 
thing but the history of a strictly private transaction ? 
public only in the final end proposed by it, and in the 
consequences which were designed to arise out of it. 
What is there, which by any possibility of construction 
can be reasonably supposed to answer the description 
of that going forth of the word or commandment, 
which we have concluded to constitute the true date 
of the prophecy ? Is the petition of a single individual, 
made and preferred in the presence of only two more, 
to be construed into a public and formal act ? Is a com- 
mission, which for aught that appears to the contrary 
was confined to the bosom of Nehemiah himself, until 
he came to Jerusalem, to be confounded with a royal 
edict and proclamation, made known and promulgated 
in all parts of an extensive empire? or is the conces- 
sion of special leave to a single Jew, to go from the 
court of Persia to Jerusalem on a certain errand, and 
for a limited time, whatever might be its object, to be 
considered the same thing with the going forth of an 
edict, from the reigning king of Persia, empowering 
the whole nation of the Jews, or as many as pleased, 
to return from all parts of the empire, and to resume 
possession of their own country, and their own place 
among nations as before ? 

It may possibly, however, be objected, that Nehe- 
miah proceeds to tell us, in the sequel of his account”, 
that he asked letters of the king, which letters were 
given him; and that these letters contained the decree 
in question. It is to be observed, however, that what- 
soever these letters might contain, they were neither 


m Nehemiah ii. 6. Cf. i. t—4. ii. r—6. DE 7s Os 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 301 


asked for nor given, until leave had been obtained by 
Nehemiah to go upon his mission; which leave was 
conceded to him in answer to his simple request, with 
no mention of any decree preliminary or auxiliary to 
it, and with no condition stipulated for beforehand, ex- 
cept that he should go and return within a certain 
time. And with respect to the contents of these let- 
ters, which are nowhere specified except in general 
terms, it appears that the letters themselves were of 
two descriptions, and addressed to two distinct kinds 
of persons; and though both of them might be connected 
with the purpose of Nehemiah’s mission, they have nei- 
ther of them the nature of a public act or decree, pro- 
perly so called. The object of the first was to procure 
Nehemiah a safe conduct, as far as Judzea; which was a 
very necessary precaution, considering the length of the 
journey, and his travelling in his individual capacity. 
They were consequently addressed to the governors be- 
yond the river, that is, of the provinces through which 
he should have to pass, beyond the precincts of Susiana* 


* Beyond the river—which ad- 
mits of being understood of be- 
yond the Tigris, as much as be- 
yond the Euphrates ; and in the 
present instance is more neces- 
sary to be understood of the 
two: for one, setting out from 
Susa to go to Jerusalem, would 
have to cross both the Tigris 
and the Euphrates; but as the 
province of Susiana itself was 
bounded, or nearly so, by the 
Tigris, not by the Euphrates, he 
would have to cross the Tigris 
first. We may presume, then, 
that the Tigris is the river first 
and properly meant in this in- 
stance. We may presume, also, 
that in the province of Susiana 
Nehemiah would want no let- 


ters to any governor as such; 
for we can hardly suppose that 
Susiana, containing the capital 
of the empire, and the seat 
of the residence of the kings 
of Persia themselves, would be 
subject to a satrap or viceroy— 
like one of the provinces more 
remote—and not to the king di- 
rectly. The first letters, then, 
which Nehemiah would require 
to the satraps or governors, 
properly so called, who might 
be of service to him in his jour- 
ney to Juda, or through whose 
provinces he would have to pass 
—would be strictly to the gover- 
nors beyond the Tigris first, 
and to those beyond the Eu- 
phrates last. 


Γ᾿ 


302 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


—in order, to use his own words?®, that they should con- 
vey him over until he came into Judah. The object 
of the second was to enable him to procure the means 
of obtaining timber, at the king’s expense, in order, as 
he also expresses it”, to make beams for the gates of 
the palace, which appertained to the house, and for 
the wall of the city, and for the house that he should 
enter into: and these were directed accordingly to 
Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest. Beyond these 
purposes, both of them connected, it is true, with the 
final end of his mission, and both of them addressed to 
persons whose assistance would be necessary to carry 
it into effect; but neither of them coming up to the 
notion of a royal edict or proclamation, much less of an 
edict or proclamation addressed to a nation—it does 
not appear that these letters had any object in view. 
Let us, therefore, proceed to consider the decree of 
Darius, the date of which was B. C. 520 or 521. 

We will not repeat the objection which was lately 
made to the date of the mission of Nehemiah, though 
it is equally applicable to that of the decree of Darius, 
considered as the true point of departure to an interval 
of seventy prophetical weeks, or upwards, which must 
terminate at, if not later than, the Gospel era itself. 
The decree of Darius may not at first sight appear so 
liable to the further objection, that it does not answer 
the idea of the going forth of the word in the pro- 
phecy, by not coming up to the idea of a public or 
formal act: for it was certainly an edict of the reigning 
king, and published in the shape of a decree. Yet 
whether it corresponds altogether to the description of 
a public act, properly so called, especially that kind of 
act which is implied in the going forth alluded to in 
the prophecy, may very well admit of a question. It 


0 ii. 7. p Ibid. 8. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 303 


was issued, it appears, in reply to an application to the 
king from certain individuals, described as Tatnai, 
governor on this side the river, and Shethar-boznai, and 
his companions the Apharsachites, which weve on that 
side the river; and it was directed to these persons in 
reply’. This application too seems to have been pro- 
duced not by any wish on the part of those who made 
it, vexatiously and wantonly to impede the work on 
which the Jews were engaged, but simply by the fact 
of the resumption of that work, which was the build- 
ing of the temple, after a cessation of seven years more 
or less; and a doubt on the part of the authorities 
beyond the river, whether the renewal and continuance 
of an undertaking so long suspended, and for which 
the Jews had to plead only a permission said to have 
been given them by Cyrus fifteen years before, would 
be agreeable to the will of the king then reigning, 
whose pleasure, at least, upon that subject, had never 
yet been consulted’. The decree of Darius was issued 
to set them right, and to intimate what he wished to 
be done’. Its just description therefore is that of a 
rescript of the emperor for the time being, founded 
upon the case ; or a special answer to a special inquiry, 
to know the royal will and pleasure in a case of diffi- 
culty and doubt: but not that of an edict or decree, in 
devising or promulgating which the king acted mainly 
of his own accord: and as such it would no more de- 
serve the name of that going forth of the word, which 
is implied in the prophecy, than one of the rescripts of 
Trajan to the letters of Pliny, would do so to the title 
of an imperial edict or constitution. 

Independent, however, of this objection, independent 
also of the chronological objection before adverted to— 


q Ezra v. 3—6. vi. 6. 13. vr See Ezra v. 7—17. 5. See vi. 6, 7, 8. 
is, WS sy 


ὥς 


304 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


still we may contend that, as the decree of Darius was 
merely the reinforcement of the decree of Cyrus, and 
even a repetition of it in terms‘, and confined precisely 
to the same objects with that; the decree of Darius 
could never be first and properly intended by the pro- 
phecy, unless we should suppose it capable of the sin- 
gular anomaly, or ὕστερον πρότερον, of leaving entirely 
out of the scope of its comprehension the original enact- 
ment of a certain public measure, and confining its 
attention solely to the reinforcement or repetition of it. 
For the purpose of the prophecy, the decree of Darius 
must be considered as virtually anticipated in the de- 
cree of Cyrus. The decree of Cyrus was the principal, 
the decree of Darius the subordinate, event of that 
description, which it can be supposed to have in view. 
Let us, therefore, proceed to consider the decree of 
Cyrus, the date of which we have assumed to be B.C. 
536. 

The decree of Cyrus is liable to no such objection, 
as that it was not strictly and properly a public act. 
We may admit to the fullest extent, that it was a royal 
edict and proclamation, emanating, for aught which 
appears to the contrary, from the freewill and pleasure 
of the reigning prince, and promulgated in all parts of 
his dominions, or wheresoever the parties concerned in 
the purposes contemplated by it were to be found. We 
may concede, therefore, that the promulgation of such 
a decree would strictly answer to the idea of that going 
forth of some word or commandment, specified at the 
outset of the prophecy ; and considered as a going forth, 
however public, and as a word or commandment, how- 
ever authoritative—but as nothing more. 

If so, what remains, it may be asked, but that we 
fix upon the edict of Cyrus, as the point of departure 


t Ezra vi. 3—5. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 305 


intended by the prophecy? First and properly, we 
may reply, because the merely going forth of a word 
or commandment, that is, the mere issuing of a royal 
proclamation, does not all at once identify it with the 
going forth of the word in the prophecy ; nor unless 
the royal proclamation is issued, and the word goes 
forth in the prophecy, for one and the same purpose in 
each case. But does not the word, it may be demanded, 
in the prophecy go forth, that the dispersed and captive 
Jews should return? And does not the proclamation of 
Cyrus give them permission to return? It gives them 
permission to return—but notwithstanding, if we are 
not to be wise beyond what is written, if we are not to 
assign ends and purposes either for the going forth of 
the word or for the edict of Cyrus, beyond what they 
have each assigned for themselves; the edict of Cyrus 
is not necessarily the same with the word that goes 
forth in the prophecy, because the one gives permission 
to return, as well as the other. The mere fact of the 
return of the dispersed and captive Jews to their own 
country, is not the whole of the object contemplated in 
either case. The return is supposed to have an end or 
an effect ulterior to itself, or distinct from itself, in 
either case; and this end or this effect is not the same 
in each. This end or this effect is specified or implied 
in each case to be to rebuzld, as well as to return; but 
with respect to the subject of this rebuilding—if it 
will only be granted that the temple might be one 
subject of that description, and the city of Jerusalem 
might be another; then a permission to rebuild the 
temple will never be necessarily a permission to rebuild 
the city ; and permission to rebuild the temple, both in 
the design and in the effect, might be ove thing, and 
permission to rebuild the city another. 

Now this distinction, which in the nature of things 

VOL. IV. x: 


306 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation ἢ ifteenth, &c. 


was a possible one, is in reality matter of fact. There 
is no mention of the city in the edict of Cyrus, and 
none of the temple in the supposed going forth of the 
word in the prophecy. Permission to build again, so 
far as it is accorded by the edict of Cyrus, is permission 
to rebuild the temple; and permission to build again, 
so far as it is implied in the word that goes forth in 
the prophecy, is permission to rebuild the city. It 
seems a just inference from this distinction, that the 
building of the temple was the most prominent thing 
contemplated. beforehand in the decree of Cyrus, but 
the building of the city the most prominent object in 
the word that goes forth in the prophecy. And these 
two things being neither the same in themselves, nor 
necessarily combined in the event; it is equally gratu- 
itous, without warrant from scripture to that effect, to 
assume that the one was zztended in the other, as that 
the one was effected in the other. 

The greater prominency of the latter of these two 
effects, the building of the city in particular, at least 
in the eye of the prophecy, and in the final end as- 
signed to the going forth of the word, which it had in 
view, appears further from that declaration of the 
effect to ensue, in conformity to the object supposed to 
be contemplated ; ‘The street shall be built again, and 
the wall, even in troublous times,” or, “‘ even in strait 
of times.” Neither here is there any mention of the 
temple, notwithstanding the plain mention of the street 
and the wall. If this omission is not purely accidental, 
(which no one, surely, will maintain,) then it will fol- 
low, either that the temple was a minor object in the 
estimation of the prophecy compared with the street 
and the wall—or, if that never can be supposed, then 
that the building of the temple being one thing, and 
the restoration of the street and the wall being an- 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 307 


other, the building of the temple was over, and conse- 
quently could no longer be alluded to as an event to 
come, at the very point of time at which the restoration 
of the street and the wall was still to begin. 

The object of the return in the decree of Cyrus, in 
like manner, is so plainly set forth as the rebuilding of 
the temple, and so clearly restricted to that one effect ; 
that in each of the three accounts of that decree, which 
are on record in scripture, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23: Ezrai. 
2-4: vi. 3-5: nothing else is ever hinted at, much less 
expressed 7” terminis: and in every allusion to the 
powers or privileges, conceded by that decree, in general 
terms, as Ezra ii. 68: iii. 7: iv. 3: iv. 24: v. 13-17: vi. 
14; they are supposed to extend to nothing but the 
reviving of the temple service, the rebuilding of the 
house of God, or the like. And though we cannot but 
suppose, that the re-erection of the temple upon its 
ancient site, or the revival of the Levitical service in 
its former seat, would necessarily lead to the re-occu- 
pation of the parts about the temple, the construction of 
houses and dwellings on a more or less general scale, 
in and about Jerusalem, and so far to a rebuilding of 
the city on its ancient foundations, which would justify 
the coupling of that event also with the rebuilding of 
the temple, in the well known prophecy of Isaiah—and 
both, as the effect of one and the same act or permis- 
sion of Cyrus‘; yet this is no objection to the matter 
of fact for which we are here contending ; that the one 
thing intended by the permission of Cyrus to the Jews 
to return, was the rebuilding of the temple, and the 
restoration of the temple service. If this led to the 
rebuilding of Jerusalem to any extent, which under 
the circumstances of the case it could not fail to do; 
yet pro tanto, and so far as the proper object contem- 


ἃ Isaiah xliv. 28. 
me 


308 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


plated by his permission to return was concerned, the 
rebuilding of Jerusalem was entirely ἐκ παρέργου and 
κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς, in comparison of the rebuilding of the 
temple. And what was that rebuilding of Jerusalem, to 
which the permission of Cyrus to return and rebuild the 
temple seems to have led, per accidens as it was? 'The 
collection of a few settlers, more or less in number, on the 
site of what once was Jerusalem; and the construction 
of a few houses and dwellings for them to live in, even 
less numerous than the settlers. The city was not 
fully peopled- with inhabitants, nor the defences about 
it effectually raised as before, until the time of Nehe- 
miah ; that is, there was neither street nor ditch, pro- 
perly so called, at Jerusalem, for 92 years after this 
return. And what is a city, without street or wall, in 
comparison of its former self ? or even of the essence 
of its being? Or how can that city be said to be yet 
in being, much less in the perfection of its being, which 
wants both these things—or possesses them only im- 
perfectly ? 

In a word, it appears from the Book of Ezra, that 
the Jews who came back with Zerubbabel considered 
themselves authorized by the decree of Cyrus to re- 
build the house of God at Jerusalem; but it does not 
appear that they considered themselves empowered by 
it to rebuild the city. It does not appear, at least, 
that their enemies thought them to be so. The fourth 
chapter of Ezra shews that even these adversaries 
either did not attempt to stop, or did not succeed in 
stopping the work of the rebuilding of the temple; in 
which even ¢hey could not deny that the builders had 
the authority of the decree of Cyrus ; until they were 
able to accuse them of combining with the rebuilding 
of the temple the design of rebuilding the city, that is, 
“to set up the walls, and to join the foundations :” 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 309 


Ezra iv. 11-16. Whether this accusation was a ca- 
lumny on their part, or whether it was not, it proves 
alike that the only colourable pretence which they had, 
or were conscious of having, for denouncing the Jews 
to the king of Persia, was to have it in their power to 
lay to their charge not the actual rebuilding of the 
temple, but the adleged rebuilding of the city; the rea- 
son of which would appear at once, if the Jews, in at- 
tempting to rebuild their city as well as the temple, 
were exceeding, or might be made to appear to be ex- 
ceeding, their commission from Cyrus, who had given 
permission for the one, but not for the other. Ac- 
cordingly, neither was there any mention of the build- 
ing of the temple in the accusation sent by them on this 
occasion to the king, but only of that of the city and 
its walls; neither is there any allusion to the former, 
in the answer of the king, forbidding the further pro- 
gress of the work—but only to the latter; see iv. 21: 
though it is easy to see that to forbid the progress of 
the rebuilding of the city, under such circumstances, 
was virtually to forbid the continued rebuilding of the 
temple; and therefore, we need not be surprised that, 
after the receipt of this rescript of Artaxerxes, or the 
usurper Smerdis, the work of the temple also should 
have ceased, and fallen into abeyance for a time; Ezra 
iv. 24. 

In addition to the above considerations, there are 
others, which may be urged to a like effect; as fol- 
lows. First, it would seem to be a natural inference 
from the analogy of the prophecy in the rest of its 
predictions, that the event which it alludes to, first of 
all, under the name of the going forth of the word or 
commandment, should still be something distant, com- 
pared with the time of its own delivery, like every 
thing else to which it relates. But according to one 

x 3 


ὅς 


310 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


mode of reckoning the years of Cyrus*, the edict of 
Cyrus was either issued or on the point of being so, at 


* The mode in question is that 
which has the sanction appa- 
rently of the canon of Ptolemy, 
where the first of Cyrus is made 
to bear date B. C. 538. 

I have declared my opinion, 
however, with respect to this 
statement, (Appendix, Disserta- 
tion xii. vol. ui. 514.) that it 
is to be understood as merg- 
ing the years of Darius at Baby- 
lon with those.of Cyrus after 
him, though probably at Baby- 
lon also; and this explanation 
is strongly confirmed by the 
fact, that the difference between 
the common length assigned to 
the reign of Cyrus, as dated from 
B. C. 536, and the length as- 
signed to it by the canon, dated 
from B.C. 538, amounts just to 
twoyears ; and one or two years, 
but no more, would be the ut- 
most length of time which there 
would be any reason from the 
testimony of the Book of Daniel 
to assign to the reign of Darius: 
for that book mentions no year 
of his reign but the first, though 
it mentions both the first and 
the third of Cyrus. It was very 
possible that Darius might 
reign just two years, at Baby- 
lon, but no more ;_ being an old 
man at the time of his acces- 
sion, or sixty-three years of 
age. In this case, Cyrus would 
actually succeed him, B. C. 536, 
just two years after the date in 
the canon, B. C. 538. 

The strongest argument after 
all is the fact that, according to 
the Book of Daniel, the first of 
Darius at Babylon must bear 
date B. C. 538. This fact is 
established by the testimony of 


the one and twenty days’ interval 
between the first of his reign 
there, and the third of Bel- 
shazzar, B.C. 559; of which so 
much has been said, Appendix, | 
Supplement to Dissertation xii. 
vol. "1. 547—584. On _ this 
principle, the first of Cyrus, at 
Babylon also, being made by the 
canon to bear date B.C. 538 
likewise, the first of Darius and 
the first of Cyrus, both referred 
to their reigns at Babylon, either 
coincided and proceeded pari 
passu together, or the one has 
been merged in the other. 

The canon of Ptolemy is a 
chronological document, which 
had no object in view except to 
deduce with historical exact- 
ness the succession of time, 
through the various dynasties of 
the Babylonian, Persian, Gre- 
cian, Egyptian, and Roman 
kings or emperors, from the 
first year of the era of Nabo. 
nassar, B. C. 747, to his own 
time in the reign of Antoninus 
Pius. It would attain this ob- 
ject just the same, whether it 
specified the two years of Da- 
rius at Babylon, or not; pro- 
vided it did not overlook them 
in the general account, but in- 
cluded them in some of the 
reigns before or after his. It is 
certain that it has not mentioned 
Darius by name ; and it is cer- 
tain also that it has not omitted 
to take into account the two 
years which should have been 
ascribed to him: and from both 
these facts together it becomes 
an highly probable conclusion 
that it has included them in the 
years which it assigns to Cyrus. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 


911 


the very time of this interview of the prophet Daniel 
with the angel Gabriel ; and according to the common 


And this is the only solution 
which will reconcile the tes- 
timony of the canon with that 
of other ancient authorities, 
_some of them entitled to just as 
much deference as the canon; 
particularly that of Herodotus, 
with reference to the date of 
the capture of Babylon, from 
which the years of the reign 
of Cyrus, at Babylon, according 
to him, are necessarily to be 
reckoned. 

Ptolemy’s reign of Cyrus is 
his reign at Babylon. It cannot 
be his reign am\@s—which a 
cloud of ancient authorities make 
a reign of 29 or 30 years, and 
not of nine; and date from 
Ol. 55. 1. B.C. £82, and not 
from B.C. 538. Now a reign 
of nine years, dated from B. C. 
538, would be just equivalent 
to a reign of seven, dated from 
B.C. 536, (the date which He- 
rodotus assigns to the capture 
of Babylon,) both being sup- 
posed to expire B.C. 530 or 
B.C. 529. 

The first of Cyrus at Babylon, 
as neither earlier nor later than 
B. C. 536, appears to me to be 
indissolubly fixed by the term 
of years assigned to the capti- 
vity ; which began in the third 
of Jehoiakim, and ended in the 
first of Cyrus. For if this term 
of years was to be seventy, and 
the third of Jehoiakim bore date 
B.C. 606, the first of Cyrus 
could not bear date earlier than 
B.C. 536. If it must bear date 
two years earlier, the captivity 
must come to a close two years 
earlier also; that is, the capti- 
vity could not be a seventy 


years’ captivity, but only a sixty- 
eight years’ one: which would 
be clearly inconsistent with what 
had been long before predicted 
of it. And it is but a sorry ex- 
pedient, in order to get over this 
difficulty, to reckon the term of 
the captivity by current years, 
not by complete: for even se- 
venty current years would sup- 
pose sixty-nine complete. It 
would be still more unjustifiable 
to endeavour to account for the 
difference, by reckoning the se- 
venty years not as natural and 
common or solar years, but as lu- 
nar, or as prophetical ; of which 
mode of reckoning future time, 
we have said enough heretofore. 

I should consider it far from 
improbable, that when Darius 
came to the throne of Babylon, 
being an old man, and the state 
of things, in all probability, one 
of danger and insecurity, he as- 
sociated Cyrus in the empire 
with himself; and consequently 
that Cyrus’ reign at Babylon 
too, as well as Darius’, might ac- 
tually bear date from B.C. 538. 
But that, notwithstanding this, 
Darius for the rest of his life 
Was not supreme, in some sense 
or other; more especially that 
Darius for the rest of his life 
was merely the viceroy or de- 
puty of Cyrus; is a supposition 
so plainly contradictory to the 
Book of Daniel, that I am sur- 
prised it should ever have been 
proposed ; which yet has been 
the case. It was absolutely es- 
sential to the fulfilment of pro- 
phecy, (see Daniel v. 28. viii. 3. 
20, more particularly,) that the 
Babylonian empire should pass, 


x 4 


fs 


312 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


mode of reckoning them, it could not be more than 
two years distant, at the same date: for the first of 
Cyrus is usually placed B. C. 536, and this prophecy, 
delivered as it appears from ix. 1. in the first of Da- 
rius, was delivered Β. C. 538. 

Secondly, natural as the presumption may appear, 
that the first return of the Jews, or of any portion of 
them, to their own country, after the date of the pro- 
phecy, would most probably be the occasion contem- 
plated by it, it is but a prejudice, after all*; and if we 


bona fide, to the Medes, if for 
ever so short a time, before it 
devolved upon the Persians ; 
and it never did so pass, if it 
did not pass, though for ever so 
short a time, to Darius, before it 
was transmitted to Cyrus. It 
was equally necessary to the 
same fulfilment, that the king- 
dom so transmitted to Cyrus 
should be truly and bona fide 
the Babylonian ; in other words, 
that Cyrus should be king of 
Babylon, as well as king of Per- 
sia. He is called by the first of 
these names accordingly, Ezra 
v. 13, 14. 17: as much as by 
the other, Ezra i. 1, 2. 8. iii. 7. 
iv. 3. 5. both later than the close 
of the captivity; that is, after 
B. C. 536. he is called by either 
indifferently. And that he was 
truly considered king of Baby- 
lon, even by profane history, ap- 
pears from the canon itself, which 
gives him a place next in succes- 
sion to the last of the kings of 
the purely Babylonian dynasty ; 
and assigns him a reign which 
cannot possibly be mistaken for 
his reign in Persia, and there- 
fore must be understood of his 
reign in Babylon. 

* And this prejudice, too, we 
may observe, in the minds of 


English readers at least, is very 
probably due to their familiarity 
with the terms of the English 
version. This version speaks 
of THE going forth, and of THE 
commandment, as if the going 
forth and the commandment in- 
tended, were something of either 
description κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν and pre- 
eminently deserving of the name; 
but the prophecy itself speaks 
only of a going forth and of a 
commandment—a mode of de- 
scribing the thing foretold which 
could not be justly understood, 
at least prima facie, to apply to 
one event of that description, or 
to one commandment, more than 
to another. 

In construing the terms of 
the prophecy throughout, it was 
very natural for our translators, 
perhaps imperceptibly ‘to them- 
selves, to be influenced by their 
knowledge, or their supposed 
knowledge, of the event—and 
therefore to understand many 
things with a special and defi- 
nite reference, which the pro- 
phecy itself had left general 
and indeterminate. Among this 
number is the allusion to the 
going forth of the word or com- 
mandment, the first thing speci- 
fied of all. The version of Theo- 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 313 


will divest our minds of prepossession in favour of the 
return under Cyrus, more than of any other, and attend 
only to the circumstances of the return itself, we shall 
see little reason to conclude that this could be the re- 
turn intended by the description of it beforehand in 
the prophecy of the Seventy weeks. From this de- 
scription, it might be expected, that when the word or 
commandment to return and to build, had once gone 
forth, it should speed and prosper—it should meet 
with no let nor impediment, at least of a serious or a 
permanent kind, in accomplishing its destined effect : 
much less be retracted, revoked, or cancelled. The vera- 
city of the prophecy stood pledged to thus much: 
that when the word to build again had once been 
issued, 7¢ should be built; the street and the wall 
should be built again even in troublous times ; where, 


dotion will shew that the ab- 
sence of the article in this in- 
stance, before each of the words 
in the Hebrew, was a circum- 
stance of peculiarity in the ori- 
ginal, which was by all means to 
be attended to, and faithfully to 
be preserved, in the translation. 
The Hebrew is, 123 x¥D yO: the 
version of Theodotion, ᾿Απὸ ἐξ- 
όδου Adyov—either of which in 
English would be, From going 
forth of a word; not, From the 
going forth of the word. To 
supply the definite article, in 
each of these instances, is gra- 
tuitously to make that definite 
which the prophecy purposely 
left indefinite: and it is also to 
endanger the inference, that if it 
means one going forth and one 
word in particular, it means the 
going forth and the word under 
Cyrus more especially. Now 
this is to prejudge the question 
what decree was really intended 


by it, before we have begun to 
inquire into it; and to commit 
the prophecy in limine to a con- 
struction against which it seems 
to have studiously guarded be- 
forehand: for surely it would 
have been as easy to express it- 
self by 5277 ΩΓ yD, or at least 
by 1257 ΝΘ 7D, as by NYO ἢ 
Sa5—if there had not been a 
good reason of some kind or 
another, why the latter of 
these modes of specifying the 
thing intended, should be pre- 
ferred to the former. And this 
reason might be, that the last of 
these modes of describing it was 
competent to apply to any event 
of the nature in question, that 
might otherwise suit the condi- 
tions of the prophecy; but the 
former, first and properly at 
least, could have applied to 
nothing of that kind, but what 
happened in the reign of Cyrus. 


% 


314 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


might we adopt the marginal version, even in strait 
of times, and by sfrazt, be at liberty to understand, as 
I think we might, a narrowed or contracted, that is, 
a short and limited period of time, something less than 
would naturally have been required and might naturally 
have been expected for such a work—the anomaly will 
become the more striking; for between the first going 
forth of the edict of Cyrus, B. C. 536, and the actual 
completion of the work of rebuilding by Nehemiah, 
B.C. 444, the interval was ninety-two years; which 
no one can consider a contracted period of time, or an 
interval disproportionately short in comparison of the 
effect assigned to it. But I prefer to rest the stress of 
my objection at present, upon the simple fact, that the 
going forth of a decree, which was but partially exe- 
cuted in the reign of Cyrus—which was suspended in 
the reign of Cambyses—which was revoked in the 
reign of Smerdis*, and required to be reenacted in the 
reign of Darius”, before it could attain to its destined 
effect—never could be that going forth of a word, to 
cause to return and to build, which was predicted by 
the prophecy, and which was assuredly to be followed 
by the event. 

Thirdly, among the other conclusions which the 
perusal of the prophecy very naturally suggests be- 
forehand, one is this: that both the people and the 
holy city of Daniel are supposed to be in existence, be- 
fore the point of time, at which its own disclosures 
take their rise, was even arrived or begun. ‘“ Seventy 
weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy 
holy city*:” where, as the stress of the argument 

* Literally, Upon people of not unimportant, with respect to 


thee, and upon city of holiness the argument for which we are 
of thee: and this distinction is contending in the text: for the 


a See Ezra iv. 5, 6, 7—22. b Ezra iv. 24—Vi. 15. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 315 


turns on the meaning of the preposition which follows 
the verb determined in the original ; I will just ob- 
serve, that its proper sense is analogous to that of 
upon in English, er: in Greek, and super in Latin ; 
by the first of which we have it represented in our 
English Bible, by the second in the Septuagint, Theo- 
dotion, and Aquila; and by the third in the Latin Vul- 
gate. Symmachus alone appears to have rendered it 
by κατὰ with the genitive case; a version which is 
neither so faithful to the Hebrew, nor, as I apprehend, 
to the sense of the prophecy: for κατὰ with the geni- 
tive, in Greek, is properly against; and the notion of 
against, in this instance, suits neither the word nor 
the thing intended. 

Now this mode of speaking, viz. that of such and 
such a number of weeks’ being determined, that is, or- 
dained or appointed, ἐπὶ, or super, or upon, (in one 
word 5y,) the people and the city of Daniel, does ap- 
pear to me to imply that such and such a term of years 
was ordained or appointed for their continued exist- 
ence, from such and such a time, wntid such and such 
purposes were accomplished. Nor would this of ne- 
cessity imply that they were not still to have an exist- 
ence, even after those purposes had been accomplished: 
only, that being in existence when they began to be ac- 
complished, they should continue to be in existence 


natural inference from this mode 
of describing the subject of the 
determination in question would 
be—that it was not to be re- 
stricted to the city of Jerusa- 
lem, and to the people of that 
city, only—but must take in the 
Jews every where—supposed to 
be living in their proper coun- 
try—as people of Daniel alike— 
and must extend to every city 
in the Holy Land, as city of ho- 


liness of Daniel, indiscriminately. 
In the version of these words, 
respectively, we desiderate the 
usual accuracy of the Greek 
interpreters ; except perhaps A- 
quila ; as each of them has sup- 
plied the article before λαὸν, 
though it is wanting in the He- 
brew, and Aquila alone has 
omitted it before πόλιν, in strict 
conformity to the original. 


ὅς 


316 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, ὅ 0. 


until they were accomplished, whether they continued in 
existence afterwards, or not. Now this surely takes it 
for granted, that at the point of time, which the pro- 
phecy assumes as its own ἀρχὴ, the people of Daniel 
and the holy city of Daniel were something in rerum 
natura; something which even then had an existence 
in its proper capacity accordingly. In this case, the 
point of time which it contemplated as its own point 
of departure, could never be the date of the edict of 
Cyrus: for before the promulgation of the edict of Cy- 
rus, and before the return from captivity consequent 
upon it, there was no such thing as the people of Da- 
niel, and much less as the holy city of Daniel, properly 
so called. For let no one imagine, that the people of 
Daniel had still a proper, continued, national existence, 
in that state of captivity and dispersion, in which they 
had lived seventy years before their return. As indi- 
viduals they might still exist even in that state: but as 
a nation they had no proper existence after B. C. 606, 
or B. C. 588, on the one hand, until they were again 
united and collected under the same circumstances as 
before, in a country of their own, forming one of the 
integral divisions of mankind, and occupying one of 
the integral portions of the earth, among themselves and 
by themselves as before; that is, until B. C. 536, on the 
other. Still less let any one suppose that the holy city of 
Daniel, if that means Jerusalem in particular, had any 
proper existence, in the state of entire destitution and 
desolation—without walls, without houses, without 
inhabitants—in which it was left by the last captivity, 
B.C. 588: nor until the temple had begun to be re- 
built there, and the temple service to be restored, at 
least ; and something like a community of settlers to 
be contracted and formed around the same spot, in 
consequence of that event. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 317 


Fourthly and lastly, the date of the edict of Cyrus, 
B. C. 536, must be an insuperable objection to the 
supposition of that edict’s being intended by the pro- 
phecy as the point of departure to a series of 490 
years, or at the utmost of 493 and one half, which, 
whensoever they may begin, pass up to the gospel era at 
least, or beyond it. For let us make the most favour- 
able supposition that we can; that the series of weeks 
terminates absolutely with the birth of Christ; and 
that the birth of Christ is rightly placed even at the 
vulgar era, A.D. 1: yet if the weeks be only seventy, 
or seventy and one half; if they are only continuous ; 
if they are weeks of years; and if those years are only 
common or natural ones; clear it is to a demonstra- 
tion, that the same point of time can never be a com- 
mon point of departure to a series of five hundred and 
thirty-six years before A. 1). 1, and a series of four 
hundred and ninety-three, or at the utmost four hun- 
dred and ninety-four, which must terminate at the 
same time. 

The decree of Cyrus, the decree of Darius, and the 
supposed decree of Artaxerxes, in favour of Nehemiah, 
having been thus set aside from the scope of the pro- 
phecy, the only one left to which we can look for the 
true point of departure contemplated by it, if it is any 
where recorded in Scripture, would seem to be that 
which is related, Ezra vii. 11—26. Let us, therefore, 
proceed to consider how far this is qualified to answer 
the conditions of the word, supposed to go forth in the 
prophecy. 

It is unnecessary to observe of this decree, in the 
first place, that it was a public act, an edict or procla- 
mation, emanating from the supreme authority in the 
kingdom. The style of an imperial edict is preserved 
throughout it (see verses 12, 13, and 21,) as much as 


318 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, §c. 


in those which are recorded Daniel 111. 29: iv. 1: vi. 
26, and especially, Ezra vi. 8, 11, 12, upon occasions 
of a similar kind. It appears too to have proceeded 
from the freewill or spontaneous impulse of the reign- 
ing king; for there is nothing in the account given of 
it, and of the circumstances connected with it, to lead 
to the inference that it was due to the solicitations of 
Ezra, in particular, except vii. 6: which, nevertheless, 
obviously admits of explanation, without prejudice to 
the supposition that the king was a voluntary agent 
in the first conception of the design of his mission, and 
in directing his letters to Ezra, or issuing his decree 
accordingly ; while, on the other hand, that this mis- 
sion was his own act, or solely resolvable into some 
influence upon his will, derived from above, appears to 
be strongly implied both by the internal evidence of 
the decree itself, especially, vii. 14 and 23, and by the 
language employed in allusion to it, vii. 27, and ix. 9. 
That it must have been made public in all parts of his 
dominions, or at least wheresoever Jews were to be 
found, which would be almost the same thing, appears 
from the fact, that it gave permission to all of the 
people of Israel, and of the priests and Levites, in the 
realm of the king, which were minded of their own 
freewill to go up to Jerusalem, to go with Ezra°: 
and no more than this can be said of the decree of 
Cyrus, which merely does the same thing ἢ, 

That it had for its object a return, or a causing to 
return, is clear both from the event—that it led to the 
return of a large body of Jews on this occasion, along 
with Ezra, who had never gone back before—and 
from its own language, vii. 13, already recited—and 
that this is to be looked upon as a return from cap- 
tivity, as much as the return in the first instance of 


Ο vii, 13. αὐ} 32: 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 319 


all, B. C. 536, may fairly be collected from Ezra ix. 9, 
in reference to it. And even were we to adopt the sense 
which those ancient versions have given to the Hebrew 
of to return, which have rendered it by, τοῦ ἀποκριθῆναι, 
that also might appear consistent with the object of the 
mission, such as it is specified at verse 14: ‘ Foras- 
much as thou art sent of the king, and of his seven 
counsellors, to ENQUIRE concerning Judah and Jeru- 
salem, according to the law of thy God which és in 
thine hand:” unless it should be supposed that 7n- 
quiry previously made must lead to no report, that is, 
to no answer, afterwards. 

Moreover, the temple itself having been long since 
more or less completed, and the temple service long 
since restored, before the time of this mission; and 
both being recognised as something in existence in this 
very decree itself; the object of the mission could not 
possibly have been represented to be the building of 
the temple, like that of the mission of Zerubbabel ; but 
it might be, to build Jerusalem: nor is there any thing 
in the decree which militates against the presumption 
that this might be the thing, or one of the things, in- 
tended by it. For though to return and to build Je- 
rusalem is not specified in so many words, in the de- 
cree, as it is in the prophecy; yet to return or to go 
up, and to return or go up to Jerusalem, is specified 
there, at verse 13: so that unless Jerusalem was al- 
ready fully repeopled or fully rebuilt, one object of 
this going up, or one consequence of it at least, must 
have been more completely to effect both; see ix. 9. 

It has been seen, however, that the true state of the 
case, so far as concerned both the nation of the Jews 
and the city of Jerusalem, presupposed by the pro- 
phecy, preliminary to its own course and succession 
of time, was this; that the one had already an existence 


320 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, Se. 


as a nation, and the other as a city, in some proper 
sense or other, before the decursus of the weeks was 
even ready to commence. An imperfect being or ex- 
istence, it is possible, in either case; but still a being 
of some kind or other: so that a building of Jeru- 
salem, de novo, never could be intended by the build- 
ing of the street and the wall, in the prophecy, though 
the completion of a building, more or less partially be- 
gun already, might be; no more than a return for the 
first time to the state and condition of a nation, by the 
return there specified also, though an enlargement of 
that return, and a more complete acquisition of the cha- 
racter of a nation, in consequence of it, might be in- 
tended by it. We need not therefore be surprised 
that to rebuild Jerusalem, properly so termed, is not 
specified as the object of Ezra’s mission. The build- 
ing, more particularly intended by the prophecy, to 
judge from verse 25 in the sequel, is the renewal of 
the street and the wall; both which might stand in 
need of completion at the time of his mission, as in 
fact we know they did, and might be more or less con- 
cerned in the event of his coming. 

Upon grounds of general analogy, and general fitness 
and propriety, however, we might contend, that with- 
out meaning any disparagement to the decree of Cyrus, 
or to that of Darius, and allowing them full credit for 
the pious and becoming sentiments which both of them 
express; still the most remarkable example of this 
description, recorded in Scripture—the most illustrious, 
as the act and deed of a Gentile prince, we may observe, 
is the decree of Artaxerxes, issued on this occasion, in be- 
half of Ezra. It is scarcely possible to read this decree 
without being struck with the impression that it is 
the decree not of Artaxerxes, but of one greater than 
Artaxerxes; in giving utterance and publicity to whose 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 321 


will, Artaxerxes was but an instrument. There is no- 
where in Scripture a decree, promulgated by an earthly 
monarch, which was more evidently dictated by a se- 
rious and solemn sense of that relation in which even 
the proudest and highest of earthly kings stand to the 
majesty of the King of kings—as merely his vicege- 
rents and instruments, to do his will—to do whatso- 
ever they know and feel to be commanded by the God 
of heaven. There is nowhere, even in Scripture, a 
document more worthy to be written in the hearts of 
kings, and stamped upon their foreheads, and graven 
if possible on the palms of their hands, as a constant 
memorial of their vicarious relation to the universal 
king, and their consequent proper duty and obligation. 
We may rest assured, therefore, that in fixing upon 
this decree as that word, the going forth of which was 
so long before predicted by prophecy, we are fixing 
upon nothing which was not eminently worthy to be 
the subject of that distinction—the true antitype of 
the word or command, which was already recorded 
in the counsels of the Most High; and only waited its 
time to come forth. 

The mission of Ezra is the date of what may be called 
the political resurrection of the Jews. The date of his 
arrival in Judza is the epoch of their regeneration both 
in church and state. It would be much too narrow a 
view of the purposes of his mission, to suppose it re- 
stricted to one object, though concerning the temple, or 
to one object, though relating to Jerusalem : when it 
had for its scope and design the complete resettlement of 
the affairs of the nation, civil and religious, in all respects. 
By virtue of the decree accompanying it, the law of his 
God, that is, the law of Moses, the proper law of the 
Jews, became of equal authority, in a civil point of view, 
with the law of the king—that is, the common law of 

VOL. IV. ne 


322 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, δ. 


the Persian empire®. Ample power was conceded to 
Ezra to appoint magistrates and judges among all the 
people, with power and jurisdiction extending to death, 
or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to im- 
prisonment‘, as the case might require. What was 
this, but to grant the Jews an αὐτονομία, subject only to 
their own laws, and their own magistrates to execute 
them? The magistrates and judges appointed by 
Ezra were not only to know the laws of his God 
themselves, but to teach them those that knew them 
not’; and so.to provide for a constant succession of 
persons, equally well qualified with themselves, to fulfil 
the same office, and to discharge the same duties. And 
all this was intrusted to Ezra in particular, as a priest, 
a scribe of the law of the God of heaven"; as a ready 
scribe in the law of Moses‘; as one who had prepared 
his heart to seek the law of the Lorp, and to do 7, 
and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments *: which 
he was to execute according to the law of his God 
which was in his hand!; after the will of his God™; 
after the wisdom of his God, which was in his hand". 
It seems only a necessary inference from this repre- 
sentation, that the date of the mission of Ezra, if it 
was followed by such effects as these, must be the true 
date of that political ἀποκατάστασις among the Jews, 
that bringing back of all things as nearly as possible 
to the state they were in, if not in the best and purest 
times of their history, when the law of Moses was 
most firmly established and most duly enforced, yet at 
least to the state they were in, before the Babylonish 
captivity, and the dissolution of their proper constitu- 
tion both in church and state, consequent upon it; 
without which, the effect of that captivity and of that 


e vii. 26. f Ibid. & Ibid. 25. h Ibid. 12. 21. i Ibid. 6. 
k Tbid. 10. l Ibid. 14. m Ibid. 18, ἢ Ibid. 25. - 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 323 


dissolution never could be said to have been completely 
repaired and undone. This conclusion is confirmed by 
the unanimous concurrence of the Jews of later ages 
themselves, who look upon Ezra as their second 
founder both in church and state, and venerate his 
memory with the same respect as they do that of 
Moses. To Ezra it is their belief that they owed the 
canon of scripture, such as it survived the captivity 
and was transmitted to their own times. To Ezra, 
consequently, the whole Christian world is indebted 
for the scriptures of the Old Testament in their present 
state. On Ezra it was the persuasion of the Jews that 
the mantle of the last of the prophets rested; and with 
Ezra, in the person of Malachi, that the canon of pro- 
phetical inspiration closed. To Ezra, at least, it is 
certain that the Jews were indebted for the only ac- 
count of the return of their ancestors from captivity, 
which was any where extant in their own scriptures ; 
for the reader need not be told that there is no history 
even of the return of the Jews under Zerubbabel, but 
what is contained in the Book of Ezra: and this too 
is one of the circumstances of distinction which ought 
to be allowed its weight in coming to a conclusion 
upon the question of the comparative importance, whe- 
ther in the counsels of Providence, or in the religious 
and the civil history of the Jews, of the mission of 
Ezra and that of Zerubbabel respectively. 

Add to this, that as there is no evidence of the re- 
turn of any fresh body of the Jews after this mission 
of Ezra—of nothing in short but the return of indivi- 
duals, even if of that—and consequently that if the 
proper effect of the captivity was ever properly undone, 
it was so by the return which accompanied this mis- 
sion; so this mission, and the return which accom- 
panied it, stand at a determinate distance of time from 

Y 2 


324 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, Se. 


the first return after the captivity, and the first inter- 
position of any delay to the completion of its proper 
effect—which is far from being unsignificant or unim- 
portant. This return took place in the first of Cyrus, 
B.C. 536, exactly seventy years from B.C. 606, the 
date of the first captivity in the third of Jehoiakim. 
We cannot, perhaps, suppose, that the proper effect of 
the return, or the proper execution of the edict of 
Cyrus, was ever suspended or superseded in the reign of 
Cyrus; though it may fairly be collected from Ezra 
iv. 5. that it was even then opposed and obstructed 
more or less. Ezra iv. 6. authorizes the same inference 
of the reign of Ahasuerus; who, if he was the next to 
Cyrus, and distinct from Artaxerxes, mentioned in the 
following verse—and this Artaxerxes was the immedi- 
ate predecessor of Darius, as he appears to have been 
—must be the same with Cambyses, the successor of 
Cyrus, and the predecessor of Smerdis the Magian, 
who was succeeded by Darius Hystaspis. The first 
actual impediment to the continued operation of the 
edict of Cyrus, may be supposed to have taken place 
in the reign of Cambyses; and if so, it must be con- 
cluded from Ezra iv. 6. that it took place at the begin- 
ning of his reign. The precise beginning of the reign 
of Cambyses is not earlier than B.C. 530, nor later 
than B.C. 529: and referred to either, B.C. 528 
would be truly and properly in the beginning of his 
reign. Let it be assumed, then, that the first accusa- 
tions against the Jews, which so far took effect as actu- 
aily to impede the continued operation of the edict of 
Cyrus, took effect at the beginning of the reign of 
Cambyses, B.C. 528. Reckon forward another seventy 
years from this date, and you come to B.C. 458—the 
year of this mission of Ezra, and the year of the last 
and most final of that series of providential dispensa- 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 325 


tions in behalf of the Jews, which led to the return of 
the captive Jews, and undid the effect of the captivity 
—if it ever was undone, after it had once taken place. 
That is, as there had been one seventy years’ interval 
between the beginning of the captivity and the first 
return from it; so was there another seventy years’ 
interval between the first interposition of any actual 
impediment to the effect of that return, and the final 
undoing of the effect of the captivity, if it ever was 
completely undone, by the return under Ezra. 

When we consider the shortness of the interval be- 
tween the mission of Ezra, B.C. 458, and that of 
Nehemiah, B.C. 444; that Ezra and Nehemiah fol- 
lowed from the court of the same king—within four- 
teen years only of each other; that they were conse- 
quently strictly contemporaries, and both in Judza at 
once’: we can scarcely fail to conclude that the mis- 
sion of Nehemiah might always be intended to be 
auxiliary to that of Ezra, especially in the purposes of 
Providence. An interval of fourteen years merely is 
almost too little to be taken into eccount in the scope 
and comprehension of a prophecy like this; so strictly 
at least, as not to allow us to infer that the object as- 
signed to the return, the building of Jerusalem, and 
the effect predicted to ensue upon it, the building again 
of the street and the wall—might not both have been 
contemplated in that going forth of the word, which 
coincided with the mission of Ezra, though both might 
ultimately be carried into final effect by the ministry 
of Nehemiah. 

The order of the terms of the prediction, in this 
instance, is something remarkable. The street, it is 
said, shall be built again, and the ditch or wall—that 
is, the street first, and the wall next: which was actu- 


© Cf. Nehemiah viii. 1—13—xii. 26. 36. 


¥ 3 


526 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


ally the order of the event; the street of Jerusalem 
having been the first thing completed, and the wall the 
last. Nor is there any reason why that special cir- 
cumstance of distinction, mentioned in conjunction with 
these events, Even in troublous times, or, Even in 
strait of times, should not be restricted to the last of 
them in particular, the building again of the wall; and 
not taken in common with both. In this case, adopt- 
ing the marginal version, Even in strait of times, or 
as it might more closely be rendered, Even in strait 
of the times ; which a comparison of the Vulgate and 
the Hebrew will shew to admit of the possible mean- 
ing of a disproportionate or inadequate space of time— 
a space of time not what would naturally have been 
required, and might naturally have been expected for 
such an effect—it will express, as it appears to me, the 
most remarkable and characteristic circumstance in the 
history of the mission of Nehemiah, that by incredible 
exertions of speed, the entire wall of the city was 
raised and finished in fifty-two days’ time, from the 
commencement of the work; not much more than three 
days after his arrival in Jerusalem?*. Not but that 


* The words of the original 
in this instance are ONYN pwd : 
of which the first is a word, 
which as a noun substantive oc- 
curs only in this passage of Da- 
niel. The version of Theodo- 
tion does not assist us here in 
coming at its meaning; for, oc- 
curring as we have observed only 
once, and that in this present 
instance, Theodotion renders it 
by ekkev@Onoovrac—probably be- 
cause he understood it as one of 
the tenses of ὅδ intumuit. 'The 


Septuagint, however, may give 
us a possible insight into its 
meaning, having rendered the 
passage by κατὰ συντέλειαν καιρῶν: 
and thereby implied that the no- 
tion of completion, consumma- 
tion, or, itmay be, of dispatch, 
entered into it. 

The word is derived in the 
Lexicons from pry fudit : which 
in one of its conjugations (Hi- 
phil) assumes the sense of coar- 
ctavil, constrinxit, or the like ; 
and in the past conjugation an- 


p Nehemiah vi. 15, ii, 11—ili, I—iv. 23. v. 16. vi. 1. Cf. Dissertation xviii. 


vol, ii. 139, 140. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 


327 


the sense of Even in troublous times, would accord 
to the context of the prophecy in this instance, as 
well as be verified by the event, when we consider the 
difficulties which Nehemiah had to contend with, and 
the many alarms to which he was daily and hourly 
exposed ; difficulties and alarms which were the prin- 


swering thereto,(Hophal,) that of 
coarctart, angustiart, or the like. 
Hence the substantive, pry an- 
gustia: the proper sense of which 
would scem to be, narrowness, 
want of room, pressure in that 
respeci ; insomuch as the word 
most properly opposed to it is 
one which expresses the con- 
trary, 2m, latiludo, breadth, am- 
plitude of room or space: and 
there is no doubt, I think, that 
as such a word, and in such a 
sense, would be properly ren- 
dered in Greek by στενοχωρία, 
and in Latin by anguslia, so in 
English it may be expressed by 
a sirail, or a press, of any thing 
—and of time, among the rest. 
I am pressed for time, I am 
straitencd for time—these are 
common expressions in our lan- 
guage for a want or a lack of 
time: and what other idea would 
be conveyed by an Hebrew word 
answering to anguslia or coar- 
ctalio, στενοχωρία or θλίψις, in 
the same respect ? 

As tothe other word, onyn— 
it is agreed upon all hands that 
its proper use in Hebrew is to 
answer to καιρὸς in Greek, or oc- 
casio in Latin: and we perceive 
that both the Septuagint and 
Theodotion have rendered it by 
καιροὶ accordingly: the latter 
having been careful also to pre- 
serve the article before it, which 
should by all means have been 
done by our English version 


likewise. Now we have no word 
in our language, at least in com- 
mon use, (unless perhaps it be 
season or opportunity,) which 
would express at once the same 
distinction between time in ge- 
neral, and time with a particu- 
lar reference to junctures and 
circumstances, as καιρὸς in Greek, 
opposed to χρόνος, occasio in La- 
tin, opposed to ¢empus, or ny in 
Hebrew, opposed to oy or dies. 
But we may paraphrase it, in a 
given instance, by time befitting, 
or time convenient to the pur- 
pose in question. And such be- 
ing the sense intended in the 
present instance, the passage 
will stand word for word—There 
shall return and shall be built 
street and wall, and in strait of 
the times convenient: that is, 
the street and the wall should 
be built again, but built again 
under extraordinary circum- 
stances, viz. in a strait of ONnpnA 
—the times that would otherwise 
be required for the task, and 
otherwise applied to its accom- 
plishment ; the ¢empora oppor- 
tuna, the times befitting or suit- 
able—in one word, Its own times, 
in respect of the work to be 
effected in them: for that is the 
proper sense of the Hebrew— 
the tempus proprium cujusque 
—every thing that is, or that may 
be, having its own time, both to 
be and to be brought into being 
—and that being nyn of each. 


Υ 4 


328 Appendia. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


cipal reason why such great exertions were necessary 
to raise up the walls aud to set up the gates, and so to 
place Jerusalem in a state of security against both sur- 
prise and assault. 

And as we have pointed out one coincidence between 
the first obstruction to the effect of the first return 
from captivity, and the final undoing of the captivity 
by the second return under Ezra; so may we observe 
another, between the building of the temple consequent 
upon the first return, and the building of the wall 
consequent upon the other. The building of the tem- 
ple, consequent upon that first return, began April or 
May, B.C. 535: and the resumption of the building, 
after it had once been suspended, it will be seen here- 
after, bore date with Tuesday, August 31, B.C. 521. 
There was consequently as nearly as possible fourteen 
years’ interval between. Between the mission of Ezra, 
B.C. 458, and the mission of Nehemiah, B.C. 444, 
there was the same; for the mission of Ezra will bear 
date from Wednesday, March 9, B.C. 458: and his 
arrival at Jerusalem, exactly four Jewish months later, 
coincided with July 54. The arrival of Nehemiah at 
Jerusalem bore date from Friday, July 26, B.C. 444, 
and the completion of the walls from Thursday, Sep- 
tember 19, in the same year". ‘The interval] therefore 
between the mission of Ezra, supposing that to- have 
had for its object the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its 
wall, as well as any thing else, and the actual comple- 
tion of that work by the aid of Nehemiah, was as 
nearly as possible the same with the interval between 
the first laying the foundation of the temple, after the 
return from captivity, and the resumption of that work 
after being once suspended, before it was finally com- 


4 Vide Dissertation xv. vol. ii. p. 18. r Vide Dissertation xviii. vol. ii. 
Ρ. 139, 140. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 829 


pleted. The mission of Nehemiah, then, stands in 
the same relation to the mission of Ezra, with respect 
to the building of the wall, as the decree of Darius to 
the decree of Cyrus, with respect to the building of 
the temple. Ifthe parallel does not hold still closer— 
if the building of the temple took up five years after 
it was resumed, but the wall was completed in fifty- 
two days—the reason is obvious; that the temple 
was not to be finished, like the wall, 7m strait of the 
times. 

To proceed in the next place to the consideration of 
the point of time where the prophecy must be sup- 
posed to end: the most obvious remark which we 
should have to premise in reference to this subject 
would be, that among the conclusions suggested by 
the prophecy, at first sight, none is more evident than 
this, That two classes of events, which are neither the 
same in themselves, nor in their beginnings and their 
endings respectively, are connected together in the 
scope of its disclosures. Upon this point its language 
is definite and clear; and it is needless to add, the 
opinions of commentators are undivided. 

To one of these classes we may give the naine of 
The facts of the Christian ministry, and to the other, 
that of The facts of the Jewish war. The former are 
such, as Messiah the Prince; Messiah’s cutting off; 
The confirmation of the covenant with many; The 
cessation of sacrifice and oblation. The latter are such, 
as The people of the Prince that should come, and its 
acts; The destruction of the city and the sanctuary; 
The end thereof with a flood ; Desolations determined 
to the end of the war; The overspreading. of abomi- 
nations making desolate, until the consummation de- 
termined was poured upon the desolate. 

The connection between these topics in verses 26 


330 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


and 27 of the prophecy is too plain to be mistaken. If 
there is any interruption to that connection, it is due 
to the matter interposed between the end of verse 26, 
which first touches on the latter of them, and the end 
of verse 27, which resuines and finishes it. The matter 
which stands at the head of verse 27 is obviously not 
the same with the subject of the predictions at the 
end of verse 26: or with that of the predictions just 
after, at the end of verse 27. But the subject matter 
of the prophecy at the end of verse 27, is clearly the 
same with that at the end of verse 26. No further 
arguinent, therefore, is wanted to satisfy us that the 
matter which stands at the head of verse 27, partly in 
reference to the covenant, and partly to the cessation 
of sacrifice and oblatioun—is matter interposed—matter 
parenthetic—where it occurs; which neither carries 
on the topics of prediction at the end of verse 26, nor 
is itself taken up and prosecuted by those at the end of 
verse 27. Let this pareuthetic matter, pro tanto, be 
set aside; and the course and succession of one and 
the same tissue of associated ideas, from the beginning 
of verse 25 to the end of verse 27, will be represented 
in the words of our Bible version, as follows : 

Know therefore and understand, ¢hat from the going 
forth of the commandment to restore and to build Je- 
rusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven 
weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall 
be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah 
be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the 
prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the 
sanctuary ; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, 
and unto the end of the war desolations are deter- 
mined. 

And for the overspreading of abominations he shall 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 331 


make 2 desolate, even until the consummation, and 
that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. 

If now, by the one of these classes of events, we are 
justified in understanding the facts of the Christian 
ministry, aud by the latter the facts of the Jewish 
war; then, it will follow that, associated as these nay 
be in one and the same scope of futurity, yet being so 
distinct in themselves, a prophecy, which relates to and 
combines them both, could never be intended to have 
one and the same proper termination: the events of 
one of these classes, from the necessity of the case, 
must have been long fulfilled, or long have begun to 
be fulfilled, before those of the other could yet have 
begun to be. If, therefore, it was destined to have a 
proper termination at all, it is manifest it must have a 
double one; one for the events of one of these classes, 
and another for those of the other; and these, a deter- 
minate distance of time asunder, as much asunder at 
least as the first of the facts of the Christian ministry, 
and the last of the events of the Jewish war. And if 
one and the same prophecy, under the circumstances 
of the case, must of necessity have a double termina- 
tion—then, by parity of consequence, it becomes far 
from an unreasonable presumption that it will be 
found to have a double beginning also; one to corre- 
spond to one of these terminations, and the other to 
answer to the other. All that is necessary to be as- 
sumed to confirm this presumption, is, that the prophecy 
must consist of a determinate number of weeks, in one 
of these cases, as much as in the other; and where- 
soever it might begin, and wheresoever it might end, 
that it was always intended there should be the same 
distance of time between its extremes in each in- 
stance. 


332 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


Now with the omission of the parenthetic matter, 
which stands at the beginning of verse 27, the number 
of weeks, comprehended by the prophecy, would ap- 
pear to be seven weeks and sixty and two weeks, or 
sixty-nine weeks in all: the one week, and the half 
week, which would make up the difference between 
sixty-nine weeks, and seventy weeks, or at the ut- 
most seventy and an half, are included in the matter 
set aside; and consequently do not for the present ap- 
pear, and therefore cannot for the present be taken 
into account. -Without these, the prophecy would ap- 
pear to be one of sixty-nine continuous weeks; and 
sixty-nine continuous weeks, referred to some one 
point of departure, from which it must terminate with 
Messiah the Prince, that is, with the first of the facts 
of the Christian ministry, on the one hand; and sixty- 
nine continuous weeks, referred to some other, from 
which it must terminate with the consummation of 
the desolation determined, that is, with the last of the 
facts of the Jewish war, on the other. 

Now with respect to the first of these points of de- 
parture, there can be no difficulty nor uncertainty in 
determining that. The prophecy itself has fixed it to 
that going forth of the word or commandment, about 
which so much has been already said. The sixty-nine 
continuous weeks, which were destined to end with 
Messiah the Prince, that is, with the first of the events 
of the Christian ministry, bear date from the going 
forth of the word or commandment to cause to return, 
and to build Jerusalem; and there can be no uncer- 
tainty about that point. But where shall we look for 
the point of departure, answering to an equal lapse of 
time, and destined to terminate with the last of the 
events of the Jewish war? where shall we fix the com- 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 333 


mencement of the same number of continuous weeks, 
which shall find their conclusion in the consumma- 
tion of the desolation determined ? 

The answer, which we might be prepared to return 
to this question, I admit is conjectural; but conjectu- 
ral only, because we are considering, at present, not 
what the evidence of the event would demonstrate 
must have been intended, but what the language and 
structure of the prophecy would lead us to conclude 
beforehand might be intended. Now among the most 
reasonable expectations which we might bring with us 
to the examination of the prophecy, one would cer- 
tainly be, that nothing would be found in it that was 
purely accidental, or unmeaning; the least of its pecu- 
liarities must be designed and significant, as much as 
the greatest. One of these peculiarities, and not the 
least prominent of all, is the distribution of the whole 
period of time, declared at the outset to be contained 
in it, into parts and parcels; the division of the se- 
venty weeks, or seventy and an half, into one period of 
seven weeks, another of sixty-two weeks, a third of 
one week, and a fourth of half a week; all, it is true, 
when put together, equal to the seventy, or the seventy 
and an half, yet still, equal to it only, considered as 
broken, and divided into parts. Shall we say that this 
peculiarity was the mere result of chance? that no- 
thing was intended by it—that nothing requires to be 
concluded from it? It would not only be a great dis- 
paragement to the prophecy to suppose this—but in 
three instances out of the four would be contrary to the 
plain matter of fact. Were the first of these four di- 
visions accounted for—the three which follow are any 
thing but arbitrary or unsignificant: they are divisions 
in the course and succession of time, marked out by the 
prophecy beforehand, which were founded in the na- 


334 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


ture of things, and from the necessity of the case could 
not have been otherwise represented. The sixty and 
two weeks must be distinguished from the one week, 
and the half week must be distinguished from both ; 
because of the distinctness of the events which were to 
happen at the end of each, er to be transacted in the 
course of each respectively : events which are specified 
by the prophecy itself, and seen to be too distinct in 
themselves to be confounded together. 

That division which appears at first sight to be ac- 
cidental or arbitrary, and accidental or arbitrary, be- 
cause nothing is specified as destined to follow at the 
end of it, is the division which stands at the head of 
all, that of the seven weeks in question. It does not 
appear, at first sight, why seven weeks of years should 
be detached from the whole number of seventy or 
seventy and an half, and be placed as an integral pe- 
riod by themselves, at the head of the rest; especially 
when nothing is specified to follow at the distance of 
seven weeks of years from the proper beginning of the 
whole number, or at the distance of sixty-nine weeks 
from the termination of the whole number, which 
might have accounted for the division at once. We 
might safely collect, therefore, from the fact of this 
division so stated—that the final end contemplated 
by it, could never have been to specify some: par- 
ticular event, or to fix the time of some particular 
occurrence; but, unless we assumed it to be altogether 
arbitrary and precarious, we could not be certain from 
the same fact that the division, even so stated, might not 
be intended to serve some purpose, which it would serve 
just as well by the mere fact of the division—by being 
barely cut off and detached from the rest—as if any 
thing were specified, however distinctly, to follow 
upon it. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 335 


Now one and the most obvious of those purposes 
which might be answered by the mere fact of a divi- 
sion—by the barely cutting off a certain number of 
weeks from the remainder, and nothing more—would 
be to serve as a note of time—to fix a chronological 
boundary between one course and succession of time 
before, and another course and succession of time 
after. No one will pretend to deny that the separation 
of seven weeks from the body of the remainder, might 
answer ¢his purpose at least, though nothing else were 
intended by it; and would serve as a point of divi- 
sion between distinct periods and successions of time, 
though no event might be specified in conjunction 
with it. And when it is considered that the pro- 
phecy in all probability would be found to have a 
double beginning, because it appears that it must have 
a double termination; and yet there was no reason 
to conclude that the absolute duration of time, mea- 
sured by the number of weeks of years contained by 
it, referred to either termination, should not continue 
one and the saime—it will follow that some such no- 
tification would clearly be wanted, and therefore in 
all just reason was clearly to be expected, to deter- 
mine the point of time where the decursus of weeks, 
answering to the second termination, was to begin, 
as much as the decursus of the same number, answer- 
ing to the first. It is no unreasonable conjecture, 
therefore, that the separation of the seven weeks at 
the head of the prophecy was always intended to fur- 
nish this notification—to serve as this boundary be- 
tween the decursus of the same number of weeks 
before and after it respectively ; and a reason is there- 
by assigned for the first of the divisions, which, simply 
stated as it is, makes it as significant as any of the 
rest. 


336 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


Among the other anticipations, therefore, which the 
consideration of the prophecy was calculated to sug- 
gest, one is this, That the division of the first of its 
periods into seven weeks, was intended to fix the point 
of time from which the same computation should begin 
and proceed to the fulfilment of the last of the events 
in that class of its predictions which related to the 
Jewish war, as had already begun, and would continue 
to proceed, to the fulfilment of the first of the corre- 
sponding events in that other class of its futurities, 
which related to the Christian ministry. And this 
point being once assumed—the question which presents 
itself next for discussion, is not, What is the common 
termination of the prophecy, as referred to both these 
apxai—for that in the nature of things it could have 
none—but what is its proper termination answering to 
the first of these points of departure, and what that 
which corresponds to the second; and each as deter- 
mined beforehand by the internal evidence of the pro- 
phecy itself? And it will greatly illustrate and confirm 
the truth of all that has been thus presupposed, if it 
should turn out hereafter, as I trust it will, that there 
is just the same distance of time between these proper 
terminations, as between their corresponding begin- 
nings. 

I shall begin with considering the last of these ques- 
tions, first: The proper termination of that class of the 
predictions in the prophecy, to which we have agreed 
to give the name of the events of the Jewish war. To 
the designation itself, perhaps, no one will object, who 
reflects that mention of war, if not of the war, oc- 
curs ῥητῶς in the prophecy itself*; and whether we 

* In the words, monn yp 2, οὗ war, than, And to the end of 


which it would have been more _ the war; for the article is wanting 
correct to render, And toanend in the Hebrew before both these 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 337 


render it by war indefinitely, or by the war in parti- 
cular, all commentators are unanimous, that the thing 
intended in either case must be the same, the Jewish 
war, and the events connected with it. The Jewish 
war, it is true, is a complex description of things, and 
includes a multitude of particulars, which make up 
collectively the class of futurities combined in the scope 
of the prophecy with another, the events of the Chris- 
tian ministry; but the proper termination of none of 
which could ever be said to be arrived, until the last of 
the events, comprehended under that description, had 
been fulfilled in its order, as well as the first. 

For the further decision of this question, then—it 
would obviously be matter of preliminary consideration, 
before what point of time that succession of events, 
which goes by the name of the Jewish war, could not 
properly be said to have come to an end, as much as 


substantives. The wordsthat fol- 
low too, ΓΟ Ayn, would have 
been more correctly translated, 
Shall be sentences determined of 
desolations, than, Desolations 
are determined: for it is ad- 
mitted that the first of these 
terms, though the participle 
feminine of Niphal, of the verb 
yon, may be used as a noun 
substantive—in which case its 
meaning is properly sententia 
Jinalis, or decretoria—a sentence 
decided—a final decision—from 
which there is no appeal—which 
cannot be evaded, and cannot be 
suspended—which must be exe- 
cuted in due course of things, 
when it has once been pro- 
nounced—or the like. The ge- 
neral sense of the proposition is 
certainly adequately represented 
in the Bible text version ; which 
in this instance is much prefer- 
able to the marginal one: but it 


VOL. IV. Ζ 


is more literally exact to render 
it, And unto an end of war shall 
be sentences determinate of de- 
solations-—that is, desolation de- 
creed upon desolation, the work 
of war, like the execution of 
one decree of a court of justice 
after another; until the war 
should come to a full end, or the 
executioners of justice should 
have performed their work. [0 
was scarcely possible to describe 
the ravages of the Jewish war, 
for the several years that it 
lasted, in a more summary, yet 
a more graphic manner. Would 
the reader see a list of each of 
those sentences final of desola- 
tion, and the order and manner 
in which it was executed upon 
the Jews by the Romans; I refer 
him to my Exposition of the 
Parables, vol. v. part i. note on 
the prophecy on the mount, p. 


353-35. 


338 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, δ. 


before what time it could not strictly be said to have 
begun. The prophecy itself, too, so far suggests the 
answer to this inquiry, as to place it beyond a doubt 
that the last of this class of events could never be said 
to have arrived, while “ the consummation, and that de- 
termined, should yet remain to be poured on the deso- 
late.” And hence it would be an obvious conclusion, 
that the consummation in question could not be sup- 
posed by it to have arrived, with the mere advent of 
the people of the prince that should come—nor even 
with the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, by 
their means, as a consequence of that coming: for it 
speaks of desolations to continue to an end of the war, 
and of a consummation, and of somewhat determined, 
to be poured on the desolate, even after that event. 
Hence, if this people of the prince to come is rightly 
to be understood of the Romans, under their prince or 
leader, Vespasian or Titus; and if the destruction of 
the city and the sanctuary to be effected by them, is 
only the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by 
the Romans under Titus; then, among the most ob- 
vious conclusions, suggested by the prophecy in this 
part of its predictions, this would be one, That the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70, never was, nor ever 
was intended to be, the proper termination of that 
class of its events, to which we have given the name of 
the events of the Jewish war. 

And, indeed, notwithstanding the concurrence of 
commentators, generally speaking, to look upon the de- 
struction of Jerusalem as the close of the Jewish war, 
and so far of the desolations determined—it is sur- 
prising that any one should have fallen into this mis- 
take, so contrary as it is to the internal evidence of 
the prophecy, which, speaking expressly of this class 
of its futurities, and of the order and succession of each 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 339 


in relation to another—and so plainly describing be- 
forehand the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, 
so plainly too passes beyond it, as prior to the end of 
war, and as part only, not the whole, of that measure 
of desolations, rigorously determined or decreed before- 
hand, and rigorously to be poured out and executed 
upon the desolate—before all could come to an end. 
Better it were to consult the testimony of history— 
and to inquire at Josephus, or from other sources of 
the necessary information—whether the Jewish deso- 
lations were summed up and completed in the capture 
of Jerusalem; whether there was not more of calamity 
to be endured, and more of desolation to be inflicted, 
the same in kind, however different in degree—even 
after that heaviest and most desolating portion of the 
whole. The answer of history, I apprehend, would 
be more in unison with the truth of. the event—and 
more in harmony with that idea of it which might 
have been formed beforehand from the description so 
plainly given, by anticipation, in the prophecy itself ; 
however little in accordance with the prepossessions 
and prejudices of commentators. 

This misapprehension of the true sense of the origi- 
nal in the present instance, among commentators on the 
prophecy in our own country at least, appears to me to 
be due in part to what I cannot but consider (though 
I say it with all submission and humility) the erro- 
neous version, which has been proposed and acquiesced 
in of the latter part of verse 27, taken in conjunction 
with verse 26. The prominent idea in verse 26, I ad- 
mit to be the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, 
that is, of Jerusalem and the temple, by the people of 
the prince that should come: the end whereof, it is 
subjoined, should be with a flood; that is, an indiscri- 
minate destruction—a promiscuous, exterminating visi- 

Z2 


340 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, 8. 


tation, analogous to the sweeping, indiscriminate effect 
of a deluge or inundation, bursting upon a country, 
and carrying all before it: a very lively and very just 
description of that overwhelming ruin and desolation 
which after visiting all parts of the country previously, 
last, though not least, broke upon Jerusalem and the 
temple itself*. But from this point of time, which an- 


* IT know not, indeed, whe- 
ther Fw. wp the words which 
are here translated, And the end 
thereof shall be with a flood— 
the prima facie reference of 
which would be to the city and 
the temple, just before mention- 
ed—are not rather to be referred 
to the people of the prince that 
should come. It is an objection 
to the previous construction, that 
the possessive pronoun athxed 
to yp is masculine and singular 
both: and therefore supposes 
an antecedent both masculine 
and singular also: in which case, 
it must either be referred exclu- 
sively tosanctuary, or exclusively 
to people, both of which in the 
Hebrew are singular and mas- 
culine accordingly ; which the 
word translated by czty is not. 
Now there does not seem to be 
any particular reason why the 
end of the temple should be de- 
scribed as being with a flood— 
and not that of the city like- 
wise. On the contrary, it would 
be more natural to conclude that 
the end of the city should be so 
described, than that the end of 
the temple should. Nor does it 
make any difference that the 
temple was the principal scene 
of the contest between the Jews 
and Romans, before all was over. 
The great loss of life—particu- 
larly that occasioned by famine— 
was in the city; and the con- 


test for the possession of the 
city continued even when that 
for the temple was at an end; 
the capture of the city being a 
month later than the destruction 
of the temple. I conclude, there- 
fore, for these reasons, and for 
others which might be men- 
tioned, that the words, And his 
end shall be with a flood—are 
to be referred to the same ante- 
cedent of whom it was just be- 
fore predicted that he should 
destroy the city and the sanc- 
tuary ; that is, the people of the 
prince to come ; and we may in- 
fer from this reference, that even 
after that destruction—his end 
it was supposed would be to 
come: it was still more or less 
distant ; it was still to be with, 
or rather, in a flood—in some- 
thing analogous to the continued 
gushing of a mighty, impetuous 
stream—which having been re- 
sisted or retarded for a time, 
when it has overcome that re- 
sistance, is still hurried forward 
in the same overwhelming man- 
ner as before. That wp may 
bear this meaning, there can be 
no question ; for yp according to 
Gesenius, is properly an end 
either of space or of time—and 
it may very appropriately denote 
the point of time at which any 
given series of effects, which 
was destined to last a certain 
time, should come to an end. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 341 


swers to A. D. 70, the specific idea of the city and the 
sanctuary is dropped—as with good reason it might be, 
if both, at that point of time, had ceased to be: and 
the one idea, which predominates through the sequel to 
the end, is that of the full measure of calamity and 
suffering being far from exhausted, even after that large 
share of both which had thus been endured ; of desola- 
tions determined to the end of the war, or as we have 
agreed rather to render it, of irreversible sentences of 
desolation still to be executed to an end of war—of 
abominations overspreading to the making desolate, 
until the consummation and that determined should be 
poured on the desolate. All these modes of describing 
the effect intended are manifestly in substance one and 
the same; and each of them may alike be said to 
amount to this: That whatever had been the degree of 
destruction or desolation as yet endured, up to that pe- 
riod in the history of the war, the same kind, if not the 
same degree of both, should continue to be endured, 
even beyond that point—auntil the utmost in the way 
of destruction and desolation, which had been deter- 
mined on beforehand, should have been fully completed 
and carried into effect. 

Commentators have been apt to imagine that the 
idea of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, is 
kept in view still to the end of this description, because 
they find an allusion, directly after, to the overspread- 
ing of abominations: which might admit of being con- 
His end, then, as referred to the 
people of the prince to come, 


just mentioned, will be the point 
of time when he should cease to 


and properly, it is true, of the 
city and the temple—but still ge- 
nerally of the DESTROYER: and 
as a destroyer he must still con- 


act as that people—that is, in 
that capacity in which he was to 
come, and in which until then 
he should appear. This is the 
capacity of the DESTROYER; first 


tinue to act, until the work of 
destruction was complete: that 
is, his end, in that capacity, must 
be, as his beginning had been— 
in a flood. 


Z3 


“s 


342 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &e. 


nected with the historical fact of the erection of the 
Roman ensigns in and about the site of the city and 
the temple, both before and at the time of their de- 
struction. Perhaps, too, the marginal version contri- 
butes somewhat to the same illusion, by proposing to 
substitute “the abominable armies”—for, “the over- 
spreading of abominations :” and still more, the version 
of the Septuagint, or that of Theodotion, which ren- 
ders the passage, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἑερὸν βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώ- 
σεων, With or without ἔσται. Our Saviour, too, in his 
well known allusion to the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, 
standing in the holy place, spoken of by Daniel the 
prophet, or as St. Luke expresses the same thing, Jeru- 
salem’s being encompassed with armies’, has been 
thought to have had his eye upon this place in the 
Book of Daniel in particular. 

With respect to the version of the Septuagint, or that 
of 'Theodotion, there is no authority in the Hebrew for 
it whatever; unless, in the copies from which those 
versions were made, w)) was the reading where 45 is 
so at present. And as to the supposed allusion to this 
text by our Saviour, in the prophecy on the mount; it 
would be most contrary to the context of that pro- 
phecy, and to the dictates of common sense, to con- 
sider any reference intended there to the particular 
idea of the overspreading of abominations, which occurs 
here. The object of our Saviour’s referring his hearers 
on that occasion to the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, spoken 
of by Daniel the prophet, at all, was to furnish them 
with one, among other criteria, by which they were 
to know that the ἐρήμωσις of Jerusalem was drawn 
nigh; and so to provide for their own escape from the 
scene of that visitation, by a timely flight. With rea- 
son then might he be supposed to refer to an event, 


5. Matt. xxiv. 15. Mark xiii. 14. Luke xxi. 20. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 343 


answering that description, which might happen be- 
fore the destruction, and still more, before the siege of 
Jerusalem; but it would be contrary to all reason to 
suppose him to refer expressly to any thing, as a 
sign of the approaching downfall of Jerusalem, and a 
warning to his disciples to make their escape—which 
was not to happen before the beginning, or even before 
the end of the siege itself: by either of which times, 
and especially the latter, the safety of his own dis- 
ciples must have been long since provided for, or it 
could not, without a miracle, be provided for at all. 
It is an objection, too, to the same supposition, that the 
word in the original, which occurs here, and which the 
Septuagint and Theodotion have translated by βδέλυγμα 
is in reality plural, and should have been rendered by 
βδελύγματα: while that which follows it in the Hebrew, 
supposing it a substantive, would not be one which 
would answer to ἐρημώσεως, coupled with βδέλυγμα in the 
prophecy on the mount, but to ἐρημώσεων ; by which it 
is rendered both in the Septuagint and Theodotion ac- 
cordingly. The βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, however, is 
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, in other instances, if 
not in this; particularly xi. 31, and xii. 11, in both 
which it is translated by the Septuagint in strict ac- 
cordance to the letter of the text; and to either of 
these might our Saviour allude, in his prophecy upon 
the mount, if he meant no more by the thing intended 
under that description, than the appearance of ensigns 
or standards in or about Jerusalem—which ensigns 
were an abomination, because they were idols; and an 
abomination of desolation, because they were the in- 
signia of an invading and besieging army. 

If there is obscurity in this part of the prophecy, 
and no one, perhaps, will deny that there is—it ap- 
pears to me to be due partly to the same peculiarity of 

Z 4 


344 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, Se. 


structure, noticed already, the interposition of paren- 
thetic matter between things that would otherwise 
have been connected. I apprehend this parenthesis to 
reside in the last words of verse 26: And the end 
thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the 
war desolations are determined. There seems to be 
no reason why these should not be understood as a 
parenthetic remark, illustrative or explanatory of what 
had been last predicted: the destruction of the city 
and the temple by the people of the prince that should 


come*. 


Let them be regarded as such: and let the 


rest of the prophecy stand as follows: 
Aud the people of the prince that shall come + shall 


* It isto be observed, however, 
that the above is proposed only 
on the further supposition that 
the reference in the words, And 
the end thereof, (which in this 
case would require to be trans- 
lated, And its end,) is to the 
city and the sanctuary, or at 
least to the sanctuary, just men- 
tioned. If they are not to be 
so referred, but to the people of 
the prince before mentioned, 
which is my opinion; there is 
no room for any parenthesis, 
nor any necessity to suppose 
one. One and the same descrip- 
tion of consequences, from the 
point of time where the destruc- 
tion of the city and the sanc- 
tuary is supposed to be over, will 
be carried on to the end, as fol- 
lows: 

And his end shall be in a 
flood : 

And to an end of war shall be 
sentences determinate of deso- 
lations : 

And upon wing of abomina- 
tions shall he be making deso- 
late ; 


And unto a consummation 
and a sentence determinate, shall 
be poured upon the made deso- 
late. 

The terms of this description 
shew that the language, in this 
part of the prophecy, is more or 
less poetical: and read in that 
antithetic and parallel order of 
structure in which Hebrew 
poetry more particularly de- 
lights—the first of these lines 
will go with the third, and the 
second with the fourth: and so 
read, the whole acquires won- 
derful light and perspicuity. 

And his end shall be ina 
flood : 

And upon wing of abomina- 
tions shall he be making deso- 
late. 

And to an end of war shall 
be sentences determinate of de- 
solations : 

And to a consummation and 
a sentence determinate, shall be 
poured upon the made desolate. 

+ The articles are wanting in 
the original before each of the 
words rendered by people and 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 345 


destroy the city and the sanctuary. And for the over- 
spreading of abominations he shall make ἐξ desolate, 
even until the consummation, and that determined shall 
be poured upon the desolate. 

In the last part of this version resides what I con- 
ceive to be the principal inaccuracy of our Bible trans- 
lation. We may object to overspreading as the ver- 
sion of the Hebrew, which properly denotes a wing’: 
we may object to the particle for, in connection with 
it, which in the Hebrew is properly upon: and we 
may object to the introduction of the relative 27, which 
is perhaps the greatest liberty of all; insomuch as 
there is no such pronoun in the Hebrew text, and to 
supply it endangers the sense of the passage, by lead- 
ing to the inference that it refers, if to any antecedent, 
to the city and the sanctuary mentioned just before. 
We may object to the supplement of the definite 


by prince respectively ; and this 
circumstance of distinction 
ought to have been faithfully 
observed in the translation. The 
Septuagint version is so con- 
fused, or so interpolated, in the 
whole of this 26th verse, that it 
can scarcely be safe to appeal to 
its testimony ; yet it is easy to 
see that it preserved the absence 
of the article by rendering oy 
ὍΔ), as it appears to have done, by 
βασιλεία ἐθνῶν. Theodotion has 
not preserved this distinction ; 
but probably because he mistook 
Dy populus, for DY ἅμα or σὺν, 
which was very possible. In 
that case, if he referred the verb, 
to destroy, to Messiah, just 
spoken of as cut off, he would 
naturally supply the article be- 
fore P33, so as to make the whole, 
καὶ τὴν πόλιν Kal TO ἅγιον διαφθερεῖ 
σὺν τῷ ἡγουμένῳ τῷ ἐρχομένῳ. 


The version of Aquila, how- 
ever, shews us the proper force 
of the Hebrew: καὶ τὴν πόλιν 
καὶ τὸ ἅγιον διαφθερεῖ λαὸς ἡγου- 
μένου ἐρχομένου: in conformity 
to which, I wish our own Eng- 
lish version had always stood, 
And the city and the sanctuary 
shall a people of a leader to come 
destroy. And the word leader, 
it appears to me, should be used 
in preference to the word prince ; 
though the Hebrew would ad- 
mit of either: because Titus, 
the commander of the Romans, 
at the siege of Jerusalem—Ves- 
pasian, the commander of the 
same armies, through the course 
of the war, before him—and 
others of the Roman generals, 
commanders for the rest of the 
war, after him ; were all leaders, 
ἡγούμενοι, or duces, but none of 
them princes, at the time. 


346 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


article before the two words which follow, consumma- 
tion, and that determined, if not before the last word in 
the sentence also: for in none of these instances is it 
present in the Hebrew, and in each of them the sense 
of the original requires it to be dispensed with, and in 
each of them except the last it might have been omit- 
ted, without offence to the idom of our own language. 

Might I be permitted to state the text of verse 26 
and 27, with such omissions of the matter interposed, 
and such corrections of the Bible version, as, for the 
reasons assigned, I should think necessary, it would 
stand as follows: 

And a people of a leader to come shall destroy the 
city and the sanctuary. And upon wing of abomina- 
tions shall he be making desolate, even until a con- 
summation and a sentence determinate shall be poured 
upon the made desolate*. 

The principal recommendation of the above version 
is, that it preserves unbroken the unity of the descrip- 
tion, by restricting it all to one and the same subject, 
the people of the leader to come; for it will easily be 
perceived, that he who is supposed to be making deso- 
late, until the sentence determinate was consummated 
on the made desolate, is the same people of the leader 
to come, who was to destroy the city and the sanctu- 


ary 7. 


* The sense of making a- 
mazed, astonished, or confound- 
ed, or being made amazed, asto- 
nished, or confounded, would 
suit these two words, ren- 
dered by making desolate, and 
made desolate, respectively. And 
the whole being understood of 
the ravages of a victorious, de- 
populating army, how well are 
both ideas combined in those 


two lines of our own poet Gray! 
Amazement in his van with flight combined, 
And sorrow’s faded form and solitude behind, 

+ We cannot make the same 
people the subject of the being 
poured, in the concluding part of 
the sentence ; because the form 
of the verb, rendered by Shall 
be poured, shews it must have 
for its governing substantive a 
noun in the feminine gender. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 347 


And with respect to the particular manner in which 
he is represented as carrying into effect this process of 
desolation, viz. upon wing of abominations: Wing of 
abominations—-intended merely to personify the instru- 
ment of locomotion—is as allowable an Hebraism in 
this instance, as wings of eagles, Exodus xix. 4: to 
describe the mode in which God had brought the Israel- 
ites out of Egypt: or as any parallel mode of speak- 
ing, agreeably to the idiom of that language—the foot 
of pride, the hand of violence, the eye of concupiscence, 
or the like—to qualify the nature of the action by the 
most characteristic property of the instrument of action 
accordingly. I apprehend, therefore, that no good ob- 
jection can lie against the idea of Wing of abomina- 
tions, per se; to describe the manner in which a victo- 
rious army might be supposed to traverse a country, 
laying it waste in all directions. The coupling of the 
preposition Sy with 43> in this instance, is a strong 
argument of the correctness of that version: for the 
sense of that preposition, as we have already had occa- 
sion to remark, is properly super, or upon, and com- 
bined with the idea of a wing, it can express nothing 
so naturally as motion by or upon wings. 

And why motion upon wing of abominations, in 
particular, should have been the image chosen to de- 
scribe the movements of a victorious, but depopulating 


qnnis the 3.fut. singular feminine 
of Kal, from 7h), effundi, destzl- 
lare, liquari, mano, or the like. 
The other two words, 755 the 
whole of a thing, a completion, 
a consummation, a full end, or 
the like; and Fyn, sententia 
Jjinalis, decretoria, a sentence 
determined, and irreversible, are 
feminine substantives. The con- 
junction of two such terms 32 


mon, might seem to be an in- 
stance of what is meant by the 
figure ἑν διὰ dvoiv—the second of 
them being simply understood as 
the participle feminine of Niphal. 
The same conjunction occurs 
Isaiah x. 23. and xxviii. 22. I 
would render this last clause, 
And unto a consummation and 
a sentence determinate shall be 
poured upon the made desolate. 


348 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


army, the reason may be, because this army was not 
to be any army, but the army of the leader to come ; 
and the ensigns of this army were not to be ensigns of 
any description, but ensigns which were properly abo- 
minations, in a ceremonial or legal point of view : that 
is, the objects of an idolatrous worship. The ensigns 
of the Roman armies, it is well known, were only of 
two sorts, the vewdlla, or σημαίαι, and the aquile, or 
ἀετοί ; the former, at this period of their history, car- 
rying the head, προτομὴ, or bust of the reigning em- 
peror, the latter, figures of the eagle itself. Both these 
in the eyes of Jews would be abominations—because 
such likenesses or representations as their own law 
forbade them to make—but they would be _ espe- 
cially so, under the circumstances of the case, because 
they were objects of worship on the part of the Roman 
soldiers, with whom it was the commonest article of 
military duty to offer Divine adoration, to bow down, 
and to burn incense or perform sacrifice to the images 
of their emperors on their standards, and to their 
eagles ἢ. 


* See the well known story 
in Josephus, of the golden eagle, 
dedicated by Herod over one of 
the gates of the temple: Ant. 
Jud. xvii. vi. 2. De Bello, i. 
XXxlil. 2: which illustrates the 
abomiuation in which figured re- 
presentations of any description 
of animals were held by the Jews. 
Similar to this, in the inference 
to which it leads, is Philo’s ac- 
ecunt of the dedication of the 
shields by Pilate, in the preto- 
rium at Jerusalem: Operum ii. 
589. 1. 38-591. 1. το. De Virtuti- 
bus. That the onpaia, or vevilla, 
of the legions of the time, also, 
bore the προτομὴ of the emperor 
for the time being, and by the 
Jews were regarded as abomina- 


tions on that very account, the 
appearance of which either in or 
about Jerusalem, or any where 
in their own country, they con- 
sidered a pollution, appears from 
the incident mentioned by Jose- 
phus in the administration of 
Pilate, Ant. Jud. xviii. iii. 1. 
De Bello, 11. ix. 2: and from the 
similar incident in the last year 
of Tiberius, when Vitellius was 
on his march through Judea, 
U.C. 790, A.D. 37, to make 
war upon Aretas: Ant. Jud. 
xvill. v. 4. In proof of the Di- 
vine worship paid to both see 
Jos. De Bello, vi. vi. 1: and 
Dio, xl. 18, and other authori- 
ties which might be quoted. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 349 


Now in what manner, we might ask, could the 
moving about of a large army over the face of the 
country in every direction—an army marshalled in 
battle array—an army consisting of horse and foot— 
an army divided into squadrons and companies, under 
their proper military commanders and leaders—and 
distinguished by their proper military ensigns and 
badges—be more fitly as well as more graphically ex- 
pressed, than by the idea of an army of that descrip- 
tion moving about on the wings of its ensigns? And 
if that army was a Roman army, and those ensigns 
were Roman ensigns—moving about upon wing of 
ensigns that were abominations, and consequently, 
upon wing of abominations ? 

An army, as an army, and more especially an army 
in battle array, can neither be said to move about nor 
to stand still, except as its ensigns do one or the other. 
An army, as an army, whether in motion or at rest, is 
not to be distinguished from its ensigns and standards, 
as in motion or at rest also. It was the duty of the 
Roman signifer at least, to set the example to the rest 
of the army, both in marching and in halting. A 
Roman army, on duty, stirred not until its standard- 
bearers had set forward, and halted not while their 
standards continued in motion. If it must be repre- 
sented as moving about, therefore, and consequently in 
conformity to the idiom of the Hebrew language, as 
borne upon wings of some kind or another ; it must be 
represented as moving about upon wings of its en- 
signs: and those ensigns being idols, or abominations, 
upon wings of abominations. And this is so natural 
an explanation of the meaning of the phrase in this 
instance, that under the idea of an army moving about 
upon wings of its ensigns, and those ensigns, ensigns of 
abomination, we need not suppose an allusion was pur- 





350 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


posely intended to the motion of an army whose en- 
signs should consist of eagles, and those eagles be the 
objects of worship to the army itself—though such an 
allusion, if really intended, might account for the ori- 
gin of the figure at once. 

The events, which constitute the second class of fu- 
turities spoken of in the prophecy, briefly stated are 
the following: I. Messiah the Prince: II. The cutting 
off of Messiah: III. The confirmation of the covenant 
with many: IV. The cessation of sacrifice and obla- 
tion. And the connection between these, too, com- 
posing as they do one and the same continuous repre- 
sentation of the facts of the Christian ministry, would 
be rendered perceptibly clear in this instance also, if 
we might take the liberty of setting out of view, for the 
present, the matter interposed between the beginning 
of verse 26, and the beginning of verse 27: matter 
which has been found to relate exclusively to the 
events of the other class, combined with this, the facts 
of the Jewish war. With this omission for the present, 
the order of disclosures in the prophecy will stand, in 
the words of the Bible Text version, as follows: 

Know therefore and understand, that from the go- 
ing forth of the commandment to restore and to build 
Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven 
weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall 
be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah 


And he shall confirm the covenant with many for 
one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause 
the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. 

Now to consider these particulars in the above order 
—though there is no mention by name of such an 
event as the coming or appearance of Messiah; we 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 351 


may notwithstanding take it for granted, that when it 
is stated, at the outset, there should be such and such 
an interval of time, from such and such a point of com- 
mencement, wnto Messiah the Prince; this must be 
understood to mean unto the coming or appearance, 
the advent or παρουσία, of Messiah the Prince: and we 
may also conclude that such is the mode of connecting 
the coming in question with the lapse of the interval 
in question; that is, such are the terms employed to 
define both the beginning and the end of the interval 
in question, 737 Nx y (Amo ἐξόδου λόγου, Ab exitu 
sermonis, From going forth of a word) on the one 
hand, 33) mw ay on the other; (which Theodotion 
renders by Ἕως Χριστοῦ ἡγουμένου, the Vulgate by 
Usque ad Christum ducem, and our own Bible by 
Unto the Messiah the Prince—a version strictly literal 
in all but the articles before the words Messiah and 
Prince;) that as the course and succession of the 
specified time must begin to proceed with the going 
forth of the word in question, so it must come to an 
end with the coming and appearance of Messiah in 
question: the prophecy would be convicted of false- 
hood if the event should turn out to be otherwise ; 
if the coming in question should take place either be- 
fore or after the specified interval in question ; if the 
interval should be come to an end, and Messiah be not 
yet come, or if the interval should still be current, and 
Messiah have already appeared. 

Now this being the case, it must obviously make a 
considerable difference to the future interpretation of 
the prophecy, whether we suppose the coming and 
appearance of Messiah, which is thus restricted to a 
fixed point of time, to be meant of the birth of the 
future Messiah, or of his appearance in the discharge 
of his ministry. Hither of these things, at first sight, 


352 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


might appear to be equally’ capable of being intended 
by the allusion to Messiah the Prince; but it is certain 
that both could not possibly be meant: for it is certain 
that both the nativity, and the public appearance in 
his ministry, of one and the same person—between 
which periods of his history there was always to be a 
determinate interval of time, of no inconsiderable ex- 
tent—could not possibly be each intended, as that one 
and the same event, which was to happen neither 
earlier nor later than the end of that one and the same 
lapse of time, dated from some one and the same com- 
mencement thereof. If the birth of Christ was the 
event intended, at the end of the sixty-nine weeks, by 
Messiah the Prince, his public appearance in the dis- 
charge of his ministry must be excluded from the scope 
of the prophecy: if his public appearance in the dis- 
charge of his ministry, at the end of the time in ques- 
tion, was the thing contemplated, then his nativity as 
such must be totally left out of sight. 

Among the other preliminary questions, then, which 
would necessarily require to be considered before we 
could advance a step towards the final explanation of 
this celebrated prophecy, one would manifestly be, and 
not the least important of all: Supposing by Messiah 
the Prince, what all commentators are agreed upon, 
the coming, appearance, and παρουσία of our Saviour 
to be meant; and supposing, what is too plainly deter- 
mined by the prophecy itself to admit of a doubt, this 
coming, appearance, and παρουσία to be fixed to the end 
of a specified interval of time ; is this coming, appear- 
ance, and παρουσία of the Messiah, at the end of this 
time, to be understood of the coming, appearance, and 
παρουσία of our Saviour at his birth, or at his entrance 
upon his ministry ? 

The answer to this question, it appears to me, is 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 353 


supplied by the prophecy itself. The coming, appear- 
ance, and παρουσία in question, if understood of the 
coming, appearance, and παρουσία of any one particular 
person, must be understood of a coming, appearance, 
and παρουσία of that same person, in the sense, and in 
the capacity, in which he is spoken of in the prophecy, 
and in which he is recognised and exhibited there. 
And this is not any sense, or any capacity, in general, 
but the sense and the capacity of Messiah or Prince, in 
particular. This truth appears to be so clearly intimated 
in the prophecy, that it seems scarcely possible without 
the grossest hallucination to overlook it: and yet it is 
a distinction of great importance. It is so plainly im- 
plied at least, that the word which is used to express 
the sense, and to denote the capacity in question—that 
is, to set forth the person intended by it in his most 
appropriate character—is applied to him in both the 
instances of its occurrence, in verse 25, and verse 26, 
respectively, not as what it is in itself, an appellative 
or noun of quality, denoting anointed one, but as a 
proper name. In both those instances of its occur- 
rence, at least, it is used without the article; which 
considering its primary sense and meaning, it could 
not be except as a proper name. It is used in short 
here, in Hebrew, just as the word Χριστὸς, which an- 
swers to it, and originally denoted anointed one, as 
much as it, came to be used in Greek, when it began 
to be applied to our Saviour, and to be recognised in 
the language of Christians and Gentiles both, as his 
proper and personal appellation, not less than Jesus, 
which was always his proper name from the first *. 


* This use of the word, mum, in fact the standing idiom of 
without the article, especially scripture. Compare 1 Sam. ii. 
in its reference to the Messiah, τὸ, the first instance of any such 
or the Anointed, κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, is use of the term, with that special 


VOL. IV. Aa 


354 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


The conclusion, which we are authorized to build 
upon this peculiarity in the mode of designating the 
person whose coming, appearance, and παρουσία are in- 
tended in the prophecy, seems to be this; That his 
coming, appearance, and παρουσία, in no capacity, can be 
properly intended by it, which was not, strictly speak- 
ing, a coming, appearance, and παρουσία, in his cha- 
racter and capacity of Messiah or Christ. The ques- 
tion then which we have to consider at present is re- 
ducible to this: Will the coming, appearance, and παρ- 
ουσία of our Saviour at the moment of his nativity, 
or his coming, appearance, and παρουσία at the time of 
his entrance upon his public ministry—answer to the 
description of his coming, appearance, and παρουσία 
in the recognised character of Messiah, with the great- 
est propriety and greatest truth ? No one can hesitate 
to say, his coming, appearance, and παρουσία at the 
time of his entrance upon his public ministry. For 
who is prepared to maintain that his coming, appear- 
ance, and παρουσία, simply at his birth, was his com- 
ing, appearance, and παρουσία, in the recognised cha- 
racter of Messiah ? Who is prepared to maintain that 
the first thirty years of his life upon earth—years spent 
in the privacy of domestic retirement—years of which 
there is no account in any of the gospel histories of 
his life—were years of Messiahship properly so ealled ὃ 
Who is prepared to maintain that he assumed no new 
character when he entered upon his ministry? that he 
appeared thenceforward in public in no other capacity 
than he had always appeared in from the first? that 
he spent the last three years of his life upon earth in 
no other mode than he had passed the thirty preced- 


reference, which occurs in the the article, especially as an ap- 
Old Testament. That the word _ pellative, appears from Leviti- 
otherwise is not used without cus iv. 3. 5. 16, &e. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 


355 


ing? Who, in short, is prepared to maintain that he 
appeared in the character of Messiah, before he be- 
came Messiah? For what is Messiah, but Christ, or 
Anointed ? and how could Messiah become Messiah 
until he had received his unction ? and when did he 
receive his unction, before the descent of the Spirit 
upon him? and when did the Spirit descend upon 
him, before he received baptism at the hands of John ? 
and when did he receive baptism at the hands of John, 
before he entered, or was ready to enter, on the dis- 


charge of his public ministry * ? 


* An unction was previously 
necessary to confer the charac- 
ter of priest, of prophet, or of 
king, upon the proper subject 
of any one of them; and much 
more on one, who should unite 
them all in his single person, as 
our Saviour was intended to do. 
This fact is too notorious of the 
first and the third of these cha- 
racters, to require any proof: 
and that it is equally true of the 
second, may be gathered from 
Psalm ev. 15: 1 Kings xix. τό: 
Tsaiah ΙΧ]. 1: Luke iv. 18. And 
while we may freely admit, that 
by virtue of this designation, 
our Saviour enjoyed a prescrip- 
tive right to each of these 
titles, and each of these oflfices, 
from the moment of his birth ; 
we may not less confidently 
maintain, that he did not ac- 
tually assume them, or actually 
begin to exercise them, until he 
had acquired a right to do both 
by virtue of his baptism: when 
only he received that unction, 
or underwent that process, ana- 
logous to an unction, which was 
indispensably necessary to the 
acquisition and exercise of each. 
Till then, these several charac- 


ters were not active but dor- 
mant in him. And if this une- 
tion, properly so called—that 
solemn, preliminary ceremony, 
which was necessary to cense- 
crate to each of these high and 
holy offices, the person appoint- 
ed to sustain them—did not take 
place at his baptism, when, be- 
sides the ablution of his body by 
water, the true antitype of the 
holy chrism, or anointing oil, was 
poured without measure upon 
him, in the descent of the Spirit 
by which that ablution was fol- 
lowed ; it would not be easy to 
say when it did. See on this 
subject, Dissertation xix. vel. ii. 
189— 1091. 

It appears to me, indeed, that 
the same act, which constituted 
Messiah Messiah, that is, Christ 
or Anointed, made him 73) also. 
The proper sense of this word 
is ἡγούμενος, Dux, or Leader ; as 
appears from the fact that in the 
Septuagint it is rendered by dp- 
χων, or Ruler, eight times; by 
βασιλεὺς, or King, twice; by ἐπι- 
στάτης, or Prefect, once ; but by 
ἡγούμενος, or Leader, twenty- 
eight times. The conjunction 
of Messiah and 73) is made by 


Αδῷ 


356 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, ὅτε. 


Among the most natural of those presumptions, 


therefore, respecting the 


the prophecy itself; so that the 
same point of time, and the 
same act, which made him the 
one, must have made him the 
other also. Nor is Micah v. 2. 
any difficulty ; even though St. 
Matthew’s interpretation of the 
word there used, which is dwn, 
be adopted to shew that buna 
was equivalent to P13, or ἡγού- 
μενος : for this prophecy would 
be equally true, -at what time 
soever one, actually born at Beth- 
lehem, whether 3) from the mo- 
ment of his birth or not, be- 
came so afterwards. 

Now what is this word, P13, 
or ἡγούμενος, but Dux, or Leader? 
and what can the application of 
that name to Messiah speécifi- 
cally denote so properly as the 
relation in which, from the time 
that he began to act as Messiah, 
he began also to stand to his 
people ; viz. that of their Mas- 
ter, their Teacher, their Head, or 
Leader? It is as P33, ἡγούμενος, 
or Leader, that Messiah stands 
in the relation of Shepherd to 
his people; at least if the most dis- 
tinctive circumstance of that rela- 
tion of the shepherd to the sheep, 
among the Jews more particu- 
larly, be considered; viz. that 
the shepherd always walked at 
the head of the sheep; the shep- 
herd led them in and led them 
out ; and the sheep were trained 
to follow him. On this subject 
see my Exposition of the Para- 
bles, vol. ii. 493—498. Among 
the Jews, too, the master in 
public was wont to precede or 
walk before the disciples or scho- 
lars, and they to follow him ; 
which might be collected by im- 
plication from 2 Kings 1]. 3. 5. 


meaning of its own dis- 


of Elijah and Elisha, and ap- 
pears very plainly of our Savi- 
our and his disciples, from Mark 
x.32. In the Book of Revela- 
tion, too, Messiah is Δ), or ἡγούς-. 
pevos; whether as the Lamb 
whom the 144,000 of the sealed 
follow whithersoever he goes, 
xiv. 4; or as the Rider on the 
white horse, whose name is the 
Word of God—going forth to 
the great day of Armageddon, 
followed by the armies of hea- 
VEU; Kix. LE. δ, ta: 

It seems to me, then, that Mes- 
siah first became 33 when he 
first began to collect disciples ; 
that is, to have those about him 
from that time forward, whose 
acknowledged Head, whose Mas- 
ter and Teacher, whose Leader 
or καθηγητὴς, in one word, he 
was designed to be. He is still 
ἡγούμενος, or Leader, though on 
a much larger scale, as standing 
in the relation of Head to the 
whole of his church : but he will 
not acquire the full meaning of 
that descriptive appellation of 
his person, nor enter upon the 
utmost extent of the relation to 
his people, in which he stands, 
by virtue of it, until the body 
of his church becomes cdexten- 
sive with the body of mankind ; 
and Messiah is rendered ‘p33, or 
ἡγούμενος, to the whole of the 
earth. For these reasons, and ἢ 
because it is more in conformity 
to the strict literal meaning of the 
term itself, I think 2) through 
the whole of this prophecy, and 
especially as applied to the Mes- 
siah, should be rendered by 
Leader, and not by Prince. 
Compare Isaiah lv. 4. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 357 


closures, which the prophecy was calculated to raise 
beforehand, one would be this: That the coming, ap- 
pearance, and παρουσία, of a certain person, which was 
to take place exactly at the end of the first sixty-nine 
weeks of its whole duration—being described as his 
coming, appearance, and παρουσία as Messiah, if it is to 
be understood of a coming, appearance, and παρουσία of 
our Saviour Jesus Christ at all, must be understood of 
his coming, appearance, and παρουσία in his recog- 
nised character of the Messiah, and nothing else; and 
therefore in his public capacity, and in the public dis- 
charge of his ministry: and consequently that the first 
sixty-nine weeks of the prophecy, which find their pro- 
per termination with that coming, must find their 
proper termination not with the date of the Nativity, 
whatever that might be, but with the date of the com- 
mencement of the Public Ministry cf the Messiah, 
howsoever that might be to be determined. 

This conclusion, which seems only a necessary infer- 
ence from the description of the person himself, whose 
coming is intended, as given in the details of the pro- 
phecy ; is confirmed, and placed beyond a question, by 
the statement premised to the whole, declaring the 
purposes of the weeks, or the purposes of the pro- 
phecy in general. Seventy weeks, said the angel, at 
the outset of these communications, are determined 
upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, for such and 
such purposes—that is, with a view to such and such 
effects or consequences; which he proceeded to specify 
in their order: and every one of which, when rightly 
explained and understood, will be seen to be of such a 
nature as not only to be connected with the coming 
of the Messiah in general, but to presuppose his ad- 
vent in particular, and to be of necessity much nearer 
the point of their own fulfilment with the actual com- 

Aas 





358 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


mencement of his public ministry, than with the mo- 
ment of his coming into the world. 

In order to this explanation, we have only to con- 
sider what was the object of the coming of the Messiah 
into the world at all; and what was the end proposed 
by it, with respect to the parties most immediately 
concerned in the fact itsel{—ourselves on the one hand, 
and the Messiah himself on the other. With respect 
to ourselves, the purpose of his coming may be most 
comprehensively yet most summarily stated as follows : 
To make an atonement for the sins of mankind, and 
so to reconcile them to God: To lay the foundation of 
a saving faith, that is, to supply the proper object of a 
justifying faith, in himself and in the merits of his 
own atonement: ΤῸ consummate the scheme of the 
Divine dispensations with and in behalf of his moral 
and responsible creatures : that is, to close the series of 
Divine revelation, by the fullest and most perfect com- 
munication of the Divine will, on all points both of faith 
and of practice, that had ever yet been given, or should 
ever yet be required to be given. And with respect 
to the Messiah himself, the object of his coming into 
the world may be briefly stated as follows: After 
doing all that has been specified above, as done and 
intended to be done, for our sakes, to enter himself into 
the enjoyment of his own reward ; to sit down at the 
right hand of God, in his reeognised capacity of Lord 
and Christ, the Captain of salvation, and Prince of 
Jife—at the head of the mediatorial kingdom, and su- 
preme both in heaven and earth, or subject to none ᾿ 
but the Father only. 

Now these are the purposes set forth by the pro- 
phecy, in verse 24, as the objects for which the weeks 
were determined; that is, as the destined effects and 
consequences, which were to be brought to pass in the 





On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 359 


course of that interval of time, contained by the weeks 
from first to last: and what is more, they are purposes 
represented there in the very order in which they 
have been stated above ; which every one must allow 
to be the order of the event, or the order in which the 
ideas of the things intended would be most naturally 
associated in a prospectus or view of them, before- 
hand. 

“Seventy weeks are determined,” declared the angel 
in the first place, “upon thy people and upon thy holy 
city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of 
sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity :” with 
which declaration we will pause at present; because 
these three propositions, though individually distinct, 
will be found, if I mistake not, virtually the same; 
and the first of the purposes, contemplated by the pro- 
phecy, though specified to consist of three particular 
objects, to be summed up in reality in one, as the result 
of the whole. 

The marginal variations upon the above version 
serve to shew that the Hebrew will admit of other ren- 
derings, which will bring the translation nearer to a lite- 
ral conformity to the original. With these alterations, 
the whole would stand, “ Τὸ restrain the transgression 
—And to seal up sins—And to make reconciliation for 
iniquity :” and that this version, upon the whole, would 
be more literal, the English reader himself may judge, 
by being told, that the same word, which, in the second 
of these clauses, is rendered by ¢o seal up, occurs again 
directly after in the allusion to vision and prophecy: 
where the Bible text version itself had rendered it by 
to seal up, though before it rendered it by “to make 
an end of,” instead of rendering it in both instances 
alike. No change, we observe, is proposed in the mar- 
gin for the text version of the third of the clauses, “ ΤῸ 

Aad 


360 Appendia. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


make reconciliation for iniquity :” and it may be pro- 
per to remark, that the text version of that part stood 
perhaps the least in need of correction of all. 

The same marginal authority shews us, that the 
word which was rendered in the first of these clauses 
by “to finish,” would be more closely expressed by 
“(0 restrain.” I will add, that it is equally capable 
of being rendered by “to shut up;” and in the Septua- 
gint it is translated by κατακλείω, as well as by other 
cognate terms in Greek*. The most important pre- 
liminary remark, however, which we should have to 
make on the literal meaning of these clauses generally, 
would concern the three words more _ particularly, 
which are rendered by “ transgression,” by “sins,” and 
by “iniquity,” respectively. It is far from an acci- 
dental or arbitrary conjunction of terms which has 
brought these words together, as something united, 
and yet separated them from each other, as something 
distinct: as the following observations, I trust, will shew. 


* y55 the verb in question, is 
rendered in the ο΄. once by ἀνέχω, 


greed upon that concludere, 
continere, συγκλεῖσαι. OY κατα- 


once by συνέχω, once by φυλάσ- 
gw, once by ἀποκλείω, and once 
by κατακλείω : all more or less 
to the same effect, and denoting 
to shut up, to keep in prison, 
to confine, or the like. Both 
Theodotion and the Septuagint, 
in this instance, indeed, have 
understood it in the sense of 
συντελεσθῆναι. Aquila too ren- 
dered it by συντελέσαι. Our trans- 
lators, it seems, adopted this 
version: and the Lexicons would 
imply that such is its proper 
sense in the conjugation Pihel 
with points. But distinctions 
which depend upon the points 
have of course no place in the 
construction of Hebrew without 
points: and it seems to be a- 


κλεῖσαι, to conclude or shut up, 
as in a prison, is one of the 
most natural meanings of the 
word. See Jeremiah xxxii. 2, 3. 
Ps. Ixxxviii.g, Hence it is that 
so) as a substantive denotes 
confinement: and s>> m2 is the 
Hebrew for a prison, or house 
of confinement. It is needless 
to add, that this meaning is by 
far the most suitable to the con- 
text, or to this word in particu- 
lar, considered as standing in 
conjunction with two other co- 
ordinate terms, one of them de- 
noting to seal up, the other to 
cover over, efface, or obliterate, 
an old exterior, by superinducing 
a new one upon it, or in its 
stead. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 361 


The first of these words, we perceive, is pwd; and 
the primary sense of that substantive, more especially 
as referred to the verb from which it is directly de- 
rived, it is agreed among the learned in the Hebrew 
language, is to express what would be rendered in 
Latin by defectio, or prevaricatio ; in Greek, by ἀπο- 
στασία, or παράβασις ; in English, by falling away, or 
transgression; all of them however in the special sense 
of rebelling against God, of apostatizing, and falling 
away from him in particular, or the like. Its proper 
and most natural meaning is therefore to denote the 
origin and beginning of sin—considered as a departure 
from the fixed rule of duty or standard of obedience, 
prescribed by God for his moral and responsible crea- 
tures; which must be by swerving, declining, and fall- 
ing away from it, in some manner or other; for a 
fixed rule of duty admits of no deviation—and every 
instance of disobedience, as far as it is a departure 
from the standard of such a rule, is so far a deflection 
from rectitude. It would apply preeminently to the 
act of Eve, as the first instance of that deflection from 
original rectitude, and of that contravention of the 
will of God, as the standard of obedience to his moral 
and responsible creatures, which was ever committed ; 
when she fell from innocence by plucking the for- 
bidden fruit: and it applies to the acts of moral and 
responsible agents generally, in every instance of their 
conduct since, as often as they still offend against the 
standard of their duty by the commission of any thing 
forbidden ; and so far decline to the right hand or to 
the left from the straightforward path of rectitude, 
prescribed by the moral Governor and Superior, for 
his moral creatures; in which they are bound to 
walk. 

The next of these pregnant terms is myon; the 


362 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


proper sense of which is, that slipping or falling, that 
going astray, that missing the road, or the like, which 
is the necessary consequence of swerving to the right 
hand or to the left, from the straightforward path in 
which any one would otherwise be bound to proceed. 
The transition from this proper sense to the notion of 
ἁμαρτία, peccatum, or sin, as the direct effect of an act 
of transgression, properly so called—to express both 
the sin which is thereby committed, and the guilt 
or reatus, which is entailed by it on the agent—is the 
most easy and natural imaginable. It is not without 
reason, then, that this word stands next to the preced- 
ing,in the order of recitation; for the thing denoted by it 
evidently stands next to that which is denoted by the 
other, in the order of thought. Nor is it without rea- 
son, too, that the word expressive of the first of these 
ideas is in the singular, yw5, transgression ; but this, 
which expresses the second, stands in the plural, 
myxon, sins: for the idea of transgression, as such, is 
equally applicable to all sins, considered as instances 
of deflection from the same line of rectitude alike: 
transgression, as such, therefore is necessarily one, 
though the instances of transgression, that is, sins 
themselves, may be innumerable. 

The third of these remarkable words is 11}, a noun 
immediately derived from a verb, the proper sense of 
which is “ to be crooked, to be perverted ;” and, there- 
fore, whatever other meanings the noun may have, 
it has none so proper as that of Pravity or Perverse- 
ness, the opposite of Rectitude or Righteousness: such 
pravity or perverseness, opposed to rectitude, as in 
matters of obedience, or disobedience, must of necessity 
go wrong and not right; in all questions of observing 
the strict rule of duty, must imply no greater power 
to proceed in the straightforward path, without swerv- 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 363 


ing to the right or to the left, than a drunken man has 
of keeping his footing, without reeling as he goes, or a 
lame man of walking upright, without a constant liabi- 
lity to fall. If the same word has any other meaning, 
as that of sin, or of guilt, or of iniquity, or even of 
punishment for sin, or the like, (meanings assigned to 
it in the best lexicons of the Hebrew language,) still it 
has no such meaning except as derivable from this 
primary one of distortion, pravity, or perverseness, 
which lies at the bottom of them all. The proper idea 
conveyed by the word ἢν, then, would so far corre- 
spond to the technical notion of what is meant in the 
language of divines by original sin: that is, the in- 
herent pravity, the inherent sinfulness, distortion, or 
perverseness of disposition, and liability to sin, which is 
a necessary consequence of the corruption of human na- 
ture. This proper notion of the word, therefore, is 
only one degree removed from the idea of Imputed 
Iniquity ; that circumstance in the relative situation of 
a moral and responsible agent, to him to whom he is 
responsible, which describes zs case who lies and must 
lie in the sight of God, when considered as he is, under 
the imputation of inherent depravity; that essential 
ingrained character of perverseness—which is insepa- 
rable in the eye of God from the idea of such of his 
creatures as labour under a necessary tendency to sin. 
Between these several terms, then, and the proper 
meanings to be attached to each, we may now perceive 
there is the closest connection, and yet a very clear 
distinction. They lead to each other as naturally as 
cause and effect ; and they suggest each other as spon- 
taneously as all correlated ideas of necessity do: and 
yet they are as distinct from each other also. The first 
can have no being, but it will be followed by the se- 
cond; nor the second, but it will be succeeded by the 


364 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


third. Transgression will be the parent of sin, and sin 
of sinfulness; and sinfulness will carry along with it 
the imputation of iniquity, the notion of inherent de- 
pravity*. 

When, therefore, we consider that the subjects, thus 
brought together in the order of expression, are actually 
united in the order of thought by community of nature 
and correlation; it will appear only a reasonable in- 
ference from this fact, that the restraining spoken of 
with reference to the first, must be something analo- 
gous to the sealing up spoken of with reference to the 
second; and both of them to the making of reconetlia- 
tion spoken of with reference to the third: or else 
there will be no longer any such parity of ratio be- 
tween the acts predicated of these various subjects, as 
there might naturally be expected to be, from the pa- 
rity of ratio or correlation, which prevails among the 
subjects themselves. And with respect to this act in 
the last instance of all, the proper subject of which is 
ny or Inherent Depravity, we may observe that what 
is here expressed by making: reconciliation, is properly 
to change the external appearance of any thing, by 


* Ideas or words, which are so 
connected as the above, will spon- 
taneously suggest one another, in 
whatsoever order they may be ar- 
ranged ; just on the principle that 
the effect will suggest the cause, 
as well as the cause the effect. 
Hence, it would have made no 
difference to the relation be- 
tween the things, if the words 
which express them had been 
stated in an order the reverse of 
theabove: as is to acertain extent 
the case with the enunciation of 
the same three words in the se- 
cond of those remarkable texts, 
Exodus xxxiv. 6, 7, where the 


Lorp is described as passing by 
before Moses, on Sinai, and pro- 
claiming, The Lorp, the Lorp 
God, merciful and gracious, 
long-suffering, and abundant in 
goodness and truth, Keeping’ 
mercy for thousands, forgiving 
iniquity and transgression and 
sin—FANOM pw Py swd: a text 
which is the more remarkable, 
as being, I believe, the only one, 
besides this verse in Daniel, 
where these three words, and 
the three things denoted by 
them, are combined in the same 
proposition, or series of propo- 
sitions. Cf. Numbers xiv. 18. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 365 


superinducing upon it a new colour, new habit, new 
coating, a new form and appearance generally; and so 
hiding or concealing what it was before, by covering 
it with what is new. It has no sense so proper as that 
of blotting out or effacing an external appearance of a 
certain kind, by covering it over with an appearance, 
still external, of a different kind; as when a wall that 
was black is whitewashed or plastered, and so ren- 
dered white. The transition from this proper sense to 
that of the change of the aspect, under which the sub- 
ject of inherent depravity would come to be regarded 
in the sight of God, by virtue of such an expiation as 
should make amends for that iniquity, and by virtue of 
such an imputation of the merits of that expiation to 
the subject thereof, as should convert the aspect of 
inherent depravity in the sight of his Creator, into the 
aspect of inherent righteousness—-would be obvious. 
And such being the sense of the word—to cover over, 
or efface, the appearance of perverseness or iniquity in 
the proper subject, by virtue of the imputation of 
righteousness, the effect of some proper atonement— 
analogous to this sense of the word, and analogous to 
the act which it expresses with reference to its proper 
subject, ἢν, should be the sense of the coordinate terms, 
and the corresponding acts which they express, with 
reference to the coordinate subjects, yw5 and mNon, 
respectively ; and so they will be, if the one be consi- 
dered equivalent to shutting up, and the other to seal- 
ing up; for to shut up, or to seal up, and to cover 
over, in the sense and with the effect of putting or 
keeping out of sight, of hiding or obscuring from view, 
in each case, are obviously one and the same. 

With these changes then of the received translation, 
in the several clauses of the first verse of the prophecy, 
the whole will run as follows: Seventy weeeks are de- 


366 Appendix. Supplement tu Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


termined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, To 
shut up the transgression, and To seal up sins, and 
To cover over depravity: and the one thing intended 
under these various modes of expressing it, will be 
neither more nor less than the great Christian truth of 
the Atonement, and the effect or consequence thereof, 
in shutting up—in sealing up—in one word, covering 
over, and so hiding from view, in the sight at least of 
God, human transgression—human sins—and human 
perverseness, sinfulness, or inherent depravity. ‘To 
shut up the transgression, to seal up sins, and to cover 
over inherent depravity, by virtue of imputed right- 
eousness, may very well bear this explanation. Nor, 
should any one ask the reason why Transgression, in 
the first of these propositions, alone has the article be- 
fore it—and transgression with the article before it 
alone stands in the singular; and in addition to the 
explanation already assigned for that peculiarity, should 
conjecture that by ¢he Transgression alluded to might 
possibly be intended THE Transgression, preeminently ; 
the one great, original act of Transgression, by which 
the many were made sinners*, as about to be undone 
and cancelled for ever, by the one great act of obedience 
on the part of Messiah, to which St. Paul attributes 
an equally general and extensive efficiency in making 
the many righteous'—should I be disposed to dissent 
from this conjecture, but rather to agree with it en- 
tirely. 

After the explanation of the first three clauses of this 
verse, we may soon dispose of the fourth, which assigns 
the next object of the Weeks ; To bring in everlasting 
righteousness. There is nothing to object to this version 
of the words, except that the verb is properly not to 
bring 7”, but to bring oz; to cause to come: and ever- 


a Romans v. 19. b Ibid. 19. Cf. 12. 15—18. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 367 


lasting righteousness is properly righteousness of ages, 
δικαιοσύνην αἰώνων, or, asthe Septuagint and Theodotion 
both have rendered it, δικαιοσύνην αἰώνιον. 

Now what is this righteousness of ages, but the 
effect of justification by faith? that imputation of 
justice or righteousness in the eye of God. on behalf 
of his moral and responsible creatures, which takes the 
place of the imputation of sin or guilt, by virtue of 
faith in that means of atoning for sin which he has 
himself appointed ; and therefore presupposes both the 
material act of that atonement, by which sin was ex- 
piated, to have preceded, and the proper object of justi- 
fying or saving faith, in the merits of that atonement 
to be applied to the individual sinner through faith, to 
have been provided. That this, and this only, is the 
righteousness of ages—the only ground of admission 
into the kingdom of heaven, which is a kingdom of 
ages, and the only means of continuing therein through 
its never ending course and succession of ages—no one 
familiar with the first principles of Christian doctrine 
will presume to deny. It is with reason, therefore, 
that this fourth clause comes next to the preceding in 
specifying the purposes contemplated by the prophecy; 
all being referred to the one great scheme of human 
redemption. Inherent guiltiness must be done away 
by its proper atonement, before it can be superseded 
by imputed righteousness: and imputed righteousness 
must presuppose an object of justifying or saving faith, 
before it can become effectual to the justification and 
salvation of the sinner. The first of these effects was 
provided for by the death of Christ on the cross; the 
latter, by the proposal of Christ crucified, in the capa- 
city of Saviour, to the faith of his creatures and follow- 
ers. The atonement for sin in general was made by 
the one; the application of the merits of that atone- 


368 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


ment to the sins of the individual is made by the 
other. 

The next of the clauses, and the object specified by 
it, is rendered in the English Bible by “ To seal up the 
vision and prophecy,” but by the Septuagint and The- 
odotion both, by ‘To seal up vision and prophet,” 
which is more agreeable to the letter of the Hebrew. 
To seal up here is the same word which occurred be- 
fore ; and, therefore, though one of the senses of seal- 
ing, in our own language at least, may be to confirm, to 
ratify, or to fulfil; it would be more consistent with 
the context of the prophecy to prefer the sense of seal- 
ing, as equivalent to shutting up, or removing from 
view; even if that were not the proper sense of the 
word in the original, which nevertheless is the case. 
cnn, the word here employed, is not used in Hebrew, 
like ἐπισφραγίζομαι in Greek, or fo seal in English, in 
the sense of confirming or ratifying by setting to a seal, 
as a mark of attestation, or the like; but like obsigno 
in Latin, or κατασφραγίζομαι in Greek, in the sense of 
removing and keeping out of sight, by setting to a seal 
which prevents a thing’s being exposed to view; or of 
closing up, and making inaccessible, by setting to a seal 
which prevents approach. I do‘not find that this word 
has in Hebrew the sense of fudfilling—understood as 
equivalent to verifying and confirming—though it may 
have that of completing or finishing, with the further 
effect of putting an end to, because completed or finish- 
ed: for what is completed or finished, may so far be said 
to be sealed, but, as admitting of no further additions, it 
must so far be put an end to. And this distinction is not 
unimportant; for if we proceed to consider what must 
be meant by the subject of this sealing, Vision and 
Prophet—in the first place, it is to be observed that 
there is no authority in the Hebrew for the introduc- 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, 369 


tion of the article before the word vision, as if any 
particular vision were intended ; and in the next place, 
the proper sense of this word in the Hebrew, next to 
its first and most simple one of sight or vision, is to 
express a Divine revelation: and in like manner, the 
proper sense of the word combined with it, anterior to 
its secondary one of a prophet, or one inspired to fore- 
tell the future, or commissioned by God to his people 
for some particular purpose—is that of an organ or in- 
strument of communication between God and man, in 
any way. and for any purpose, in general. The words 
vision and prophet, therefore, regarded in their proper 
and primary meaning respectively, will describe the 
authorized channels of communication between God 
and his moral creatures, whether under the Mosaic 
dispensation or any other, in revealing his will to men, 
or answering some purpose, for which an Interpres or 
Sequester, a Mecirys or Mediator, is necessary even be- 
tween God and man, as between two parties ; for The 
mediator, as St. Paul assures τι, is not a mediator of 
one. The sense of the clause then in general will 
amount to this; That among the other effects to be 
consummated within the period of time allotted to the 
Weeks, one should be, to dispense with the agency of 
mediate instruments of this description for ever—to 
make an end of all further communications between 
God and man, requiring the instrumentality of vision 
and prophet, and so to sead up both. It can hardly be 
necessary to observe, that one of the objects of the 
coming of the Son of God himself, in the fulness of 
time, in the capacity of the Shiloh of his Father—and 
certainly one of the effects of it—was to complete the 
scheme of the series of Divine revelations, by supply- 
ing whatever was necessary to render it entire and 
v Gal. iii. 20. 


VOL. IV. Bb 


370 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


perfect: to supersede consequently all further service 
of seer and prophet—coming upon the same errand, 
and accredited for the same purposes: to be himself 
the sole prophet and teacher of his people—the sole 
Mediator and Interpres between God and man—from 
that time forward to the end of time. It is needless to 
add, that after the appearance of John Baptist there 
was no seer or prophet, like them of old time, but 
our Saviour himself ; and after our Saviour superseded 
John in the proper discharge of the work of his min- 
istry, there was, and there has been, no seer nor prophet, 
like those of old, from that time to this. Our Saviour 
is now, and ever has been, since the time when he first 
openly assumed the character of the Messiah, the one 
great Prophet and Teacher, of whom Moses, and all the 
prophets who appeared before his birth, were but the 
forerunners and types. 

The last of the purposes declared by the prophecy to 
be contemplated in the scope of its Weeks beforehand, is 
rendered in the English by, And to anoint the most 
Holy. The Septuagint version of the same words is, Kat 
εὐφράναι ἅγιον ἁγίων ; and that of Theodotion, Καὶ τοῦ 
χρῖσαι ἅγιον ἁγίων. Both of these, it appears to me, are 
preferable to our own, as more exactly in conformity 
to the Hebrew; especially in what relates to the absence 
of the article before ἅγιον ἁγίων. For I cannot but 
think, that the unction or anointing here spoken of is 
not that unction of our Saviour which took place at 
his baptism; (an unction, at this period in the order 
of the purposes supposed to be contemplated by the 
Weeks, long since over and past; an unction which 
made him Messiah ἡγούμενον, and consecrated him for 
his ministry, and for acting in that capacity :) but that 
unction which took place at his reception into heaven, 
and his session at the right hand of God; an unction 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 371 


made, as the Psalmist declares”, with the oil of glad- 
ness, poured on the Messiah by his God, above his 
fellows; that is, his fellows, whether angels or men, to 
each of whom he was otherwise allied by community 
of nature alike. With this specific occasion of his 
anointing in view, it would make little difference whe- 
ther we rendered the Hebrew verb (which certainly 
properly means fo anoint) with the Septuagint, by 
εὐφράναι, or with Theodotion and our own Bible, by 
χρῖσαι, or to anoint: for both will express the act and 
the effect of an unction with the oz of gladness in 
particular. 

But with respect to what follows, To anoint the 
most Holy, or what the Hebrew must be supposed in 
this case to denote, To anoint the Holy of Holies; it 
is an objectionable version, not only because it intro- 
duces the article where it is wanting in the original, 
but because it leads of necessity to the inference, that 
the subject of this unction, whosoever he was, was 
either solely the Most Holy, or κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, the Holy 
of Holies; as if there were none holy but he, or none 
so eminently so, as he. But we must not forget that 
the Holy of Holies, or the Most Holy, is a title of dis- 
tinction that equally belongs of right, and is equally 
true, in the most intense sense of the words, when ap- 
plied to each of the Persons of the Most Holy and ever 
blessed and ever undivided Trinity in Unity. Better 
it were to adhere to the letter of Scripture in this in- 
stance, and to render the words with Theodotion, And 
to anoint AN Holy of Holies, than to endanger the 
possible mistake, that even our Saviour, in his human 
or angelic capacity, in which alone he could be the 
subject of an unction at all, was alone the Most Holy 
or the Holy of Holies absolutely. Holy of Holies, and 


w Psalm xlv. 7. 


Bb 2 


372 Appendia. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


Most Holy, he may, and he must be, in comparison of 
men or of angels; but the Holy of Holies, or the Most 
Holy absolutely, he cannot be, if the catholic doctrine 
of the Trinity in Unity be true. 

If I may be permitted to state my own opinion on 
the sense of this part of the prophecy more especially — 
I should be inclined to think that ἅγιος ἁγίων, con- 
sidered as the subject of an unction specially mention- 
ed just before, was a mode of designation, purposely 
chosen in this instance, to describe our Saviour, with the 
greatest exactuess, at that point of time, and in that ca- 
pacity, when and in which he entered preeminently 
into his joy, and sat down at the right hand of God: 
because sitting down, at that time, and in that place, in 
a threefold capacity, each of which required a specific 
and individual holiness, and all three consequently a 
general and threefold one; the capacity of Priest, of 
Prophet, and of King. One who was sitting down at 
the right hand of God, in each of those characters—one 
whose instalment in his mediatorial office, at the right 
hand of God, amounted to an unction or consecration 
in each of these capacities—might justly be described 
as an Holy of Holies, whether as ¢he Holy of Holies or 
not—might well be represented as uniting in his per- 
son the attributes of a threefold holiness. 

With regard to the next of the events of this class, 
the cutting off of Messiah; the special connection of 
this, with the lapse or decursus of the threescore and 
two weeks last mentioned, is clearly implied by the 
presence of the Hebrew article in the renewed allusion 
to them ; a circumstance of distinction required by the 
necessity of the case in a renewed allusion, and inju- 
diciously omitted by our own Bible version, though re- 
tained by Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus, in 
theirs: And after THE threescore and two weeks shall 
Messiah be cut off. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 373 


The first thing, that we may have to observe upon 
this proposition is, that the verb which is here rendered 
by our own version, cut off—by the Septuagint, ἀποστα- 
θήσεται, by Theodotion, ἐξολοθρευθήσεται, by Aquila, 
the same, by Symmachus, ἐκκοπήσεται, by the Vulgate 
or Jerome, occidetur—in the Hebrew is nnd: and one 
of the senses of this word in the Hebrew, in the opin- 
ion of writers upon that language, is to express cut- 
ting off, more particularly, by the forms of law, and in 
the execution of a judicial sentence; especially that 
kind of cutting off, and that species of Judicial or penal 
severity, which we should understand by the technical 
sense of excommunication: the formal abscission, de- 
tachment, or cutting off, howsoever made, of one mem- 
ber of a certain community, from the body of the rest, 
and from all the privileges, civil or religious, which at- 

_tach to the relation of members of that community, and 
are the right of all such as belong to it; but of them 
alone *. 

If this be the case, the cutting off of Messiah, spe- 
cially mentioned in this instance, does as plainly point to 


* This proper sense of the 
word ΓΞ, appears most plainly 
in that form of words which 
is of such frequent occurrence 
in the Pentateuch, with respect 
to breaches of the Divine law, 
amounting to a wilful act of se- 
paration from the privileges of 
the covenant between God and 
his people, and requiring to be 
treated and resented accordingly: 
* That soul shall be cut off from 
his people:” the first use of 
which is Genesis xvii. 14. with 
respect to the consequences of 
the wilful neglect of the ordi- 
nance of circumcision: ‘* That 
soul shall be cut off (ΠῚ) 
from his people: he hath broken 


my covenant.” Cf. Exodus xii. 
1s. 19; Leviticus vil. 20, 21; 
XVii. 14; ΧΧ. 17: Numbers xix. 
13. 20, ἄς. The proper and 
primary sense of the word is to 
cut off—as for instance, one part 
of a larger substance from the 
rest, a limb from the body, a piece 
from a garment, a branch from a 
tree, or the like. The sense of to 
cut off, by an act of formal re- 
jection and separation, to ex- 
communicate one member of a 
community from the body of 
the rest, with its consequences 
to him, is the simplest of all 
possible gradations from such a 
primary meaning as that. 


BbS 


374 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


his death and his passion, as Messiah, Leader or Prince, 
alluded to before, to his coming, appearance, and παρ- 
ουσία : yet not simply to his death and his passion, con- 
sidered merely in the matter of fact, or as an event in 
his history, the last in the order of occurrence, as his 
coming and appearance was the first—but to his death 
and his passion as preceded by his Rejection, and as the 
consequence of that Rejection itself. The death and pas- 
sion of Messiah would not have been expressed by so 
peculiar a term, as it is, if more were not implied in it 
than the fact itself; if the very fact of his death and 
passion, as so described and designated, virtute termint 
did not imply, and did not amount to, the fact of his 
formal abscission, or being cut off from the body of 
which he was a member; his virtual excommunication 
from the rest of his own people, and consequently his 
formal renunciation and rejection on the part of the 
Jews. Now this formal rejection and renunciation of 
Messiah on the part of the Jews, was absolutely neces- 
sary to his death and passion: and this rejection and re- 
nunciation of one individual Jew, by the rest, supposing 
it to be general on their part, would clearly amount to 
his abscission, or excommunication, from his own com- 
munity—and therefore to such an act, the subject 
whereof should be this one, and the agents the rest of 
the body to which he belonged, as would properly 
be described by the Hebrew n7>. It is that prelimi- 
nary to the final consummation of his personal history 
by an ignominious and cruel death, at the hands of the 
public executioner, the necessity of which was recog- 
nised by our Saviour himself, when he said of the 
Son of man, IIparov δὲ δεῖ αὐτὸν πολλὰ παθεῖν, kat’ AITO- 
ΔΟΚΙΜΑΣΘΗΝΑΙ ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης ἃ: and it 
found its fulfilment on the part of the infidel Jews, 


a Luke xvii. 25. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 375 


when the WHOLE multitude of them arose, and led 
him away to Pilate >; and when they exclaimed with 
one voice, in answer to the repeated attempts of the 
judge to liberate the prisoner whom they had de- 
nounced before him as a criminal, and unworthy to 
live, Away with him, Away with him; Not this man, 
but Barabbas °. 

The same fact in the history of Messiah, and the 
same special circumstance in the constructive tendency, 
and implied description, of the fact, appear to me to 
be plainly intimated in the words which complete this 
sentence, and are expressed in the Hebrew by 13 px. 
These remarkable words, which, simple as they ap- 
pear in themselves, do in reality constitute one of the 
most difficult parts of the prophecy, the Septuagint 
has rendered by, Kat οὐκ ἔσται : Aquila bys Kai οὐκ ἔστιν 
αὐτῷ : Symmachus by, Kai οὐχ ὑπάρξει αὐτῷ : the Vul- 
gate by, Et non erit ejus populus: Jerome by, Et non 
erit ejus: the Syriac by, Et non erit penes ipsam : our 
own Translation by, But not for himself: Theodotion 


by, Kai κρίμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ *. 


cometh, καὶ ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν : 
words, which enunciated in He- 


* If this version of Theodo- 
tion’s in particular, were justly 


deducible from the Hebrew text; 
it would recommend itself as 
the best calculated to express 
the essential innocence and pu- 
rity of Messiah’s character, not- 
withstanding his suffering as a 
malefactor, at the time of his 
death. It might have expressed 
the same truth, in fact, which 
our Saviour intended to convey, 
when in reference to the same 
event of his suffering as a cri- 
minal and a malefactor, notwith- 
standing the sinless purity of his 
character, he said at John xiv. 
30: For the Prince of this world 


b Luke xxiii. 1. 


brew would perhaps have exhi- 
bited a remarkable resemblance 
to these in Daniel, "5 15 ps. We 
cannot undertake to say too 
confidently that these two words 
in Daniel, might not have been 
understood with the ellipsis of 
κρίμα, or something answerable 
to it; especially as following 
the judicial term denoting the 
cutting off in question ; for the 
opposition would be obvious, be- 
tween Messiah’s being judicially 
and formally cut off—and yet 
having done nothing amiss. The 
very words 1 ps under such cir- 


¢ Luke xxiii. 18: Jobn xviii. 40. 


Bb4 


376 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


Among these various versions, our own, perhaps, is 
the most objectionable, principally because it leads to 
the inference that the doctrine of the atonement is in- 
volved in these words; that is, that the final end of 
the Messiah’s death and passion, as not for himself 
but for others, is declared by them. The doctrine of 
the atonement, that is, the virtue supposed to attach to 
the death of Messiah, with reference to sacrifice for 
sin, will be found to be specially concerned and stated 
in a distinct part of the prophecy, yet te come : which 
will render it very improbable that it should have 
been considered or stated before. But the idea of the 
excominunication of one member of a certain body by, 
or from, the rest, being so clearly implied in the verb 
made use of to express the death and passion of Mes- 
siah, described as his being cut off; it points equally 
clearly, by the same peculiarity of its meaning, to the 
fact of his rejection by the Jews, as the immediate 
cause of his death. The rejection of Messiah, after 
his appearance, and by the very people to whom he 
was to come, aud among whom he was to appear, as 
Messiah, was a fact as important to the truth of his 
history, (if not more so,) as his advent itself: and if 
the latter was to be specified as destined to precede, it 
was ouly to be expected that the former should be spe- 
cified as destined to follow. Without presupposing 
the fact of his rejection, as involved in the event of his 
being cut off; that is, without supposing his death to 


cumstances might seem to carry 
with them, by virtue of the con- 
text, the specific limitation of 
having nolhing, in the sense of 
having no fault, or crime. Mes- 
siah shall be cut off, that is, 
Messiah shall suffer as a crimi- 
nal; nay more, as the greatest of 


criminals, for none else could be 
the subject of such a punish- 
ment as would be implied by 
his being cut off—And nothing 
unto him—that is, And no 
crime in him. He shall be cut 
off, as the greatest of criminals, 
and crime in him shall be none. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 377 


be the consequence of his rejection itself ; the connec- 
tion between this topic, and the next treated of in direct 
continuity after it, the destruction of the city and the 
sanctuary by the people of the prince or leader to come, 
would be inexplicable; but with this supposition, it is 
perfectly consistent and natural: for the ultimate de- 
struction of the infidel Jews, was not the consequence 
of their having put our Lord to death, before he was 
preached to them as a crucified Saviour, but of their 
rejecting him before his death, and their refusing to 
believe in him afterwards. It was their rejecting of 
him before his passion, and then persisting in that re- 
jection ever after, which led to their own ultimate de- 
struction. 

The marginal correction of the Bible text version, 
in this instance, And shall have nothing, instead of, 
But not for himself—comes nearer to the sense of the 
original, though it may not exactly express it. The 
Hebrew particle, px, is alike capable of being ren- 
dered by non, or nihil, or nemo; with the ellipsis 
of est, or any other tense of the substantive verb: 
and when so used it properly requires to be fol- 
lowed by a particle serving to the dative case, (like the 
substantive verb in Greek or Latin, when it denotes 
possession by, or belonging to, a certain subject.) as in 
this instance it is followed by 15. The Bible text ver- 
sion, therefore, would be objectionable not only for the 
reason last mentioned, but because it renders the vau, 
at the head of the clause, adversatively, by but— 
when it should rather have been rendered simply by 
and ; and because it gives a new dependence to the 
>, making it refer to the being cut off; whereas its 
proper grammatical reference and dependence is to 
and upon the px; but to px understood in the sense of 
nihil or nemo, rather than non—nothing, or no one, ra- 


878 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


ther than πού. On this account, neither the marginal 
version, And shall have nothing, nor that of Aquila, 
Kat οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῷ, nor that of Symmachus, Kai οὐχ ὑπάρ- 
ἕξει air6—nor Jerome’s, Et non erit ejus: is to be en- 
tirely approved of, in comparison of the literal mean- 
ing of the words, which is, And none unto him—with 
the ellipsis of, shall be, rather than of 7s. Taken in 
conjunction with the context, which speaks of Messiah’s 
being cut off, in the specific capacity of one renounced, 
repudiated, rejected—and carrying on the same train 
of ideas, these words will naturally express the neces- 
sary effect of that rejection—universal as it was— 
that none was unto him; and none was for him: that 
he was rejected and repudiated, as Messiah, by the 
body of the nation in general, and at the particular 
juncture of his death and passion, was abandoned even 
and denied by those, who until then had been his 
friends and followers. Foreseeing this abandonment 
even on their part, he told his disciples not long be- 
fore it happened, An hour is coming, and now is 
come, that ye should be scattered every man unto his 
own, and should leave me alone 4: and foreseeing this 
denial, he thrice told St. Peter, in the course of the 
same evening—Verily I say unto thee, that to-day, in 
this night, before the cock have crowed twice, thou shalt 
deny me thrice ὁ: and the moment when he was thus 
left alone, with none but the Father to be present 
with him still, and to be his support and dependence 
in the yet severer trial which awaited him, was that 
point of time, in the history of his apprehension in the 
garden, When ALL the disciples forsook him and fled‘. 
With reason, then, might it be specified among the 
other circumstances of Messiah’s death and passion, 
and as not the least characteristic of all, that After 


/ 
ἃ John xvi. 32. e Mark xiv. 30. f Matt. xxvi. 56. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 379 


the threescore and two weeks should Messiah be cut 
off, and no one unto him: so entirely cut off—so com- 
pletely detached, by the nature of his death itself, from 
all communion of sympathy whether of friend or of 
foe, that none should be wth him—none should be 
Jor him—no one, in a word, at that moment should be 
his. 

Be this, however, as it may: the death and passion 
of Messiah being as plainly declared in this part of the 
prophecy, as the coming and appearance in the former; 
one of the most obvious conclusions, suggested by the 
prophecy beforehand, would be, That unless it was al- 
ways intended that the death and passion of Messiah, 
and his coming and appearing in that capacity, were 
to be strictly synchronous events; it never could be 
intended that both were to happen at one and the 
same point of time; it would be absolutely impossible, 
in the nature of things, that they should. Now we 
may take it for granted that this never could have 
been intended. For we may take it for granted that 
Messiah could never be expected to appear in his pro- 
per capacity, and not be expected to act in that cha- 
racter, after he appeared in it, also: Messiah could 
never be expected to have a public appearing, and not 
to have a public ministry: Messiah could never be ex- 
pected to appear as Messiah, at a stated time, and not 
to live and act as Messiah, for some length of time, 
more or less, after it likewise. 

When, therefore, we find both the coming and ap- 
pearing of Messiah, before he came, and the cutting 
off of Messiah, when he was come, placed in the same 
relative order upon a specified interval of time, sup- 
posed to be previously transacted ; the necessity of the 
case must teach us, that with respect to the exact posi- 
tion of each with reference to the pretransacted inter- 


ε 


380 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, §e. 


val in question, the language of the prophecy is strictly 
to be taken into account. The language of the pro- 
phecy, in defining the order of these events, and of 
both as referred to one and the same interval of time 
elapsed before them, is not the same; and the per- 
ceptible difference of its terms in speaking of each is not 
unsignificant or unimportant. From the going forth of 
the word fo Messiah the Prince—there should be seven 
weeks, and sixty and two weeks: which left no alterna- 
tive but to conclude that a¢ the end of these last sixty- 
two weeks, Messiah must appear, or the prophecy would 
so far be false. But after the sixty and two weeks 
shall Messiah be cut off—these are the terms in which 
it speaks of the next event: and between up fo a given 
time, and after a given time, it is obvious to remark, 
the difference may be wide indeed. Up fo a given time, 
and after a given time, however closely they may 
confine on each other—can never denote precisely the 
same actual instant of time; because the one is a part 
of the future, and the other a part of the past; 
and the same moment of time can never be both fu- 
ture and past. Now up ¢éo a certain time, we know, 
must denote an instant or point of time: and after a 
certain time—may denote a point or an instant of time, 
also, it is true; but it may likewise denote a period or 
course of time—an integral part of duration—so far 
from a point or an instant, as to be absolutely of inde- 
finite extent. An event might be said to occur after 
a given point of time, which happened any length of 
time after it; just as much as another which happened 
the very next moment: and it would be equally true 
of Messiah that he was cut off after the sixty and two 
weeks, whether he were cut off the very next moment 
that they came to an end—or after an interval of one 
year, or two years, or three years, or any number of 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 381 


years, however long in itself, the beginning of which 
was only later than the close of the sixty and two 
weeks in particular. 

When, therefore, the prophecy itself suggests the 
expectation of the coming and appearance of Messiah 
necessarily, at the end of the sixty and two weeks; 
but that of the cutting off of Messiah, when come, not 
necessarily at the end of the same period—only after it; 
and when the reason of the thing alone must suffice to 
convince us that the coming and appearance of the 
person intended as Messiah must always have been 
meant to be followed by his continuing to be present 
and to appear, for a longer or a shorter time, in his pro- 
per capacity as Messiah: we could not help conclud- 
ing beforehand that some interval there would be, and 
some interval it must always have been intended there 
should be, between that event which is specified as 
unto Messiah, Leader or Prince, and that which is de- 
scribed as Messiah’s being cut off: and that the lan- 
guage of the prophecy, with respect to each, in de- 
terinining the relative order of both upon one and the 
same succession of pretransacted time, is strzctly to be 
taken into account. And though the prophecy might 
specify no such interval itself—at least apparently— 
nor consequently determine its length—yet if it ne- 
cessarily presupposed it; that would be sufficient for 
our purpose. In every scheme of the interpretation of 
the Weeks, an allowance must be made for the inter- 
position of some such an interval as must be devoted 
to the transaction of the Public Ministry of the Mes- 
siah ; and in that precise place where the prophecy 
itself has suggested it ; viz. between the first appear- 
ing and the final cutting off of one and the same per- 
son, whom it denominates Messiah, or Leader or Prince. 

With respect to the third of the particulars in this 


382 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


class of events, the confirmation of the covenant with 
many—the place of this event, in the order of the pro- 
phecy, must be presumptively a proof, that whatever 
may be meant by the confirming the covenant in ques- 
tion, yet if it was something posterior to the cutting off 
of Messiah at least, it could be nothing that was des- 
tined to happen before his coming and appearance— 
nothing that should find its effect in the course of his 
ministry, subsequent to that event—nothing in short 
that could possibly precede the moment of his death 
and passion. And hence would be derived a strong 
objection to the accuracy of the Bible version, in this 
instance as well as in others: And he shall confirm 
the covenant with many for one week—where an ex- 
ception might lie to the introduction of the article be- 
fore the word covenanf—and the insertion of 702" be- 
tween many and one week: both of them being absent 
in the Hebrew. The whole of this version, however, 
appears to have originated in a mistake—and certainly 
is well calculated to perpetuate that mistake—viz. that 
the confirming the covenant in question was the work 
of the Messiah himself, and transacted in the course of 
his personal ministry—which, on that principle, must 
have consisted in some sense or other of one entire 
week of years. 

The version of Theodotion is competent to ‘satisfy 
us that these same words admit of a different render- 
ing; and that, too, obviously more literal in reference 
to the original: Kai δυναμώσει διαθήκην πολλοῖς ἑβδομὰς 
μία: And one week shall confirm a covenant for many— 
to which no such objections would lie. In explana- 
tion of this version, it is necessary only to premise, 
first, that the word which is rendered by δυναμώσει, 
or to confirm, is properly to make potent, make 
mighty, make prevalent or strong: and as to the 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 383 


word which is rendered by covenant, and the absence 
of the article in the allusion to it—though commentators 
may have taken it for granted, and though it may be an 
obvious conjecture at first sight, that the covenant in- 
tended is either the covenant made with Abraham, or 
the covenant made with Moses, and each as confirmed 
or fulfilled in the gospel; I should think it a fatal ob- 
jection to either of these constructions of its meaning, 
that it wants the article before it: for an allusion to so 
well known a thing as the covenant of grace with 
Abraham, or the covenant of works at Horeb, would 
of necessity have required the article—especially when 
alluded to indefinitely. And we shall see by and by— 
that there is no necessity to understand it of either 
of these covenants in particular; and yet it may be 
true that a covenant was confirmed or made potent 
for many, and confirmed or made potent for the speci- 
fied time in question, notwithstanding. 

For, in the next place, that the preaching and ac- 
cepting of formal Christianity may be strictly under- 
stood of the proposing and ratifying of a covenant; 
that the gospel overture was truly a covenant over- 
ture—which was tendered on stipulated terms, and 
must be acceded to on stipulated terms—may be 
taken for granted, as too obvious to admit of dispute. 
And if the confirming of a covenant for many, in any 
sense, referred to its place in the order of the pro- 
phecy, can so far be understood of nothing in the his- 
tory of Christianity anterior to the death and passion 
of our Saviour himself; that no such covenant as the 
gospel overture either did, or in the nature of things 
could, begin to be promulgated, and much more con- 
firmed and ratified, before his death and resurrection ; 
that formal Christianity was never preached by his 
means, nor ever constituted the proper work of his 


384 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, §c. 


ministry ; that it was reserved for the ministry of the 
apostles, and began neither earlier nor later than the 
day of Pentecost, next after the ascension—may also be 
taken for granted, however much commentators may 
have shut their eyes to these truths, and to their 
natural consequences, particularly with reference to the 
right understanding and construction of this part of 
the prophecy, more especially. 

Again, that by the confirming a covenant for many, 
understood of the acceptance and ratification of the 
- terms of the gospel overture, in behalf of the proper 
parties—must be intended, the confirming of such a co- 
venant, and consequently the acceptance and ratifica- 
tion of the terms of the gospel overture, first and pro- 
perly in behalf of the Jews, may also be taken for 
granted: and, therefore, if the covenant, so to be con- 
firmed, was to be confirmed for one week, and for nei- 
ther more nor less than one week; then that formal 
Christianity was to be preached to the Jews, for one 
week, and for neither more nor less than one week, 
would seem to follow, by necessary inference, from 
that fact. 

Among the other anticipations of its own meaning, 
then, suggested by the prophecy beforehand, one would 
appear to be this; That formal Christianity beginning 
to be preached to the Jews, not before, but as soon 
after the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
as we please, should continue to be preached to them 
for one week, and for one week only. Are we, then, 
to understand, it might be immediately demanded, 
that at the end of this one week, Christianity was to 
cease to be preached to the Jews? Such a conclusion, 
we might reply, would be very contrary to the actual 
matter of fact from that time to this; if it be true, at 
least, that Christianity has never ceased to be preach- 


Or 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 38: 


ed, in some sense or other, to the Jews, from the mo- 
ment it began to be so: though hitherto without effect. 
But in what sense, then, it may next be demanded, 
could it possibly be true that the confirming a cove- 
nant, if meant of the gospel overture, should be 
made for one week, for many, understood of the Jews, 
and for one week only? In a sense, we may reply, 
perfectly consistent both with the matter of fact, and 
with the spirit of the prophecy also; if it be only ad- 
mitted, that to preach Christianity to the Jews ex- 
clusively, was to confirm the gospel covenant with 
them in ove manner, and to preach Christianity to 
them no longer exclusively, was to confirm the same 
covenant with them in another; and that the pro- 
phecy means the former and not the latter, when it 
speaks of confirming a covenant for many for one 
week, and one week only. 

The question, which we should have to discuss, un- 
der these circumstances, would be simply reducible to 
this; Whether there was reason to believe that the 
preaching of formal Christianity having once begun, at 
the day of Pentecost next after the ascension of our 
Lord into heaven—the option of embracing the gospel, 
with all its inestimable privileges present or to come, 
was confined for a time to the Jews, and at the end of 
that time was not: and whether this time was ex- 
actly one week of years, or more or less than that, in 
length? If it should turn out, in answer to these in- 
quiries, that for seven years’ time, bearing date from 
the first promulgation of the gospel, the preaching of 
Christ crucified was actually confined to the Jews; that 
for seven years of time the parties admitted into the 
Christian covenant consisted exclusively of Jews—the 
members of the church of Christ on earth were com- 
posed of none but Jews: every one, I think, must 

VOL. IV. Ce 


386 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


allow that this fact will be competent to answer the 
description of the prophecy beforehand, the confirming 
or ratifying, making strong or potent, a covenant for 
many for one week: and if it should turn out to be 
the case that, at the end of the seven years in question, 
neither of these things was any longer true; that the 
gospel overture had begun to be made to others, and 
to be accepted by others, besides the Jews, and the 
parties in the Christian covenant and the members of 
the Christian church to consist of others, as well as 
the Jews; it will also follow that the covenant in 
question was not only made strong for many for one 


week, but for neither more nor less than one week *. 


* With respect to the matter 
of fact involved in this part of 
the prophecy, it is not more cer- 
tain that the gospel was preached 
at all, than that it was preached 
first to the Jews ; and it is not 
more certain that it was preach- 
ed first to the Jews, than that 
it was confined for a time to 
them. No commentator on the 
Acts of the Apostles would be 
bold enough to maintain that 
the gospel was ever preached to 
the Gentiles, before the conver- 
sion of Cornelius, or to the Sa- 
maritans before the martyrdom 
of Stephen: and no commenta- 
tor on the same history, I should 
think, would venture to place 
the conversion of Cornelius be- 
fore the martyrdom of Stephen. 
But if there was a time when 
the gospel was neither preached 
as yet to Gentiles, nor even to 
Samaritans, and yet was preach- 
ing all the while—to whom 
could it be preached all the 
while except to the Jews—and 
to the Jews alone ? 

But the Jews were of two 


classes—the Jews of the mother 
country, and the Jews of the 
Dispersion, under whom we may 
include the Proselytes from the 
Gentiles also; such at least as 
went by the name of Proselytes 
of Righteousness, in opposition 
to Proselytes of the Gate. Was 
the gospel, then, while preached 
exclusively to the Jews, preach- 
ed to both these classes, or to 
one of them exclusive of the 
other? My answer is, it was 
preached to both; both being 
alike children of the stock of 
Abraham, and both alike to be 
included under the’ name of 
Jews. 

Was it preached, then, to the 
Jews of the Dispersion, as well as 
to the native Jews, exclusively ? 
and if so, in their own country? 
The answer to this question in- 
volves a distinction, of great im- 
portance to the right under- 
standing of the apostolical his- 
tory, but one, of which commen- 
tators upon that history have 
unfortunately lost sight, almost 
without exception; and that is, 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 


387 


The next of the events of the class, to which we 


have given the name of 


that for the time the gospel was 
confined exclusively to the Jews, 
so far from being preached out 
of Judea, it was never even 
preached, as far as we know or 
can venture to say, out of the 
precincts of Jerusalem. It was 
preached to all, without excep- 
tion, both Jews of the mother 
country and Jews of the Dis- 
persion, who were to be found 
there, either at all times—as 
among the usual inhabitants of 
the city—or at stated times, 
as, for instance, the times of the 
attendance at the feasts: and I 
have long seen reason to con- 
clude that, while that state of 
things lasted, all, whether native 
Jews or Jews of the Dispersion, 
who became converts to the gos- 
pel at Jerusalem, even though 
previously not inhabitants of the 
place, became members of the 
church there, and were enrolled 
in that community with the rest. 

This state of things continued 
until the persecution, begun and 
signalized by the death of the 
protomartyr Stephen: the con- 
sequence of which was, that the 
members of the church at Jeru- 
salem were first dispersed and 
seattered abroad, all, it is said, 
but the apostles. We know 
the effect of that dispersion: 
that they who were scattered 
abroad upon that occasion, went 
every where, preaching the gos- 
pel; but with a distinction in 
the kind and description of per- 
sons, to whom they preached it, 
which though plainly implied in 
the Acts of the Apostles them- 
selves, has in this instance also 
been totally overlooked by com- 


the facts of the Christian 


mentators ; viz. to native Jews 
and Samaritans, within the mo- 
ther country, but to native 
Jews alone, in opposition to Hel- 
lenists or Jews of the Disper- 
sion, out of the mother country. 

This state of things also con- 
tinued until the time of the con- 
version of Cornelius, within the 
mother country ; at which time, 
but not before, it appears frum 
the Acts of the Apostles, the 
gospel began to be preached by 
some of those who had been dis- 
persed from Jerusalem by the 
persecution, to the Jews of the 
Dispersion, as well as to the Jews 
of Juda, out of the mother 
country. These evangelists were 
the men of Pheoenice, Cyprus, 





the Dispersion, to whom they 
began to preach, under these new 
circumstances first, were the 
Jews of Antioch. 

This state of things, too, in 
the church continued for some 
time longer ; during which the 
gospel was being preached to 
native Jews of Judea, to Jews of 
the Dispersion, both in Judea 
and out of Juda, to Samari- 
tans, to Gentiles, Proselytes of 
the Gate, like Cornelius, living 
within Juda, simultaneously — 
but not as yet to the Gentiles, 
even those who were Proselytes 
of the Gate, as far as we know— 
much less to the Gentiles, whe- 
ther proselytes of any descrip- 
tion or not—out of Judea. At 
length, with the formal com- 
mission of Paul and Barnabas 
to the Gentiles, the gospel was 
thrown open indiscriminately, 
and the finishing hand was put 


cc QZ 


388 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


ministry, that remains to be considered, follows next 
in the order of the prophecy also, under the name of 
the Cessation of Sacrifice and Oblation. Here, likewise, 
our English Bible text version, which is to this effect ; 
* And in the midst of the week he shall cause the 
sacrifice and the oblation to cease;” appears to me to 
be objectionable, not only because it supplies the arti- 
cle before these two words, which are without it in 
the Hebrew; but because it may justly be considered 
to labour under a similar mistake, or to be calculated 
at least to perpetuate the same kind of mistake, as the 
last considered version: viz. that the week intended 
in this instance is the week just mentioned ; and that 
week, as before, is the period taken up in some man- 


to the work of its complete pro- 
mulgation. From that time for- 
ward, there has been no change in 
the state of things. One and the 
same gospel has been preached, 
in one and the same manner, to 
every description of moral and 
responsible beings, bearing the 
form, and subject to the obliga- 
tions of man, under the sun. 
That the above is a just re- 
presentation of the actual course 
of events, from the first begin- 
ning to the last completion of 
this great work—I am prepared 
to maintain : and in fact I have 
maintained, and as I hope prov- 
ed, elsewhere ; which is my rea- 
son for referring summarily to 
it at present. If such be the 
case, it is evident from it that 
in the work of propagating the 
gospel, that is, confirming a co- 
venant—so far as the promul- 
gation and reception of the gos- 
pel overture amounted to that— 
one rule was observed ; the rule 
of exclusion at first, but of 
gradual expansion afterwards, 


among the subjects of its com- 
prehension. There was a time 
when it excluded all but native 
Jews of Juda, or Jews of the 
Dispersion, out of Jerusalem: 
there was a time when it ex- 
cluded all but Samaritans, within 
Judea, and native Jews, out of 
Juda: there was a time when 
it excluded all but Gentile Prose- 
lytes of the Gate, within Judea, 
and all but Jews of the Dis- 
persion, out of Judea. At last, 
but not till the last, did it be- 
gin to include Gentiles of every 
description, whether ‘proselytes 
or not, both in Judea and out 
of Judea. Exclusiveness, we 
see, then, was the rule at first ; 
but exclusiveness followed by 
inclusiveness ; and exclusiveness 
gradually relaxed, before that 
inclusiveness became indiscrimi- 
nate. And the times of these 
several stages were as determi- 
nate as the stages themselves. 
The first took up seven years: 
the remaining two each took up 
half as much. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 389 


ner or other by the duration of our Saviour’s personal 
ministry. 

It cannot, indeed, be denied that the article stands in 
the Hebrew before the word which is rendered by 
week; and it must be admitted that, prima facie, with 
the article before this word in the second instance, 
there does seem to be a reference to the same word, last 
mentioned in the former. ‘“ He shall confirm the cove- 
nant with many for one week: and in the midst of the 
week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to 
cease.” In the midst of what week, it might be asked ? 
In the midst of the week just mentioned, might natu- 
rally seem to be the reply. 

Now, I will not answer this objection, by retorting 
that, though the article stands before the word rendered 
by week, it does not stand before the word translated 
midst; and yet, if a reference had been specially in- 
tended to the middle part of the week just men- 
tioned, then the article must have been required before 
the word midst, as much as before the word week. 
Nor will I object that, if the Bible version did right to 
retain the article before the word week, because it 
stood there in the original; it did wrong to insert 
it before the word mzdst, where it was wanting in 
the Hebrew text. I shall enter upon this question 
more at large, and endeavour to ascertain the true 
sense of the prophecy in this instance, by investigating 
the kind of expressions made use of to convey its mean- 
ing, on the principles of reason and of the nature of 
things, as well as of etymology and grammatical pro- 
priety. 

It is to be observed, therefore, first of all, that the 
proper meaning of the word, rendered by midst, »yn, 
in the Hebrew is dimidia pars: an halt, or an half 

cc3 


390 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &e. 


portion of any thing that admits of division *. It is 
directly derived from a verb, denoting to divide or cut 
in two. Now nothing adinitting of division, but what 
is made up of parts, that is, quantity either discrete or 
continuous; and time or duration being one of those 
things that are made up of parts, and belong to the 
genus of quantity; time or duration admits of divi- 
sion, and therefore time or duration is a proper subject 
of that act which in the Hebrew is expressed by Ayn 
to divide, or bisect, znczdit, or dimidiavit. But when 
time, or duration of a limited magnitude, is the subject 
of this act—then the proper sense of "ΝΠ the resulting 
effect being taken into account; it can never be ren- 
dered by midst. For midst is a point or an instant, 
but ssn is an half, or half-portion: and the midst of a 
week, either in the language of the prophecy or in any 
language—could never denote any thing but that indi- 


* If this word wn has the 
power of denoting the middle 
point or midst of a thing, it 
must be only as derived from its 
proper and primary signification 
of an half of a thing; and be- 
cause the very act of dividing a 
thing into two halves, ascertains 
the middle point of the whole, 
which is exactly the point where 
its halves confine. I am sur- 
prised, therefore, to find Gese- 
nius stating the sense of middle 
or midst, as the primary sense of 
this word, and that of half or 
dimidium, as the secondary— 
when the reverse is so obviously 
the case. I am also surprised 
to find him referring to Judges 
Xvi. 3. in illustration of that 
sense, where the words of the 
text so plainly admit of being 
rendered agreeably to the other 


sense, for which we are con- 
tending as primary: And Sam- 
son lay until half of the night— 
and rose zn half of the night, &c. 
If this mode of speaking denotes 
midnight, as the point of time 
until which he lay, and at which 
he arose, (as it certainly does,) 
10 15 only κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς, and 
for the reason already men- 
tioned—that if you divide the 
night into two equal portions— 
you ascertain the point of mid- 
night, as the exact point where 
the one of these divisions ends 
and the other begins. 

The Septuagint has rendered 
the word by ἐν τῷ τέλει---ἀπᾶ 
therefore took it for a point of 
time. Theodotion translates it 
by ἐν τῷ ἡμίσει---ὐ therefore 
considers it to denote a period. 





On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 391 


vidual point or instant of the whole, which was equi- 
distant from both its extremes: but in the Hebrew 
language y1w ἽΝ, an half portion of a week, is the half 
of its whole duration—one of the two equal portions 
into which it admits of being divided. 

If this be the case, the natural sense of the Hebrew, 
in the present instance, would seem to be, “And an 
half portion of the week shall produce such and such 
an effect.” Why then, it may be asked, does the arti- 
cle stand before week ? and why was not the proposi- 
tion expressed, And an half portion of a week, shall pro- 
duce the effect in question ? which would seem to be 
the natural mode of defining a period of duration, 
amounting to half a week—if nothing more was in- 
tended by it. 

In answer to this objection, we might reply that in 
Hebrew, as well as in Greek, the article is sometimes 
redundant, and sometimes defective: and in rendering 
from that language into our own, there might be occa- 
sions in which it would require to be omitted, and 
others, in which it would be necessary to supply it. 
But independent of this explanation, the presence of 
the article may be accounted for, in this particular in- 
stance, from the reason of things, and virtute termini 
or virtute materie, to which, and in which, it is ap- 
plied ; and nothing more. 

yiaw, the word which has been used all through this 
prophecy, is properly ἑβδομὰς, or septimana, or week ; 
that is, a seven days’ period of time: but ἑβδομὰς, septe- 
mana, or week, in the sense of a seven days’ period of 
time, is not the sense in which it has been used all 
through the same. Might we take the liberty of in- 
venting a term, in our own language, which should ex- 
press both the proper sense of the Hebrew word, as de- 
noting a seven days’ period of time, and the sense in 

ΟἿΑ 


392 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


which it has been used all through the prophecy, as a 
seven years’ period of time; that word would be week- 
year: or seven-day-year. And when the word week 
and consequently the notion of a period of sevens of 
some kind—is not used in the ordinary sense of a pe- 
riod of sevens of days, but in this extraordinary one of 
a period of sevens of years; when it does not stand in 
the general acceptation of a seven days’ time, but in the 
specific one of a seven years’ time; whatever be the 
word employed to express it, the thing described by it 
is special and definite virtute materia ; the allusion, 
under such circumstances, becomes special and re- 
stricted, wrtute termini: and it is agreeable both to the 
reason of things and to the doctrine of the article, whe- 
ther in Hebrew or in any other language, that it should 
earry the article along with it. The proper version of 
the words, iAwnr osm, under such circumstances would 
be, And an half portion of the week-year, or the seven- 
day-year, shall produce such and such an effect: under 
which form of speaking, no one would suspect an allu- 
sion to any period of seven years mentioned just be- 
fore, or to any thing beyond the idea of such a week- 
year, or seven-day-year itself, as sufficiently deter- 
minate and definite, virtute materia, or virtute termint, 
to admit of that allusion absolutely *. 


* Should it be demanded, in 
objection to this explanation, 
that if the word in question re- 
quires the article or admits of it, 
virtute termini, or virlule ma- 
teria, alone; why is it found 
without the article in preceding 
parts of the prophecy, though 
used in the same _ sense all 
through, and that a sense so dif- 
ferent from its common mean- 
ing? I answer, that it could not 
in these instances of its occur- 


rence admit of the article, be- 
cause it is mentioned there, and 
in every instance but one, men- 
tioned absolutely, in conjunction 
with a noun of number. The 
noun of number in such cases 
supersedes the article, or at least 
dispenses with it. Thus it 
stands without the article at the 
head of the prophecy, myaw 
Dyaw: the propriety of which 
will appear, substitute what ver- 
sion we please for the proper 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 393 


This difficulty, therefore, being removed, and there 
being no longer reason to suppose a reference intended 
to any one week of this description more than another ; 
we shall be justified in treating the thing predicted 
as an independent event, not yet noticed, and altoge- 
ther distinct from every thing that may have preceded. 
The general sense of the first part of the proposition 
will be faithfully expressed, by rendering the original, 
And an half portion of the seven day year shall put 
to rest, M79) Mar: and by putting these two things 
to rest, in the literal sense, we may take it for 
granted that causing them to cease, is intended. But 
with respect to these two things themselves, that is, 
with respect to the two words which follow in the ori- 
ginal, and conclude the sentence, the received trans- 
lation has rendered them by sacrifice and oblation. 
To the first of these versions, I have nothing to object ; 
but as to the second, it may justly be matter of sur- 
prise that, whatever be the proper sense of 7M, and 
whether that proper sense be oblatio or munus, or not, 
our translators should have preferred to render it in 
this instance by obdation, when in a great majority of 


meaning of the second of these 
terms: Seventy seven-day- years, 
are determined, &c. It stands 
without the article in the next 
instance, and with equal pro- 
priety, Know therefore and un- 
derstand, that from the going 
forth of the commandment...to 
Messiah the Prince, shall be 
maw oyaw, Seven-day-years 
seven, and Diu) Dwwy oyu, 
and Seven-day-years sixty and 
two. But it stands with the 
article directly after, because 
that is in reference to the last of 
these numbers just mentioned: 
And after oun owy oyswn, The 


seven-day-years sixty and two. 
It wants the article in the next 
allusion, for the same reason as 
before: And a covenant for 
many shall confirm ἽΠΕΣ yay, 
A seven-day-year one. And it 
has the article in the last instance 
of all, because it is mentioned 
absolutely, without any desig- 
nation of number, yet as specific 
and definite, when so mentioned, 
virtute lermini, or virtute materia 
itself. »awm “m—And an half 
portion of the seven-day-year— 
shall produce such and such an 
effect. 


394 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


instances elsewhere they have invariably rendered the 
same word by a different term, meat-offering. The 
notion of oblation or gift includes that of sacrifice, as 
one of the species of gifts or offerings, which may be 
denoted by the term; and to render this word, in con- 
junction with sacrifice, by ΟἽ or oblation, would neces- 
sarily lead to the inference that the one was synony- 
mous with the other, and the one was intended merely 
as explanatory of the other. It would be a great objec- 
tion to the truth of this inference, that in that case, the 
prophecy would have been liable to the charge of ex- 
plaining a definite term by an indefinite, or a specific 
idea by a general—which is contrary to the natural 
order of thought, and the proper use of terms in such 
instances. The reason of the thing must teach us that 
the second of these terms, under such circumstances, 
can never be explanatory of the first; and therefore 
cannot have here its proper sense of oblation: and that 
if these two things are coupled together, both as the 
common subjects of the making to cease, which is de- 
clared to be the work of an half portion of the week— 
something must have been intended by them distinct 
wn specie, though possibly the same iz genere. 

Nor would it be difficult to discover what this must 
be. The version of Theodotion may convince us that 
something more specific must have been intended. by 
mi, especially in conjunction with m1, than munus 
or oblatio ; for it has rendered the former by σπονδὴ, 
and the latter by θυσία, and the Septuagint has done 


the same *. A critical consideration of these terms, 


* Not that σπονδὴ is the pro- 
per sense of AM» notwithstand- 
ing. The word that answers in 
Hebrew to σπονδὴ in Greek, or 
libamen, is Ὁ). We have them 
both brought together in Joel 
ii. 14: Who knoweth ?/ he will 


return and repent, and leave a 
blessing behind him; even a 
meat-offering and a drink-offer- 
ing unto the Lorp your God? 
In the Hebrew it is, Jo.) nn 
munus et libamen. Cf. Isaiah 
lvii. 6. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 395 


and of the use which is made of them, will shew, that 
under both together must be comprised all the kinds 
and varieties of offerings that were made, or required 
to be made, under the Law; both those which were ac- 
companied with the shedding of blood, and those which 
were not; the former consequently including every de- 
scription of animal sacrifice, and the latter every de- 
scription of vegetable. mar, the first of these terms, is 
the general term for any sort of legal sacrifice that was 
merely accompanied by the shedding of blood—or the 
taking away the life of a victim—whatever was done 
with the body of it afterwards, whether entirely con- 
sumed on the altar, or in part on the altar, and in part 
by the ministering priests, or in conjunction with the 
worshipper. Whatsoever could strictly be called θυσία 
or mactatio—that is, the sacrifice of a life as such; by 
whatever name it might be called and distinguished in 
particular instances, with reference principally to the 
disposal of the victim—whether my, or burnt-offer- 
ing, or ΓΝ, or sin-offering; or Owx, or trespass-of- 
fering, or oy>w or σοῦ mat, or peace-offering—all 
were ΤΊΣΙ or θυσίαι, in the general sense of the word, 
alike. ΤΣ on the other hand is the special designa- 
tion for that one kind of oblation, that consisted of a 
certain portion of flour, and oil, and frankincense, min- 
gled together, to which our Bible translation of the 
Old Testament commonly gives the name of meat- 
offering: a definite amount of which was appointed to 
accompany every sacrifice that was offered on the altar, 
and attended with the shedding of blood. 

In the most general sense of the terms, then, the 
conjunction of two such remarkable words as 72; and 
m2, would obviously comprehend every description 
of offering, animal and vegetable, properly so called, 


396 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, 5c. 


that was required or was made under the Law*. But 
in the more specific and more restricted sense of the 
words, as applying to any one description of animal or 
vegetable sacrifice preeminently, more than another, 
they are competent to denote that one instance of ani- 
mal sacrifice, accompanied with its proper meat-offer- 
ing, that is, that one sort of Mat and AMY in conjunc- 
tion, which was the most stated and regular, and there- 
fore the most characteristic of the Levitical ritual, of all 
—viz. the ἐνδελεχὴς θυσία, the daily offering of morning 
and evening, throughout the year. And in one of these 
senses, we may confidently undertake to pronounce, 
the words must have been intended in the present in- 
stance: nor would it make much difference, with respect 
to the thing predicted, the cessation of sacrifice and 
meat-offering both, which we might suppose to be meant. 
Sacrifice and meat-offering, in their most comprehensive 
sense, must include every description of each, that of 
morning and evening among the rest; and the cessa- 
tion of sacrifice and meat-offering, even if first and 
properly intended of the cessation of the sacrifice and 
meat-offering of morning and evening more particu- 
larly—must involve in its consequences the cessation 
of all the rest. For let us consider what these conse- 
quences must be—whatever the subject of the cessation 
may be—whether sacrifice and meat-offering in their 
most general, or in their most special sense. If sacri- 
fice and meat-offering—whether of one kind or an- 
other, if it was only a stated and regular part of a 
stated and regular service—had been made to cease ; 
the use of the altar was superseded. If the use of the 
altar had been superseded, the service of the minister- 


* As they do, in that well which ought by all means to be 
known text of Psalm xl. 7, also; compared with this of Daniel. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 397 


ing priest was at anend. If the service of the min- 
istering priest was at an end, the Levitical ritual had 
expired—and the Levitical priesthood was no more. 
Now an event of such magnitude as this, an event 
so pregnant with consequences to the existing order of 
things, the temple and the temple service, the altar 
and the ministering priest—whatever it might be—was 
evidently worthy of a place among the other futurities 
disclosed by this prophecy, with a special reference to 
the people of Daniel, and to the holy city of Daniel 
more particularly. And this event is described in the 
prophecy as the Putting to rest of sacrifice and meat- 
offering ; and this putting to rest as the work or effect 
of an half portion of the seven-day-year. That such 
an event, then, as the cessation of sacrifice and meat- 
offering, with all its consequences, was to be expected as 
the effect of that period of time denoted by an half por- 
tion of the seven-day-year, that is, of a certain three 
years and an half of time, was assuredly to be gathered 
from this prophecy: but whether the event itself was 
to take place at the beginning of this portion, or at the 
end of this portion, or at the middle of this portion, 
was not to be gathered from the prophecy ;—for it is left 
indefinite—and all that is declared on the subject is, 
that it should be the work, in some manner or other, 
of an half portion of a week of years, but no more. If 
it took up more time to effect this work, than an half 
portion of a week of years, the prophecy would so far 
be falsified by the event; and if it took up less, the 
result would be the same: but if the work was actually 
brought to pass, no matter in what manner, within 
that time, and in neither moyve nor less than that; the 
prophecy would turn out to be true. Under these cir- 
cumstances, then, it will be perfectly consistent with 
the language of the prophecy, as well as with any ex- 


398 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


pectation which we could reasonably form of the event 
beforehand, if it should turn out that the whole of this 
period was preparatory to that one effect, the cessation 
of sacrifice and meat-offering, and that one effect itself 
was consummated at the end of a//. Indeed, upon one 
supposition, which every one might admit to be rea- 
sonable, viz. that this causing of sacrifice and meat- 
offering to cease, whatever it might be, was yet one 
definite thing in itself, and accomplished by one spe- 
cific instance of performance—we might venture to 
pronounce beforehand that such an act or effect could 
never be described or understood of the destined effect 
of a period and lapse of time, consistently with reason 
and common sense, except as the whole of that period 
or lapse of time was designed to be preparatory to this 
one effect, and this one effect to result at the end of 
all. 

Now who will deny that to make sacrifice and meat- 
offering to cease—that is, to supersede all the sacrifices 
and offerings of the law, by the one great sacrifice of 
himself—was the final end and purpose of our Saviour’s 
death ? and that the cessation of sacrifice and meat- 
offering accordingly, because of the one great virtue 
attaching to the sacrifice of himself, was the effect of 
his death ? And who will deny that to prepare the way 
for the event of his death, was the final end and pur- 
pose of his personal ministry, from the time that he 
entered upon it, to the time that it closed by his death 
itself ? Who will deny that as he was pointed out by 
John Baptist, at the very outset of his ministry, in the 
special capacity of the Lamb of God, that carried the 
sin of the world’, so he offered up himself at last in the . 
same capacity, as the Lamb slain from the foundation of 
the world’; and spent the intermediate time, the period, 


r John i. 29. 36. s Rev. xiii. 8. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 


399 


strictly speaking, of his personal ministry, in preparing 
the way, by natural and gradual steps, for that great 
consummation of the whole—taking every precaution 
that it should not be accelerated or antedated, while 
his time was yet distant, and nothing solicitous to 
retard or procrastinate it, when his hour was fully 


come ἃ. 


If so, by specifying beforehand that which was to 
happen at the close of our Saviour’s personal ministry, 
and was to have such power and efficacy as to cause 


* This phrase, which occurs 
so repeatedly, especially in St. 
John’s Gospel, to denote the 
proper termination of the period 
appointed beforehand for the 
continued immunity of the Mes- 
siah’s person, after the com- 
mencement of his public minis- 
try—and so far the termination 
of his public ministry also, which 
began and which ended with the 
beginning and continuance of 
that immunity itself; by recog- 
nising a predetermined point of 
time, at which the ministry of the 
Messiah should terminate, vir- 
tually recognises a predetermin- 
ed point of time, where it should 
begin, and a predeterminate in- 
terval, for which it should last 
between them. There must have 
been an hour, at which to enter 
upon his ministry, if there was 
an hour at which to make an 
end of it; and either of these 
might be called with equal pro- 
priety his own. And each being 
as determinate as the other, the 
interval comprehended between 
them becomes of course deter- 
minate likewise. In one word, 
the whole of the Messiah’s min- 
istry, with respect to its point 
of commencement, its point of 


cessation, and its intermediate 
duration, was all predeterminate 
alike. From the time that he 
appeared amongmen, to the time 
that he disappeared from among 
them, his course was already laid 
down, and he had only to walk 
in the path long before prescribed 
for him. If this was the case, 
if Messiah appeared to fulfil a 
predetermined part with scrupu- 
lous exactness—more especially 
his part in relation to time—we 
cannot hesitate to believe that 
he came to fulfil a part prescrib- 
ed and defined for him by this 
prophecy of the Seventy weeks: 
and in nothing more se than in 
those portions of it which re- 
late to the time of his coming, 
and to the time of his being cut 
off; and consequently to the 
length of the interval for which 
he should be conversant with 
men in the discharge of his min- 
istry. If he had his hour to be- 
gin, and his hour to make an 
end, and both so long before 
fixed and defined, that neither 
could be antedated or retarded ; 
we cannot hesitate to believe it 
was an hour in each instance 
prescribed by this prophecy more 
particularly. 


400 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


the cessation of sacrifice and meat offering both; the 
prophecy virtually recognises his previous ministry as 
preparatory thereto: and by specifying this one effect 
at the end of the whole, as the work of an half portion 
of the seven-day-year, it recognises the duration of 
that personal ministry, as altogether preparatory and 
altogether dedicated to that effect, as a period of three 
years and one half previously. 

In this part of the prophecy, therefore, we perceive 
the omission to be supplied, the existence of which we 
had reason to suspect before ; viz. the definition of the 
interval, implied but not declared, between the first ap- 
pearing of Messiah, Leader or Prince, and the cutting 
off of Messiah afterwards: and it now appears that this 
interval was always designed to be one half portion of 
a week of years, with the beginning of which one great 
purpose should begin to be accomplished—during the 
course of which the same great purpose should be 
steadily kept in view—and at the end of which it 
should be finally consummated ; viz. the putting a stop 
to every vicarious and expiatory sacrifice of every de- 
scription, by Messiah’s sacrifice of himself in the capa- 
city of the true daily burnt offering of morning and 
evening throughout the year, and of the true antitype 
of every other sacrifice under the Law, whether animal 
or vegetable, alike. 

The only question, which can remain for discussion, 
under these circumstances, will be, Why the definition 
of this interval, which constitutes the true measure of 
Messiah’s ministry, should be deferred to this point in 
the order of the disclosures relative to the facts of the 
Christian ministry, while the allusion to his appearing 
and to his being cut off occurred so long before? It 
would be of little importance what answer were re- 
turned to this question, so long as the matter of fact 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 400 


itself remained the same and undeniable ; viz. that the 
true measure of Messiah’s ministry, whether implied in 
its proper place or not, is actually specified here, and 
so clearly that there can be no doubt about it. In an 
historical point of view, however, and the prophecy 
being regarded as an anticipation of the Christian his- 
tory beforehand; the continuity of this history was 
more likely to be kept unbroken by passing from Mes- 
siah’s appearing to his being cut off—and from his 
being cut off, to the making good of a covenant for 
many, in which the final end and design of all his 
history previously was obviously summed up—than by 
interposing between his appearing and his death the 
account of his ministry meanwhile. The purpose of 
his ministry previously, however long it might have 
lasted, was all summed up in the article of his death: 
and the fact of his death being one thing, and the final 
end of the fact another, the one might be represented 
distinctly from the other. Considered, too, in its con- 
nection with the foundation of the Christian religion, 
or the introduction of that new dispensation which was 
to supersede the Levitical; the regular transition in the 
order of events would be, from the appearing of Mes- 
siah to his cutting off, and from his cutting off to 
the stablishing of a covenant with many. If the first 
principle of that new dispensation, the basis of the 
covenant so established, was also to be defined; then, 
as rooted and grounded in the doctrine of a crucified 
Saviour, the further declaration of this first principle, 
or statement of this covenant basis, would suggest the 
final end or effect of his death, in the atoning virtue 
which was always designed to be contemplated by it : 
but in an order last of all. Besides, the prophecy being 
described at the outset, as one of seventy weeks, or as 
it must now very plainly appear, of seventy and an 
VOL. IV. Dd 


402 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


half; but the whole being distributed into portions of 
seven, and sixty-two, and one, and one half respec- 
tively ; it was a more natural order to dispose of the 
integral periods or divisions of the whole, and their 
purposes, before any thing was said of the half portion 
or fraction remaining. In any case, so long as it shall 
not be maintained that the half portion, mentioned by 
the prophecy last of all, is either implied or affirmed 
to be posterior to the one week, just before specified ; 
or the event which is assigned to it not to be indepen- 
dent of every thing else; it never can be considered a 
matter of vital importance, in what order relatively to 
the rest this particular portion of time should be found 
to stand, or the business to which it should be devoted 
to be declared and specified. There were doubtless 
reasons for the position of it, whether we could discover 
them or πού, 

And now, long as the preceding discussion has lasted, 
the reader, I trust, will do me the justice to admit that 
it has been directed to the consideration of nothing 
which might not be regarded as strictly preliminary ; 
and upon which it would not be necessary that we 
should come to some conclusion, preparatory to any 
attempt to shew the fulfilment of the prophecy by a 
comparison with the event. The principles of the pro- 
posed scheme of interpretation being thus ascertained 
beforehand, the rest of our task, which regards the 
proof of the fulfilment, will be comparatively short and 
easy; for all that we shall have to do will be merely 
to state the predictions of the prophecy ; side by side 
with the facts in which they were verified ; the truth 
of these facts themselves, in every instance, having been 
largely, and as I trust satisfactorily established in the 
previous Dissertations of the present work: remem- 


b See on this subject, Dissertation xv. vol. ii. 14, 15. 


Pr the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 403 


bering only, that not one of these facts, but what rests 
upon its proper grounds of belief, independent of this 
prophecy itself, and not one, but what would be equally 
true, as placed upon those grounds, though no such 
thing as this prophecy had ever existed in scripture. 

With this view, it may be expedient, at this stage of 
our discussion, once more to propose an English ver- 
sion of the prophecy, embodying those several altera- 
tions which we have considered it necessary to make 
in the Bible text version, and adhering as closely as 
possible to the letter of the original, throughout; in 
particular, taking care to preserve the order and collo- 
cation of its terms, and to avoid that fault which has 
been found a very common source of inaccuracy in the 
Bible version, the arbitrary insertion or the arbitrary 
omission of the article, even at the expense of some 
sacrifice of the proprieties of our own language, if by 
these means the version can be rendered so much the 
more faithful to the original. 


Daniel ix. 24—27. 


SEVENTY WEEKS are determined 
Upon people of thee, and upon ||city of holiness of thee, 
To shut up the transgression, 
And to seal up sins, 

And to cover over depravity, 

And to bring on righteousness of ages, 

And to seal up vision and prophet, 
And to anoint an holy of holies. 


And thou shalt know and shalt understand, 
From going forth of a word to cause to return, 
And to build Jerusalem, 

Unto Messiah, Leader, 
shall be 
Weeks seven, and weeks threescore and two. 
There shall || return and be built 


"9 


|| Holy city 
of thee. 


|| Be built 
again. 


\| Ditch or 


rampart. 


|| None 
shall be 
his. 


|| Make to 
cease. 


404 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


Street and || wall, 
And in strait of the times convenient. 


And after the weeks threescore and two 
Shall Messiah be cut off, and ||no one unto him: 
And the city and the sanctuary 
Shall a people of a leader to come destroy : 
And his end shall be in a flood, 

And unto an end of war 
Shall be sentences determinate of desolations. 


And a covenant for many 
Shall one week make potent : 
And an half portion of the week 
Shall || put to rest sacrifice and meat-offering. 
And upon wing of abominations 
Shall he be making desolate : 
And unto a consummation and a sentence determinate 
Shall be poured upon the made desolate. 


Now to consider in brief the fulfilment of these va- 
rious predictions. First, Seventy weeks are deter- 
mined upon thy people and upon thy holy city : though 
seventy weeks only are specified, it appears that se- 
venty and an half are really intended. And that it is 
perfectly consistent with the idiom of the Hebrew lan- 
guage, to express such a number as seventy and an 
half exactly, by the round number seventy, is admitted 
by all writers upon that language, and has been illus- 
trated by a variety of cases in point Ὁ. 

Secondly, Two classes of events being combined in 
the prophecy, those of the Christian ministry, and those 
of the Jewish war, let us consider them distinctly, and 
the former by themselves first: And thou shalt know 
and shalt understand, from going forth of a word to 
cause to return and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah, 
Leader, shall be weeks seven, and weeks threescore 


Ὁ Dissertation xv. vol. ii. 6—8. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 405 


and two: that is, sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years in 
all. 

Ezra set out on his mission on the first of the first 
month, which answered that year to March 9, in the 
sixth of Artaxerxes: and arrived in Jerusalem on the 
first of the fifth month, answering to July 5, in the 
seventh of the same reign, B. C. 458°. 

The word of the Lord came to John Baptist in the 
* wilderness, and he made his appearance in the public 
discharge of his ministry, on or before October 5, A.D. 
264. And that the first appearance of John, in the 
public discharge of his commission, was to all intents 
and purposes the commencement of the ministration of 
the Messiah, has been proved at large in Dissertation 
xix. vol. ii. 148-191. 

From July B.C. 458, to October A. D. 26, or be- 
fore, the interval was exactly 483 years, or sixty-nine 
weeks of years. 

Again, And after the weeks threescore and two, 
shall Messiah be cut off, and no one unto him. 

The ministration of the Messiah began with the 
appearance of John the Baptist, A. ἢ. 26, αὐ the end 
of the threescore and two weeks ; and the ministration 
of the Messiah was closed by his rejection and passion, 
A.D. 30, after the threescore and two weeks. 

Again, And a covenant for many shall one week 
make potent. 

The Gospel began to be preached to the Jews exclu- 
sively, at the Pentecost May 26, A. D. 30, and to the 
Samaritans, at the Pentecost May 9, A. D. 37°. 

Again, And an half portion of the week shall put to 
rest sacrifice and meat offering. 


ς Ezra vii. 8, 9. viii. 15. 31. Cf. Dissertation xv. vol. ii, 16—18. and Disser- 
tation xix. vol. ii. 182, 183. ἃ Cf. Dissertation xii. vol. i. 411. e Disser- 
tation xv. vol. 11. 19g—62. 


pd3 


406 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


The ministration of the Messiah being begun by the 
sppearance of John Baptist, October 5, A. D. 26, and 
closed by the passion of Jesus Christ, April 5, A. D. 
30—the interval between these dates was exactly 
three years and an half. 

Again, with respect to the particulars of the second 
class, combined with those of the Christian ministry— 
the facts of the Jewish war; all that is necessary 
under this head, to demonstrate the agreement of the 
prediction with the event, is to shew, that from the 
close of the first seven weeks of the prophecy, another 
period of sixty-nine weeks, or four hundred and eighty- 
three years, will bring us to the true termination of 
the Jewish war, beyond the date of the destruction of 
Jerusalem, A. D. 70, at least. 

The first seven weeks of the prophecy expired B.C. 
409. The true date of the termination of the Jewish 
war, understanding by the name the whole series of 
calamities which befell the Jews upon that first oc- 
casion, was A. ἢ. 75. For the war broke out in Arte- 
misius or April, A.D. 66, and the whole series of 
visitations consequent upon it was closed for the pre- 
sent, with the desecration or destruction of the temple 
of Onias in Egypt, A.D. 75. From B.C. 409, to 
A.D. 75, and very probably the same time of the year 
in each instance, the interval was exactly 483 years‘. 

And this being the case, it is impossible not to 
perceive a very striking coincidence between this se- 
cond period of four hundred and eighty-three years, 
devoted to the events of the Jewish war, and the for- 
mer one of the same number of years, devoted to those 
of the Christian ministry ; that, as they began exactly 
forty-nine years asunder, so they terminated exactly 
forty-nine years asunder also: that is, the same num- 


f See Dissertation xv. vol. ii. 65—8r. 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 407 


ber of years, expressed by weeks, was reciprocal with 
respect to each. Detach seven weeks of years from the 
point of the commencement of the first of these four 
hundred and eighty-three years, and you obtain the 
point of the commencement of the second ; and subtract 
seven weeks of years from the close of the second of 
these four hundred and eighty-three years, and you 
are brought to the close of the first: for B.C. 458 — 49, 
brings us to B.C. 409, the ἀρχὴ of the second 483 
years, on the one hand, and A. D. 75 — 49, brings us to 
A. D. 26, the close of the first on the other. 

It is true that, as thus stated, the coincidence in 
question may appear to be nothing remarkable ; for it 
may seem to amount only to thus much, that 483 + 
49, dated from B.C. 458, is exactly equivalent to 49 + 
483, dated from A.D. 75. But the remarkableness of 
the coincidence consists in this, that two lines of futu- 
rity being combined in the same scope of prophecy, the 
one passing much beyond the other with respect to 
the point of time when it was destined to arrive at its 
close; the beginning of the second of these lines is found 
to have been fixed by the prophecy itself, exactly at 
the same distance of time from that of the first, as the 
close of the second of the same lines, from the close of 
the first. Now the prophecy might fix the commence- 
meni of the second of these lines, but it could not fix 
the termination. A moment’s consideration must sa- 
tisfy us, that through the whole of this wonderful pro- 
phecy, not a single particular came to pass because it 
was predicted, and for that reason only; for in that 
case it would follow, that if none of these things had 
been predicted, not one of them would have happened. 
The prescience which dictated the prophecy foresaw 
each of these events, and foretold them accordingly ; 

pd 4 


408 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


but it did not determine the events in conformity to its 
predictions, merely because they had been made the 
subjects thereof; that is to say, it left the events free 
to such causes as determine the being or not being of 
events, whether they have been made the subject of 
prophecy beforehand or not. Hence, though the sepa- 
ration of seven weeks or forty-nine years from the 
head of four hundred and eighty-three might be an 
arbitrary thing; the close of the Jewish war, A. D. 75, 
was not so, but must be determined by the course of 
events: and the course of events, for any thing that 
we can comprehend or conceive, might have brought 
the Jewish war to a close a year sooner than A. D. 75, 
or a year later. But the course of events, it appears, 
brought it to a close exactly A.D. 75: and A. D. 75 
was exactly forty-nine years later than A.D. 26: as 
B.C. 409 was exactly forty-nine years later than B.C. 
458. And A. D. 26 was the close of the first of the 
lines of futurity, as bearing date from B.C. 458, and 
A.D. 75 was the close of the second, as bearing date 
from B.C. 409. The course of events, then, it seems, 
brought each of these lines to an end, exactly at the 
same distance of time asunder, as the beginning of the 
second had been fixed by the prophecy itself, from the 
beginning of the first. And though the prophecy might 
fix the beginning of this line, it could not fix its termi- 
nation. The separation of forty-nine years from the 
first of these lines, to constitute the beginning of the 
second, might be an arbitrary act; but the end of the 
line, whose beginning had been thus determined, must 
be left to the course of things. What further argu- 
ment is necessary to satisfy us, that seven weeks, or 
forty-nine years, but no more, were purposely detached 
from the rest of the prophecy, to serve as the point of 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 409 


departure to the second of its lines of futurity, because 
it was foreseen, that in the due course of events, this 
line itself would come to an end exactly at that distance 
of time from the other? And, consequently, what fur- 
ther argument is necessary to prove, that arbitrary as 
this separation may appear, it was in reality forecast 
with the nicest adaptation to the necessity of the case, 
and to the course of things to come? and the op- 
probrium of commentators, and confessedly the most 
difficult and inexplicable of the circumstances of the 
prophecy, as this division of the first seven of its weeks 
from the body of the rest has heretofore been; yet when 
the true reason of it comes to be perceived, it is really 
one of the most worthy of admiration, and not only as 
intelligible as any of the rest, but perhaps of all, the 
most characteristic of the prescience which dictated the 
whole. 

And now having arrived at this conclusion, I am 
not aware that any thing further is requisite to the 
full and entire explanation of the prophecy of the 
seventy weeks, in all and singular of its parts. Yet, 
long as we have dwelt upon this subject, before we take 
our leave of it finally, I cannot refrain from observing 
that the service which this prophecy is calculated to 
render to sacred and profane chronology, by fixing with 
chronological precision the seventh of Artaxerxes Lon- 
gimanus, the date of the mission of Ezra, exactly four 
hundred and eighty-three years before the true date of 
the commencement of the ministration of the Messiah, 
A. D. 26—and consequently to B.C. 458, is very im- 
portant. B.C. 458, the seventh of Artaxerxes Longi- 
manus being given as a fixed point, it is easy to ascend 
from thence to the first of Cyrus, B.C. 536: and from 
the first of Cyrus, B. C. 536, to the date of the Baby- 


410 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


lonian captivity, B.C. 606: which being once deter- 
mined, we are put in possession of a key-stone to the 
whole edifice of scripture chronology through the reigns 
of the kings of Judah, by themselves first, and after- 
wards of Judah and Israel conjointly; and so on to 
the date of the Exodus, and to those of still earlier 
events. Nor can I forbear to observe, (what must, in 
fact, be my best, and certainly my principal apology, 
for devoting so much time and attention to this one 
subject, in the course of a work like the present,) that 
this same prophecy is of infinite importance in settling 
the basis of every attempt at an harmonized, chrono- 
logical arrangement of the facts of the Gospel, or of 
those of the Apostolical history: for after what has 
been shewn, it must be the height of scepticism, I 
think, to question whether the prophecy of the seventy 
weeks, among its other predictions and determinations 
of events to come, has not fixed the interval between 
Messiah the Prince and his cutting off—that is, be- 
tween the beginning and the conclusion of that min- 
istration which we have called the ministration of the 
Messiah—to a period of half a week, and neither more 
nor less than half a week; that is, to neither more nor 
less than three years and six months’ time: in which 
case, every attempt at an harmonized arrangement of 
the events of the four Gospel histories, from the com- 
mencement of the preaching of John, to the death and 
passion of our Lord—which would not plainly be con- 
tradictory to this prophecy, or plainly be contradicted 
by it—must be arranged accordingly. It would be 
equal scepticism, under the same circumstances, to 
doubt, whether the same prophecy has fixed the period, 
during which formal Christianity was to be preached 
to the Jews, and preached to them exclusively, to an 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 411 


interval of one week of years, and of one week only ; 
and therefore whether every attempt to settle the chro- 
nology of the Acts of the Apostles, between the day of 
Pentecost, when the Gospel began to be preached, and 
the time of the martyrdom of Stephen, that is to say, 
for the first seven chapters of the Acts themselves, 
that would not contradict this prophecy, or be contra- 
dicted by it, must be governed by this knowledge of 
the event, accordingly : and the first seven chapters of 
the Acts and of the Apostolical History—being thus 
to be distributed over the first seven years of the 
Christian history, from A.D. 30, to A. Ὁ. 37, it fol- 
lows of necessity that the rest must be digested and dis- 
tributed, also, so as to accord with these. The only true 
basis of the chronological arrangement of the history of 
the apostles, and of their labours, as far as it is recorded 
in the Acts or in the Epistles, and as far as it is to be 
made up consistently out of the notices supplied by 
either, or by both—-is thus determined beforehand. If 
that arrangement would not proceed on a false founda- 
tion, it must set out with this cardinal principle— 
that seven years elapsed, and are to be accounted for 
accordingly, between the first Christian sermon, and 
the first instance of the conversion of any but Jews. 

I am well aware that these are positions, which will 
meet with an unwelcome reception from the minds of 
readers prepossessed with contrary persuasions, which 
they have long been in the habit of considering as 
true; or from such writers upon these subjects as 
stand committed to opinions of a very different kind : 
especially the authors of harmonies of the gospel, 
which proceed on the principle of a one year’s or a 
two years’ ministry of our Saviour, at the utmost. But 
convinced as I am of the truth of these statements, I 


412 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


can neither retract nor qualify them. The truth must 
be spoken—especially where the honour of a prophecy 
like that of the seventy weeks, the most illustrious 
monument of prophecy even in the Old Testament 
itself—or the question of the plain simple meaning of 
its terms, is at stake. Amicus Plato, sed magis amica 
religio : ἀμφοῖν yap φίλοιν ὄντοιν, ὅσιον προτιμᾷν τὴν 
ἀλήθειαν. We must not allow ourselves to be restrained 
by any false delicacy, from declaring our opinion 
plainly, that with the palpable evidence of this pro- 
phecy before their eyes, those harmonists who pay no 
attention to its intimations, in arranging the facts of 
the gospel history, are either unintentionally guilty of 
a serious oversight—or do a wilful disparagement to 
the prophecy itself. They are unintentionally guilty of 
a serious oversight, if they forget to attend to intima- 
tions which so closely concern their proper subject: 
and they wilfully disparage the prophecy, if, knowing of 
these intimations, they think they may be excused 
from attending to them, as too indefinite or precarious 
to lead to any certain conclusion—or too equivocal 
and ambiguous to be plainly and clearly understood. 
As for myself, it has been my object, with God’s 
blessing and assistance upon my humble endeavours, 
to ascertain a scheme of interpretation of this cele- 
brated prophecy, which should assume no theory, as 
its basis, independent of the prophecy—should seek 
for no clue to its investigations, beyond the self- 
furnished light of the prophecy itself, and desire no 
confirmation of its truth, but the evidence of the event. 
And I think, that by the same Divine blessing and 
assistance, a scheme has been proposed above, which, 
to the best of my judgment, is complete and _per- 
fect from first to last; founded in the principles of 


On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. 413 


common sense, and agreeable to the most reasonable 
conceptions and anticipations, which, either from its 
own express language, or the reason of things, we 
could have formed of the nature and construction, the 
meaning and design, of the prophecy beforehand; and, 
it is needless to add, most entirely in unison with the 
event—when the correctness of its principles comes to 
be tested by their consistency with the matter of fact ; 
which after all is the only sure proof of their truth. 
This wonderful prophecy, as interpreted in con- 
formity to these principles, and as confirmed by that 
proof of the fulfilment, is fixed on a basis of sound 
and consistent exposition, which cannot easily be shaken. 
Placed on that basis, and illustrated both by its 
own evidence, and by the light of the event, it must 
stand recorded to the end of time; bearing the most 
luminous testimony to the wisdom and foreknowledge 
of God—to his providential control of times and sea- 
sons—to the inspiration of his holy scriptures, and 
of the Book of Daniel in particular—to the facts of 
the Christian history, and to the most cardinal and 
characteristic doctrines of our holy religion itself: and 
grounded upon the same basis, and illustrated by the 
same light, it must put to shame the obstinacy of the 
infidel, who can remain unconvinced by it; it may 
defy the cavils of the sceptic, who will in vain en- 
deavour to except against the evidence by which it is 
confirmed ; and it will elude the false glosses, and sur- 
mount the perverse ingenuity of those enemies of the 
cross of Christ, among nominal Christians, who see no- 
thing in the death of Christ beyond the mere fact of 
the death itself; or read in the death of the Teacher 
only the confirmation of the doctrine which he taught; 
shutting their eyes to the further and much more im- 


414 Appendix. Supplement to Dissertation Fifteenth, &c. 


portant truth, which this prophecy is competent to 
teach them, that “‘ Seventy weeks were determined on 
the people of Daniel and on the holy city of Daniel,” 
not only “To seal up vision and prophet ;” but “ΤῸ 
bring on righteousness of ages; ΤῸ shut up the trans- 
gression; ΤῸ seal up sins; To cover over depravity ; 
and To put sacrifice and meat-offering to rest.” 


APPENDIX. 





DISSERTATION XX. 


On the Date of Trajan’s Expedition into the East. 
Vide Dissertation xvii. vol. ii. page 123. line 12—133. 1. 13. 


THE supposition of a double martyrdom, or a double 
succession in the bishopric of Jerusalem, one of Simon 
the Cananite, the other of Simon the reputed son of 
Cleopas ; is the best calculated to reconcile the conflict- 
ing traditions respecting their history, which were in- 
sisted on in the seventeenth Dissertation above referred 
to. It derives some countenance from the double date 
assigned to the martyrdom of the latter, A. D. 104 or 
105, and A. D. 107 or 108, between which learned au- 
thorities are much divided; the former resting on the 
testimony of the Paschal Chronicon, the latter on that 
of Eusebius. Also from the fact that the Greek and 
Latin calendars, respectively, kept different days in 
commemoration of the martyrdom in question; the for- 
mer April 27, the latter February 18°. 

Eusebius, as it is well known, (and Jerome, after 
him,) joins with the martyrdom of Simon the son of 
Cleopas, that of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, both in 
the same year of Trajan: and as he makes them suf- 
fer together, so he supposes them to be appointed 
bishops of their respective churches together”. It is 
probable that he was induced to make their deaths syn- 
chronous, because that of Ignatius was placed by his 
Acta in the ninth of Trajan, and that of Symeon, by 


a Vide Ruinart, Acta Martyrum. Admonitio ad Martyrium S, Symeonis, 
p- 6. 1- > E. H. iii. 22. 


416 Appendix. Dissertation Twentieth. 


Hegesippus, at a time when Trajan was in the East, 
which the Acta suppose to be the case in the ninth of 
his reign. But, if the two events were united only on 
the supposition of Trajan’s presence in the East in the 
ninth year of his reign, we may, without scruple, sepa- 
rate them again. It is subversive of the truth of his- 
tory to place Trajan’s eastern expeditions in the ninth 
or tenth year of his reign. 

The Acta, it is true, are so far consistent with them- 
selves that, as they place the apprehension and trial of 
Ignatius before Trajan at Antioch, in the ninth year 
of his reign*, so they place his death at Rome, on 
Dec. 204, Coss. Senecione et Sura. These were actually 
consuls, ex Kal. Jan. U. C. 860, still in the xznth of 
Trajan. It is true also® that, at the time of Ignatius’ 
actual suffering, the writer of the account speaks as an 
eyewitness and contemporary, in the first person. But 
they are scarcely consistent in placing the martyrdom 
in the ninth of Trajan; and yet speaking of it! as fol- 
lowing so soon after the persecution, last endured, 
under Domitian: τοὺς πάλαι χειμῶνας μόλις παραγαγὼν 
τῶν πολλῶν ἐπὶ Δομετιανοῦ διωγμῶν : and again, λωφή- 
σαντος πρὸς ὀλίγον τοῦ διωγμοῦ : and, ὅθεν ἔτεσιν ὀλίγοις 
ἔτι παραμένων TH ἐκκλησίᾳ. As Domitian’s persecution 
was over by A.D. 96 at the latest, a ten years’ interval of 
peace, particularly at that time, seems longer than could 
be properly spoken of in those terms. 

If the Acta had said nothing of Trajan’s being at 


e Ruinart, Acta Martyrum, p.15. cap. 2. The same date is recognised in the 
Encomium Sti Dionysii, of Michael Syngelus. Vide Dionysius Areopagita, Ope- 
rum ii. 233. ad calcem. Syncellus, i. 647. 1. 13. quoting apparently from Eusebius, 
supposes Ignatius to have sat at Antioch from the last year of Vespasian, (U. C. 
831.) thirty years: which also places his martyrdom in the tenth or eleventh of 
Trajan; for U. C. 831+ 30 is U. C. 861. Yet this is a very different statement 
from that which is given by Nicephorus, (apud Syncellum, i. 781. 1. 1o—13.) ac- 
cording to which Peter was bishop of Antioch eleven years, Evodius twenty-three, 
and Ignatius only four. Eusebius, as we have observed, E. H. iii. 22, supposes 
Ignatius appointed bishop of Antioch, and Symeon, bishop of Jerusalem, about 
the same time, and each apparently in the reign of Trajan. ἃ Ibid. capp. 2. 6. 
e Ibid. cap. 6. f Cap. 1. 


On the Date of Trajan’s Expedition into the Eust. 417 


Antioch, when Ignatius was sent to Rome, but had 
merely told us that it was after his Dacian or Scythian 
victories, when he was meditating further conquests in 
the East; we might have been at liberty to suppose 
that he was sent to Rome at the close of the first 
Dacian war, U.C. 856, as much as at the close of the 
second, U.C. 859: at both which times the emperor 
celebrated a Triumphus Dacicus. Nor is any good 
reason assigned why the martyr should be sent to 
suffer at Rome, if he was really condemned before 
Trajan in person at Antioch. Throughout his own 
Epistles, which he wrote on his way to Rome, there 
is no allusion to the presence of the emperor in the 
East. It is not improbable that he was a Roman citizen ; 
and that this was the reason of his being sent to suffer 
at Rome. Latin words repeatedly occur in his Epistles ; 
as ἐξεμπλάριον (for exemplar) ; δεσέρτωρ (desertor) ; δε- 
πόσιτα (deposita); and ἄκκεπτα (accepta,)in the peculiarly 
classical sense of accepta as opposed to expensa. Be- 
sides which, the persecution, such as it was, began and 
ended with the particular martyrdom of Ignatius; whom 
the Acta speak of (cap. 2.) as having offered himself ὑπὲρ 
τῆς ᾿Αντιοχέων ἐκκλησίας : and when he himself wrote to 
the church of Smyrna ὃ, in consequence of his selection 
as the appointed victim peace had been restored to Syria. 
So likewise in his Epistle to Polycarp®; whence the 
peace in question is seen to have ensued on his depar- 
ture. What reason is there to suppose, then, that any 
one person suffered on this occasion, besides Ignatius ? 
much more, such an one as the bishop of Jerusalem, 
either himself an apostle, or next to the apostles, the 
most worthy of the name of an apostle, at that time 
alive. 

As the truth or the falsehood of the statements in 

g Cap. τι. Patres Apostolici, 875. h Cap. 7. Patres Apostolici, 878. 

VOL. Lv. Ee 


418 Appendix. Dissertation Twentieth. 


question depends mainly on the decision of the dis- 
puted point whether Trajan was, or was not, in Syria 
so early as the ninth or tenth year of his reign; I shall 
enter a little at large on the consideration of this point : 
which the letters of Pliny the younger, a contemporary 
of Trajan’s, enable us to decide satisfactorily in the 
negative 

When Pliny was in office as proconsul of Bithynia, 
the tenth book of his Epistles demonstrates that Tra- 
jan was at Rome; certainly not in the East: and Pliny 
was not proconsul of Bithynia before the twelfth or 
the thirteenth of Trajan, or even later: as may thus 
be shewn. 

Epp. lib. ii. 1, mention is made of the death of Ver- 
ginius Rufus, thirty years after the memorable part 
which he had acted at the outset of the civil wars, be- 
tween the revolt of Vindex and the death of Nero; 
that is, between March and June, U.C. 821. He died 
in his ¢hird consulate; which he discharged, U. C. 850, 
along with the emperor Nerva, whom he left alive at 
his death:. Now Nerva himself was not living after 
Jan. 27, U.C. 851. The death of Verginius, therefore, 
in his third consulate, under such circumstances, and 
in the thirtieth year from U. C. 821, must have been 
in the spring quarter of U. C. 850. It agrees with this 
conclusion, that Cornelius Tacitus, who pronounced his 
funeral oration as consul suffectus at the time, ap- 
pears in the Fasti, consul suffectus before Kal. Jul. 
U.C. 850. | 

Yet (Epp. vi. 10) we find Pliny complaining that no 
monument had yet been erected, or at least completed, 
to the memory of this illustrious patriot *, Post deci- 


* His death is alluded to obiter, v. 3. sect. 5. 


i So Dio, Ixviii. 2. 


On the Date of Trajan’s Eapedition into the East. 419 


mum mortis annum; that is, before U. C. 859 or 860, 
at least. Ifso, U.C. 859 or 860, in the ninth or tenth 
of Trajan, Pliny was still at Rome. 

Now this letter is interposed in the midst of the ac- 
count of the proceedings against Varenus; a former 
proconsul of Bithynia, and, at the expiration of his 
office, accused by his subjects*. 

The accusation of Varenus had followed upon that 
of Bassus!, who also had been president of Bithynia— 
and certainly before Pliny; see x. 64,65: therefore so 
had Varenus. 

Now as the accusation of Varenus could not take 
place long before U. C. 859 or U. C. 860, the ninth or 
tenth of Trajan, and as it was protracted a consider- 
able time; so neither could Pliny, who was at Rome 
during its whole course, be sent into Bithynia before 
the same year, nor yet for some time afterwards. 
From various epistles, which might be cited, we may 
collect that more than one year, or even two years and 
upwards, must have elapsed between the writing of 
vi. 10. in the midst of the proceedings against Varenus, 
and the time of Pliny’s being dispatched to Bithynia. 
His letters follow each other in a sufficiently regular 
order ™; and he appears to have published them by one 
or more books at a time. 

They begin, as we have seen, about the first year of 
Nerva®; and they end (x. &c.) with the correspondence 
in his province. Nor is there, in the nine preceding 
books, a single allusion to his having been governor of 
Bithynia, or of any other part of the empire: though 
there are numerous references to the fact of his having 
been consul °: as he was, ex Kal. Sept. U. C. 853 P. 


k Lib. vi. 20: vi. 5.13. 29: vii. 6. Io. 1 Lib. v. 20: iv. 9. ™ See lib. 
vi. 10. 16. 20: ix. 19. 15. 36. 40. ES TRNO aii t tie 0 ili. 13. 18. 20: iv. 8. 
17: V. 15: Vie 273 X. 20. Ρ Panegyricus, 56. 60, 61. 90, 91, 92. 


Ee2Q 


420 Appendix. Dissertation Twentieth. 


It follows, therefore, that the first nine books of 
Pliny’s extant Epistles were written before his procon- 
sulate; and that the greatest part of the tenth was 
written during it. The first six of these books were not 
all published before U.C. 859 or 860: and the writer 
was in Italy for two or three years or more afterwards. 
Hence, he could not be sent into Bithynia before U. C. 
862 or 863, the twelfth or the thirteenth of Trajan. 
He arrived in his province, xv Kal. Oct.4 and his legate 
arrived there, viii Kal. Dec." He continued in his pro- 
vince at least eighteen months; for he twice celebrated 
Trajan’s birthday, September 18**, and the day of his 


* It is a curious coincidence, 
that though Pliny tells the em- 
peror, x. 28, that he came into 
his province only xv Kal. Oct. 
Sept. 17, he had still an oppor- 
tunity of celebrating his birth- 
day there. 

With respect to the date of 
this emperor’s birth and death, 
the former is placed by chrono- 
logers on September 18, and 
the latter on August 11. The 
date of his birth is correctly 
stated: but as to the day of his 
death, Spartian, Hadrianus, 4. 
specifies the 11. Ides of August, 
or August 11, as the day on 
which Hadrian (at that time in 
Syria, and most probably at An- 
tioch) received the news of the 
death of Trajan ; of which thereis 
little doubt that it took place at 
Selinusin Cilicia. Dio, Ixviii. 33 *. 


qx, 20, 2)7,.20320. ΤΣ, 10. 
6. and Pliny, Panegyricus, 92. sect. 4. 


Now, it is physically impro- 
bable, that the news of an event 
which happened at Selinus in 
Cilicia, could have been brought 
to Antioch on the same day. 
Hence, as Casaubon justly ob- 
serves, there would seem to be 
reason to doubt the received 
date of the death of Trajan, 
August 11, U.C. 870. 

Jerome, in Chronico, Ad an- 
num Abrahami 2132. Trajani 
xix., remarks, in reference to the 
date of his death, that it hap- 
pened, anno etatis [Χ11]. mense 
nono, die quarto: which means, 
I apprehend, that he was sixty- 
two complete, and in his sixty- 
third year, at the time of his 
death, U.C. 870; and that dated 
from his birthday, the day of 
his death was the fourth day of 
the tenth month. The _ birth- 


s Kalendarium Vindobonense. Cf. Dio, Ixviii. 


t The Sibylline oracles, alluding to the 


death of Trajan, liber v. p. 551. line 2. describe the locality where it was to happen 
in the following terms : ὃν κόνις ἀλλοτρίη κρύψει νέκυν, GAA’ ἀνεμείης | ἄνθεος οὔνομ᾽ 
ἔχουσα. Commentators, concluding Selinus in Cilicia to be the place meant, 
raise difficulties why σέλινον should be called a windy flower. But the true 
reading of the passage is ἀλλὰ Νεμείης | ἄνθεος οὔνομ᾽ xovea—with which all diffi- 
culty vanishes. Σέλινον, or parsley, it is well known, was the prize of the victors 
in the Nemean games. 


On the Date of T'rajan’s Expedition into the East. 421 


accession, January 27: and twice performed the usual 
ceremony of the Votorum Nuncupatio *, on January 3, 


while there tt. 


day of Trajan being assumed to 
be September 18, the tenth 
month from that date, would 
begin June 18; and the day of 
his death, on the same principle, 
being the fourth of that month, 
would be June 21. I confess, 
that this appears to me a much 
more probable date for the 
death of Trajan, than Aug. 11 ; 
especially if the news of his 
death was received in Antioch 
upon that day. The impos- 
sibility of the tidings of an 
event which happened at Se- 
linus in Cilicia, or at Se- 
leucia in Isauria, being re- 
ceived in Syria on the same 
day, has been already insisted 
upon: but we have produced 
elsewhere abundance of exam- 
ples to shew that a month or 
upwards might intervene before 
a communication from Cilicia 
could be received in Syria. 

It is true, that Dio told us 
Trajan was forty-two years old 
current or complete, at the time 
of his accession, U. C. 851: Cf. 
Zonaras, xi. 21.584. B: in which 
case he would be only sixty-two 
years old, current or complete, at 
the same time, U.C. 871. It is 
probable there is an error in the 
text of Jerome, of xiii for lxi: 
and if Dio meant that Trajan 
was forty-two complete, and in 
his forty-third, January 27, U.C. 
851, this statement would be 
consistent with Jerome’s, under- 
stood to denote that he was 
sixty-one complete, and in the 
tenth month of his sixty-second, 
June 21, U.C. 870. In any 


case, the supposed date of the 
latter for the day of his death, 
the fourth day of the tenth 
month, (dated from September 
18.) is not affected by this dif- 
ference. 

* The vota in question were 
quite distinct from the vota de- 
cennalia, so common in later 
times ; and the first instance of 
which appears on a coin of Tra- 
jan’s U. C. 869. Eckhel, vi. 439. 

Lucian, Pseudologista, Ope- 
rum iil. 168. 7: ἐνθένδε ἢν μὲν 
ἡ τοῦ ἔτους ἀρχὴ, μᾶλλον δὲ ἡ ἀπὸ 
τῆς μεγάλης νουμηνίας τρίτη, ἐν ἡ οἱ 
Ῥωμαῖοι κατά τι ἀρχαῖον εὔχονταί τε 
αὐτοὶ ὑπὲρ ἅπαντος τοῦ ἔτους εὐχάς 
τινας, καὶ θύουσι, Νουμᾶ τοῦ βασι- 
λέως καταστησαμένου τὰς ἱερουργίας 
αὐτοῖς. Cf. Pliny, Panegyricus, 
67, 68. 

Cicero’s birthday fell on these 
vota, 111. non. Jan.—Aulus Gel- 
lius, xv. 28. By asingular mode 
of speaking, however, Plutarch, 
Cicero, 2, says he was born, 
ἡμέρᾳ τρίτῃ τῶν νέων καλανδῶν ; 
that is, after them: post diem 
tertium Kalendas, instead of ante 
diem tertium Nonas, Januarias. 
Cf. Spartianus, Hadrianus, 24, 
7flius Verus, 4: Capitolinus, 
Pertinax, 6: Vopiscus, Tacitus, 9. 

In the opera inedita of Fronto, 
pars prior, p. 11, we have a 
letter of Fronto’s to Antoni- 
nus Pius, written upon occa- 
sion of one of these vota, as 
renewed on the anniversary of 
his accession to the throne. Epp. 
ad Antoninum, v. 

+ Some of the epistles at the 
beginning of the tenth book, it 


t x. 28. 44, 45. 60, 61. 89, 90. 101; 102, 103, 104. Cf. also x. 4. 6. 
Ee3 


422 Appendix. Dissertation Twentieth. 


If, then, he did not come into his province at the 
earliest before U. C. 862 or 863, he could not have 
left it again before U. C. 864 or 865, the fourteenth 
or fifteenth of Trajan: and during all this time the 
emperor was at Rome. See in particular x. 48, 49. 

It might be inferred from x. 41, one of Trajan’s 
epistles, where the words, intra hos proximos decem 
annos, occur, that not less than ¢en years of his reign 
were over when that letter was written; and _ possibly 
a good deal more. ; 

Nor can any objection be brought from x. 64, 65, 
where the acts of Bassus, who had been governor be- 
fore Pliny, are said to have been rescinded, and a term 
of two years prescribed, within which all parties who 
had been affected by them were empowered to appeal 
against them. This does not mean the fwo years last 
past before Pliny came into office; but the two years 
next to ensue after the decree of the senate: between 
which and Bassus’ year of office any length of time 
might have intervened *. The same letter speaks of a 
proconsul called Calvus, and of his having banished 
certain persons 72) trienntum: which three years were 
in the course of expiration, when Pliny was still in 
office. It is probable, therefore, that his immediate 
predecessor was this Calvus; (whom Trajan’s reply 
shews to have been still alive ;) and not-Varenus, or 
much more Bassus. There could not be less than two 
years’ interval between Pliny and this proconsul in 
particular: otherwise Varenus and Calvus would have 
had but two years between them, and Pliny would 


is true, were written before the out of their place, as for instance 
time of Pliny’s government ; and x. 10. compared with x. 26, &e. 
appear to have been added to * The answer of Trajan, x. 
the collection when the rest were 65. shews this biennium to have 
published, probably because they been passed when that letter was 
passed between himself and Tra- written. 

jan : others, too, are somewhat 


On the Date of Trajan’s Expedition into the East. 423 


have succeeded to the latter, at the beginning, not at 
the end, of the ¢rzenniwm in question. 

The learned Tillemont, to save the credit of the 
Acta of Ignatius, and at the same time to reconcile 
them with contemporary history, supposed a double 
expedition of Trajan’s into the East*, one in his fifth 
consulate, U. C. 856, the other in his sixth, U. C. 865. 
This opinion is sufficiently confuted by the above re- 
view; which establishes this fact at least, viz. that 
Trajan had not marched into the East before the six- 
teenth of his reign. But, as Tillemont himself after- 
wards renounced the opinion, it is not necessary to say 
more concerning it 7. 

The chronology of the reign of Trajan, as fixed by 
Eckhel, vi. 412—417, is as follows : 

U. C. 854, the first Dacian war was begun: U.C. 
856, the title of Dacicus ἃ first appears on his coins: in 
the autumn of this year he is supposed to have cele- 
brated his first Triumphus Dacicus. So far Eckhel 
agrees with Spartian, Hadrianus, 3. 

U. C. 857, the war broke out anew: U.C. 8587, it 
is proved by the coins of Trajan to have been brought 
to au end by the death of Decebalus, and by the entire 
reduction of the country. Spartian* also shews that it 
was continuing in or after U.C. 858. The next year 
the emperor is supposed to have returned to Rome, and 
celebrated his second Dacic triumph. 

The events of the three next years, U. C. 860—862, 


* A double expedition is sup- 
posed by Jerome also, Ad annum 
Abrahami 2118. Trajani v. and 
Ad annum Abrahami 2128. Tra- 
jani xv. Eusebius Armenian 
Chronicon supposes only the lat- 
ter; or rather omits distinctly 
to mention either. 

+ In the fragment of the works 

u Dio, lxviii. 10. 


v Eckhel, libro citato, 418. 


of Fronto, apud Frontonis Opera 
inedita, pars ii. called Principia 
Historie, 337—360, are repeat- 
ed allusions to Trajan’s Parthian 
expedition ; which shew that he 
was only once in the East. The 
author of that work, Fronto, as 
he tells us himself, was contem- 
porary with the expedition. 

x Hadrianus, 3. 


Ee 4 


424 Appendix. Dissertation Twentieth. 


Eckhel considers uncertain both from history, coins, 
and marbles. Yet from SpartianY there is reason to 
collect Trajan was at Rome during them. Besides 
which, the marble which Eckhel cites, under U. C. 863, 
shews that the highway through the Pontine marshes, 
begun about U. C. 859%, and the road from Beneven- 
tum to Brundisium, were completed, as is most pro- 
bable, this year; so that the emperor was, as we may 
presume, in Italy ; just as Pliny’s letters from his pro- 
vince, if any of them were written U.C. 863, would 
otherwise shew him to be. 

U. Ὁ. 863—865, we have the evidence of the epistles 
that the emperor was not yet in the East: and U.C. 
866, the dedication of Trajan’s pillar*, which the 
marble produced by Eckhel, fixes to this year, would 
require his presence at Rome. 

The first year, then, when the expedition in ques- 
tion could be undertaken, is U. C. 866 or 867. Eckhel 
adopts the latter date, and considers Dio or Xiphilinus 
his abbreviator, in error, for having placed it in the 
former *. I do not know that this is necessarily to be 
collected from their accounts. It is very possible 
that the emperor set out in the spring of U. C. 867, 
and not in the autumn, as Eckhel thinks: and that he 
had made one campaign that same year before he was 
wintering at Antioch, when the earthquake happened. 
The title of Parthicus, earned by his successes in this 
war, appears first on his coins, U. C. 8694: and as to 
the coin, inscribed Profectio Augusti, and bearing 
date U.C. 867°, it would apply alike to a departure 
any time in that year after Jan. 27 *. 


* Dionysius Areopagita, Ope- casion to observe: καίτοι ἔδοξέ 

rum i. σός. De Divinis Nomini- τισι τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἱερολόγων, καὶ 
4 ne ρ γῶν, 

bus, cap. iv. ὃ. 12. had taken oc- θειότερον εἶναι τὸ τοῦ ἔρωτος ὄνομα 

» Cay Pp Ρ μα, 


y Hadrianus, 3. z Dio, Ixviii. 15. Cf. Ixviii. 7. ἃ Dio, Ixviii. 16. 


Ὁ vi. 430. C vi. 454. ad Eckhel, vi. 438. © Ibid. 430, 431. 


On the Date of Trajan’s Expedition into the East. 


Tov τῆς ἀγάπης. γράφει δὲ καὶ ὁ 
θεῖος ᾿Ιγνάτιος, Ὃ ἐμὸς ἔρως eorav- 
pera: words which occur in his 
Epistle to the Romans, cap. vii. 
Patres Apostolici, 868. C. 

From this allusion, as was na- 
tural, those who suspected the 
genuineness of the works ascrib- 
ed to Dionysius, had derived a 
strong argument to convict them 
of falsely laying claim to that 
title: because the real Diony- 
sius could never have been con- 
temporary with Ignatius, or lived 
after his martyrdom and the pub- 
lication of his Epistle to the Ro- 
mans. 

Maximus, the strenuous cham- 
pion of the Pseudo- Dionysius, re- 
plies to this objection as follows, 
p- 613: καὶ ἐκ τούτου (the words 
produced above) τινὲς οἴονται δια- 
βάλλειν εὐκαίρως τὸ παρὸν σύνταγμα, 
ὡς μὴ ὃν τοῦ θείου Διονυσίου, ἐπει- 
δὴ ᾿Ιγνάτιον λέγουσι μεταγενέστερον 
αὐτοῦ εἶναι: πῶς δὲ δύναταί τις τῶν 
μεταγενεστέρων μεμνῆσθαι; πλά- 
σμα δὲ καὶ τοῦτο δοκοῦν αὐτοῖς" ὁ 
γὰρ ἅγιος Παῦλος, ὁ φωτίσας Διο- 
νύσιον, μεταγενέστερος ἦν τῷ χρύνῳ 
τοῦ ἁγίου Πέτρου, ped ὃν ὁ Ἰγνά- 
τιος ἐπίσκοπος γίνεται ᾿Αντιοχείας, 
μετατεθέντος Πέτρου ἐν Ῥώμῃ" ἐπέ- 
(noe δὲ ὁ ἅγιος Παῦλος χρόνον πο- 
λὺν, φωτίσας Διονύσιον, καὶ Διονύ- 
σιος μετ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔζησεν. ὁ δὲ εὐαγγε- 
λιστὴς Ἰωάννης ἐπὶ Δομετιανοῦ ἐξο- 
ρίζεται εἰς Ldtpov, ᾧ ἀντιγράφει 
Διονύσιος. ᾿Ιγνάτιος δὲ πρὸ Δομε- 
τιανοῦ μαρτυρεῖ, ὥστε προγενέστε- 
ρος Διονυσίου. 

We need not stop to inquire 
how far this statement is con- 
sistent with the ecclesiastical tra- 
dition, that the second bishop of 
Antioch, even reckoning St. Peter 
the first, was Evodius, not Igna- 
tius ; for Origen also, Operum iii. 
938. A. in Lucam Homilia vi. 
eithermakes, or appears to make, 


425 


a similar statement, from whom 
Maximus might borrow it: Unde 
eleganter in cujusdam martyris 
epistola scriptum reperi, Igna- 
tium dico, episcopum Antio- 
chiz post Petrum secundum,... 
Principem seculi hujus latuit 
virginitas Marie ; unless we un- 
derstand these words exclusively 
of Peter. See the Constitutiones 
Apostolice, vii. 46. 327. A. and 
Eusebius, E.H. iii. 22. It is 
sufficient to observe upon it, that 
while it solves the objection in 
question with respect to Diony- 
sius’ being more ancient than 
Ignatius, yet making mention of 
him, it gives up the authority of 
the Acta, by making the latter 
suffer before, not after, the reign 
of Domitian. Maximus must 
have thought that he suffered 
under Nero. Yet as if dissatis- 
fied with his own explanation, 
he proposes a conjecture shortly 
after, that, perhaps, the refer- 
ence to Ignatius’ Epistle to the 
Romans, might have been ori- 
ginally a marginal annotation of 
some learned reader, in illustra- 
tion of the remark upon the Di- 
vine love ; whichafterwards crept 
into the text; as, he says, had 
often been the case in other in- 
stances. 

This same objection to the 
genuineness of the works ascrib- 
ed to Dionysius was considered 
in the treatise described by Pho- 
tius, Bibliotheca, Codex i. p. 1: 
of Theodorus the presbyter— 
who wrote expressly to vindi- 
cate the genuineness of the works 
in question, against four princi- 
pal objections—first, that none 
of the Fathers, more immediate- 
ly after Dionysius, mentions his 
works ; secondly, that Eusebius 
is silent about them; thirdly, 
that they give an account of tra- 


426 


ditions and customs much later 
than the time of Dionysius ; 
fourthly, that they quote one of 
the Epistles of Ignatius. 

We may further observe upon 
this subject, that in the next 
chapter of the same work of the 
Psendo- Dionysius, ὃ. 9. p. 696. 
a reference occurs to Clement 
the philosopher ; which Maxi- 


Appendix. Dissertation Twentieth, &c. 


mus, Scholia, p. 715, under- 
stands of Clement mentioned in 
St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ro- 
mans: but which was much more 
probably intended of Clemens 
Alexandrinus: though as to the 
absurdity of supposing Diony- 
sius the Areopagite a contempo- 
rary of Clement of Alexandria, 
that is self-evident. 


APPENDIX. 





DISSERTATION XXI. 
On the Chronology of the Epistles of Pliny. 


I HAVE asserted in the preceding Dissertation that 
the Epistles of Pliny succeed each other in a suffici- 
ently regular order; in support of which assertion, I 
shall perhaps be excused if I devote the following pages 
to the discussion of their chronology. 

An objection, it is true, to the supposition in ques- 
tion, meets us zz limine; for the first Epistle in the 
collection, which, under ordinary circumstances, might 
be regarded as introductory or prefatory to the whole, 
tells us the letters were put together, Non servato 
temporis ordine .... sed ut quaque in manus ve- 
nerat. But this statement is not to be too literally 
construed ; or else we must come to the conclusion 
that even accident brought the letters to hand in some- 
thing like a regular order: for that a general regu- 
larity does prevail among them, appears from the fol- 
lowing instances, which the internal evidence of the 
letters themselves very probably proves to have been 
consecutively written and published. 

Lib. i. 5. ii. 11, 20. iv. 2. 7. vi. 2—i. 6. ix. 10—i. 7. 
im. 4. 9% wie 29.?. vil... 338-—i. 8. 1v.. 13, νυν 7: νὴ. 18— 
i. 12. iv. 17. vii. 11. 14. 31. ix. 13—i. 22. v. 3. viii. 
14—ii. 7. iii. 1. 10. iv. 27—ii. 6. viii. 23—ii. 1. vi. 
10. ix. 19— ii. 11, 12. vi. 29. x. 20—1ii. 13. x. 3— iii. 5. 
v. 8—iii. 4. 9. vi. 29—iii. 16. vii.19—iii. 13. 18— iii. 
oO. iv. 25—iv.. 5. 18.2 v. 10—iv. 8. ix. 19—iy. 9. 
vi. 29—iv. 14. v. 3. vii. 4—v. 4. 14—v. 20. vi. 5. 13. 


428 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-first. 


29. vii. 6. 10—vi. 4. 7. vii. 5—vi. 6. 9—vi. 11. 29. 
vii. 24. ix. 13—vi. 15. ix. 22—vi. 16. 20—vi. 22. vii. 
16. 23. 32. ix. 5—vii. 7. 8. 15—vii. 29. viii. 6—viii. 
10, 11. 19—viii. 16. 19—ix. 21. 24—ix. 6. 23—ix. 15, 
16. 20. 28—ix. 36. 40—ix. 37. 39. 

Beginning in U. C. 849, immediately after the death 
of Domitian, September 18, in that year, the times and 
order of the several Epistles from i. 1. to ii. 9, may 
easily be traced down to the autumnal quarter of U.C. 
850. But at this point of time an hiatus is found to 
occur, which extends from U. C. 850 exeunte, to U.C. 
852 exeunte, at least. The fact of this hiatus may be 
thus established. 

Lib. ii. 11, 12, gives an account of the accusation of 
Marius Priscus, proconsul of Africa; in which Pliny 
and Tacitus were the advocates of the people of the 
province. The cause was tried in the month of Jan- 
uary, before the princeps or emperor; who was consul 
at the time, and presided in the senate. That this 
emperor was not Nerva, but Trajan, appears from x. 
20, a letter addressed to Trajan, in which Pliny, who 
at this time was preefectus erarii, and therefore other- 
wise engaged by the duties of his office, requests the 
emperor’s approbation of his having consented to be- 
come the advocate of the province. It is evident, then, 
that there was now no emperor but Trajan; and con- 
sequently that the cause was heard in January, U. C. 
853, which is the first year when Trajan appears as 
consul ex Kal. Jan. after the decease of Nerva*. 

This conclusion is further confirmed by the mention 
of Julius Ferox, and Cornutus Tertullus, in the course 
of the account; each in the capacity of consul designa- 
tus at the time. The former was consul suff. ex Kal. 


* Cf. the Panegyricus, cap. ]xxvi. and xev. 1, 2. 


On the Chronology of the Epistles of Pliny. 429 


Nov. and the latter was so, in conjunction with Pliny 
himself, ex Kal. Sept. this very year, U. C. 853. 

It appears from iii. 9. sect. 2-5, and vi. 29. sect. 8, 9, 
that when proceedings were instituted against Marius 
Priscus by the Afri, a like accusation was commenced 
by the people of Hispania Beetica against their former 
governor Cecilius Classicus: and that Pliny was en- 
gaged to advocate this cause as well as the other. We 
have an account of this affair in iii. 4. and 9: the 
former, an epistle written just after Pliny had con- 
sented to plead the cause of the province, the latter, 
another written just after the proceedings in it were 
over. The time when the Beetici applied to him is 
intimated in the following words, iii. 4. sect. 2: Quum 
publicum opus mea pecunia inchoaturus in Tuscos ex- 
currissem, accepto, ut preefectus zrarli, commeatu ; le- 
gati provinciz Beticz, questuri de proconsulatu Czx- 
cilii Classici, advocatum me a senatu petierunt. If the 
reader will turn to x. 24. he will find, if I mistake not, 
the very letter in which Pliny applies to Trajan for 
the leave of absence in question, from the duties of his 
office as prefectus zrarii*. This leave of absence was 
to be for a month, beginning on the first of the Septem- 
ber ensuing; and it was requested in order that Pliny 
might visit and let his estates in the country, 150 
miles distant from Rome; as well as for the sake of 
the publicum opus above mentioned +. 


-.- 
* It appears from the Pane- them, U.C.853. Pliny’s letter, 


gyricus, 60. and 59, that Trajan 
was absent in the first part of 
U.C. 852: but from 63. sect. 1, 
that he was returned to Rome 
by the time of the comitia—the 
time of which, as we may collect 
from Panegyricus, 77, 78.92.95. 
sect. 2, was probably August— 
before at least the month of Sep- 
tember ; such being the case with 


x. 24, was probably written be- 
fore the emperor’s return to 
Rome, U.C. 852. 

+ This publicum opus, I ap- 
prehend, was the temple spoken 
of x. 24. and iv. 1, when it 
was now ready to be dedicat- 
ed ; a temple built by Pliny at 
Tifernum Tiberinum, a town of 
Umbria, on the Tiber, close by 


430 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-first. 


It thus appears, that Piiny was applied to by the 
Afri and by the Betici, to plead their cause against 
their respective proconsuls, in the latter half of U.C. 
852; and did actually plead each of these causes in the 
early part of U.C. 853, when he was still prefectus 
zerarii, and consul designatus also *. Cf. Panegyricus, 
ΧΕΙ]. 

On the supposition, then, of the regularity of the 
Epistles from i. 1—ii. 9, an hiatus occurs between 
the time of ii. 9. and that of ii. 11, of nearly two 
years in extent. It may be conjectured from x. 4. 6. 
vii. 1. sect. 4-7. x. 24. sect. 3, that the causes of this 
interruption in the continuity of the series, were first a 
severe illness, which Pliny himself sustained within 
this period; secondly, the increasing indisposition of 
the emperor Nerva; and thirdly, the duties of the 
office of preefectus zrarii; to which he was appointed 
in the lifetime of Nerva, and before his own sickness, 
but the functions and avocations of which seem to have 
exclusively engaged his time and attention after his 
recovery}. See i. 10. sect. 9: x. 20. sect. 1. 24. sect. 3. 


his villa called Tusci. The same 
was at least 150 miles from 
Rome ; and not much out of the 
way to Pliny’s hereditary rura 
Trans Padum, or at Novum Co- 
mum in Insubria. Cf. iv. 1. sect. 
3, 4. and vii. 16. sect. 3. 

* Besides his action against 
Cecilius Classicus, Pliny some- 
time pleaded the cause of the 
Betici against Bebius Massa: 
§. vii. 33. and 4.9, shews that this 
was before the accession of Nerva. 
Hence it must have happened 
before the date of i. 7, in which, 
§. 2. 5. there is an allusion to some 
such fact. iii. 4. sect. 6, also, 
implies that it happened in the 
time of Domitian. Cf. vi. 29. 


sect. 7, 8. 

+ It may be collected, I think, 
from the Panegyricus, go. sect. 6, 
that Pliny and Cornutus Ter- 
tullus were both appointed pre- 
fecti zrarii by Nerva; and from 
x. 20. 24, by Trajan also; that 
is, that both emperors concurred 
in their appointment— which 
would be the case, if it took 
place any time after Trajan’s 
adoption, the latter half of U.C. 
850. Cf. Panegyricus, 8. 10. 
20—23. 56, 57. 

It appears from Panegyricus, 
gt. δ. 1. 92, that they were both 
designed consuls, while still pre- 
fecti wrarii, before two years of 
their office were completed: and 


On the Chronology of the Epistles of Pliny. 431 


It is not improbable, then, that he wrote no letters 
during this interval of time, or none which he thought 
it worth while to preserve. 

The rest of the Epistles in the first three books, from 
ii. 12— iii. 21, might all be shewn, very probably, to 
come within this same year U. C. 853: ending at the 
usual time of the comitia, the latter half of the year. 
CEs 20. 

Between the close of the third book, however, and 
the commencement of the fourth, another hiatus is 
found to occur, which, in my opinion, extends from 
U.C. 853, exeunte, to the middle of U.C. 856. 

The first letter in the fourth book is addressed to 
Pliny’s prosocer, that is, his wife’s grandfather, Faba- 
tus; telling him that his granddaughter and himself, 
post longum tempus, were coming to pay him a visit 
in the country: his residence being in the vicinity of 
Pliny’s native place, Circa lacum Larium. It was 
Pliny’s usual practice to make these visits into the 
country, and at such a distance from Rome, in the 
summer or autumn. 

This is the first time that a letter occurs in the col- 
lection, addressed to Pliny’s wife’s grandfather, though 
many occur afterwards. Yet he had been sometime 
married to his granddaughter. Pliny was either twice 
married, or thrice*: and he lost his first or his second 
that they were designed consuls 


at a time when Trajan himself 
was present. We may suppose 


quos habere etiam illo tristissi- 
mo seculo volui, sicut potes duo- 
bus matrimoniis meis credere. If 


that they were appointed to the 
office of chancellors of the ex- 
chequer, U.C.850, ab auctumno ; 
and were designed consuls about 
the same time, U.C. 852. 

* Whether Pliny was twice 
married or thrice, depends on 
the construction of x. 2. sect. 2: 
Eoque magis liberos concupisco ; 


sicut potes, &c. is referred to 
volui, he was twice married be- 
fore the reign of Trajan; if to 
concupisco, once. Even the for- 
mer supposition is: possible, as 
Pliny (vi. 20. sect. 5.) was 18, 
U. C. 832, and therefore 35, 
U.C. 849. 


432 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-first. 


wife, as we learn from ix. 12. sect. 4, about the time 
when he undertook the action against the accuser of 
Helvidius Priscus. This was either U. C. 849 exeunte, 
or U.C. 850 tneunte—Cf. ix. 13. sect. 13, where the 
names of several persons are mentioned as consules 
designati at the time, the first of whom appears in 
office ex Kal. Jul. U.C. 850. There is no allusion to 
any subsequent marriage, in the first three books; 
which extend, as we have supposed, down to U.C. 853 
exeunte. Nor can it well be considered to have hap- 
pened in the interval, before established, between U. C. 
850 and U.C. 852. The sickness of Pliny, and the en- 
gagements of his various offices, are inconsistent with 
such a supposition. Yet we may infer from x. 2, a letter 
written to thank Trajan for granting him the privilege 
trium liberorum, that he was recently married at that 
time; and might have had that privilege conceded to 
him in consequence of his marriage itself. If so, his mar- 
riage was not long after the beginning of the reign of 
Trajan. One event, then, of the second period passed 
over in silence by the letters, may be the marriage of 
Pliny, U. C. 854 or 855. 

The eighth epistle in the fourth book is in answer 
to one, who had written to congratulate Pliny on being 
appointed augur in the room of Julius Frontinus, re- 
cently deceased. The eighth of the tenth book is ad- 
dressed to Trajan, to ask the favour of this appoint- 
ment, or of that of the Septemviratus ; both, as it is 
said, being then vacant, and no doubt, by the death of 
the same Frontinus. The ninth of the tenth book 
congratulates Trajan on a certain victory; which, we 
may presume, must have been obtained in the Dacian 
war: and was very probably the victory historically 
related by Dio Cassius, Ixviii. 8. as the last event in the 
first Dacian war, and followed soon after by the submis- 


On the Chronology of the Epistles of Pliny. 433 


sion of Decebalus. The time of this fact was U.C. 855 
or 856. The proximity of the two epistles in question is 
presumptively an argument that the death of Fronti- 
nus, which made a vacancy in the Auguratus, and 
Pliny’s application to be appointed in his stead, were 
nearly synchronous with the close of the first Dacian 
war, U.C. 855 or 856*. 

It is a remarkable circumstance that, though this 
war began in U. C. 854, and was not over for the first 
time until U. C. 856+, when Trajan celebrated his 
first triumphus Dacicus; there is no allusion to it in 
the first nine books of the letters. The first extant 
allusion to the wars in Dacia occurs vi. 27. sect. 5. 
under the general name of Trajan’s Recentia opera; in 
answer to an inquiry from Severus, a friend of Pliny’s, 
Quid designatus consul in honorem principis censeret. 
These recentia opera imply no less than the exploits of 
both the Dacian wars: and especially the celebrated 
bridge over the Danube, a work of the second war, as 
Dio shews, lxviii. 13, most probably in U.C. 858. 
This epistle, then, was later than the close of the se- 
cond war. There is also, at vi. 31. sect. 8, an allusion 
to something which happened when the emperor was 
in Dacia; though that epistle too, as 1 apprehend, was 
written after the conclusion of both wars. Lib. viii. 4. 
in a letter written to one Caninius, Pliny congratulates 
him on having selected the Bellum Dacicum, as the 
subject of an epic poem, which he was projecting; enu- 
merating among its other topics of an extraordinary 


* Julius Frontinus, who thus 
appears to have died U. C. 855 
or 856, was commanding in Bri- 
tain, a little before Agricola was 
appointed to that province, U.C. 
831. See Tacitus, Vita Agri- 
cole, 17. His death is alluded 
τα ΠΟ δ 1. ὦ: 


VWAO Gis LEM 


+ It is clearly to be collected 
from Spartian, Hadrianus,3, that 
the first war began, Trajano iv. 
and Articuleio Coss. U. C. 854; 
and the second, about Candi- 
do ii. et Quadrato 11. Coss. U.C. 
858. 


Ef 


494 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-first. 


character, Novos pontes fluminibus injectos .. . pulsum 
regia, pulsum etiam vita, regem nihil desperantem .. . 
actos bis triumphos, quorum alter ex invicta gente 
primus, alter novissimus fuit. This epistle then is 
later than U. C. 859, the close of the second Dacian 
contest. 

If the fact of this fresh hiatus in the chronological 
series of the epistles, be thus presumptively made out ; 
the reason of it may be ascribed partly to Piiny’s mar- 
riage, an event of that period, and partly and chiefly 
to the intervention of the first Dacian war, which just 
fills up the chasm in question, beginning U. C. 854, 
and ending U.C. 856. This was a war of great diffi- 
culty and danger, as may be collected even from the im- 
perfect account of it, which Xiphilinus has preserved 
from Dio. Whether Pliny was personally engaged in 
it along with Trajan, I cannot undertake to say. 
There is a letter of his, at x. 11, written to Trajan in 
behalf of Rosianus Geminus, who had been his que- 
stor during his consulship; in which he expresses an 
hope that he had recommended himself to the em- 
peror’s notice, not only Ex honoribus quos in urbe sub 
oculis ejus gesserat, verum etiam ex commilitio. The 
war here alluded to is most probably the first Dacian 
war. But this letter implies that Pliny did not per- 
sonally attend upon the emperor during it. Still the 
public mind in Rome must have continued in great 
suspense until it was over; and the absence of Trajan 
from Italy might impose so much the more of the 
cares and responsibility of office upon those whom he 
left with the charge of affairs behind him; of whom 
Pliny would very probably be one. The letters then 
which he might write during this period would pro- 
bably be few; and not considerable enough to be pre- 
served or published, 


On the Chronology of the Epistles of Pliny. 435 


The general regularity of the letters, however, from 
iv. 1. to the end of the ninth book, is easily to be 
made out; beginning U. C. 856, and proceeding un- 
interruptedly to U. C. 862, where I think they expire. 

The accusation of Bassus, which is related iv. 9, and 
is generally referred to at vi. 29, if we may argue 
from the analogy of the cases of Priscus and Cecilius, 
would be instituted at the time of his return from his 
province, in the latter half of the year; which might 
be the latter half of U. C. 856 itself. It is true, that 
a Bebius Macer is called consul designatus at the 
time, iv. 9. sect. 16, who yet appears in the Fasti Al- 
meloveeniani, ex Kal. Maiis, U.C. 854. But the au- 
thenticity of the Fasti in these subdivisions of the con- 
sular year, is not always to be depended on: nor, be- 
sides, is it impossible that Macer might be consul once 
in U. C. 854, and again in U. C. 857%. 

The case of Marcellinus, related in iv. 12, furnishes 
internal evidence that Caesar, or Trajan, was in Rome 
at the time. But this case was brought before him 
and the senate, on the return of Marcellinus from his 
province; and therefore it might come on, U.C. 856, 
exeunte, when Trajan was certainly returned for the 
first time from Dacia, and yet not gone thither again, 
for the second. 

Lib. iv. 17. sect. 1. a Caius Cecilius is mentioned as 
consul elect when Pliny undertook the cause of Corellia 
the daughter of his friend Corellius, to whom i. 12, 
and other epistles, relate. No Caius Cecilius appears 


* The colleague of this Macer, same account, but not as consul 


ex Kal. Maiis U. C. 854, is re- 
presented as Valerius Paullinus. 
A Valerius Paullinus is men- 
tioned in this same account, iv. 
9. sect. 20: but not as consul 
designatus. Moreover, Czxpio 
Hispo is often mentioned in the 


designatus: who yet is probably 
the same person who appears 
consul, ex Kal. Jul. U.C. 854 
also; under the name of Ce- 
lius Hispo. No Celius Hispo 
is mentioned in the Epistles of 
Pliny. 


Ff Q 


436 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-first. 


in the Fasti, except C. Czecilius Classicus*, ex Kal. Jul. 
U.C. 855. But the Cecilius here alluded to may be 
Cecilius Strabo, mentioned iv. 12. sect. 4, when the 
affair of Marcellinus was pending; and so mentioned 
as to imply that both he and Bebius Macer, also men- 
tioned, were consules designati at the time. This epi- 
stle then may bear date either U.C. 856 exeunte, or 
before Ceecilius’ turn of office, U. C. 857. 

Lib. iv. 22. sect. 1. Pliny says he had just been pre- 
sent as one of the emperor’s privy council, when the 
cause relating to the suppression of the Gymnicus agon 
apud Viennenses, by one of their duumviri or muni- 
cipal consuls, was tried before him. As this cause was 
brought on by that magistrate’s going out of office, it 
might be tried U. C. 857, before Trajan again took 
the field on his second Dacian expedition. And it is 
a singular coincidence that though the emperor was in 
Italy at the time of this discussion, in the beginning of 
the year, he does not appear to have been so, at the 
time of the Comitia, much later in the year. See iv. 25. 
sect. 2. 

Lib. v. 4 and 14, both relate to the case of Nomina- 
tus: which was tried before the senate, as 14. sect. 7, 8. 
proves, in the absence of Trajan. The time of them, 


* Cecilius Classicus, accused 
by the Afri, U. C. 852, died be- 
fore the cause was tried, U.C. 
953: see lili. 4. §. 7: Ὁ. §. 5.13. 

+ The internal evidence of iv. 
23, proves that Pliny, when he 
wrote it, was considerably less 
than 60 (see sect. 3, 4.), yet, 
compared with iv. 24. 1—5 ,that 
he was much above the age of 
juvenis. ‘The time of these Epi- 
stles was probably U. C. 857, 
when Pliny was 42 or 43. He 
refers to that action, before the 
centumviri, mentioned at the 


outset of iv. 24, also i. 18. 
sect.3: whence it appears it took 
place in the time of Domitian, 
and when Pliny was adolescen- 
ulus. Lab. v. 8. sect. 8, he began 
to plead at 19, U. C. 833 (see vi. 
20. §. 5,) and he was 30, the age 
when men began to be consider- 
ed juvenes, U. C. 844 or 845, 
four or five years before the 
death of Domitian. Between 
that time and U. C. 857, many 
such changes might take place, 
as he comments upon in iv. 24. 


— 


On the Chronology of the Epistles of Pliny. 437 


on the supposition of their regularity, cannot be earlier 
than U.C. 858, medio, when the Dacian war was not 
quite over, or Trajan not yet returned from it. Yet 
Afranius Dexter is mentioned, 14. sect. 4, as consul 
elect; who appears in the Fasti, as consul suff. ex 
Kal. Oct. U. C. 851. But in U.C. 850 or 851, Tra- 
jan would have been on the spot, or Nerva have been 
emperor and present. Besides which, an Afranius 
Dexter, who is styled consul, was either killed by his 
servants, or committed suicide, apparently in his year 
of office, as related viii. 14. sect. 12—yet the inquiry 
into his death was going on, vill. 14, at a period later 
than viii. 4; which last is after the conclusion of the 
second Dacian war. I cannot believe these letters are 
so much out of place; and will rather suppose that the 
Fasti are in error, or that Afranius was consul more 
than once, or that a different Afranius Dexter is meant 
in each of these instances. 

Lib. v.15: when this Epistle was written, Pliny 
was enjoying the retirement of the country, as he com- 
monly did towards the end of the summer quarter * ; 
and he had just heard that his friend Cornutus Tertul- 
lus had been appointed to the care of the Via Atmilia. 
It appears too from sect. 2, that some similar office had 
lately been conferred on Pliny : which naturally brings 
to his recollection that they had been colleagues In 


* From sect. 1-8, it seems Lib. v. 14, containing the 


this retirement was at Pliny’s 
municipium ; whether Comum or 
Tifernum is doubtful. From v. 6. 
sect. 1. 45, 46. I should appre- 
hend that it was the latter, near 
to his Villa apud Tuscos. v. 15. 
sect. 9, he had but a stated time 
of absence allowed him ; which 
implies that he was in an office 
of some kind or other, at the 
time—the nature of which will 


be explained by and by. 


conclusion of the affair of No- 
minatus, was written from the 
country as I should suppose ; 
sometime after it was over. 
Pliny’s prosocer was with him 
at the time of v. 15: and it ap- 
pears from viii. 20. sect. 3, that 
this prosocer had estates at Ame- 
ria, in Umbria, on the way to 
Pliny’s Tusci. Cf. however, iv. 
F. §, 3,4. aug. vil. TOSS, 3: oye 


ὭΣ: 
Ff 3 


438 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-first. 


preefectura erarii, et in consulatu. Of this, however, 
it is clear that he speaks as of something which had 
happened a long time before. 

Now I think we may perceive, in these allusions, a 
reference to the time specified by Dio, Ixviii. 15, 7, 
when works of such a description as the repair of 
roads, the draining of marshes, the excavation of har- 
bours, and the like, were generally undertaken. He 
shews the time of one of these works, the construction 
of the highway through the Pontine marshes, which 
Trajan himself undertook, to have followed soon on 
the close of the second Dacian war; consequently not 
earlier than U.C. 859 or 860*. It is a remarkable 
coincidence that, when Pliny paid a visit to Trajan at 
Centumcellee, as related vi. 31. sect. 15-17, a port was 
actually in the process of formation, to be called after 
its author, Portus Trajani. The time of v. 15, I should 
consider to be about U. C. 858, medium—and that of 
vi. 31, to be about U.C. 860, medium. 

Lib. v. 20. vi. 5. 13. 29. vii. 6. 10, all relate, as we 
saw in the preceding Dissertation, to the case of Vare- 
nus. To judge from the place of v. 20, in the order 
of the Epistles, the commencement of this suit would 
be U.C. 858 exeunte. The first thing done, as we 
learn from v. 20. vi. 5, was to decide upon the pre- 


* Lib. viii. 17. sect. 2, the 
time of which I date about the 
autumnal quarter of U.C. 861, 
describing an inundation of the 
Tiber, speaks of a foss or drain 
to carry off the water, as a pre- 
caution which the care of the 
emperor had previously adopted, 
to obviate such contingencies. 

From Gruter, 454. 3, and 
1028. 5, it appears that Pliny 
himself was Curator alvei T'ybe- 


ris, et riparum: and ‘this, I 
think, was the office, by holding 
of which he speaks of himself as 
sometime or other associated 
with Cornutus ἃ, He styles Cor- 
nutus his colleague, in some 
sense or other, either because he 
formerly had been so, or still 
was—vii. 21. sect. 1; in a letter 
written, as I should date it, 
U.C. 860. medio. 


~#J should consider the Commeatus, or leave of absence alluded to v. 15. δ. 9. to 
be from the duties of this office; to which Pliny must consequently have been ap- 
pointed before U. C. 858 medium. 


On the Chronology of the Epistles of Pliny. 490 


liminary question, whether time should be allowed to 
Varenus, for the summoning of witnesses from Bithy- 
nia, Evocare testes ex Bithynia. This is the subject of 
the first two letters. In the meanwhile Pliny visited 
the country, and wrote the letter, vi. 10, relating to 
Verginius’ monument, Post decimum mortis annum ; 
the very meaning of which phrase, as referred to the 
spring of U.C. 850, implies that the letter in question 
was written either U.C. 860, or U.C. 859, in the 
spring or summer season. The course of events hither- 
to determines that it was the spring or summer of 
U.C. 859, in the tenth year current from the death of 
Verginius. There can be no doubt that the allusion to 
the tomb of Verginius, in the midst of the proceedings 
about Varenus, is chronologically exact: for the same 
subject is resumed at ix. 19—a letter produced by vi. 
10, written in the midst of the same proceedings. 

The case is resumed at vi. 13; which shews that the 
plaintiffs, instead of acquiescing in the late decision of 
the senate, had appealed to the emperor, ‘hen absent : 
and by him had again been referred to the senate. 
This appeal and the answer to it would be made and 
received before the middle of U. C. 859: when Trajan 
was actually in Dacia. 

The question was discussed de novo in the senate, 
and again decided in favour of Varenus: which deci- 
sion settled the dispute for a time. But as Varenus 
had thus to fetch witnesses and other documents from 
Bithynia, he could not want less than six months, or 
a year for that purpose: so that if the affair was left 
pending at this point of time, U.C. 859 medio, we 
should not expect to hear more of it before U.C. 860, 
mmeuntem. 

In the mean time, we have an allusion at vi. 19. to 
the comitia, when, as appears from sect. 3, Trajan was 

Ff4 


440 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty first. 


somewhere at hand: and, vi. 22, there is an account 
of the case of Bruttianus and Atticinus, which was 
decided before the emperor in person. These are plain 
indications of a time when Trajan was returned to 
Rome, after the conclusion of the Dacian war, U.C. 
859, at least. 

We have next the letter to Severus, consul elect, 
vi. 27, containing the allusion to Trajan’s recentia 
opera: and at vi. 29, sect. 11, among other celebrated 
causes, in which Pliny at different times had been 
engaged, his defence of Varenus is spoken of as the 
most recent. Dixi proxime pro Vareno, postulante ut 
sibi invicem vocare testes liceret ; adding—impetratum 
est: which shews that the matter was then slumbering 
at the point of time, where we left it. 

After this, at vi. 31. sect. 1, we have Pliny’s visit to 
Centumcellz, as part of the concilium of Trajan; when 
the Dacian war, sect. 8, was over, and the time of the 
year, sect. 15, was spring or summer. I think we are 
justified in supposing this the spring or summer of 
U.C. 860: which is a curious refutation of the Acta 
Ignatii; insomuch as it thus appears that Trajan in- 
stead of being in Antioch, U.C. 860, was at Centum- 
cella *, or Civita Vecchia, taking the country air, and 
deciding causes with Pliny in his company. 

The cause of Varenus is resumed, vii. 6, with the 
arrival of deputies from Bithynia, to announce that the 
prosecution of the suit against him was abandoned, 
and to bring various decrees of the province to that 
effect, addressed to different persons. These deputies 
could not arrive before the spring or summer quarter 
of U.C. 860. When they arrived, the emperor was 


* Of Centumcelle, in his own πόλις μεγάλη καὶ πολυάνθρωπος, ἐς 
time, A.D. 538 or 539, Proco- τὰ Ῥώμης πρὸς ἑσπέραν ἐν Τούσκοις 
pius, De Bello Gotthico, ii. 7. κειμένη, σταδίοις αὐτῆς ὀγδοήκοντα 
175. 1. 13, writes thus: ἔστι δὲ ἡ καὶ διηκοσίοις ἀπέχουσα. 


On the Chronology of the Epistles of Pliny. 441 


not at Rome: and we have seen that about this time 
he was in Campania. Though some further difficulties 
were raised, yet the final adjustment of the question is 
related in the same Book, vii. 10, as taking place 
before the emperor himself, and consequently in the 
senate at Rome. After this, we hear no more of it: 
and it is manifest that the time of the conclusion of the 
suit must have been where the order and succession of 
the epistles would otherwise have placed it—about the 
middle of U. C. 860—having lasted upwards of a year 
and six months. 

It was mentioned, v. 20. sect. 1, at the outset of the 
proceedings in question, that the Bithynians had asked 
and obtained the advantage of the services of Varenus, 
in their suit against Bassus. In the account of that 
suit, iv. 9, no such name occurs as that of Varenus 
Rufus, or Rufus Varenus. Pomponius Rufus, it is 
said, sect. 3, egit contra eum. But Pomponius Rufus 
is not necessarily the same as Varenus Rufus.* 

If Varenus succeeded immediately to Bassus in the 
government of the province, it is probable that the 
Bithynians, who were about to institute a suit against 
the late proconsul, would request from the senate the 
patronage and assistance of his successor ; who would 
obviously have it in his power very materially to for- 
ward or to impede the progress of their cause, as he 
thought proper. In this case, Varenus succeeded to 
Bassus, U.C. 856. 

The province of Bithynia was originally a procon- 
sular one. See Dio, liii. 12. But, at this time, it was 
imperial; for Pliny was sent out thither by Trajan, 
and so was Ceelius Clemens, after him: x: 12. We 


* Nor is it said that the Bi- called Pomponius, or Pompo- 
thyni requested his services, iv. nius Varenus, by Pliny. 
9. ὃ. 3. Nor is Varenus ever 


442 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-first. 


may suppose, then, that the governors of it were al- 
lowed respectively a two years’ term of office; first, 
because such was the standing rule with regard to the 
αἱρετοὶ, or deputies of the emperor, as might be proved 
in a multitude of instances ; secondly, because Bassus, 
the predecessor of Varenus, seems to have been two 
years in office; as we may infer from the decree of the 
senate, rescinding his acta, alluded to in the preceding 
dissertation *; thirdly, because the same thing appears 
also to hold good of Calvus, who banished, as we like- 
wise observed above, a certain number of persons 77 
triennium ; that is, as we may presume, for half the 
term of his own government, and the whole of that of 
his successor—or vice versa: but chiefly, because Pliny 
himself was two years in office. Nor can this be 
shewn to have been a special indulgence in his in- 
stance; and not rather to have been matter of course. 
It does, indeed, appear from his correspondence with 
Trajan, that he was selected to fill the office of gover- 
nor, Quoniam multa in ea provincia emendanda appa- 
ruissent, x. 41; but no such reason is any where as- 
signed for his being continued two years in office. 

Varenus, then, succeeding to Bassus U. C. 856 me- 
dio, would be superseded U.C. 858 medio: at which 
time, as we have seen, proceedings against him were 
actually instituted by the province 7. 

There is no difficulty in tracing the times of the 


* Cf. iv. g. sect. 7. whence it 
may very probably be inferred 
that Bassus celebrated his birth- 
day, the Saturnalia, &c. more 
than once in the _ province, 
during his government of it. 

1 It is true, that at the com- 
mencement of the proceedings, 
v. 20. sect. 6. Acilius Rufus is 
mentioned as consul elect: and 
that Man. Acilius Rufus occurs 


in the Fasti, ex Kal. Jul. U.C. 
855. But this may be a dif- 
ferent person; or, as we have 
supposed in other instances, 
Acilius Rufus might be more 
than once consul. The same 
Acilius is mentioned again, vi. 
13. sect. 5. but neither as consul 
elect, nor consul; though the date 
of this latter letter was probably 
near the middle of U. C. 859. 


On the Chronology of the Epistles of Pliny. 443 


letters, from vii. 11. U. C. 860 medio, to viii. 7. sect. 1, 
where an allusion occurs to the Saturnalia as going on, 
and Pliny was in the country. From ix. 36, and 40, 
it appears to have been his rule to spend the summer 
or autumn apud Tuscos, and the depth of winter in 
his Laurentinum. The above note of time brings us 
to the end of U. C. 860. 

The course of succession in the Epistles may be 
traced from viii. 8. to vill. 15—17, which contain clear 
intimations that they were written in the autumnal 
season, when the vintage was ready, when great sick- 
ness was prevailing in the country, and when there had 
lately been unusually high floods in the Tyber. This 
autumn I should consider to be the autumn of U.C. 
861. 

There is no difficulty in this supposition, except 
what arises from viii. 14; a letter written to consult a 
friend of Pliny’s, Aristo, upon a point of order con- 
nected with a motion recently made by him in the 
senate, sect. 1. This motion concerned the case of the 
liberti of Afranius Dexter, sect. 12; and they are spoken 
of as the liberti of Afranius Dexter consulis, which 
certainly implies that he was consul at the time of his 
death. Afranius Dexter was mentioned, as we saw, v.14. 
sect. 4, by the title of consul designatus, at a time which 
coincided with U.C. 858. He might be actually consul 
suffectus, in the course of the same year. In this case, it 
is not impossible that he might again be in office, U.C. 
861; for which year no consuls appear in the Fasti, 
but Gallus and Bradua, ex Kal. Jan. and Africanus 
and Crispinus, ex Kal. Mar. Afranius Dexter’s turn 
of office would probably come later in the year, ex Kal. 
Maiis, or ex Kal. Juliis. 

From viii. 17, in the autumn of U.C. 861, we might 
proceed to viil. 21. sect. 2, 3, when Pliny was in urbe, 
mense Julio; which would thus be in July, U. C. 862. 


444 Appendia. Dissertation Twenty-first. 


After this, we may go on to ix. 6. (Cf. 23,) the time of 
some ludi circenses; to ix. 10, when it was summer ; 
and to ix. 15, 16. 20. 28. ᾧ. 2. the vintage season of 
the same year, U. C. 862; and so to the end of the 
book. 

I will observe only that ix. 5, is addressed to Cale- 
strius Tiro, when he had been some time governor of 
Betica; to which office, it appears from vi. 22. sect. 7, 
he was already assigned by lot, at the time of the de- 
cision of the case of Bruttianus and Atticinus, U.C. 
859 exeunte ; and whither he was on his way, when 
Pliny wrote vii. 16. 23. 32, all, as we have supposed, 
U.C. 860 medio. Hispania Betica was certainly a 
senatorian province; and the governors of such pro- 
vinces were commonly annual. But between vii. 16, 
and ix. 5, we assumed a two years’ interval; and the 
assumption is not improbable; for even the κληρωτοὶ 
were sometimes continued two years in office. There 
could not, at least, be much less than one year’s inter- 
val between the departure of Tiro, and Pliny’s letter, 
written to congratulate him on his justice and affa- 
bility in office. Yet possibly this letter may be mis- 
placed: for though I contend for the general regu- 
larity of these Epistles, I do not maintain that every 
letter is chronologically in its proper place. 

Lib. ix. 37, is written to one Paullinus, to excuse 
Pliny for not being at Rome, among the other friends 
of Paullinus, on the first day of his consular term of 
office: especially, says he, Quum me necessitas locan- 
dorum prediorum, plures annos ordinatura, detineat: 
in qua, as he continues, mihi nova consilia sumenda 
sunt. nam priore lustro, quamquam post magnas re- 
missiones, reliqua creverunt. 

It is clear from this letter that Pliny was now in 
the country, engaged in letting out his estates. There 
are numerous epistles, which prove that he always did 


On the Chronology of the Epistles of Pliny. 445 


this in the autumnal quarter of the year*: in which 
case, his friend Paullinus’ term of office must have 
borne date in some autumnal month; which is enough 
to shew that the letter was not written U.C. 854, 
when a Valerius Paullinus appears as cons. suff. ex 
Kal. Maiis, along with Bebius Macer. 

If we turn to x. 24, the letter before quoted, in 
which Pliny desires from Trajan a month’s absence, 
beginning September 1, from his duties as prafectus 
zerarii, we find him assigning this reason, among others, 
for asking the indulgence in question: Agrorum enim, 
quos in eadem regione possideo (he means his here- 
ditary estates at Tusci) locatio, quum alioqui cccc 
excedat, adeo non potest differri, ut proximam puta- 
tionem novus colonus facere debeat. praeterea con- 
tinuz sterilitates cogunt me de remissionibus cogitare : 
quarum rationem nisi preesens inire non possum. The 
time of this application was U.C. 852. 7 

It was usual for individual landowners to let their 
estates for the lustral term of five years at a time. 
Pliny’s locatio, on which he was employed when he 
wrote to Paullinus, was plures annos ordinatura, and 
he speaks of one lustrum as just passed; implying 
that he was about to renew his leases for another. 

Now, in his letter to Trajan, he speaks of the proba- 
bility of his being obliged to lower his rents; in this 
to Paullinus, he speaks of his actually having done so, 


* The autumn was the time 
when almost all persons retired 
into the country from Rome. 
See Horace, Epp. i. vil. Cf. the 
Opera Inedita of Fronto, Epp. 
ad Antoninum, xii. p. 31, and ad 
Marcum, ii. vil. p. 76, 77. 

+ It illustrates the fact of 
these continue sterilitates, spo- 
ken of U. C. 852, that (Panegy- 
ricus, capp. 30-32) Egypt, at the 


time of the accession of Trajan, 
and for some while longer, in con- 
sequence of excessive droughts, 
and the Nile’s not rising as usual, 
was obliged to be supported 
from Rome. Yet by the time 
the Panegyricus was pronounced, 
(Sept. U. C. 853,) a change had 
ensued. Ai gypto quidem sepe, 
sed gloriz nostre nunquam lar- 
gior fluxit (Nilus). Cf. cap. 32. 


440 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-first. 


on the last occasion before he wrote. We may pre- 
sume, then, that the latter epistle was written a cer- 
tain number of years later than the former, not less 
than five, and possibly as many as ten. If the former, 
then, bore date U. C. 852, ex auctumno, this must bear 
date U.C. 857, or U. C. 862, ex auctumno also. Be- 
tween these years, we cannot hesitate to fix upon U. C. 
862, in which year the epistles of the ninth book, as 
far as we have seen, are all brought to a conclusion. 

As the practice of individuals in disposing of their 
property to tenants for periods of lustra, or five years, 
at a time, was founded on that of the censors and the 
publicani *, in their locationes of the public property 
in general ; we may expect to find that each of these 
years, U. C. 852, 857, 862, was, or should have been, 
a regular lustral year as such. Refer any of them 
back to U. C. 827, when, according to Censorinus, the 
last lustrum conditum took place in the reign of Vespa- 
sian ; and this will actually appear to be the case. 

As Pliny shewed in his letter to Trajan, written 
U.C. 852 ex auctumno, that his property trans Padum 
did not answer his expectations; so, ii. xv. sect. 2, in an- 
other letter, written, as I have supposed, U.C. 853, he 
observes, Me preedia materna parum commode tra- 
ctant: a very natural complaint, if only the year before 
he had been obliged to make great reductions in his 
rents. These pradia materna were in the same quar- 
ter, or Circa lacum Larium: see vii. 11. sect. 5. There 
is a similar reference to the temporum iniquitas, and 
the consequent diminution in the rents of lands, at iii. 
19. sect. 7, in a letter written concerning the purchase 
of an estate, which lay most probably near Pliny’s pa- 
trimonial possessions. 

Lib. vii. 30. sect. 3, 4, the time of which, as I sup- 

* Cf. Varro, De Lingua Latina, v. p. 54. 


On the Chronology of the Epistles of Pliny. 447 


pose, is the summer quarter of U. C. 860, Pliny was at 
some of his estates in the country, most probably apud 
Tuscos: and he observes, that in addition to other 
causes of interruption, Accedunt querelz rusticorum, 
qui auribus meis post longum tempus suo jure abutun- 
tur. instat et necessitas agrorum locandorum perquam 
molesta. adeo rarum est invenire idoneos conductores. 
The same occasion, as I think, is alluded to viii. 2, 
the whole of which is taken up with the account of 
his audit of the farmers to whom he had let his vin- 
demiz, or the produce of his vineyards; furnishing 
a practical illustration of the truth of those remissi- 
ones, which he told his friend Paullinus he was ob- 
liged from time to time to make. And hence, that 
necessitas agrorum locandorum, alluded to vii. 30, may 
mean no more than the letting out for the year the 
produce of some part of his estates; as we perceive 
had been done with his vindemie. 

I have thus, I trust, established the assertion which 
I made in the preceding Dissertation, that the first 
nine books of the epistles of Pliny, beginning about 
U. C. 849 medio, end about the same time, U.C. 862. 
The tenth book, which continues the series, if we ex- 
cept a certain number of letters at the beginning of it, 
consists of the correspondence between Trajan and 
Pliny, during his government of Bithynia. A ques- 
tion, then, naturally arises here. Was Pliny sent upon 
his government of Bithynia, this very year, U.C. 862, 
or some later year? I consider this last supposition 
the more probable of the two. For it appears that he 
arrived in his province on the 17th of September, and 
that the Etesian winds had set in before he reached 
Ephesus on his way thither; see x. 26—29. I should 
think then that he set out early in August, at the 
latest. But when he wrote to Paullinus, U. C. 862, 


448 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-first. 


the month of August in ali probability was at hand, if 
not past. 

The opinion of those learned men, who fix the date 
of Pliny’s proconsulate to U. C. 855 or 856, is strongly 
opposed not only by all the preceding considerations, 
but by the following fact, recorded x. 16. 

When Pliny, as it seems, was at Nicomedia, a cer- 
tain Callidromus was brought before him, on a charge 
preferred against him by two pistores, or bakers, Qui- 
bus operas suas locaverat. This man’s. history, upon 
inquiry, turned out to be this; that he had been the 
servant of Laberius Maximus, and made prisoner by 
Susagus (doubtless a subject or general of Decebalus) 
in Meesia; that Decebalus had sent him as a present 
to Pacorus, king of Parthia; that, after continuing In 
ejus ministerio pluribus annis, he had made his escape: 
and, after entering the service of the pistores in ques- 
tion, had taken refuge at the statue of Trajan, and 
so been brought before Pliny. 

If this man was made prisoner in the Dacian war, 
and sent to Pacorus, pluribus annis before he came 
into the presence of Pliny, how is it possible that he 
could have been brought before Pliny, U. C. 855 or 
856? The first Dacian war began only in U.C. 854, 
and was over in U. C. 856. 

It is not improbable that the man was captured by 
the Daci on the occasion mentioned by Dio, Ixviii. 11, 
12, which was either U. C. 857 or 858.* Pacorus too 


* Cf. Frontonis opera inedita, 
pars ii. 320, 321, De Bello Par- 
thico: Trajani proavi vestri du- 
ctu auspicioque nonne in Dacia 
captus vir consularis? What vir 
consularis is here alluded to, it 
would be difficult to say. It ap- 
pears from Dio, Ixviii. 12, that 
a certain Longinus was made 


prisoner by Decebalus in the 
second Dacian war; but neither 
is he described as vir consularis, 
nor was he made prisoner by 
open war, but by treachery and 
circumvention. Suidas, ’Ezexy- 
puxevero, has a fragment, very 
probably from Dio; which I 
should think relates to the cir- 


On the Chronology of the Epistles of Pliny. 449 


seemns to have been reigning in Parthia, when he made 
his escape: but at the time of Trajan’s first expedition 
into Armenia, U.C. 867, Osroes or Chosroes, his bro- 
ther, was reigning in his stead**: and as a civil war 
had previously raged in Parthia”, not long before, Pa- 
corus was probably deposed by his brother not long 
before also *. 

And as to Laberius Maximus, the Wee owner of 
this slave, Spartian speaks of him as a person Suspe- 
ctus imperio, and Exulans in insula, at the time of the 
death of Trajan and the accession of Hadrian‘. It is 
probable, then, that he fell into disgrace towards the 
end of the reign of Trajan: and from Pliny’s mode of 


referring to him, it may be conjectured that he was in 
disgrace already, when he wrote the letter 7. 


cumstance thus alluded to by 
Fronto: and the person, made 
prisoner, being there described 
as a certain Lucius, which might 
easily be a corruption for Lu- 
sius, perhaps the individual in- 
tended was Lusius Quietus, of 
whom see the note to Disser- 
tation xv. vol. ii. 80, and Dis- 
sertation xvii. vol. ii. 127. He 
was a commander under Trajan 
in the Dacian war, and he was 
also vir consularis. I propose 
this, however, only as a conjec- 
ture. For it is equally possible 
that the Lucius in question 
might be L. Appius Maximus, 
consul ii. with Trajan, U.C.856: 
especially as a certain Maximus, 
according to Dio, was one of the 
commanders in the first Dacian 


war, if not in the second ἃ. 

* There is a fragment in Sui- 
das, voce ᾿Επίκλημα, most proba- 
bly from Dio, which proves that 
Pacorus had not yet been de- 
posed, just before the commence- 
ment of Trajan’s Armenian ex- 
pedition. 

+ A Maximus, as we have 
seen, is alluded to by Xiphilinus, 
apud Dionem, lxviil. 9, as hold- 
ing a command in the first war 
against Decebalus, at the time 
of its close, U. C. 856: but whe- 
ther Laberius Maximus, or not, 
does not appear. A Liberius 
(fortasse Laberius) Maximus is 
mentioned by Josephus, De Bello, 
Vil. vi. 6, as procurator of Judea 
in the reign of Vespasian, U.C. 
824 or 8254. 


a In some editions of the Fasti, however, this name is given as Q. Messius 


Maximus. 
De Trajano. 
¢ Hadrianus, 5. 


aa Dio, Ixviii. 17. 19. Spartian, Hadrianus, 13. Aurelius Victor, 
These last authorities call him Cosdroes. 
ἃ A Maximus is also mentioned, Dio Ixviii. 30. 25, 26. as a 


b Dio, Ixviii. 26. 


commander in Upper Asia in the war against the Parthians, U. C. 868, and as 


falling in battle that same year. 


This then could not be the Laberins Maximus 


of Pliny or Spartian ; if he was living at the beginning of the reign of Hadrian. 


VOL. αν. 


Gg 


450 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-first. 


Another great objection to the same opinion is, that 
Pliny’s prosocer, Fabatus, to whom we have epistles 
extant from iv. 1—viii. 10, beginning, as we have en- 
deavoured to shew, U. C. 856, and extending down to 
U. C. 861, died while he was in office in Bithynia : 
and if we may judge from the place of the letter, 
which records the fact of his death, x. 121, died in the 
second year of his government *. 

They who date the proconsulate of Pliny, U.C.856, 
date that of Varenus U. C. 852.+ Now Varenus was 
governor when Dio Chrysostom delivered his forty- 
eighth oration*. Dio was a native of Prusa in Bithy- 
nia, and a Roman knight “ὃ; many particulars of whose 
history might be gleaned from incidental allusions in 
his orations. That fact, which is most to our present 
purpose, is that for some reason of state, he was ba- 
nished by Domitian, and until Azs death lived a wan- 
dering life sometimes among Greeks, and sometimes 
among barbarians. Upon the death of Domitian ‘, 
when all exiles were permitted to return home, he 
paid a visit to Rome; but while there, or when on his 
way, he had a sickness which prevented him, as he says, 
from renewing his acquaintance with Nerva, or deriv- 
ing any advantage from his patronage of men of sci- 
ence or letters, before his recovery. ‘This is sufficient 
to prove that he did not visit, or did not leave, Rome be- 
fore U.C. 851, zneuntem, the date of the death of Nerva. 


* The same letter shews that 
Pliny’s wife’s aunt, Hispulla, (see 
viii. 11.) was still living; a very 
probable event at the time of 
the death of her father. 

+ If Bassus was governor be- 
fore Varenus, the improbability 
of this date appears from Pliny’s 
Epistles; iv. 9. §. 2: which 
shews that Bassus became go- 

d 236. ad principium. 
ἔ xly. 202. 8.18. 


vernor of Bithynia after the ac- 
cession of Nerva at least ; that 
is, not before U. C. 849 medium, 
and 851 zneuntem. What time 
then could there have been for 
his two years of office before Va- 
renus, by U. C. 852? especially 
if Varenus was among his ac- 
cusers at the end of his govern- 
ment. 


e Cf. xxxvii. 113. §. 135—25. Cf. also Suidas, Δίων. 


On the Chronology of the Epistles of Pliny. 451 


But he proceeds, in the same passage 8, to allude very 
significantly to certain remarkable honours and dis- 
tinctions which he experienced from Nerva’s successor 
Trajan : to whose favour and regard for him clear re- 
ferences do in fact occur in many other parts of his 
orations. Philostratus tells us® that Trajan esteemed 
him so highly, as to make him ride in his triumphal 
chariot, along with himself. Photius in Bibliotheca, 
and Suidas in Vita, repeat this statement. 

Now as Trajan did not visit Rome, after the death 
of Nerva, before U. C. 852, nor celebrate any triumph 
before U. C. 856, and U.C. 859: on one of these occa- 
sions must Dio have ridden in his chariot. There is 
no reason to suppose that Trajan entered the city in a 
golden or triumphal chariot, as Philostratus tells us, 
when he returned in U.C. 852. Therefore, it must 
have been at the earliest in U.C. 856. 

Now, after Dio returned home to Prusa, he appears 
not to have left it again. He was an old man, at the 
time, and infirm*. If, then, he was banished before 
the death of Domitian, and had not returned home be- 
fore U.C. 856, how could he have been at Prusa 
during the government of Varenus, U. C. 852—854 ? 
There is no such difficulty, if Varenus was in office 
from U. C. 856—858: for Dio might, and probably 
did return, in U. C. 856. ' 

It appears from Oratio xl. 165. ᾧ. 40. that the people 
of Prusa sent an embassy to Rome to thank the emperor 
Trajan for some indulgence, which he had granted 


* The statement of Suidas, 
under Nicostratus, one of the 
second decad of orators, as 
he describes him, that he was 
contemporary with Aristides 
and Dio Chrysostom, ἦν yap ἐπὶ 
Μάρκου ᾿Αντωνίνου τοῦ βασιλέως, 

& 203. ὃ. 30—35. 


may possibly be true of Nico- 
stratus and Aristides, but not of 
Nicostratus and Dio Chryso- 
stom: for Dio Chrysostom in 
particular could never have been 
living in the reign of Marcus 
Antoninus. 


h Vite Sophistarum, i. 493. A—B. 


Gg2 


452 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-first. 


them out of condescension, as it would seem, to Dio— 
166. §.15: and when Dio himself was at Rome. This 
embassy, then, must have been sent, U. C. 852 or U.C. 
856. 

The twelfth oration was delivered at Olympia, in 
some Olympic year, just when the speaker had come 
from the Roman army among the Gete ; and he speaks 
of them as fighting at the time the one for empire, the 


other for liberty'*. 


* This circumstance, and the 
whole context of the passage, 
prove very probably that the 
visit to Olympia in question was 
not U.C. 850—though that was 
an Olympic year also, and though 
Philostratus, Vite Sophistarum, 
Dio, i. 492. C. D. mentions that 
he was present in the Roman 
army, as it would seem, in the 
neighbourhood of the Getz, &c. 
at the time of the death of Do- 
mitian. 

The Dacian war, indeed, was 
begun in the time of Domitian, 
see Dio, lxvii. 6: but it would 
be improper to refer the allu- 
sions, above quoted, to this first 
war, which was not one for 
liberty on the part of the Get, 
and for empire on the part of the 
Romans, but quite the reverse. 
The date of Domitian’s Dacian 
war is considered absolutely un- 
certain. Learned men place it 
conjecturally U. C. 839. Τὸ 
judge from Dio, it must have 
been over for the time before 
the games and celebrities men- 
tioned Ixvii. 7, 8: and these 
might be understood of the 
Ludi Capitolini, instituted U. C. 
839, as much as of the Ludi 
Seculares, celebrated U. C. 841. 


382. §. 20: 378. δ. 5—381. δ. 15. 


This implies that the Dacian war 


If Dio’s banishment, in the reign 
of Domitian, was connected with 
the expulsion of the philosophers 
from Rome and Italy ; that hap- 
pened between U.C. 844, and 
U. Ὁ. 848: See Dio, Ixvii. 12— 
14. Suetonius, Domitianus, ro. 
and Tacitus, Agricola, 2.44, 45. 
in fact, will shew it was between 
τ. C. 846, and 848 *. 

Jerome in Chronico, p. 163. 
dates the reduction of the Daci 
first, in the sixth of Domitian, 
U. C. 839, and Domitian’s tri- 
umph over the Daci and Ger- 
mans, in the xi. U.C. 844. Eu- 
sebius Armenian Chronicon 
does nearly the same. The ex- 
pulsion of the philosophers 
Jerome places in the viii. U. C. 
841, and again in the xv. U.C. 
848, but Eusebius, in the xiii. 
U. C. 846. It appears from 
Eckhel, vi. 378, that the’title of 
Germanicus is found on the coins 
of Domitian first, U. C. 837. 

An allusion occurs to the war 
of the Romans with the Getz, 
as then going on, in Arrian’s 
Epictetus, ii. 22. 315. line 13 ; 
which, if Epictetus was one of 
the philosophers who retired 
from Rome, when Domitian ex- 
pelled them the city, would be 


k [ should think, in U. C. 847; when 


Domitian is spoken of as censor—for that was ἃ lustral year: Dio lxvii. 13. Cen- 
sor appears on his coins first, U. C. 837: Eckhel, iii. 378. 


On the Chronology of the Epistles of Pliny. 453 


was begun; as it was in U.C. 854, A. D. 101, which 
was also an Olympic year. 

It is seen from Oratio xl—xlvii. that Dio after his 
return was appointed by his countrymen to superintend 
certain buildings, designed for the embellishment of 
their city: in the discharge of which commission he 
gave great offence. I think the dispute thus occasioned 
was the same which we find from x. 85, 86, to be ex- 
isting in the time of Pliny: a very possible suppo- 
sition, eight or ten years after U. C. 856%. 

One thing is observable. In the course of the above 
orations Dio often alludes to his w7fe and son—and to 
both as then alive*. But from the before mentioned 
letters of Pliny, it appears that they were at that time 
dead, and had been buried in one part of the works in 
question ; which was a further ground of offence with 
Dio. There is no reason why they might not be living 
when those orations were pronounced, yet dead when 
Pliny came into office 1. 

Among Pliny’s predecessors in office, we know that 


* There is an indirect allusion 
to the same subject, Oratio xlviii. 


after the date of that expulsion, 
as determined above. To his 


living in Nicopolis (of Epirus) 
there is an allusion in this same 
book, cap. 6. 197. not long be- 
fore—which we may presume 
would be in the time of Domi- 
tian. The death of Domitian 
and the accession of Nerva gave 
permission to all exiles to re- 
turn from banishment—of which 
Epictetus also might avail him- 
self. And that he was writing 
in the reign of Trajan after this, 
though whether still at Nico- 
polis does not appear, is proved 
by the mention of the coins of 
Trajan, iv. 5. 602. 1. 7, 8. 


243. §. 15, at the time when Va- 
renus was in office: which might 
be U. C. 857, or 858. In the 
same speech, 238. 5, the Getz 
are spoken of as enemies at the 
time. The Dacian war was 
going on again from U. C. 85 7— 
859. 

+ Dio is alluded to inci- 
dentally in Philostratus’ life of 
Phavorinus, as having been his 
master ; and, it would seem, as 
then dead. Phavorinus’ acme 
was under Hadrian: See Vite 
Sophistarum, i. 494. B. C. 496. 
B. and 493. C. D. 


k Cf. in particular, xlvi. 219. δ. 10. xlvii. 233. ὃ. 45. 


Gg 3 


454 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-first. 


Calvus was one; and that he very probably came just 
before him. I should suppose that Calvus was in 
office U.C 862—864: and consequently Pliny U.C. 
864—866. 

There will be, upon this supposition, another hiatus 
of two years’ duration, between the ninth and tenth 
books of the series; and some such interruption there 
seems to have been: for we have no mention in any of 
the remaining Epistles, of those magnificent spectacles 
and entertainments of Trajan’s, which Dio speaks of 
as lasting 123 days, nor of those embassies from all 
parts of the world, even from India, to which also he 
alludes!. These events happened probably between 
U.C. 862, and U. C. 864. 

It is a corollary from the above conclusions, that 
Pliny’s persecution of the Bithynian Christians, some 
time during his government, must be placed U.C. 865. 
The place of his celebrated letter, x. 97, is between the 
Vota in the first year of his office, x. 44, and the birth- 
day of Trajan, x. 89, in the second, or the Vota, 
x. 101, in the second also: that is, between the Ja- 
nuary U.C. 865, and the same date U. C. 866. Prosper, 
Chronicon, 708, dates it U. C. 866 or 867. 

After the close of the tenth book we lose all traces 
of the history of Pliny. He might accompany Trajan 
into the East, U. C. 867, and perish in the earthquake 
at Antioch, U.C. 868. 


1 Ixvill. 16. 


APPENDIX. 


DISSERTATION XXII. 
Computation of Sabbatic years. 
Vide Dissertation xxii. vol. ii. page 232—244., 


THE subject of Sabbatic years was several times al- 
luded to in the course of Dissertations xi. and xii. Ap- 
pendix; and certain coincidences with respect to them 
were there pointed out. These coincidences were all 
the result of the supposition that the first sabbatic 
cycle, as such, began B.C. 1513, and the first sab- 
batic year, B. C. 1507. If this supposition is true, 
the year of the Eisodus, B. C. 1520, and, by parity of 
consequence, the year of the Exodus, B. C. 1560, be- 
come determined also: and perhaps the coincidences 
in question, being so numerous and so critical, should 
be considered as some confirmation of the truth of the 
principles themselves on which they are founded. I say 
some confirmation ; for I am aware that they are no 
necessary confirmation ; and though if the year of the 
Exodus was truly B.C. 1560, and therefore the year 
of the division of the lands was truly B. C. 1514, such 
coincidences must naturally be expected to hold good, 
yet the converse is not a necessary consequence ; that 
because these coincidences hold good, those must do so 
likewise. The same conclusions would follow, if the 
date of the Eisodus, and by parity of consequence the 
date of the Exodus, were placed just seven years 
higher, or just seven years lower, than B.C. 1520, or 
B.C. 1560: or even if the difference between these 
Gg4 


456 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-second. 


dates, and any others substituted for them respectively, 
were inerely some multiple of seven. 

As far then as regards the argument deducible from 
these coincidences, in support of that system of chro- 
nology relating .to the Old Testament history, which 
was proposed in the Appendix, Dissertation xi. vol. ili. 
430, and which we endeavoured further to illustrate and 
confirm in the succeeding Dissertation also—it might 
apply, an objector would say, equally to any other 
system in which that fundamental and -primary date, 
the date of the Exodus from Egypt, differed from ours 
either by seven years, or by any number of years a 
certain multiple of seven, whether in excess or in de- 
fect. I am willing to concede this objection ; though 
I would have the objector to consider that every one 
of the years, which exhibit the coincidences in question, 
were themselves determined upon independent princi- 
ples, which had nothing to do with the further hypo- 
thesis that they were such and such years of the cy- 
cle. For example. that most authentic instance of all, 
the sabbatic year which coincided with B.C. 709— 
708, was ascertained to be such, because it coincided 
with the sixteenth of king Hezekiah ; and the scrip- 
tural narrative itself demonstrated that the sixteenth 
of Hezekiah must have been a sabbatic year. Now 
the sixteenth of Hezekiah admitted of being deter- 
mined by a chain of consecutive steps both a priori 
and a posteriori: a priort, by tracing the course of 
events from the date of the foundation of the temple 
downwards; a posteriori, by tracing the course of 
events from the date of the return after the captivity 
backwards: and to exhibit the several links of this 
chain was the business of the discussion. 

The first of these dates, it may be said, involves the 
logical fallacy of reasoning iti a circle—for it was itself 


Computation of Sabbatic years. 457 


deduced from the supposition that the date of the 
Eisodus was B.C. 1520, and therefore cannot be pro- 
perly applied to the proof of that fact, as if it were in- 
dependent of it. We cannot argue that B.C. 1014. 
was the beginning of the reign of Solomon, because 
B.C. 1520. was the year of the Eisodus—and: that 
B.C. 1520. was the year of the Eisodus, becanse B.C. 
1014. was the beginning of the reign of Solomon, with- 
out the probatio of idem per idem. But no such ob- 
jection can apply to the course of the same reasoning 
a posteriort. The date of the return from captivity 
synchronised with the first of Cyrus; and the first of 
Cyrus is determinable by the aid of profane chrono- 
logy, without having recourse to the Bible. As so de- 
termined, it is found to coincide with B. C. 536: and 
B.C. 536. being once ascertained as the close of the 
seventy years’ captivity, it is an immediate consequence 
that its beginning was B.C. 606: that the same year 
coincided partly with the third, and partly with the 
fourth, of Jehoiakim: and therefore B.C. 609. partly 
with the dast of his predecessor, and partly with his 
first. By this means we ascend to the /irst of Josiah, 
of Amon, of Manasseh ; and by parity of reasoning to 
the last of Hezekiah: and we ascend through steps, 
so linked together, that it is impossible we can be 
wrong by more than a few months, either above or 
below the truth. The last of Hezekiah being deter- 
mined, his sixteenth is determined also; and this is 
found to coincide with B.C. 709—708. The same 
sixteenth must have been a sabbatic year, and therefore 
so must B. C. 709—708, if it truly coincided with it. 
Deduce the cycle of sabbatic years from B.C. 1513, 
and this is found to be actually the case; for B. C. 
1507—1506. having been the jirst, B.C. 709—708. 
was necessarily the hundred and fifteenth. 


458 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-second. 


Now to what other beginning of the sabbatic cycles 
will the same conclusion apply so well as to this? Let 
the various dates, which the most eminent chronologers 
have fixed upon as the years of the Exodus, be tried by 
this test ; whether they will accord with the hypothesis 
that the sixteenth of Hezekiah, and B. C. 709—708, 
were each of them coincident, and each of them a sab- 
batic year. The date of Usher*, and of the English 
Bible, B. C. 1491, supposes the Hisodus B.C. 1451: the 
commencement of the sabbatic cycle B.C.1444: and the 
first sabbatic year, as such, B.C. 1438—1437. Referred 
to this date, the hundred and fifth sabbatic year was 
Β. Ὁ. 710—709, the fifteenth of Hezekiah not the six- 
teenth. This may be an approximation to a coincidence, 
it is true; but had it even amounted to an actual coin- 
cidence, it would yet be deduced from a false principle. 
For the date of the Exodus, as so assumed, is much too 
late: and though archbishop Usher, in every subsequent 
step, had reasoned precisely as we have done, the origi- 
nal difference between our respective dates, B. C. 1560. 
and B. C. 1491, for the Exodus, and B. C. 1507. and 
B. C. 1438, for the first sabbatic year, would be pre- 
served throughout. This difference in either case is 
sixty-nine; or just one year less than an exact mul- 
tiple of seven: so that sabbatic years as calculated on 
the principles of such a system would necessarily be just 
one year in anticipation of the corresponding years in 
ours. But the truth is that, as one error will some- 
times rectify another, so, though according to this 
chronology the date of the Exodus may be fixed sixty- 
nine years too late, the date of the beginning of the 
reign of Solomon is placed sixty-nine years too soon. 
I mean that whatsoever system placed the Exodus 
B. C. 1491, would be bound, if it proceeded regularly 

2 Vide Dr. Hales’ Analysis, i. 9. 22. 


Computation of Sabbatic years, 459 


and justly, and according to the plain intimations of 
the Bible itself, to place the beginning of the reign of 
Solomon B.C. 946: whereas the Bible chronology has 
placed it B.C. 1015. This error has consequently so 
far corrected the other; and for the subsequent period, 
between the first of Solomon and the siateenth of 
Hezekiah, it would be possible for the system of Usher 
to go along with any other, even if that were the true, 
with no other difference between them than one or two 
years at the utmost. But, for the antecedent period 
before and after the Exodus to the first of Solomon, 
the utmost difference might prevail between them: 
and this is a part of the system of Usher, which in 
my opinion, must be given up as indefensible. 

I have dwelt thus long on the sabbatie year which 
coincided with the sixteenth of Hezekiah, because it is 
the most authentic instance of any such year upon re- 
cord: and one such year being clearly determined, any 
others, comprehended within a given number of 
years, either backwards or forwards, are necessarily 
determined likewise. But we have had direct proof 
from Josephus of sabbatic years which began B. C. 
163, B.C. 135, B.C. 37, respectively; and indirect 
proofs from him, and from other sources, of similar 
years which began B.C. 23, A.D. 41, A. D. 55, and 
A.D. 69. There was only not direct proof also from 
the Bible of a sabbatic year which began B.C. 590. 
All these must actually have been such years, if any of 
them were; and they would any of them be such, if 
B. C.'709—708, or what is the same thing, Β. Ο. 1507 
—1506, was so. Surely this cumulative proof must 
be considered to possess some weight, if it is not ac- 
knowledged to be demonstrative, upon the particular 
question whether the sixteenth of Hezekiah coincided 
with B.C. 709, and both with a sabbatic year, or not. 


460 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-second. 


Is there any reason to suppose that sabbatic years, 
after the captivity, did not proceed just as they had 
done before it? and if not, must not the proof of 
a sabbatic year, after the captivity, be decisive as to 
what years were or were not so, before it? The Jews 
had inspired and infallible directors in the prophets, 
such as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and in such 
persons as Ezra and Nehemiah, after the captivity as 
well as before it, who could not fail to have directed 
them right on this point, as well as upon any other; 
if there had been the slightest uncertainty about it. 
But that there was no uncertainty, at least in the time 
of Nehemiah, appears from what has been shewn else- 
where: and if there was no uncertainty in the time of 
Nehemiah, B.C. 444, I do not see that there could 
have been any, B.C. 163, in the time of the Macca- 
bees. John Hyrcanus, one of that number, was con- 
sidered by Josephus, and by the Jewish church gene- 
rally, in the light of a prophet, or of a person endowed 
with supernatural gifts: the former must have sup- 
posed him possessed of the Urim and Thummim itself: 
for he asserts in the Antiquities", that the continuance 
of this mode of communication with the Deity ceased 
only two hundred years before the time when he was 
writing ; which being at the earliest, U.C. 846, A. Ὁ. 
93, places the cessation in question B.C. 108; only 
six years before the ¢rue close of the reign of Hyrca- 
nus®. Yet we find Hyrcanus himself celebrating a 
sabbatic year, which coincided with Β. C. 135—134. 
The coincidences in question are in fact so numerous 
and so critical, as justly to authorize the inference that 
they could not be produced by chance; they must have 
been the effect of truth. How often do they stop short 
on the very verge of a contradiction between the result 


b jii. vill. 0. c Appendix, Dissertation iv. vol. iii. 352. 


Computation of Sabbatic years. 461 


of the calculations, and the matter of fact! That is to say, 
how often is there proof from contemporary history of 
a seed-time or an harvest in a particular year, which 
turns out on consideration to be just in the szxth year 
of the cycle! in entire harmony therefore with the 
principles of a system which places its sabbatic years 
in the year ensuing, but diametrically at variance with 
the arrangements of any other, which places those 
years in the year before. 

We cannot illustrate these assertions better, than 
by the exhibition of a table of sabbatic years, which 
shall run parallel to the duration of the Hebrew mo- 
narchy, beginning B. C. 1094, in the first year of 
Saul, and ending B.C. 589, in the last year but one 
of Zedekiah; and constructed according to the prin- 
ciples in question. The first sabbatic year being B. C. 
1507—1506, the sixtieth was B. C. 1094—1093. For 
1507 — 1094 = 413 =59 x'7. Hence the series will be- 
gin with the sixtieth year. 


Table of Sabbatic years, beginning B. C. 1094. and ending 


B. C. 589. 
B.C. B. C. 
LX. 1094— 1093 LXXV. 9g89—988 
LXI. 1087— 1086 LXXVI. 982—981 
LXII. 1080—1079 LXXVII. 975—974 
LXIII. 1073—1072 LXXVIII. 968—967 
LXIV. 1066—1065 LXXIX. g61—9g60 
LXV. 1059—1058 LXXX. 054-053 
LXVI. 1052—I1051 LXXXI. 947—946 
LXVII. 1045—1044 LXXXII. 940—939 
LXVIII. 1038—1037 LXXXIII. 933—932 
LXIX. 1031—1I030 LXXXIV. 926—925 
LXX. 1024—1023 LXXXV. gig—g18 
LXXI. 1017—1016 LXXXVI. QI2—9QI1 
LXXII. IO0IO0—1009 LXXXVII. 905—9g04 
LXXIII. 1003—1002 LXXXVvII1. 898—897 
LXXIV. 996— 995 LXXxIx. 8 g1—8go 


462 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-second. 


B. C. B.C. 
xo. 884—883 CXII. 730—7 29 
ΣΟῚ. 877—876 CXIII. 723—722 
ΧΟΙΙ. 870—869 CXIV. 716—715 
XCIII. 863—862 CXV. 709—708 
XCIV. 856—855 CXVI. 702—701 
XCV. 849—848 CXVII. 695—694 
XCVI. $42—841 cxvill. 688—687 
XCVII. 835—834 CXIX. 681—680 
XOVIII. 828—827 XK. 674—673 
xe. 821—820 CXXI. 667—666 
ΩΣ 814—813 CXxII. . 660—659 
cl. _ 807—806 CXXIII.  653—652 
Grr. 800—799 CXXIV. 646—645 
ΟΠ. 793—792 CXXV. 639—638 
CIV. 786—785 CXXVI. 632—631 
cv. 779—778 CXXVII. 625—624 
CVI. 772—771 CXXvi1I. 618—617 
CVII. 765—764 ΟΧΧΙΧ. 611—610 
CVIII. 758—757 CXXX. 604—603 
ΟΙΧ. 751--7 50 ΟΧΧΧΙ. 507--κοῦ 
Cx. 744—743 CXXXII. 590—589 


ΣΙ. 137-730 


With regard to the above details, the first remark 
which we may make is this; that had the same table 
been conducted downwards from B. C. 1507, the thirty- 
second sabbatic year would have been found to coin- 
cide with B. C. 1290—1289: for 1507 —1290 = 217 = 
317. Now, according to the principle laid down, 
that of reckoning the dast year of a particular servi- 
tude as the first year of the deliverance from it; if we 
consider B.C. 1499, the beginning of the servitudes 
in question, it will be found upon computation that 
B. C. 1290, was the last year of the servitude to the 
Midianites, and therefore the first of the administra- 
tion of Gideon. The angel who commissioned Gideon 
appeared to him at the time of wheat-harvest 4; that 


ad Judges vi. 11. 


Computation of Sabbatic years. 463 


is, about Pentecost or midsummer, in the year in ques- 
tion. The beginning of his administration conse- 
quently bears date from the midsummer of a certain 
year, which certainly was not a sabbatic year ; and if 
that year was B.C. 1290, there might be an harvest 
at the midsummer of that year; for B. C. 1290, down 
to midsummer, was the last half of the sixth year of 
the cycle. 

Again, the ark was restored by the Philistines at 
the time of wheat-harvest in some year®; which was 
consequently not a sabbatic year. We assumed in Dis- 
sertation xi. Appendix, that it was restored the year 
before the commencement of the administration of Sa- 
muel; which administration lasted twenty years pre- 
viously to the consecration of Saul. The first year of 
Samuel, then, was B.C. 1114: and the time of the re- 
storation of the ark was midsummer B.C. 1115: at 
which time there would be a wheat-harvest; for B. C. 
1115, to midsummer, also was the close of the sixth year 
of the cycle: 1507 —1115=392=56 x7. Now the 
ark, before its restoration, had been seven months cap- 
tive with the Philistines: hence if it was restored 
at midsummer, B.C. 1115, it had been made captive 
November, or December, B.C. 1116. This then would 
be the exact time of the death of Eli. 

Again, at the inauguration of Saul wheat-harvest 
was ready to begin; which is a proof that that was 
not 2 a sabbatic year. But it might be at the mid- 
summer in the last year of the cycle: and this was ac- 
tually the case with the midsummer B. C. 1094. 

Again, the jirst sabbatic year in the reign of David 
would be the szxty-sixth, B.C. 1052—1051, partly in 
the third, and partly in the fourth, of his reign. There 
could be no such year, then, in his seventh or his 


e 1 Sam. vi. 13. f Vol. iii. p. 447. & 1 Sam. vi. 1. h Ibid. xii. 17. 


464 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-second. 


eighth, when Ishbosheth appears to have been killed ‘; 
and the allusion at that time to wheat* might be ei- 
ther to seed-time, or to harvest; for the year would 
admit of either. 

Again, the birth of Solomon having fallen out in 
the spring quarter of B.C. 1031, it fell out in the last 
half of the sixth year of a sabbatic cycle. 

Again, the coincidences with respect to the seven- 
tieth, and the seventy-first, sabbatic years, B. C. 1024, 
and 1017, have been already pointed. out. It has 
been seen, from 1 Chron. xxi. 20, that B.C. 1017, Or- 
nan or Araunah was threshing wheat—very probably 
of that year’s growth: at the time when the plague 
was stayed. This too would be in the sixth year of 
the cycle exeunte. 

Again, the building of the temple which was begun 
in the spring, B.C. 1011, was begun in the last half 
of the fifth year of one cycle; and being finished in the 
spring or the autumn, B.C. 1004, was finished in the 
last half of the fifth year of another. 

Again, if the reign of Rehoboam, and consequently 
that of Jeroboam, began in the spring of B. C. 974, it 
began in the midst of the seventy-seventh sabbatic 
year. And this would be eminently a time when the 
whole nation might be at leisure to come to him col- 
lectively—as they are represented to have done,. upon 
occasion of the conferences at Shechem. 

Again, the eighty-sixth, eighty-seventh, and eighty- 
eighth, sabbatic years, beginning B. C. 912, B.C. 905, 
and B.C. 898, respectively, are all sabbatic years 
which came between the two extremes of the reign of 
Ahab, B.C. 917, and B.C. 896. Now the great 
drought, which happened in the course of the same 
reign, has been shewn to have terminated just at the 


i2 Sam. ii. 10. Vv. 5. k iv. 6. 


Computation of Sabbaiic years. 465 


usual period of the recurrence of the autumnal rains!; 
and this being the usual period of seed-time also, it be- 
comes a probable conjecture that the providence of 
God was graciously pleased to put an end to the 
drought against that time itself. If so, the drought 
did not terminate zz a sabbatic year, when, as there 
could be no harvest, there could be no seed-time also. 
For a similar reason we may conjecture that neither 
did it begin zm a sabbatic year ; for the drought and 
the consequent scarcity were each of them judicial, 
and out of the course of nature; of which dispensa- 
tion it seems reasonable to suppose a year of rest as 
such would constitute no part. On this supposition, 
either the beginning of the drought was just after one 
sabbatic year, and its end just midway before the neat; 
or its beginning was midway after one sabbatic year, 
and its end just before another. This latter case is as 
possible as the former; and on that principle the 
drought would terminate the year before B.C. 912, 
or B.C. 905, or B.C. 898. The last of these years is 
out of the question; for it was only two or three 
years before the death of Ahab himself; and the se- 
cond, as we shall see by and by, is excluded likewise. 
It remains then that the first alone could be the close 
of the drought: and in favour of that conclusion we 
may further reason as follows. 

The beginning of the drought is placed in the First 
Book of Kings consecutively upon the marriage of Ahab 
and Jezebel™: and this marriage must have been con- 
cluded in the first year of Ahab’s reign. For he reigned 
only twenty-one years complete ; yet both Ahaziah and 
Jehoram, his sons by Jezebel", were arrived at man’s 
estate by the time of his death. If Ahaziah, then, was 


1 Dissertation xxxiv. vol. iii. 16. M xvi. 31, 32. Xvii. I. ut Kings 
XXIl. 51, 52. 2 Kings iii, 13. ix. 22. 


VOL. IV. Hh 


466 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-second. 


the oldest of the two, he must have been born in the 
Jirst or the second year of his father’s reign. 

The reign of Ahab began B. C. 917. eneunte: and 
if he was married to Jezebel some time in this year, 
the worship of Baal might be already established in 
Samaria before the same time in the next. The 
drought was a judicial dispensation in resentment of 
this particular sin: what, therefore, would be more 
natural than that it should begin about the same time 
with that? If however it began, where it terminated, 
viz. just before seed-time in a certain year; then if it 
began at this time, B.C. 916, it would end at the same 
time, B. C. 913, at the beginning of the sexth year of 
the cycle. 

The same drought is placed by Josephus °, upon the 
authority of Menander the Ephesian or the Pergamene, 
in the reign of Ithobal or Ethbaal the father of Jezebel ; 
which is manifestly a possible statement ; for Ithobal 
and Ahab must have been contemporaries, and the 
same fact might happen in the reign of each. But the 
authority of the same historian will shew that the 
reign of Ithobal began B.C. 921, and expired B.C. 
889: in which case any drought which happened in 
his reign, and in Ahab’s likewise, could neither be 
earlier than B. C. 917, the beginning of the latter, nor 
later than B.C. 896, the end of the same: while a 
drought which began in B. C. 916, and expired in 
B. C. 913, would truly belong to the reign of both. 

The catalogue of these kings of Tyre, as transcribed 
from Menander, which Josephus has given Contra 
Apionem, i. 18, labours under great depravation of the 
numbers: for the sum total of these numbers, as there 
exhibited in detail, amounts only to 137 years and 
eight months; whereas the true sum total, as it ap- 


o Ant. viii. xili. 2. 


Computation of Sabbatic years. 467 


pears from Josephus himself?, should be 155 years 
and eight months. But the same catalogue is given 
by Eusebius and Syncellus 4, professedly from Jose- 
phus ; and by Theophilus ad Autolycum ', professedly 
from Menander: and though neither of these cata- 
logues also is free from error, yet the difference in the 
former amounts but to ¢wo years in excess; and by 
comparing all three catalogues together, we obtain an 
amended list, the sum total of which is exactly 155 
years and eight months; a sum total, recognised by 
Theophilus (doco cit.) not less than by Josephus. 

This list begins with the first of Hirom; supposed 
to be contemporary with Solomon: in the twelfth of 
whose reign the Tyrian records placed the foundation 
of the temple. On this principle, the ¢evedfth of Hirom 
synchronised with the fourth of Solomon; and both 
with B.C. 1011: and consequently his first with B. C. 
1022. From this year zxclusive to the first of Ithobal 
exclusive, the interval in the amended list is one 
hundred and one years, eight months, or one hundred 
and two current years—which places the first of Itho- 
bal not later than B.C. 921. At this time he was 
thirty-six years of age himself, and he had a son (his 
successor) who was seven years old, or more, even then. 
He was consequently married not later than the twenty- 
ninth year of his age: seven years before he came to the 
throne, B.C. 921. But Jezebel seems to have been 
born before that event; and had she been born B. C. 
932, she would still be merely fifteen years old B.C. 
917, when she was probably married to Ahab: nor 
would she be more than thirty-nine years old at the ut- 
most, B. C. 883, when she was put to death by Jehu’. 

According to the same list, from the first of Ithobal 


P Contra Apionem, i. 18. ii. 2. Cf. also, Eusebius, Evangelica Preparatio, 
X. 13. 502. B. ᾳ Eusebius, Chronicon Armeno-Latinum, Pars ia. 173—181. 
Syncellus, i. 343. 1. 1--τ345..1. 190. τ Lib. iii. 21. 354362. 5.2 Kings ix. 30. 

Hh 2 


468 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty -second. 


B.C. 921. inclusive, to the seventh of Pygmalion ea- 
clusive, the interval was fifty-three years: the se- 
venth of Pygmalion, therefore, could not be later than 
B.C. 867. Now in the seventh of Pygmalion the Ty- 
rian records placed the foundation of Carthage: which 
would thus coincide with B. C, 867: and the year of 
its destruction being B. C. 146, the term of its pre- 
existing duration would be 721 years. There is no 
date, it is true, upon which more uncertainty prevails 
than on this of the foundation of Carthage *: but the 


* As a specimen of this un- 
certainty, I will produce a few 
more dates, besides those men- 
tioned, or about to be mention- 
ed, in the text. 

Dionysius Halicarnassensis, i. 
74, according to Timzus, both 
Rome and Carthage were found- 
ed thirty-eight years before the 
first Olympiad ; that is, B. C. 
776+38, B.C. 814. Velleius 
Pat. i. 12, adopts this date: yet 
he has another, i. 6, somewhat 
earlier, or B. C. 817—Cicero, 
De Republica i. (apud Noneum 
Marc.): Nec tantum Carthago 
habuisset opum sexcentos fere 
annos, nisi consiliis et disci- 
plina. It is probable, however, 
that this date is referred to 
the commencement of the wars 
with Rome, B.C. 264, which 
would remarkably agree with 
our date of the foundation of 
Carthage, B. C. 867—Appian, 
De Rebus Punicis, viii. 1, says 
Carthage was founded by Zorus 
and Carchedon fifty years πρὸ 
ἁλώσεως Ἰλίου, that is, B. (Ὁ. 
1233; yet cap. 2, that the Ro- 
mans deprived the Carthaginians 
of Sicily and Sardinia, seven 
hundred years after its founda- 
tion. This was at the close of 
the first Punic war, B.C. 241. 


On this principle, its foundation 
must be placed B.C. 941. In 
the speech of Asdrubal also, 
(cap. 51,) just after the battle of 
Zama, B.C. 201, the city is said 
to have flourished but seven hun- 
dred years. So that on this point 
Appian is inconsistent with him- 
self—Servius, ad Hneidem, i. 12. 
267: places the foundation of 
Carthage seventy years before 
that of Rome, that is, B. C. 824: 
Justin xviii. 6. two years earlier, 
B. C. 826: Cassiodorus, in Chro- 
nicis, in the reign of Latinus 
Sylvius, sometime, according to 
the same authority, between 
B. C. 1074, and B.C. 1024: 
Orosius, iv. 6. seventy-two years 
before Rome; which as, his 
date of Roma condita is the 
Catonian, B. C. 752, amounts to 
the same thing as Servius’, of se- 
venty years before B.C. 754. Ad 
Aineidem, iv. 459, Servius places 
it fortyyears before the same date, 
B. C. 794—Eusebius, Chroni- 
con Armeno-Latinum, Pars ii. 
149: Carthage was founded, 
Secundum quosdam a Carche- 
done Tyrio, secundum vero alios, 
a Didone ejusdem filia, post Tro- 
janorum res annis 143: Ad an- 
num Abrahami 978. Eusebius’ 
date for the capture of Troy is 


Computation of Sabbatic years. 400 
date of Polybius, who was himself contemporary with 
its destruction, and probably had access to the Cartha- 
ginian records themselves, would a priort be the most 
credible; and this date, in general terms, is expressed 
by the city’s having flourished seven hundred years 
from its foundation"; which may be understood as 
a current statement, and not with the epitomizer of 
Livy, Orosius, or Eutropius ’, of the seven-hundredth 
year exactly. If the city had stood seven hundred and 
twenty-one years exactly, its duration might yet be 
spoken of in general terms as seven hundred years 


only*. 


405 years before the first 
Olympiad, B.C. 1181; see Ad 
annum Abrahami 835. This 
places the foundation of Car- 
thage, B. C. 1038 or 1039— 
Ibid. 151: there is another date 
Ad annum 1005: twenty-seven 
years later, that is, B. C. 1011, 
or 1012. There is a third date, 
Ad annum1166: onehundred and 
eighty-eight years later, that is, 
B. C. 850 or 851, an approxima- 
tion to B. C. 867—Its destruc- 
tion is placed Ad annum 1867, 
OL 157. 4, Β τ 139: when,as it 
appears from Syncellus, (i. 555. 
11. 557. 1,) it had previously 
existed, according to some, xp’. 
640 years, according to others, 
Wun, 748 years: the first of 
which places its foundation, B.C. 
786: the latter, B. C. 894+. 
Syncellus, i. 324, tells us, Kapyn- 
δόνα φησὶ Φίλιστος κτισθῆναι ὑπὸ 
᾿Αξώρου καὶ Καρχηδόνος τῶν Τυρίων 
κατὰ τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον, viz. A. M. 


There is a date in Solinus ἡ which supposes it 


4340: that is, upon his prin- 
ciples, B.C. 1160. Dio Chryso- 
stom, Oratio xxv. 522. §. 45, 
speaks of one Hanno as the 
founder of Carthage. Cf. also Eu- 
stathium ad Dionysium Periege- 
ten, 195. 

From lib. ii. of Cicero De Re- 
publica, it appears that he made 
Carthage sixty years older than 
Rome, and followed the date of 
Timeus, thirty-eight years be- 
fore the first Olympiad. His date 
for Roma condita was Ol. vil. 2. 

* Thus Tacitus, Historiz, iv. 
74: Octingentorum annorum for- 
tuna ; yet the time was U.C. 823. 
Florus,iv.12,64: Aususque tan- 
dem Cesar Augustus septingen- 
tesimo ab urbe condita anno Ja- 
num Geminum cludere. Yet 
this was either U. C. 725 or 729. 

Pliny, H. N. xxxvi. 24: Ve- 
rum ut ad urbis nostre miracula 
transireconveniat, nongentorum- 
que annorum dociles scrutari vi- 


t The parallel place in the Chronicon of Jerome, p. 147, has its destruction Ad 
annum Abrahami 1872, Olympiad 158. 3, five years later: and those dates of 
its age previously, which were defective in the Armenian Chronicon, are supplied 
in Jerome, 668 and 748 respectively. Of all the dates of the foundation of Car- 
thage, the latest is that of Apio, apud Josephum, Contra Apionem, ii. 2. viz. Olymp. 
vii. τ. B.C. 752, which is the Catonian date for the foundation of Rome itself. 
u Appian, Punica, viii. 132. Suidas, ᾿Αφρικανός : and Καρχηδών. v Livii 
Epitome, li. Orosius, iv. 23. Eutropius iv. 5. Orosius, vii. 2, represents the en- 
tire duration of the Carthaginian empire as Paulo amplius quam septingentis an- 
nis. It might, therefore, be 721. |W Polyhistor, cap. 27. ὃ. 11. 


410 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-second. 


_ to have stood 737 years: there are others, as for in- 
stance the date of Velleius Paterculus ¥, which makes 
it to have stood 667; or the date of Justin *, which 
makes it to have stood 680. The number 721 is about 
a mean between the extremes of 700 and 737; and, 
therefore, in all probability is so much the nearer to the 
truth. On this question, however, it is not necessary 
to enter any further into detail. 

The testimony of Scripture’, indeed, would imply 
that a king called Hiram was reigning at Tyre, about 
the commencement of the reign of David over all Israel, 
B.C. 1047; which was thirty-six years before B.C.1011. 
But the Second of Chronicles shews that this king must 
have been succeeded by a king, his son, called Hu- 
ram or Hiram, also”: who must have been contempo- 
rary with Solomon down even to B.C. 992, the twenty- 
third of his reign, at least*: and this he would be, if 
he began to reign B.C. 1022, and continued to reign 
until B. C. 988, thirty-four years in all*. The former 
Hiram and David might be contemporaries, whose 
reigns began or ended not many years asunder: in 
which case the same thing would be true of the second 
Hiram and of Solomon respectively. There will be 
no further difficulty than this; that the former Hiram 
must be denominated Abibalus by Menander and Dius, 
as quoted by Josephus: but this difficulty is trifling ; 


res—U. C. goo, instead of U. C. 
830: when he was writing. Lib. 
XXXvi.24. sect.3: Durant tamen 
a Tarquinio Prisco annis pecc. 
(aliter pcc.) The true date isabout 
U.C. 830—138, or 692 years. 
* It is affirmed of the same 
Hiram, on the authority of Me- 
nander and Letus, by Clemens 


W i. 12. 6. X xvii. 6. 


® viii. 1, 2. 
i. 21, Operum i. 386, 387. 


17, 18. 1 Kings ix. 1o—r4. 


Alexandrinus >, that he gave his 
daughter in marriage to Solo- 
mon: and this also was a possi- 
ble case. Vide likewise Tatiani 
Oratio adversus Gracos, cap. 58: 
where the second of these histo- 


rians is called Chetus: and 
Theophilus ad Autolycum. 
y 2 Sam. v. 11. z 2 Chron. ii. 11—13. 


26—28, vii. 1. vi. 38. ὃν Stromatum 


Computation of Sabbatic years. 4171 


for Hiram might be his proper name, and Abibal only 
an appellative, from some supposed relation to Baal or 
Belus, the divinity worshipped at Tyre. Nor do I 
consider 2 Chron. ii. 3. any great objection; though it 
would seem to imply that this Hiram also was a con- 
temporary of David’s, at the time when he built his 
palace, as referred to 1 Chron. xiv. 1. The second Hi- 
ram might have rendered a similar service to David, 
during the eight or nine years for which they were 
contemporaries. But the act is referred to by Solomon 
only generally; as the act of the king of Tyre for the 
time being: and there is no mention of any name in 
the parallel place, 1 Kings v. 2—6. 

Again, the death of Jehoram king of Israel, B.C. 
883, and the beginnings of the reigns of Jehu and 
Athaliah, B.C. 882, and by parity of consequence of 
Joash, king of Judah, all took place in the midst of the 
first year of the cycle. 

The details of succeeding reigns are not sufficiently 
minute to enable us to point out any more coincidences, 
before the hundred and fifteenth sabbatic year, B.C. 
709—708, which has been abundantly illustrated al- 
ready: and what sabbatic years came between this 
year, and B.C. 609, the year of the death of Josiah, 
will be seen from the inspection of the table. 

The next such year however is the hundred and 
thirtieth, B. C. 604—603, which is a remarkable year, 
as coinciding with the beginning of the reign of Nebu- 
chadnezzar; dated from the death of his father. From 
this time to the first sabbatic year, which was in course 
after the return from captivity, viz. B. C. 534—533, 
the interval is just seventy years. Now there is a pe- 
culiar text, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21: To fulfil the word of 
the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had 
enjoyed her sabbaths : for as long as she lay desolate 

Hh 4 


472 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-second. 


she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years* ; 
which may authorize us to consider the seventy years 
of captivity as equivalent to so many sabbatic years, 
and consequently to a period of four hundred and 
ninety common years, or seventy sabbatic cycles. Re- 
garded in this light, the first sabbatic year, coincident 
with the beginning of the captivity, would mark the close 
of the four hundred and ninety years in question; and 
the period of rest from that time to the first which was 
coincident with the conclusion of it, will express the term 
of some duration previously, as equivalent to seventy 
sabbatic eycles. If we add 490 to B.C. 604, we ar- 
rive at B.C. 1094, the first year of the reign of Saul, 
as B.C. 604 was of that of Nebuchadnezzar ; with the 
one of whom the Hebrew monarchy as such began, 
and with the other was virtually extinguished for a 


time 7. 


* CE Vey? XxUi 5241. 50] 
“ Then shall the land enjoy her 
sabbaths, as long as it lieth de- 
solate, and ye Je in your ene- 
mies land; even then shall the 
Jand rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. 
As long as it lieth desolate it 
shall rest ; because it did not 
rest in your sabbaths, when ye 
dwelt upon it.” See also verse 


3. 

t It is to be presumed that 
under the reign of kings of Ju- 
dah, as well as of Israel, whose 
heart was not perfect before the 
Lord, the observance of the sab- 
batic year would repeatedly be 
neglected, as much as that of any 
other ordinance of the law of 
Moses, And supposing this, in 
repeated instances, to have been 
the case, we may certainly infer 
from the above text, that one of 
the purposes contemplated by 
the seventy years’ captivity was 


that the land, while she lay in 
her state of loneliness and deso- 
lation, might enjoy those years 
of rest, to which she was always 
entitled from the first, and of 
which she had been defrauded 
in times past. We may safely 
infer then from these words, 
that the years of the captivity, 
on the whole, were forecast and 
determined with a special re- 
gard to a certain number of sab- 
batic years, which had not been 
observed in the due course 
of things, when they ought to 
have been. We must beware, 
however, how we infer from 
them further, that the whole of 
this period was forecast with 
that special object in view; or 
that each of the seventy years of 
captivity was a compensatory 
provision for a corresponding 
sabbatic year, which had not 
been observed in its own time 


Computation of Sabbatic years. 473 


~ 


The above table stops short with B.C. 590—589, 
the hundred and thirty-second sabbatic year; which 


and season, as it should have 
been. For this would imply 
that seventy sabbatic years at 
least had been neglected in due 
course of things, before the com- 
mencement of the captivity: 
and seventy sabbatic years would 
imply a period of 490 common 
years, before the date of the 
captivity, B. C. 606, at least ; 
during which not a single sab- 
batic year could have been ob- 
served in the due course of 
things. And what would be the 
consequence of this conclusion ? 
That no sabbatic year could ever 
have been observed, as far back 
as B.C. 1096—two years be- 
fore the first of Saul, B.C. 
1094, and forty years before 
the probable date of the death 
of Samuel, B.C. 1056: and all 
through the reigns of David and 
Solomon, and every successive 
king of Judah, good or bad, 
alike, from B.C. 974, the first 
of Rehoboam, to B. C. 606, the 
third of Jehoiakim. We can- 
not suppose the above declara- 
tion was intended to lead to 
such an absurd and improbable 
conclusion as this. 

The truth is, the absolute du- 
ration of the rest of the land, 
even for the captivity itself, 
cannot be dated from B. C. 606, 
which was the first captivity, 
but only from B.C. 588, which 
was the last. After B.C. 588, 
the land might be completely 
abandoned and deserted ; but 
before, it could not have been: 
consequently after this date it 
might have enjoyed a perfect 
rest from every species of agri- 
cultural service to which a land 
is put while in the possession of 
inhabitants to till it ; but before 


it could not. From this date, to 
that of the return and the reoc- 
cupation of the country, B.C. 
536, the interval is exactly fifty- 
two years: and fifty-two years, 
supposing them to represent 
more or less so many sabbatic 
years, which should have been 
observed in due course, but had 
not been, will be equivalent to 
364 common years; which, dated 
back from B. C. 606, would ex- 
press, on this principle, that pe- 
riod of time in Jewish history 
previously, during which, on the 
whole, the sabbatic year, like 
any other ordinance of the 
Jewish law, had been more or 
less neglected, or never, at least, 
uniformly observed. And here- 
in we may perceive a remark- 
able coincidence. For what is 
that period, later than the close 
of the reign of Solomon at least 
—at which and from which we 
may most reasonably suppose 
the law of Moses in general to 
have begun, and to have conti- 
nued, to be more or less regu- 
larly or irregularly observed, ac- 
cording to the character of the 
reigning king—even of Judah? 
With the evidence of 1 Kings 
xiv. 25, 26. and 2 Chron. xii. 
1—12. before our eyes, can we 
hesitate to say it must bear date 
in and after the fifth of Reho- 
boam, when Jerusalem was de- 
livered into the hands of Shi- 
shak king of Egypt—as the first 
instance of any such penal dis- 
pensation for any specific corre- 
sponding offence, since the esta- 
blishment of the kingly govern- 
ment in the person of Saul? 
Now the fifth of Rehoboam 
bears date from Nisan, B. C. 
970, (see Appendix, Disserta- 


474 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-second. 


also has been illustrated elsewhere. Had it been con- 
tinued forwards, however, the hundred and forty-se- 
cond would be found to coincide with B. C. 520—519: 
for 1507 — 520=987 =141 x 7. 

Now according to the Fasti Hellenici of Mr. Clinton °, 
the first Thoth of Darius Hystaspis was Jan.1. B.C.521; 
in which case a sabbatic year, B. C. 520—519, would 
be partly in the second, and partly in the third of his 
reign. On this principle the Ȣzth month in the se- 
cond of Darius, Haggai ii. 10. 18, was Chisleu, B. C. 
520: and the words which follow, Consider now from 
this day and upward, from the four and twentieth day 
of the ninth month, even from the day that the foun- 
dation of the LorD’s temple was laid, consider it. Is 
the seed yet * in the barn ?....from this day will I bless 
you—appear to justify the inference that there was 
this year the usual seed-time ; and consequently that 
B. C. 520. was not a sabbatic year 4. 

In answer to this objection I observe first, that Ze- 
chariah i. 7. as a later prophecy than Zechariah i. 1, 
delivered in the ezghth Jewish month in the second of 
Darius, was later than Haggai ii. 10, delivered in the 
ninth: for Zechariah i. 7, was delivered in the eleventh 
month, and the foundation of the temple had been al- 
ready laid before Zechariah i. 7, as well as before 
Haggai 11.10; which is confirmed also by Zechariah 
iv. 9. 

If, then, the first of Darius bore date from January 
B.C. 521, his second would bear date from January 


tion xii. vol. iii. 485,) and 364 
years reckoned back from the 
spring quarter of B.C. 606, 
bring us to the same time B.C. 
970—exactly in the fifth of Re- 
hoboam also. This is a remark- 
able coincidence. 


¢ 313. 4. also B.C. 521. Second edition. 


ii. τό. 


* Yet—that is, as the Hebrew 
word answering to it means, οἰ]. 
By the end of the ninth month in 
the Jewish year, it should be re- 
membered, seed time was com- 
monly over. 


d Compare i. 5, 6. 9, 10, II. 


Computation of Sabbatic years. 475 


B.C. 520: and the eleventh sacred month, which be- 
longed to that second, must have preceded, not fol- 
lowed, the nenth which belonged to the same: nor 
was it possible for the eleventh of the sacred year to 
have come within the second of Darius, and yet to 
have been later in occurrence than the xznth, unless 
the years of Darius bore date sometime between the 
eleventh and the ninth; and not between the ninth 
and the eleventh. Now Haggai i. 1. 15. ii. 1. 10. 
Zechariah i. 1. 7. vii. 1. laid together demonstrate that 
his years bore date neither before the twenty-fourth of 
the eleventh month, nor after the jirst of the sixth: 
which justifies the inference that they bore date criti- 
cally between the two: either with the beginning of 
the sacred year itself, or sometime in the spring 
quarter of that year generally: and this is further con- 
firmed by the testimony of Ezra vi. 15. and 1 Esdr. v.6. 

I do not mean to call in question the accuracy 
of the canon of Ptolemy; nor do I conceive its au- 
thority to be endangered by what I am about to say. 
The testimony of Herodotus, however, with regard to 
the history of the kings of Persia, is equal to that of 
the canon; especially when he comes to the reigns of 
Xerxes and of Darius: and it may be proved by the 
help of that testimony that Darius must have died 
B. C. 486, and therefore, as he reigned ¢hirty-six 
years in all, that he began to reign B.C. 522. With 
this view, I shall assume nothing but the date of the 
best authenticated fact in all ancient history, the date 
of the battle of Salamis, B.C. 480. If it can be proved 
that this battle was fought in the seventh of Xerxes 
imeunte, or the sixth exeunte; the seventh of Xerxes, 
or the sixth, coincided with B.C. 480: and therefore 
his first with B. C. 486. 


e Herodotus, vii. 4. 


476 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-second. 


Now the reduction of Egypt took place in the se- 
cond year after the death of Darius‘; consequently in 
the second of Xerxes. From the time of this reduc- 
tion, four full or entire years® were taken up in pre- 
paring for the expedition against Greece: which years 
beginning some time in the second ended at the same 
time in the szxth of Xerxes. Iléurrw δὲ ἔτεϊ ἀνομένῳ 8, 
when the fifth year was begun, and proceeding on- 
wards to its close, consequently, at the earliest, still in 
the szxth of Xerxes, the expedition was actually be- 
gun*, But it was begun in the latter half of B.C. 


* There are critics, it is true, But if the expedition was 
and chronologers of great cele- truly and properly begun when 
brity who understand this allu- Xerxes set out from Susa, the 
sion proleptically of the march four years’ preliminary prepara- 
from Sardis, B.C. 480, and ποῦ tions were over when Xerxes 
that from Susa, B.C. 481: but set out from Susa; and if the 
certainly not without doing vio- | winter quarter was arrived or at 
lence to the most simple and hand when he came to Sardis, 
most obvious construction of the the autumnal quarter was ar- 
text. It is making a distinc- rived or at hand when he set 
tion without a difference, and out from Susa: for the example 
raising a mere dispute about of the younger Cyrus is a proof 
terms, seriously to question that a much smaller force than 
whether the στρατηλασία as such =the army of Xerxes could not 
of Xerxes began from Susa be- have marched from Persia 
fore the winter, or from Sardis to Sardis in less than four 
after it: since it must be evi- months’ time. If, however, the 
dent that when he had once be- four years’ preliminary prepara- 
gun his march, if there had been tions were over about the close 
time the same year, he would of the summer quarter, B. C. 
have continued it. The stop- 481, the reduction of Egypt 
page at Sardis was due to the had been completed about the 
necessity of the case; the win- same time B.C. 485: and the 
ter setting in at the time of his death of Darius cannot be plac- 
arrival there, and suspending all ed later than the same time 
further proceedings until the in the year before that, B.C. 
spring. And Herodotus must 486. 
have understood this according- The time of the arrival at 
ly; or he would not say thathav- Sardis is further demonstrable 
ing wintered (χειμερίσας) at Sar- by the help of the following 
dis, with the return of spring considerations. When Xerxes 
(ἅμα τῷ ἔαρι) he resumed his arrived there he dispatched he- 
march: vii. 37. cf. 26. 32. ralds into Greece, to demand 


f Herodotus, vii. 7. & vil. 20. 


~ 


Computation of Sabbatic years. 47 


481, for the winter was past at Sardis; and the Hel- 
lespont was not crossed until the spring, about the 


earth and water4; and when he 
was arrived at Thessaly, these 
heralds met him on their re- 
turn‘. It may be calculated 
that the army had been ¢hen not 
less than two months on the 
road; and that the heralds did 
not meet him sooner than the 
end of May, or the beginning of 
June. 

It is asserted by Herodotus 
that just as Xerxes was setting 
out from Sardis, there was a re- 
markable eclipse of the sunk; 
there is accordingly an eclipse in 
Pingré’s Table, April 8, B.C. 
480, which would seem at first 
sight to be altogether such as 
Herodotus describes. But here- 
in is a singular instance of dis- 
agreement between historical 
testimony, and the result of an 
astronomical calculation; for 
while the former is positive with 
respect to the fact of a visible 
eclipse in the spring of the year 
when Xerxes set out from Sar- 
dis, the latter shews an eclipse 
April 8. B.C: 4801 at 11. 15. in 
the evening for the meridian of 
Paris, and therefore invisible at 
Sardis. There was another 
eclipse, it is true, B. C. 481, on 
April 19. central, and at six in 
the morning ; which would con- 
sequently be visible both at 
Susa and at Sardis: but it seems 
utterly inconceivable, unless the 


date of the battle of Salamis is 
to be advanced from B. C. 480, 
to B.C. 481, that this could be 
what Herodotus intended. It 
is more reasonable to suppose 
either that Herodotus is mis- 
taken, in the fact of this eclipse, 
or by a lapse of memory has 
confounded it with the eclipse of 
the year before, or that were it to 
be recalculated, with the more 
accurate data which astronomers 
possess at present, it would be 
found to have been actually vi- 
sible at Sardis, either April 8 or 
April g: and consequently that 
one of these days was the time 
when the army began its march 
from thence |. 

Now in one month’s time 
afterwards they had passed the 
Hellespont ; consequently by the 
first week in May; and in three 
months more they arrived at 
Athens™; consequently by the 
beginning of August. The march 
to the borders of Thessaly was 
about one third of this distance; 
the march thence to Thermo- 
pyle was about another; and 
the march to Athens from Ther- 
mopyle was about the re- 
mainder: we must allow there- 
fore about a month to each of 
these intervals. And it agrees 
with this conclusion, that just 
after the battle of Thermopyle, 
the Olympic festival was going 


h Herodotus, vii. 32. i Ibid. 131. Κα vii. 37. Aristides alludes to this eclipse, 
Oratio xlvi. 241. δ. 5 : also the Scholiast in Prom. ad AEschyli Persas. So also 
Suidas, Ξέρξης. 1 Herodotus, ix. 8. 10. mentions another eclipse of the sun, 
just when the wall across the isthmus was completed, B.C. 479. Pingré has a 
central eclipse, October 2, B. C. 480: a small eclipse, Feb. 28, B.C. 479. visible 
in the north of Asia, but not in Greece ; and another, September 21, in the same 
year, scarcely to be called an eclipse, but merely an attouchement extérieure, of 
the disks of the sun and of themoon. It is possible, however, that the eclipse, 
October 2, B. C. 480, may be that to which Herodotus alludes, ix. το. τὴ vili. 
ἘΠῚ 


48 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-second. 


month of April, because five or six months before the 
time of the battle of Salamis, which was Boédromion, 
August or September, B. C. 480. The march of 
Xerxes, then, could not have begun later than B.C. 
481, exeunte, on the one hand, nor earlier than his 
sixth year emeunte, on the other. If so, his sixth year 
aneunte must have coincided at the latest with B. C. 
481, exeunte: and therefore his first zreunte with 
B. C. 486, exeunte. But even this is too late a com- 
putation; for as the whole calculation is deduced 
from the time of the reduction of Egypt, unless that 
reduction took place at the very end of a year, neither 
could the jist of Xerxes have begun at the very end 
of a year. It is much more probable that the reverse 
was the case; that his years bore date from the 
spring or summer quarter of some year: and there- 
fore his first bearing date from that time B.C. 486, 
his sixth did so from the same time B.C. 481; and 
his seventh from the same time Β. C. 480. 

The same conclusion follows if we reckon backward 
from another indubitable date, that of the battle of 
Marathon, the sixth of the Attic month Boédromion*, 


on®. The arrival at Thermo- 
pyle would not be earlier than 
the beginning or the middle of 
July ; about which time the 
Olympic festival, B.C. 480, must 
have been actually celebrated. 
The heralds, therefore, met 
Xerxes on their return about 
the end of May or the begin- 
ning of June: andthey could not 
have been less than four or five 
months absent on their mission. 
They could not have been sent 
then later than the end of Ja- 
nuary or the beginning of Fe- 
bruary. If so, neither could 
Xerxes have arrived at Sardis 


later than the end of January 
or the beginning of February ; 
nor consequently have set out 
from Susa later than the end of 
September or the beginning of 
October. 

* Plutarch, Operum ix. 420. De 
Herodoti Malignitate: vii. 378, 
379. De gloria Atheniensium : 
Camillus, 19: dates the battle of 
Marathon on the sixth of Boé- 
dromion, the battle of Salamis on 
the twentieth of Boédromion. Cf. 
Polyznus, Strategematum iii. xi, 
2. Yet Plutarch, De Gloria A- 
theniensium, /oco citato, and Ly- 
sander, 15: dates the battle of 


n Herodotus, viii. 26. 


Computation of Sabbatic years. 470 


B.C. 400. Three years of renewed preparation fol- 
lowed on that defeat; in the fourth year Egypt re- 
volted"; and in the fifth year Darius died®. This 
fifth year being deduced from the close of the summer 
quarter B.C. 490, would begin with the same time 
B.C. 486: and Darius might die as soon after its be- 
ginning as we please. 

The beginning of the reign of Darius is necessarily 
connected with the length of the reign of Cyrus: and 
this is differently represented by ancient authorities ; 
some putting it at twenty-nine years, others at thirty: 
which statements would obviously be consistent, if the 
one were understood of complete years, and the other 
of current. One thing is certain; according to Hero- 
dotus he died in the summer quarter of some year? ; 
and according to Xenophon, in the spring 4. The reign 
of Cambyses too is reckoned by Herodotus at seven 
years complete, and five months of an eighth". It 
seems therefore a reasonable inference that both toge- 
ther they ought to be computed at thirty years plus 
seven, or twenty-nine plus eight; that is, thirty-seven 
years complete: whence if the one began at a certain 
time, Olympiad 55. 1. B. C. 559, the other expired at 
the same time, Olympiad 64. 2. B.C. 522. The 
reign of Cambyses was followed by that of Smerdis ; 


Salamis on the sixteenth of at least: unless it should be 


Munychion. That its true time 
was during the celebration of 
the mysteries, Boédromion 16— 
20, is proved by Herodotus, viii. 
65.113. Cf. the Perse of Aischy- 
lus. There is still some diffi- 
culty with respect to the date of 
the battle of Marathon: which 
Herodotus, vi. 106. 120, would 
imply to have been fought after 
the ninth of some lunar month 


ἢ Herodotus, vii. 1. 
aaSols r ili, 66, 67. 


ο vii. 4. 


said, that as the Spartans were 
three days in marching to the 
field of battle, if the battle was 
fought on the sixth, they would 
arrive on the ninth of the same 
month. But the Spartans did 
not set out until after the full of 
the moon: and could the full of 
the moon, B. C. 490, have fallen 
on Boédromion 6 ? 


Pi. 214. ᾳ Cyropedia, viii. 6. 8. 22. 


480 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-second. 


a reign of seven months in duration’; which begin- 
ning some time in the first half of B.C. 522, would 
not expire until the same time in the second. On this 
principle the reign of Darius might truly begin some 
time between the first and the sixth sacred month ; 
and nearer perhaps to the latter than to the former ; 
a conclusion which squares exactly with what has 
been already shewn: especially from Haggai and Zecha- 
riah. 

The order or succession of subsequent kings is not 
disturbed by this supposition that the reign of Xerxes 
began B.C. 486. To Darius and to Xerxes in con- 
junction the canon assigns fifty-seven years complete ; 
which beginning B.C. 522, would expire B.C. 465. 
But it says nothing of the odd months of the reign of 
Artabanus, after the death of Xerxes ; which yet, there 
is no more reason to suppose included in the /ast year 
of Xerxes, than in the first year of Artaxerxes. In 
this case the nominal Thoth of Artaxerxes might be 
really the Thoth of Artabanus; and coincident with 
the demise of Xerxes. But this Thoth is December 18, 
B. C. 465; seven months from which would bring us 
to June or July B. C. 464, as about the true Thoth of 
Artaxerxes: which also will agree with what was esta- 
blished elsewhere *. 

The first of Darius, then, bearing date in, or not long 
before, the sixth month in the sacred year, that is, 
Elul, B. C. 522, his second would bear date from the 
same time, B. C. 521. The allusion therefore to seed- 
time, or to the future harvest, in the xzxth month of 
this year, would be both possible and probable; for it 
would be just after the beginning of the szath year of the 
sabbatic cycle—a year which the providence of God 
was already pledged to bless in a triple proportion to 


5 Herodotus, 111, 67. t Dissertation xv. vol. ii. 16, 17. 
᾽ 7) 17 


Computation of Sabbatic years. 481 


any other: and the appositeness of this very coinci- 
dence to the language of the prophet is no slight con- 
firmation of the conclusion itself, that the second of 
Darius was such a year in particular. The very diffi- 
culty, then, suggested by these words, turns out, upon 
examination, to be in harmony with every other case ; 
and a strong corroboration of the truth of our previous 
deductions. Nor is it the least satisfactory result of 
its solution, that it has been the means of establishing 
so clear an agreement between Herodotus, the oldest 
of profane historians, and the testimony of two contem- 
poraries, Haggai and Zechariah; an agreement which, 
if it were necessary, ought to outweigh even the au- 
thority of the canon of Ptolemy. But the authority of 
this canon is in no danger from any such consent ; 
since it does not profess to be minutely exact; and 
pays no attention to parts of years as such. The first 
Thoth of Xerxes, according to this canon, is made to 
have synchronised with December 23, B.C. 486"; be- 
tween which, and the close of the thirty-sixth of Darius, 
if that was the Jewish Elul in the same year, the dif- 
ference is only three or four months *. 


years after it, B.C. 163—162, 


* The authority of the canon 
B.C. 135—134, B.C. 37—36, 


of Ptolemy is undoubtedly very 


great, and its general accuracy 
is undeniable. But with regard 
to the question at issue, no au- 
thority, which it can possess, 
ought to be considered greater 
than that of the testimony of 
contemporaries, Haggai and Ze- 
chariah: according to whom, if 
the second of Darius coincided 
with B.C. 520, B.C. 520 was 
no part of a sabbatic year. But 
if any of the years before it, 
B. C. 7og—708, B. C. 590— 
580, and still more, if any of the 


were sabbatic years, then B.C. 
520—519, must have been so 
too: and these facts are so cer- 
tain, that they may be assumed 
with confidence. We are re- 
duced then to this dilemma; 
either of supposing that no sab- 
batic years were celebrated in 
the time of Haggai and Zecha- 
riah, as they were before and 
after it; or not by the same 
rule in their time, by which they 
had been celebrated before, and 
by which they were celebrated 


u Fasti Hellenici, cap. 5. 247. 


VOL. IV. 


11 


482 Appendix. 


Dissertation Twenty-second. 


B. C. 521, there was an eclipse of the moon, for the 
meridian of Jerusalem, June 24, at 4. 27. in the morn- 


after—or of supposing that the 
second of Darius did not coin- 
cide with B.C. 520, and if so, 
that neither did his first with 
B.C. 521. Which of these suppo- 
sitions in itself is the more pro- 
bable, no one can hesitate to de- 
cide: a supposition too, sup- 
ported by the evidence of the 
oldest of profane historians, and 
next to contemporaries, Haggai 
and Zechariah, the nearest to 
the times in question. 

A document, like the canon of 
Ptolemy, which follows an arti- 
ficial rule in computing the 
lengths of its reigns ; which pays 
no regard to fractions of years as 
such; which refers the begin- 
nings and the ends of reigns to 
the Thoth of a year which was 
perpetually shifting backwards ; 
it might be presumed, a priori, 
would be liable at least to trifling 
errors. The very principle of 
its reckoning supposes that the 
Thoth which it assigns to a par- 
ticular reign is but an approxi- 
mation to the truth ; and that it 
can never be critically exact un- 
less the Thoth of the year of 
Nabonassar, and the day of the 
king’s accession, both fell out to- 
gether. There might, then, upon 
its reckoning, be as much as a 
year’s difference between the no- 
minal Thoth andthetrue: which, 
in cases where strict exactness 
was requisite, would obviously 
be a source of mistake. The 
advocates of the canon may say 
this difference can never exceed 
a year; but a year will often be 
the utmost wanted to reconcile 
things together which would 
otherwise be incongruous—as 


the very subject under discus- 
sion is sufficient to prove. They 
may say also that it is always a 
year at the utmost in excess, and 
never in defect; that a certain 
king’s reign might begin on, or 
after, but never could before, the 
nominal Thoth assigned to it: 
whereas we are supposing the 
true Thoth of a reign to have 
fallen out in B.C. 522, the no- 
minal Thoth of which is placed 
in B.C. 521. It may be said, 
too, that these errors of excess, 
whether greater or less, are all 
admitted by the canon know- 
ingly—whereas an error of de- 
fect, of whatsoever nature, would 
not be admitted except unknow- 
ingly. And is it impossible that 
an involuntary error might be 
committed ? is it impossible that, 
at the distance of time when 
Ptolemy was compilingthe canon, 
the exact day and month, when 
the reign of Cyrus, of Cam- 
byses, or of Darius, actually be- 
gan, might be unknown—and 
not within the power of any sa- 
gacity to determine? Now the 
precise truth, with respect to 
these points, would be necessary, 
in order to the solution of the 
problem whether the ninth Jew- 
ish month, in the second of Da- 
rius, was the ninth Jewish 
month B.C. 520, or not. The 
determination of the year in ge- 
neral, and that of the month, 
and much more of the day in the 
year in particular, when a given 
reign began, would be very dif- 
ferent things; and the former 
might be sufficiently possible 
when the latter would be abso- 
lutely impracticable. The prin- 


Computation of Sabbatic years. 


ing. 


483 


If we reckon back three mean lunations from 


this time, we obtain a mean full moon, March 27, 2.15. 


ciple of the canon itself seems to 
be a tacit admission of this: for 
we cannot suppose it would be- 
gin with referring—and ever 
after continue to refer—its reigns 
toa nominal ἀρχὴ, if it had al- 
ways been possible, especially 
with the most ancient, and con- 
sequently with the first of the 
number, to ascertain the true. 
Now each reign, even the most 
recent, might all be referred to 
a nominal date, though all, and 
particularly the most ancient, 
could not be to their true. 
Hence, if the necessity of the 
case had obliged the canon to 
begin with the use of a nominal 
ἀρχὴ, regard to uniformity merely 
might require it to persevere in 
it afterwards. During so re- 
mote a period as the first two 
or three hundred years of Nabo- 
nassar, it does not seem possible 
for the canon to have been con- 
structed on any other principle ; 
but we find the same rule ap- 
plied to the reigns of the succes- 
sors of Alexander and of Au- 
gustus, the very day of whose 
beginnings, and not merely the 
years, were known, or admitted 
of being determined. It is most 
probable that this was done for 
the sake of uniformity ; that so 
the construction of the canon, 
and the mode of its technical ap- 
plication, might be the same 
from first to last. 

The days of Ptolemy, thne, 
for the most ancient periods of 
the canon, may be after all con- 
jectural ; or only so far certain, 
as to determine the year in 
which such and such a reign 
truly began: but not the pre- 


cise part of it. And with re- 
spect even to this determination, 
it might not always be so exact, 
but that the following case 
might sometimes happen; viz. 
that if the demise of one king 
actually took place towards the 
end of a certain year of Nabo- 
nassar, the Thoth of his suc- 
cessor might still be fixed to the 
beginning of the next. In such 
a case as this, where the end of 
one reign and the beginning of 
another happened as it were be- 
tween two Nabonassarian years, 
Ptolemy might not always know 
where to fix the end of the one, 
and where the beginning of the 
other. Now this is what seems 
to have occurred in the succes- 
sion of Darius and Xerxes. 

For the same reasons, neither 
are the eclipses which Ptolemy 
mentions from time to time, as 
falling cut in such and such 
years of Nabonassar, and such 
and such years of the reigning 
king, any necessary argument 
that he has fixed the beginnings 
of those reigns aright. The 
eclipses might happen in the 
specified years of Nabonassar ; 
but that would be no proof that 
they happened in such and such 
years of the reigns. For Pto- 
lemy himself accommodates these 
years to those; and if he had 
made a mistake in their first ad- 
justment, that mistake would be 
retained in their subsequent syn- 
chronisms: in consequence of 
which an astronomical fact, re- 
ferred to a particular year of 
Nabonassar, might be true of 
that, but not always of the cur- 
rent year of the king, supposed 


112 


484 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-second. 


in the afternoon: and if the next day coincided with 
Nisan 15, then Tisri 15 coincided with September 21, 
Chisleu 24 with November 28, and Elul 24 with Au- 
gust 31. Seed-time was arrived or past Chisleu 24, in 
the second of Darius ; and it might well be so, Novem- 
ber 28, B.C. 521. 

It will follow from this conclusion, that the month 
Adar in the sixth of Darius, when the second temple 
was finished, coincided with Adar, B.C. 516. There 
was an eclipse in that year, on March 3, at 9. 30. in 
the morning; by the help of which it may be proved 
that the Paschal full moon coincided with April 2. If 
so Nisan 15 was April 2; and therefore Adar 3 was 
February 19. Now February 19, B.C. 516, would 
fall on the same day of the week as February 14, B.C. 
16: and February 14, B.C. 16, was Thursday. The 
temple, therefore, was finished on a Thursday. In like 
manner August 31, B. C. 521, fell on the same day of 
the week as August 26, B.C. 21: and that day fell on 
a Tuesday. The temple, therefore, was begun on a 
Tuesday. Chisleu 24, or November 28, the date of the 
prophecy of Haggai, on the same principle was a Sun- 
day*. 


to be coincident with it. Yet the 
lunar eclipse in the 225th /tr. 
Nabon. and the seventh of Cam- 
byses, July 16, B. C. 523, (Ma- 
thematica Compositio, v. 14,) 
would truly happen in the se- 
venth of Cambyses, though we 
dated his first from B.C. 529, 
mediov: and the similar eclipse, 
Air. Nabon. 257, April 25, B.C. 
491, (Ibid. iv. 8,) would truly 
happen in the thirty-first of Da- 
rius, though dated from the au- 
tumnal quarter of B.C. 5229: 


ν Cf. Fasti Hellenici, cap. 18. 313. and Pingré’s Table. 


Analysis, i. 182. 


and even the eclipse, supposed 
to have happened in his twenti- 
eth, November 19, B.C. 502, 
(Ibid. iv. 8,) would be either in 
his twentieth, or at the utmost 
at the very beginning of his 
twenty-first. 

* There is a further argument 
in favour of the hypothesis that 
the beginning of the sabbatic 
cycles, as such, was B.C. 1513, 
and the first sabbatic year was 
B. C. 1507—1506, which, being 
of a more doubtful nature, I 


w Cf. Dr. Hales’ 


Computation of Sabbatic years. 


have not thought proper dis- 
tinctly to adduce ; but which I 
will take the liberty of mention- 
ing here, as there may be per- 
sons with whom even this argu- 
ment will have some weight. 

It is a tradition of the Jew- 
ish rabbis, that the commence- 
ment of the Legal sabbatic cycles 
coincided with the first year of 
a corresponding Mundane cycle, 
as deduced from the creation 
downwards ; that is, that the 
first sabbatic year under the 
Law, and any subsequent one, 
would have been a sabbatic year, 
had such years been observed 
from the time of the creation 
itself. Upon the authority of 
this tradition I do not pretend 
to decide; but it derives some 
countenance from the institution 
of the sabbath, and from the 
doctrine of the sabbatic millen- 
nium. For the observance of a 
seventh year was analogous to 
the observance of a seventh day ; 
and both, it might be expected, 
would proceed alike from the 
beginning of the mundane sys- 
tem: and the duration of the 
world for seven thousand years, 
if any such term is prescribed to 
it, is equivalent to a period of 
one thousand sabbatic cycles. It 


485 


may be proved, however, that 
even upon this principle, B.C. 
1507—1506, would have been 
a sabbatic year. 

The cycle of sabbatic years 
began and ended with the au- 
tumnal equinox: but the world, 
as we have seen to be most pro- 
bable, was brought into being at 
the vernal. It was created, 
therefore, at the middle of some 
year of the cycle; which half 
year, nevertheless, according to 
the well known rule of Jewish 
or scriptural computation, might 
be considered as equivalent to a 
whole year. Hence, if the mun- 
dane system began at the vernal 
equinox, B.C. 4004; the jirst 
year of the first cycle, as such, 
must be supposed to have ex- 
pired at the autumnal, B. C. 
4004, also: and the first seventh 
year, as such, at the autumnal, 
B. C. 3998. Subtract B.C. 
1506, the close of the first Le- 
vitical sabbatic year from B.C. 
3998: and the difference, 2492, 
is an exact multiple of seven. 
For 2492=356 x 7. Hence, had 
B.C. 3999—3998, been the first 
sabbatic year, B. C. 1507— 
1506. would have been the three 
hundred and fifty-seventh. 


line 


APPENDIX. 





DISSERTATION XXIII. 


On the Population of Judea in the Time of our Saviour. 


Vide Dissertation xxiii. vol. 11. page 292. line 23. 


BEFORE we proceed to speak of the population of 
Judzea in the time of our Saviour, it will not be amiss 
to take a survey of the numbers of its inhabitants, at 
different periods of its former history; so far as they 
can be collected from the facts on record in the Old 
Testament. 

The number of grown up male Israelites, who came 
out of Egypt at the Exodus, B. C. 1560, exclusive of 
strangers and Levites, is put in round numbers at 
600,000; and was in reality, 603,550. At the time 
of the second numbering, B.C. 1520, they amounted, 
with the same exception, to 601,730". 

Each of these statements implies a gross total, in 
round numbers, of 2,400,000: to which if we add the 
number of the Levites, female as well as male, from a 
month old and upwards, as it may be collected from 
the data given on the second occasion‘, viz: twice 
23,000 for both in conjunction—the total amount of 
the people of Israel, which took possession of the pro- 
mised land, exclusive only of strangers, was not less 
than 2,446,000. 

At the time of the civil war between the tribe of 
Benjamin and the rest of the tribes, the military popu- 
lation of the eleven tribes was 400,000, and that of the 


a Exod. xii. 37. xxxvili. 26. Numb. i. 46. ii. 32. xi. 21. b Numb. 
XXVi. 51. ¢ Numb. xxvi. 62. Cf. iii. 39. 


Population of Judea in the Time of our Saviour. 487 


tribe of Benjamin was 90,700 ὁ. This was upon an 
average about 36,000 to each of the eleven tribes in 
general; and consequently in proportion to what is 
specified of the tribe of Benjamin in particular. The 
total population of the country being reckoned four 
times the amount of both, was about 1,704,000. 

* In the first year of Saul, B. C. 1094, the military 
population of Israel and Judah was not less than 
330,000°: nor consequently the total population less 
than 1,320,000. 

At the time of the expedition against the Amale- 
kites, Saul’s army amounted to 210,000‘: which, from 
the proportion of the quota of the tribe of Judah on 
this occasion to the quota furnished by it on the for- 
mer one, viz. 10,000 in proportion to 30,000, I should 
infer was a third part of the whole military population 
of the kingdom. The whole population was conse- 
quently twelve times 210,000, or 2,520,000. And that 
this conclusion is not an improbable one, appears from 
the numbers of the military population of certain of 
the tribes, in the first of David, B.C. 1054, immedi- 
ately after the death of Saul; more especially those of 
Ephraim, Manasseh, Zebulun, Dan, Asher, Reuben, 
and Gad δ. 

At the census in the time of David, B.C. 1018, ac- 


* Judges vi. 35. vii.3: inthe lowed Gideon, was 32,000: and 


first year of Gideon, B.C. 1290, 
the military quota from the four 
tribes, Manasseh, Asher, Zebu- 
lun, and Naphtali, all which fol- 


Judges xii. 6, in the first year 
of Jepththah, the numbers who 
perished of the Ephraimites, 
amounted to 42,000. 


ἃ Judges xx. 1. 2. 7. 8—11.17. xxi. 5.8, 9. Xx. 15. 35. 44—47, 48. xxi. 3. 
6. 16, 17. 23. Suidas, voce Σαμψὼν, giving an account (from some lost commen- 
tator, we may presume) of this war, estimates the numbers killed (on both sides, 
as we must suppose) at 87,000; which both the Book of Judges, and the ο΄, and 
Josephus, make in all only 22,000 + 18,000 + 25,100, or 65,100. So some of the 
MSs. of Ambrose read, ii. 136. D. De Officiis Ministrorum, iii. 19. ὃ. 116. 
e 1 Sam. xi. 7, 8. f 1 Sam. xv. 4. g 1 Chron. xii. 23—37. 


114 


488 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-third. 


cording to the numbers in the First of Chronicles, the 
military population of the nation, exclusive of Levi 
and Benjamin, was 1,570,000; which implies a total 
of 6,280,000, without those two tribes: and if they be 
included, at the rate of no more than one tenth of the 
whole'!, the gross amount is increased to 6,900,000, 
and upwards, in all. It appears further from 2 Chron. 
ii. 17, 18, that besides the native population, there 
were 153,600 ablebodied men, strangers or sojourn- 
ers, living in the country at the same time, in the 
reign of David, or directly after it; which implies an 
addition to the sum, total of the inhabitants in the 
reign of David, of 614,000, and upwards: so as to 
make the entire amount 7,514,000, and upwards. 

Out of these numbers, it further appears that 24,000 
served by courses in the reign of David, each for a 
month at a time *; that is, David’s standing army was 
always 24,000, though changed every month. 288,000 
then, came into rotation every year. 

The military population of Judah and Benjamin 
alone, about the first of Rehoboam, B. C. 974, was not 
less than 180,000!. 

Abijah and Jeroboam took the field against each 
other, about B. C. 957, with 400,000+ 800,000, or 
1,200,000 ™; which is not an incredible statement, if 
we suppose that almost all the disposable military: popu- 
lation of either kingdom was called out upon this oc- 
casion. It implies a population of 4,800,000, in all. 


h xxi. 5, 6. Cf. 2 Sam. xxiv. 9. Suidas, voce Δαυὶδ, referring to this census of 
the military population of Judea in the time of David, states the number of 
fighting men at TAP’ μυριάδες, that is, 3,320,000: Cedrenus, at oAB’ μυριάδες, 
2,320,060. Both are, undoubtedly, in excess ; and each is probably a corruption of 
the numbers, 2 Sam. xxiv. 95 1,300,000. i Cf. 1 Chron. xxiii. xxiv. Κι Chron. 
XXVii. 1; Kings xii. 21: 2 Chron. xi. 1. Sulpicius Severus, i. 72. ὃ. 7, if 
there is no error in his text, reads 300,000: and that there is no error in his text, 
as some of his commentators have conjectured, may be inferred from the compa- 
rison of this passage with another, ii. 16. §. 11. where these numbers are put at 
220,000. m 2 Chron. xiii. 3.17. Cf. Suidas, ᾿Αβίας. 


Population of Judea in the Time of our Saviour. 489 


David or Solomon could have raised an army nearly 
double the amount. 

Asa’s standing army, about B.C. 950, consisted of 
300,000 men of Judah, and 280,000 of Benjamin °: 
580,000 in all. The gross population of his kingdom 
was consequently 2,320,000 at least. 

Jehoshaphat’s standing army, early in his reign, 
about B.C. 911, was 300,000 + 280,000 + 200,000, or 
780,000 men of Judah ; 200,000 + 180,000, or 380,000 
men of Benjamin?: 1,160,000 in all: which implies a 
total population of 4,640,000. 

Jehoahaz, the king of Israel, about B.C. 840, had 
a standing army of but 10,0004. 

In the reign of Amaziah, about B.C. 823, the mili- 
tary population of Judah and Benjamin, from 20 years 
old and upwards, was 300,000"; which implies a total 
population of 1,200,000. Uzziah his son, about B. C. 
807, had a standing army of 307,500 + 2,600%: or 
310,000 and upwards: which implies a population of 
more than 1,240,000. 

In the reign of Ahaz, about B.C. 789, Pekah king 
of Israel slew more than 120,000 of the tribe of Judah 
in one day, all of the military age; and made prisoners 
200,000, nen and women, besidest. If we reckon the 
men as such out of both these numbers, at 220,000, it 
will imply a total population of at least 880,000. 

Lastly, Josephus states the numbers who returned 
with Zerubbabel after the captivity", at the prodigious 
multitude of 4,628,000 men and boys from twelve 
years old and upwards; besides 47,042, women and 
children, ἅς. This statement, if there be no corruption 
in his numbers, though undoubtedly erroneous and 


ο 2 Chron. xiv. 8. p 2 Chron. xvii. 14—19. 4 2 Kings xiii. 7. 
r 2 Chron. xxv. 5. s 2 Chron. xxvi. 12, 13. t 2 Chron. xxviii. 6. 8. 
u Ant. Jud. xi. iil. το. 


490 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-third. 


excessive in itself, yet implies that he knew the coun- 
try, repeopled by these settlers, to have been capable 
of containing that number of inhabitants at least. 

Notwithstanding the difference which thus appears 
to have existed in the amount of the population of the 
country at different times; and the suddenness with 
which the numbers of that amount are seen at one 
time to rise and at another to fall; there is nothing 
incredible in the statements themselves, nor any incon- 
sistency between them. One thing is certain; viz. that 
the population of the country increases or decreases in 
proportion to what is recorded in the general history of 
the times, of the obedience or disobedience of the peo- 
ple; and resolving both effects into the controlling 
providence of God, we may still perceive that there is 
a sufficient interval of time in each instance, to account 
for the production of either of these phenomena. The 
amount of the population of all Judea was greatest at 
the close of the reign of David, when it exceeded seven 
millions and an half; and that of the kingdom of 
Judah in particular was at its maximum in the reign 
of Jehoshaphat, when it exceeded 4,600,000. And 
these are precisely the two periods of Jewish history, 
when, on other accounts, we should expect to find the 
subjects either of the kings of Israel, or of the kings of 
Judah, flourishing most as in the enjoyment of: every 
other temporal blessing, so in numbers and popula- 
tion. 

The use, however, which I propose to make of these 
facts, is for the sake of the further question, What was 
the probable amount of the population of Judzea at the 
time of the commencement of our Saviour’s ministry ? 
If it should appear, as the result of our inquiries, that 
it was not less than seven millions, and possibly was 
even more; what has been already established of that 


Population of Judea in the Time of our Saviour. 491 


population in former times, will contribute to render 
this conclusion nothing surprising. Judza, it has been 
already shewn, once contained as many, and even 
more, than these. 

The populousness of Judzea is a circumstance often 
insisted on by profane writers’; and there is little 
doubt that, in proportion to its size, it was the most 
abundant in numbers of any country within the 
Roman dominions. Strabo tells us, that in his time 
the small territory of Jamnea and its suburbs could 
bring into the field an army of 40,000 men: which 
would require a general population of 160,000. Pto- 
lemy Lathurus, in the reign of Alexander Janneus, 
between B.C. 102 and B.C.'75, made 10,000 prisoners 
at Asochis, a city of Galilee*, near Sepphoris. Tari- 
cheeze in Galilee had not fewer than 30.000 inhabit- 
ants, when it was taken by Cassius, about U.C. 7029. 
In the time of Josephus, U.C. 819, the same city 
could supply 40,000 soldiers?, and therefore had a 
general population of at least 160,000. The Jewish 
inhabitants of Czesarea, when destroyed by the Greeks, 
U.C. 819, amounted to more than 20,000: and those 
of Scythopolis to more than 13,000*. Josephus raised 
an army 100,000 strong, U. C. 819, in Galilee alone?; 
and what is more, upwards of 100,000 men assembled 
at Tarichzz in arms, from the neighbourhood, in a 
single night®. In Japha, a city of Galilee, there were 
at least 29,000 inhabitants, U.C. 820¢: and in Jota- 
pata, not less than 41,000 men alone, besides women 
and mere children®; who might be as many more. 

These facts may prepare the way for the better 
reception of the statement of Josephus, concerning the 

v Diodorus Sic, lib. xl. Ecloga 1. Operum x. 215-219. Tacitus, Historie, v. 5. 
w Lib. xvi. 2. δ. 28. 347. X Ant. Jud. xiii. xii. 4. y Ant. Jud. xiv. vii. 3. 


Bell. i. viii. 9. Z Bell. ii. xxi. 4. @ 11. XVill. 1. 3. b ii, xx. 6. ¢ il. 
ΣΙ. 5. 4 dil, Vil. 30 e ili. vii. 36. 


492 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-third. 


population of Galilee in his time. Διακόσιαι καὶ τέσ- 
capes, says Ποῖ, κατὰ τὴν Γαλιλαίαν εἰσὶ πόλεις καὶ κῶμαι: 
not one of which contained fewer than fifteen thousand 
souls; and many of them, especially the cities, as we 
may presume, would contain much more. To assume, 
however, the average population of every town or city 
at 15,000, and to understand the specified number of 
such towns and villages of both the Galilees ; on these 
suppositions the population of all Galilee amounted 
to 3,060,000 souls. 

The whole extent of Palestine from Dan to Beer- 
sheba, that is, from Beersheba to Czsarea Philippi, is 
estimated by Reland* at 156 Roman miles; of which, 
52 miles, or one third, must be assigned to the length 
of Galilee, Upper and Lower, in particular *. And as 
the latitude or breadth of the country (that is, of the 
habitable part of the country, west of the Jordan) was 
sufficiently uniform, if the population of every part 
was on an equal scale, the population of the whole in 
general would be three times the population of a third 
part in particular. On this principle the population of 
Palestine, west of the Jordan, must be estimated at 
9,180,000 souls. In this number, however, the. in- 


* Hieronymus, Operum 1]. 
608. ad calcem. Epistole Criti- 
cx: Respondeant mihi, qui hance 
terram (que nunc nobis Christi 
passione et resurrectione terra 
repromissionis effecta est) posses- 
sam putant a populo Judzorum, 
postquam reversus est ex /E- 
gypto; quantum possederit? uti- 
que a Dan usque Bersabee, quie 
vix centum sexaginta millium in 
longum spatio tenditur .... et 
hoe dico, ut taceam quinque Pa- 
leestine civitates, Gazam, Asca- 
lonem, Geth, Accaron et Azo- 


f Vita, 45. g Bell. iii. iii. 2. 


tum, Idumzos quoque a meridi- 
ana plaga vix septuaginta quin- 
que millibus ab Jerosolyma se- 
paratos, Arabas et Agarenos, 
quos nunc Sarracenos vocant, in 
vicinia urbis Jerusalem. pudet 
dicere latitudinem terre repro- 
missionis, ne ethnicis occasionem 
blasphemandi dedisse videamur. 
ab Joppe usque ad viculum no- 
strum Bethlehem, quadraginta 
sex millia sunt: cui succedit 
vastissima solitudo, plena fero- 
cium barbarorum. 


h Palestina, ii. cap. v. 423. 


Population of Judea in the Time of our Saviour. 493 


habitants of Judea, east of the Jordan, are not in- 
cluded ; and their country, which was once adequate 
to the support of two tribes, and one half, out of the 
twelve, would probably supply a million of souls addi- 
tional. The population of all Palestine, then, both 
west and east of the Jordan, would appear to be, on 
this principle, not less than ten millions of souls. 

If this number should seem to be too considerable, 
in proportion to the extent of the country, we ought 
to remember that it once contained almost as many in 
the reign of David; and had all parts of Palestine 
been peopled in proportion to Judza Proper, in the 
reign of Jehoshaphat, it would have contained even 
more in his time. 

There is an assertion in Dio Cassius‘, that the em- 
peror Hadrian, in his war with the Jews, destroyed 
985 κῶμαι ὀνομαστόταται, besides a certain number of 
strong holds. If the numbers in this passage are not 
corrupt, it implies that the country in the time of Ha- 
drian contained at least 985 κῶμαι or vici, (besides 
which in fact there was scarcely any thing else in 
Judea.) As that is about five times the number of 
κῶμαι OY πόλεις Which Galilee alone contained in the 
time of Josephus; it is manifest that, in order to be 
consistent with the statement of Josephus, we must 
understand the assertion of Dio of an extent of ground 
five times as large as the surface of Galilee; that is, 
of the whole of Palestine, both westward and east- 
ward of the Jordan. In that extent of country per- 
haps 985 κῶμαι or πόλεις might be found : all of which, a 
war like that of Hadrian’s, which devastated the entire 
surface of the land, might have successively taken and 
laid waste. There is reason to believe that all Pa- 
lestine joined in the revolt of the Jews under Bar- 


axa. leds 


404. Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-third. 


chochab, and that all of it, both eastward and westward 
of Jordan, shared in the calamities of the war. 

Assuming, then, the correctness of this statement of 
Dio, as well as of that of Josephus, before cited, we 
might argue as follows. If all Palestine, in the reign 
of Hadrian, contained 985 κῶμαι or πόλεις, it could not 
have contained fewer in the time of our Saviour: if 
every city or village of Galilee in particular, in the 
time of our Saviour, contained upon an average 15,000 
inhabitants—every city or village of the country in 
general may -be computed to have contained on an 
average 10,000 at least. On this supposition also the 
entire population of Palestine must be estimated at 
nearly ten millions. 

We are not to suppose, however, that all these were 
Jews. The inhabitants of Samaria would be one third 
of the population of Palestine, west of the Jordan ; and 
these must be excepted from the number. If we com- 
pute them at two or three millions, it leaves seven or 
eight millions for the number of the native Jews, west 
and east of the Jordan: and if we subtract one million 
more for the inhabitants of the parts beyond the Jor- 
dan, it leaves six or seven millions for the native po- 
pulation of the country west of the Jordan. And this 
conclusion may be further confirmed by the following 
argument. 

From the number of victims computed to have been 
sacrificed at the passover, U. C. 819, Josephus * esti- 
mates the numbers who attended on that occasion at 
2,700,000. As the average, on which the computation 
is founded, is confessedly a very low one, allowing 
only ten persons to every victim, instead of fifteen, 
(the proper average between ten, the number which 
constituted the least single, paschal company, and 


k Bell. vi. ix. 3. 


Population of Judea in the Time of our Saviour. 495 


twenty, which constituted the greatest,) it is evident 
that we may consider it to represent no more than 
that part of the native population, which ordinarily 
attended the passovers; without taking into account 
the strangers, or Jews of the Dispersion, who likewise 
repaired to Jerusalem for the same purpose. Now 
these would be the male adults, from twenty years 
old and upwards: and properly speaking none but 
they. They are called, accordingly, by Josephus, the 
men as such. Their numbers then, U.C. 819, being 
2,700,000, the gross native population of all Judea, 
at the same time, was about 8,100,000. Even after 
the passover, in question, when Cestius Gallus the 
president of Syria, was in Jerusalem, the δῆμος or 
people are said to have flocked about him to the num- 
ber of three hundred myriads, or three millions!, to 
make their complaints against Florus: which also is 
an argument that the computation above given is to 
be understood of the natives who attended, but of none 
else. 

The same passage of the war™ estimates the num- 
bers which perished in the siege of Jerusalem, or were 
made prisoners afterwards, at 1,197,000: in which 
would be included both the ordinary population of the 
city, and the numbers who happened to be there as- 
sembled, against the feast of the passover, when the 
siege began. Of its ordinary population something 
will be said by and by: but with respect to any,ad- 
ditions made to it at this juncture by the resort of 
strangers to the feast, it is probable that during the 
war there would be no Jews of the Dispersion present 
at any of the feasts; for, independent of the risk 
which they themselves must have run in coming at 
such a time, it is clear that the Roman government, 


1 Bell. ii. xiv. 3, 4. m Bell. vi. ix. 3. 


496 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-third. 


out of whose dominions, or through whose dominions, 
they must all have passed to arrive in Juda, would not, 
if possible, permit it. In the fifth year of the war too, 
after Galilee had been reduced, and nothing but Jeru- 
salem and Judza Proper itself remained to oppose the 
Romans; it is not likely that any strangers would re- 
sort to Jerusalem at the intervening passover, except 
the native Jews more immediately from its vicinity. 
The numbers then who appear to have been assembled 
at the last passover, are no just criterion of the num- 
bers who attended the passover in general; nor per- 
haps of the population of any part of the country but 
Judzea Proper. And if we suppose that one third of its 
entire population was collected in the metropolis on this 
occasion; as that appears to have been little short of a 
million two hundred thousand, the entire population 
could not be much less than three or four millions *. 
With regard to the probable amount of the popula- 
tion of Jerusalem, Manetho, we may observe, in his 
account of the expulsion of the Hycsos from Egypt, 
tells us they settled in Jerusalem, a city built by them 
on purpose, and large enough to contain their num- 
bers, which he represents at 240,000". It must be 
implied by this statement, that Jerusalem, in the opin- 
ion of Manetho, or such as it was in his time, was 
adequate to contain this number of inhabitants. Ma- 


* Julius Pollux, Chronicon, 
p- 198, observes, that the numbers 
who perished at the siege of Je- 
rusalem, U.C. 823. were com- 
puted by some at τριακόσιοι μυ- 
ριάδες, or three millions. He 
does not mention his authori- 
ties, nor whether they took 
this statement from Josephus, 
or drew the conclusion from 


n Josephus, Contra Apionem, i. 14. 
13. 501. C. D. 


data furnished by him ; which, 
however, might be the case. 
This computation of the num- 
bers who perished in the siege 
alone is certainly overstated ; 
but it proves that in the opinion 
of the writers, here referred to, 
the entire population, if assem- 
bled on the spot, could not have 
been less than three millions. 


Cf. Eusebius, Evangelica Preeparatio, x. 


Population of Judea in the Time of our Saviour, 497 


netho’s age was the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, 
B.C. 284. . 

In the time of Hecatzus the Abderite, Olymp. 117, 
B. C. 312, or earlier, Jerusalem was supposed to con- 
tain 120,000 inhabitants®. The same writer esti- 
mated the number of priests at 1,500. The priests, 
according to Josephus, were divided into four φυλαὶ, 
each of which, in his time, had contained, or did con- 
tain, more than 5000 persons P. Perhaps Hecatzeus is 
to be understood of one only of these φυλαί. Even in 
that case, if the particular order of priests had multi- 
plied from his time to that of Josephus, nearly four- 
fold, the general population of Jerusalem, and of all 
the country, might have done the same. 

According to the second of Maccabees‘, Jerusalem 
in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes did not contain 
less than 160,000 inhabitants. Suidas", in an extract 
given anonymously, puts the numbers, slain by him 
there, even at 180,000. 

By Tacitus’ the number of the besieged in Jerusa- 
lem, U. C. 823, including persons of all ages, male 
and female, is estimated at 600,000; where some ma- 
nuscripts indeed read 200,000. ‘Tacitus appears to 
intend this statement of the total population of the 
city; but Orosius, quoting from him and Suetonius, 
makes it the number of the slain. The number of the 
inhabitants, and that of the slain, however, would be 
pretty much the same thing in this instance ; as almost 
all the former are known to have perished in the siege. 
Six hundred thousand dead bodies, of the poor and 
destitute exclusively, Josephus tells us, were carried 
out of the different gates of the city: and these had 


perished of the famine alone ‘. 


o Josephus, Contra Apionem, i. 22.1188. Ρ Ibid. ii. 8.1245. 4 v. 14. Cf. 
Theodorit, ii. 1280. in Dan.xi. 232. T Αντίοχος. Cf. Βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως. 5 Hi- 
storiz, v. 13. Cf. Orosius, vii.g. Prosper, Chronicon, p. 705. t De Bello, ν. xiii. 7. 


VOL. TV. Kk 


498 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-third. 


If we revert to the estimates of the magnitude of 
Jerusalem, cited in Dissertation Forty-third, vol. iil. 
p. 284, 285, we shall find it variously represented 
at twenty-seven, thirty-three, forty, fifty, and sixty 
stades respectively. Among these numbers, it has been 
already shewn, in the note to the Dissertation above 
referred to, that the actual extent of the third or out- 
ermost wall of the city, inclusive of the Bezetha or 
Czenopolis, was probably 45 stades. The magni- 
tude of the new Jerusalem, described by Ezekiel, 
xlviii. 35. 16, was 18,000 measures; which, if under- 
stood of cubits, would be equivalent to about 45 
stades": if of reeds of six cubits each, (see Ezekiel x1. 
5.) would be six times as much. The outermost wall 
of all, which appears to have been 45 stadia in circuit, 
10 would seem from the account of Josephus did not 
go round the city, but embraced at the utmost only 
three sides of it; on the west, north, and east, as far 
as the brook of Cedron*. 

Now it is nothing improbable that the Bezetha in 
the course of time might come to be as large as one 
fourth of the city; so as to make the extent of a wall, 
which should encompass them both, between fifty and 
sixty stades in circuit’. Strabo’s statement, then, 
though manifestly only a conjectural one, that the 
magnitude of Jerusalem was sixty stades, may be very 
near the truth. On this principle, the size of Jeru- 
salem was probably one half the size of Alexandria in 
Egypt; and one fourth less than that of Antioch in 
Syria. The population of Jerusalem was perhaps in 

u Cf. Eusebius, Evangelica Preparatio, ix. 35. 452. B—C. x De Bello, 
v. iv. τ, &c. Cf. v. iv. 2. and v. xii. 2. y Cf. De Bello, v. ii. 3. It appears 
to me, indeed, that the extent of the Bezetha was as near as possible the differ- 
ence between 33, the extent of the old wall, and 45, that of the third; or twelve 
stadia: and that the entire circuit of the city, independent of Bezetha, was not 


less than 39 stades, the extent of the wall of circumvallation drawn round it by 
Titus. 5 


Population of Judea in the Time of our Saviour. 499 


the same proportion to that of those two cities; one of 
which we have shewn to be about 800,000, and the 
other about 600,000. The population of Jerusalem 
was therefore about 450,000: and if it was as great 
and populous as Mazaca, or Cxsarea, in Cappadocia *, 
which I think may very fairly be supposed, the popu- 
lation of that city when sacked by the Persians, in the 
reign of Valerian, about A. D. 260, is represented at 
400,000 2. 

Our admiration of the populousness of Palestine, at 
this period of its history, will be increased by a com- 
parison of the number of its inhabitants, with the 
amount of the population of Egypt at the same time. 
It will be found that though greatly disproportionate 
to Egypt in point of size, it was nearly equal to it in 
the numbers of its population. 

We are told of the city of Thebes in Egypt, that it 
once contained 7,000,000 of inhabitants: with a peri- 
meter of 400 stades, 13,030 κῶμαι, and 3,700 arurze of 
territory, round about it?. This statement, even if 
true, is doubtless to be understood of the population of 
the Thebaid ; at that time perhaps the whole of Kgypt. 
The Egyptian priests informed Germanicus Cesar?, 
U.C. 772, that 700,000 men once marched out from 
its gates under their king Rhamses. But even this 
implies but a gross population of 2,800,000 inhabit- 
ants. In the time of Strabo, Thebes had a perimeter 
only of 80 stades; and Diodorus speaks of its original 
one, as but 140 stades*. Cambyses and Ptolemy La- 

* Or even as Milan in Italy; of Justinian, was not less than 
the population of which, when 600,000, men and women, inclu- 


taken and destroyed by the sive: so Procopius, De Bello 
Goths, A. D. 540, in the reign Gotthico, ii. 21. 234. 1. 6-10. 


z Zonaras, xii. 23. i. 630. C. a Stephanus De Urbibus, Διὸς πόλις. Eu- 
stathius, ad Dionysium Periegetem, 248. b Tacitus, Annales, ii. 6o. 
¢ Strabo, xvii. 1. ὁ. 46. 598. Diodorus, i. 45. 


Kk Q 


500 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-third. 


thurus are said successively to have ruined, and laid 
it waste*. 

In Herodotus’ time, the two military castes of 
Egypt, the Hermotybi and Calasiries, could supply 
together 410,000 soldiers’. This implies a total of 
1,640,000. And as these two castes occupied 16 out 
of the 36 nomi of Egypt®, the entire population of the 
country, at the same time, was perhaps only about 
twice their amount, 3,280,000. 

The same writer informs us that the total number 
of men and women who met at Bubastis in his time, 
to celebrate the feast of Diana, was 700,000. If we 
understand him to mean that this was the amount of 
the male and adult population of Egypt, in his time, it 
will nearly agree with the preceding conclusion; for then 
the gross population may be computed at 2,800,000. 
But if it includes the female adults as well as the male, 
then even the former conclusion is too much in excess; 
and the sum of the gross population cannot be esti- 
mated at more than twice 700,000; that is, than 
1,400,000 +. 

In this case, it is scarcely to be believed, as Herodo- 
tus further asserts *, that Egypt, in the time of Ama- 
sis, contained 20,000 cities: or these cities could be 


* Ammianus Marcellinus, 
xvii. 4, adds, the Carthaginians, 
and the first Roman procurator 
of Egypt, Cornelius Gallus: to 
the treatment of Thebes by 
whom in particular he attri- 
butes Augustus’ displeasure with 
Gallus. The fact in question is 
noticed by Eusebius, Chronicon 
Armeno-Latinum, Pars 118, 257. 
Ad annum Abrahami 1992, and 
by Jerome, in Chronico, p. 154. 


a Lib. ii. 165, 166. 


e Cf. Strabo, xvii. 1. §. 3. 477, 478. 


Adannum Abrahami 1989, (both 
answering to U.C. 727,) just 
before the account of the death 
of Gallus, under the next year. 
/Elian, De Natura Animalium, 
xi. 27, seems to refer to the 
same event. 

+ Herodotus, however, does 
not necessarily mean all the 
adult population of Egypt of 
both sexes; though he may the 
greater part of it. 


f ii. 60. 


& ii. 177. Cf. Pliny, H. N. v. 11. also Pomponius Mela. i. 9. 


Population of Judea in the Time of our Saviour. 501 


little more than κῶμαι, and those too only very thinly 
peopled. That mere villages were frequently in the 
description of countries confounded with cities, we may 
see from Strabo’s observations on the number of cities 
said to be contained in Spain °. 

Theocritus has a remarkable passage, in which he 
reckons the dominions of Ptolemy Philadelphus to 
contain the exact number of 33,339 cities‘. But it is 
very evident that he includes much more within the 
compass of his dominions, than Egypt merely ; for he 
proceeds to enumerate Phoenicia, Arabia, Syria, Libya, 
/Mthiopia, Pamphylia, Cilicia, Lycia, Caria, the Cy- 
clades, &c. as either wholly or in part subject to him. 

Perhaps Diodorus had this statement in view, when 
he asserted that Egypt contained 30,000 cities in the 
reign of Ptolemy Soter; and the assertion of Hero- 
dotus before his eye, when he mentioned that at a 
former period of its history also it had contained 
18,000*. When he added, however, that even in its 
most flourishing period, the reign of Ptolemy Soter 
itself, the number of its inhabitants was but 7,000,000, 
he gave us sufficiently to understand, that these cities, 
if they actually existed, could not have contained 240 
inhabitants apiece. 

This statement of the gross population of Egypt, 
understood of the time of Ptolemy Soter, is probably 
not incorrect. If it contained, in the time of Herodo- 
tus, about three millions of inhabitants, it might con- 
tain, in the reign of Ptolemy Soter, about 150 years 
afterwards, rather more than twice the same number. 
The intervening period upon the whole was favourable 
to the growth of population; Egypt, for any thing we 
know to the contrary, not only having shaken off the 


h Lib. iii. 2. 376. 3. 412. 4. 435. Cf. Eustathius, ad Dionysium, 281: Pliny, 
H. N. iii. 4. vii. 27. i Idyllia, xvii. 77—85. k Lib. i, 31. 


Kk 3 


502 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-third. 


Persian yoke, but continued in the enjoyment of al- 
most uninterrupted peace and tranquillity, until the 
reign of Artaxerxes Ochus, by whom it was again in- 
vaded and subdued B. C. 3501. 

Notwithstanding, however, its populousness at this 
period of its history, it was again so much decayed in 
the time of Diodorus, who visited the country in the 
reign of Ptolemy Auletes, about ΟἹ. 180, B.C. 60, as 
to contain no more than three millions of inhabit- 


ants™ *'; 


* It is to be observed, that 
some of the editions of Diodo- 
rus omit the word τριακοσίων in 
these instances; so as to make 
the passage imply that the popu- 
lation of Egypt in Diodorus’ time 
was still as much 7,000,000, as 
it ever was. The propriety of 
this omission, on critical grounds, 
I fear, cannot be defended. For 
τριακοσίων is the Vulgate read- 
ing, and therefore the best sup- 
ported by MSS: that is, all 
the MSS. of Diodorus have 
the reading in question, with 
the exception of one—in which 
it is omitted. Now it is quite 
conceivable that though rpzaxo- 
σίων originally might have made 
part of the text, yet taken 
along with the context, and as 
opposed to ἑπτακοσίας just before 
mentioned, it would be found, 
in the course of time, in some 
instance or other to be omitted : 
but if it never made a part of 
the text at first, it is almost im- 
possible to say how it came to 
be introduced into it afterwards. 
There might be a disposition in 
copyists, under the circum- 
stances of the case, to omit the 
τριακοσίων, or to suspect the ge- 
nuineness of that reading ; but 


! Diodorus Sic, xvi. 46—5 1. 


that is to say, the rate of its population in the 


there could be none, under the 
same circumstances, to introduce 
it from another quarter; for 
that would be to create the 
very difficulty, which they would 
naturally be anxious to remove. 
For, what is the ground on 
which Wesseling and _ others 
would reject the τριακοσίων from 
the text? Is it not simply, be- 
cause they consider it incre- 
dible that if the population of 
Egypt was anciently 7,000,000, 
it could have been reduced to 
3,000,000, in Diodorus’ time ? 
and would not this difficulty oc- 
cur as naturally to readers or 
copyists of his history in former 
times, as to its editors in mo- 
dern? And if so, though there 
might be a constant tendency to 
omit the τριακοσίων, even though 
the author had left it in the 
text—there could be none to in- 
troduce it without warrant from 
him. 

Besides, the context of the 
passage appears very plainly to 
me to intimate, that Diodorus 
was contrasting the ancient state 
of Egypt with its condition in 
his own time-—both as referred 
to the state and condition of 
other countries anciently and 


m Lib. i, 31. 


Population of Judea in the Time of our Saviour. 503 


time of Diodorus was about the same with that in the 
time of Herodotus; though at the intermediate period 
of the reign of Ptolemy Soter, a greater distance from 
the time of Diodorus than from that of Herodotus, its 
numbers were more than double the rate of its popula- 
tion at either. That this change of circumstances was 
not peculiar to Egypt, but one which had affected most 
parts of the known world besides, might be shewn from 
the testimony of Diodorus himself. 'The decay of a given 
population, under the operation of causes calculated to 
produce such an effect, may be as rapid, as its increase 
under the action of causes of a different kind: and 
were it necessary here to enumerate them, many pro- 
bable reasons might be assigned for the fact of a gra- 
dual diminution in the numbers of the inhabitants of 
Egypt, between the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, the 
second of the Grecian princes who reigned there, and 
that of Diodorus. 

After the reduction of Egypt, however, U.C. 724, 
B. C. 30, from which time it became subject to the go- 
vernment of Roman procurators, down to U. C. 819, a 
period of 95 years, the whole Roman empire enjoyed a 
profound tranquillity, and no part of it more than 
Egypt. The long reign of Augustus in particular 


still, in other respects, and espe- 
cially in point of population and 
the number of cities which they 
possessed ; and the point of the 
contrast consisted in this, that 
anciently Egypt excelled all 
other countries in these respects 
—and even in Diodorus’ time it 
was inferior to none of its 
contemporaries in the same— 
though not so considerable then, 
as it once had been. This, I say, 
is the drift of Diodorus obser- 
vations in the present instance. 
So far from asserting the con- 


tinued populousness of Egypt— 
from the earliest times to his 
own—he implies quite the re- 
verse ; that between those times 
and his own the population of 
Egypt had gone back, with this 
difference only—relatively to 
other countries—that Egypt was 
not the only country which had 
decayed in comparison of what 
it once had been ; and, however 
much Egypt might have gone 
back, compared with its former 
self, other countries had gone 
back still more. 


K k 4 


504 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-third. 


was one of uninterrupted prosperity to that province 
of the empire; and none accordingly flourished more 
than Egypt", under the successive administration of a 
series of moderate and prudent prefects, as those of 
Augustus, appointed to Egypt in particular, appear to 
have been. The population of a country, naturally 
fertile and abundant in every thing that could facili- 
tate the support of a family, and contribute to the mul- 
tiplication of the human species, could not fail to in- 
crease rapidly under such circumstances. We know 
from various. authorities that the proportion of births 
was no where so great as in Egypt. Columella men- 
tions that the production of twins was almost of re- 
gular occurrence there and in Africa®; and Aristotle 
and Trogus tell us that even seven children had been 
known to be born at a time in Egypt? *. The practice 
of exposing their new-born children, as Strabo informs 
us 1, was unknown to the Egyptians ; who were in the 
habit of rearing all the children they might have, how 
many soever they were: and no doubt the non-exist- 
ence of this unnatural and inhuman custom among the 
Egyptians, would conduce as much to the increase 
of their population in particular, as its prevalence 
among the Greeks and Romans, to an extent of which 
we are perhaps incapable at present of forming even 
an adequate idea, must have contributed to the depo- 


* Cf. Elian, De Natura Ani- 
malium, iii. 33: who speaks of 
the fecundity of the goat or 


most populous parts of the em- 
pire were notoriously Egypt, 
Africa, and the East, properly 


sheep in Egypt, in the same 
terms, and from the same cause. 

In Ambrose’s time, the last 
half of the fourth century, the 


n Cf. Strabo, xvii. 1. ὃ. 13. 522. 


ο jii. 8. Cf. Herodian, vii. 10. 


so called: as appears from his 
remarks, De Virginitate, cap. vii. 
§. 36. Operum ii. 222. D. E. 


P Aristotle, 


De Animalibus, viii. 5. δ. τ. Cf. Pliny, H .N. vii. 3. Strabo, xv. 1. ὃ. 22. 46. So- 
linus, Polyhistor, i. §. 51. Also, Aristotle, De Animalibus, viii. 4. §.5. Eustathius, 


ad Dionysium Periegetem, 221. 


q Lib. xvii. 2. ὃ. 5. 633. 


Population of Judea in the Time of our Saviour. 505 


pulation of Greece and Italy, and of many other parts 
of the empire. 

It appears accordingly from the speech of Agrippa 
the younger, U. C. 819, as reported by Josephus, that 
the population of Egypt in his time amounted to 
7,500,000, exclusive of the inhabitants of Alexan- 
dria’; the number of which, as we have seen from 
Diodorus, understood of its free population, was about 
300,000. Diodorus shewed that avaypapat, or mus- 
ter-rolls, of the citizens of Alexandria were kept 
in his time; and Agrippa, in the above-mentioned 
speech, calculates the gross amount of the population 
in question from the tribute or poll-tax, levied by the 
Roman government upon all the inhabitants of Egypt, 
καθ᾽ ἑκάστην κεφαλήν. The amount of this tax is of no 
importance to our argument; though from an incident 
recorded of the reign of Vespasian’, it seems to have 
been six oboli, one drachma or denarius, upon each per- 
son. We may infer also, from what Appian relates of 
the poll-tax imposed by the Romans on the allies of 
the Carthaginians, after the capture of the city, B.C. 
146 ', that it was or might be levied on the women, as 
well as the men. If such was the case in Egypt at 
this time, the men and women being to be reckon- 
ed at 7,500,000, exclusive of Alexandria, the gross 
population, including all under the age of twenty, 
might be one half more, about 11,000,000, exclusive of 
Alexandria. The slave population of the country, 
exclusive of Alexandria, was perhaps one third more, 
so as, inclusive of Alexandria, to make the sum total 
upwards of 15,600,000. 

The Jews who were settled in Egypt in the reign of 
Ptolemy Philadelphus, according to the Pseudo-Ari- 


© De Bello, ii. xvi. 4. 482. 5. Dio, Ixvi. 8. t De Rebus Punicis, viii. 
135. Cf. De Rebus Syriacis, 50. 


506 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-third. 


steas amounted to 120,000. By the time of Philo Ju- 
dzeus, whose work De Legatione was written in the 
reign of Claudius, they amounted throughout Egypt, 
Libya, Cyrenaica, &c. to about one million. In Ale- 
xandria, more particularly, we have seen that their 
numbers were about two fifths of the population of the 
city; but this is manifestly no criterion of the propor- 
tion of their numbers to that of the sum total of the 
population of Egypt. U.C. 868 or 869, in the reign 
of Trajan, they were sufficiently numerous to destroy 
at once, in Cyrene of Libya, and in the neighbourhood, 
220,000 Greeks and Romans", besides those who pe- 
rished in Egypt. 

Agrippa, in his speech above cited, tells the Jews of 
Jerusalem that Egypt paid more tribute to the Roman 
government in one month, than they did in a year. 
The tribute of which he speaks was probably the poll- 
tax; which the incident in the Gospels relating to the 
tribute money, implies to have been the denarius or 
drachma in Judza as well as in Egypt. Perhaps we 
may infer from this statement that the population of 
Egypt was more than twelve times that of Jerusalem: 
an assertion, which would still be true, though Jerusa- 
lem had contained as many as 600,000 inhabitants, 
and Egypt not more than 7,500,000: much more if 
Jerusalem contained about 450,000, and Egypt as 
many as 11,000,000, two thirds of them liable to the 
tax in question. 

To revert, however, from this digression, to our ori- 
ginal subject. If Galilee contained, within its limited 
extent, 204 towns, and more than three millions of souls, 
almost half the population of Judzea; we need no other 
answer than the statement of this fact, to a question 
which may probably often have occurred to reflecting 


u Dio, Ixviii, 32. 


Population of Judea in the Time of our Saviour. 507 


minds—Why the ministry of our Lord, for by far the 
greater part of its duration, was exclusively confined 
to that country? There might be many sufficient rea- 
sons why it should not be permanently discharged in 
Judea Proper; and if any part must be fixed upon, 
distinct from that, what could be fitter than Galilee ? 
What scene could be more favourable for the spiritual 
harvest, on which, at the commencement of his min- 
istry, he was preparing to enter? or what tract of 
country in the Roman empire, at the same juncture 
of time, can be shewn to have been, in proportion to 
its extent, so thickly peopled? Where, in short, 
could our Lord’s ministry both have been fixed and 
discharged, so as to be fixed and discharged among 
his brethren, according to the flesh, and so as to 
dispense its benefits among them on the widest pos- 
sible scale—with more propriety than here ?>—where 
not much less than half the population of the country, 
in general, was ready assembled within a third of the 
territory, in particular. 


APPENDIX. 





DISSERTATION XXIV. 
On the Computation of Roman Hours. 
Vide Dissertation xlii. vol. i. 283. line 7. 


I HAVE had frequent occasion, in different parts of 
my former Dissertations, to allude to the divisions of a 
Roman day: and I have uniformly proceeded on the 
supposition that the computation of its hours, at every 
period in the year, began precisely at sunrise, and 
ended precisely at sunset. 

The learned and excellent Dr. Townson in his Ob- 
servations on the Four Gospels devotes a chapter * to 
the discussion of this question; the result of which, if 
I have collected his meaning rightly, is the conclusion 
that, at the equinoctial points of the year, the first 
hour of a Roman day coincided with seven in the 
morning according to our reckoning, and the twelfth 
with six in the evening. Dr. Townson, indeed, does not 
further say distinctly that he supposed the first hour to 
begin to be current at seven, A. M. and the twelfth at 
six, P.M.: yet he seems to imply it by the scheme of 
coincidence which he has proposed, between the Ro- 
man and the modern computation of time, at the 
points of the year in question. I hope, then, I shall 
not be considered as doing injustice to his memory, if 
I suppose this to have been his opinion, and in what I 
am about to say, if I reason against it accordingly. 

The investigation of Roman hours being altogether 
intended for the illustration of the mode of reckoning 


a Dissertation viii. Part ii. 


Computation of Roman Hours. 509 


the parts of a day, which we find to be observed in the 
Gospels; it is singular that Dr. Townson, who justly 
contends that the Roman divisions of the day were 
now current among the Jews, should not have per- 
ceived in this fact the strongest of all presumptive 
proofs that a Roman day began with sunrise, and 
ended with sunset. A Jewish νυχθήμερον, or evening 
and morning, began and ended at sunset; the point of 
sunrise being the intermediate boundary between them. 
The sabbath in particular was, by the appointment of 
the Law, to be always reckoned from evening to even- 
ing: and that this was the mode of reckoning it in 
the time of our Saviour, appears from Josephus, De 
Bello, iv. ix. 12: where it is said that a priest was 
wont to be stationed upon the Pastophoria of the tem- 
ple, on purpose to announce, by the sound of a trumpet, 
both the coming in and the going out of the sabbath, 
in the evening of the day. It is not indeed said that this 
trumpet was sounded exactly at sunset ; but it is im- 
plied that the priest was stationed on the Pastophoria 
in particular, which looked westward, that he might be 
the better able to watch and to notify the moment of 
the sun’s disappearing. On this principle, the twelfth 
or last hour of the sixth day of the week, among the 
Jews at least, must always have ended, and never 
have begun, with sunset. 

John xi. 9, 10: our Lord says to his disciples, Are 
there not ¢welve hours in the day? If any man walk in 
the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the Hight of 
this world. But if a man walk in the night, he 
stumbleth, because there is no ght in him, (or rather, 
in zf, that is, the world.) These words imply that, 
among the Jews, at this time not only both the day as 
such, and the night as such, consisted of twelve hours 
each ; but also that the twelve hours of the day ended, 


510 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-fourth. 


and the twelve hours of the night began, at the precise 
time when the “ight of the world disappeared; which 
in its proper and primary sense in this passage, is most 
reasonably to be understood of the sun. 

Mark xiii. 35, a text which we have before alluded 
to, is a docus classicus in illustration of the divisions 
of the night. It mentions ὀψὲ, μεσονυκτίου, ἀλεκτορο- 
φωνίας, and πρωΐ, all as certain periods or points of 
time, at any of which, an event which must happen 
sometime in the night, might possibly. take place: as 
early in the night as ὀψὲ, and yet as late in the same 
as πρωΐ. This is sufficient to imply that it could scarcely 
be considered to be night, before the period denoted 
by ὀψέ; and that it must cease to be so after πρωΐ. 

It is also implied that the points of time, respectively 
denoted by each of these periods, are to be supposed at 
equal distances from one another ; in which case the di- 
visions themselves, of which they denoted the close, 
would correspond to the,fows watches of the night; the 
fourth or last of which, as currently spoken of among 
the Jews of this time*, we find mentioned by name, 
Matt. xiv. 25: Mark vi. 48. These watches of the night 
embraced each the period of three hours: and as the se- 


* The proper name for this question. Besides, there is a 


watch was the morning watch ; 
under which name mention of it 
occurs as early as the time of 
the Exodus, xiv. 24. Dr. Town- 
son is of opinion that the Greeks 
had only three night watches: 
but as the Romans had certain- 
ly four, from whose usage, and 
not from the Grecian, the Jews 
were most likely to have bor- 
rowed a similar division of noc- 
turnal time—even if they had not 
had it among them from time 
immemorial—this does not af- 
fect the decision of the present 


passage at the beginning of the 
Rhesus of Euripides, which im- 
plies that in the time of the Tro- 
jan war, or of Euripides, or both, 
the Greeks themselves made a 
fourfold division of the watches 
of the night. Βᾶθι πρὸς εὐνὰς ras 
‘Exropéous | τὶς ὑπασπιστῶν ἄγρυ- 
πνος βασιλέως, | εἰ τευγοφόρων δέ- 
ξαιτο νέων κληδόνα μύθων, | οἱ τε- 
τράμοιρον νυκτὸς φρουρὰν | πάσης 
στρατιᾶς προκάθηνται. Cf. Suidas, 
in the Gloss upon Exodus xii. 
42. Προφυλακὴ τῷ Κυρίῳ : also, in 
Φυλακή. 


Computation of Roman Hours. 511 


cond of the number, expiring with the close of the 
sixth hour of the night, coincided with the point of 
midnight ; it follows that μεσονυκτίου, in the above enu- 
meration of the parts of the night, corresponds to the 
close of the second watch of the night: on which prin- 
ciple ὀψὲ would answer to the close of the first ; ἀλεκτο- 
ροφωνίας to the close of the third; and therefore πρωὶ 
to the close of the fourth*. The first of these deno- 
minations, then, expresses the close of the third hour of 
the night; the second, that of the sixth; the third, 
that of the ninth ; the fourth, that of the twelfth. It 
follows consequently that πρωΐ, the last denomination 
in question, was the exact point of time when the 
night as such ended, and the day as such began: that 
is, it was the intermediate point between the twelfth 
hour of the one and the first hour of the other 7. 

Dr. Townson, if I have not mistaken him, does not 
sufficiently distinguish between πρωΐ and zpwia. He 
gives the name of zpwi to a period which expired, as 
he supposes, with sunrise; and therefore was the 
same with zpwia. Now the proper meaning of πρωὶ 
is not to express a duration or period, but an instant, 
or determinate point of time; which I believe was al- 
ways the moment of sunrise 1. Ilpwi at one end of the 


* The commentator quoted by 
Suidas, Πρωΐ, observes: Πρωΐ δέ 
ἐστι πᾶν τὸ διάστημα, τὸ μετὰ τὴν 
ἀλεκτοροφωνίαν. 

+ Artemidorus, Oneirocritica, 
i. 8: μὴ δεῖν (μηδὲν) διαφέρειν vo- 
μίζοντας εἰς πρόγνωσιν τὴν νύκτα τῆς 
ἡμέρας, μητε(μηδὲ)τὴν δείλην ἑσπέρας 
τῆς δείλης πρωΐας. Here we have 
a double δείλη recognised, in the 
sense of dusk or dawn, twilight 
or crepusculum, the one as much 
before sunrise, as the other after 
sunset. In like manner, Ara- 
tus, Diosemeia, 14: οἵτ᾽ ὠκεανοῦ 


ἀρύονται | ἀστέρες ἀμφιλύκης, οἵτε 
πρώτης ἔτι νυκτός |: we per- 
ceive that ἀμφιλύκη (viz. dawn) 
at one end of the day, answers 
to πρώτης ἔτι νυκτὸς, or dusk, at 
the other: in either case, the 
same period of twilight, or im- 
perfect light, being denoted by 
the interval in question. 

t Julius Pollux, Onomasti- 
con, lib. i. cap. 7. sect. 7, makes 
πρωὶ Synonymous with περὶ ἡλίου 
ἐπιτολὰς, OY ἡλίου ἀνίσχοντος. Cf. 
the Hieroglyphica of Horapollo, 
lib. i. cap. 10. p. 16: ὑπεκτείνονται 


512 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-fourth. 


day is properly opposed to ὀψὲ at the other; and πρωΐα 
(sc. ὥρα) to ὀψία (sc. dpa): πρωΐα Ἔ being the interval 
between daybreak and sunrise; ὀψία that between 
sunset and the fall of night. 

Dr. Townson argues from Matt. xx. 9—12, in the 
parable of the labourers, that the eleventh hour in a 
Jewish day was an hour before sunset. If this means 
that it began an hour before sunset, the parable 
does not authorize such an inference. The Homily 
upon this parable, ascribed to Chrysostom ἃ, will satisfy 
any one, who will take the trouble to peruse it, that 
at Antioch the eleventh hour was considered to end, 
and not to begin, an hour before sunset: and the pa- 
rable itself supposes the day as such to expire with the 
heat and the burden thereof; the former of which is 
most naturally understood of the moment of sunset, 
the latter of the close of the twelfth hour. 

Aulus Gellius (lib. xvii. 2.) has preserved a fragment 
of one of the laws of the twelve tables; Sol occasus su- 
prema tempestas esto}. The words are borrowed from 
a law of the Athenians, ὁ ἥλιος ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρῶν ἐσχάτη ὥρα 
ἔστω: which is a sufficiently clear intimation that by 


" a A 3 A ν 
μὲν γὰρ κατὰ πρωὶ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ὦ βασιλεῦ δωδεκάτης ὥρας οἰκοδο- 


dyvaroknv—where also πρωΐ and 
sunrise are used synonymously. 
The same passage implies that 
the opposite end of the day co- 
incided with sunset. That the 
first hour began with sunrise 
may also be inferred from 110. 1. 
cap. 49. Plutarch, Crassus, 17, 
records an anecdote concerning 
Crassus and king Deiotarus, 
when the former was marching 
through Asia on his Parthian ex- 
pedition, U. C. 700, which illu- 
strates the opposition between 
πρωϊ at one end of the day, and 
the twelfth hour at the other : 


μεῖν ἄρχῃ ; (Crassus had found the 
king, at an advanced age of 
life, engaged in founding a 
city—and he meant to ad- 
dress to him an_ observation 
somewhat like Horace’s— Tu 
secanda marmora | Locas sub 
ipsum funus, et sepulcri | _Imme- 
mor struis domos. To which Dei- 
otarus replied, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸς, ὦ 
αὐτόκρατορ, ὡς ὁρῶ, πρωΐ λίαν ἐπὶ 
Πάρθους ἐλαύνεις. 

* Suidas, Πρωΐα: ἡ πρωϊνὴ κατά- 
στασις. 

+ Cf. Varro, De Lingua La- 
tina, Vv. p. 52. 


a Operum viii. Spwria, 1co. A—101. A, cap, 2. 


Computation of Roman Hours. 513 


the appointment of the twelve tables, the civil or legal 
day, at Rome, was to end with sunset. 

Servius, in a passage which has been quoted among 
the notes to Dissertation xlii. vol. iii. page 214. ob- 
serves that crepusculum, crepera or dubia lux, was 
properly a part of the night; but that usage or the 
mos loquendi had agreed to refer it to the day *. Will 
any one say, it is crepera or dubia lux after sunrise ἢ 
But if the crepusculum necessarily terminated at that 
point of time or earlier ; night as such must also have 
terminated, and day as such must have begun at or be- 
fore the same. 

Nor need I observe how improbable it must appear 
a@ priori, and how repugnant to the natural order of 
things, that two hours, more or less, of daylight in the 
morning, at every period in the year should be con- 
sidered to make a part of the night. This is particu- 
larly inconsistent with the habits of the ancients ge- 
nerally over the Roman empire ; and especially in the 
East; where the two first hours of daylight were the 
most actively employed, and the most stirring part of 
the day. 

If I have not misrepresented the opinion of Dr. 
Townson, the foundation of his mistake appears to me 
to be this; that in the many instances of allusions to 
the hours of the Roman day, which he has care- 
fully collected, he must have understood the reference 
to the hour, of the hour znczpient or current; not 
Jinal and complete. Now this construction is contrary 
to the usus loquendi at present; and I think it is 
equally so to that of former times. It is true, that as 
soon as the shadow of a gnomon, or the finger of a 


* Varro, De Lingua Latina, dicte Crepere, quod crepuscu, 
loco citato: Crepusculum signi- lum dies etiamnum sit, an jam 
ficat dubium; ab eo res dubize nox, multeis dubium. 


VOL. EV. 1} 


514 Appendix, Dissertation Twenty-fourth. 


clock, is past the point of one hour, the next begins to 
be current; but no one thinks of saying the time of 
the day is such and such an hour, until the index is 
actually upon it. 

It is not necessary to examine afresh the passages 
produced by Dr. Townson. That they may be under- 
stood in every instance of the hour current, I admit; 
but they are not less capable of being understood of 
the hour complete. And this is the case with that 
passage from Palladius, De Re Rustica, on which Dr. 
T. chiefly insists. The shadow of a _ perpendicular 
pole, says Palladius, goes on decreasing from the first 
hour to the sixth, when it is shortest. Now such a pole 
will begin to cast a shadow, as soon as the sun begins 
to shine upon it; and the shadow will continue to grow 
shorter and shorter, from that time until noon. Why 
then may not Palladius have reckoned the first hour 
to begin at sunrise, and the sixth to expire at noon ? 

I have cited elsewhere? an epigram copied from the 
statue of Memnon in Egypt; the purport of which 
was to record that one Publius Balbinus, a courtier 
of the empress Sabina, witnessed the phenomenon 
ascribed to that statue, in the fifteenth year of Hadrian, 
on the twenty-fourth of the Egyptian Athyr, at a 
time of the day when 

ὥρας δὲ πρώτας ἅλιος ἔσχε δρόμον. t 
Now the phenomenon in question took place only once 
in the twenty-four hours ; and that at the time of sun- 
rise *. It seems, then, that Publius Balbinus reckoned 


Gallus, the governor of Egypt 


Be Beare ἔνθα γεγωνὼς | Me- 


pvev ἀντέλλουσαν env ἀσπάζεται 
Ἠῶ. Dionysius Periegetes, 249. 

Strabo declares himself to 
have heard the sound in ques- 
tion, in company with A®lius 


and many others, (which would 
be about U. C. 729 or 730,) περὶ 
ὥραν πρώτην also; Xvii. 1. ὃ. 46. 
599. Cf. Himerius, Oratio xvi. 
§. 1. p. 680. 682. 


b Vide supra, page 108. 


Computation of Roman Hours. 


515 


the first hour of the day to begin with sunrise, which 
at the vernal or autumnal equinox would be at six in 


the morning with us. 


Some allusions to the hours 
of day and night respectively oc- 
cur in the Scholia upon the 
Phenomena of Aratus; and con- 
tribute to confirm the above ac- 
count. Thus, Scholia, ad vers. 
62; ai δύσεις καὶ ἀνατολαὶ πλησιά- 
ζουσιν ἀλλήλαις... κατὰ τὸν μεσημ-- 
βρινὸν πόλον, ἤγουν κύκλον, ὅς ἐστι 
μεσαίτατος πάσης τῆς σφαίρας" ἐκεῖ 
γὰρ γενόμενος ὁ ἥλιος μεσημβρινὸς 
γίνεται, καὶ λοιπὸν ἑβδόμην ὥραν ἀπ᾽ 
αὐτοῦ ὡς ἐπὶ δύσιν ἄρχεται ποιεῖν. 
And again, ad vers. 149: ἐν yap 
ἡμέρᾳ θερινῇ οὐχ οὕτω κατὰ ἕκτην 
ὥραν μεσοῦντος τοῦ ἡλίου ἀντιλαμ- 
βανόμεθα τοῦ καύματος, ὡς κατὰ τὴν 
ἑβδόμην. From both these pas- 
sages, it is a natural inference 
that the seventh hour of day be- 
gan to be current the moment 
the sun was arrived at the point 
of noon. Again, ad vers. 583. 
speaking of Bodtes : προσλαμβά- 
νει τῷ μεσονυκτίῳ, τουτέστι ταῖς ς΄ 
ὥραις τῆς νυκτὸς, ἄλλας ὥρας δύο ; 
which implies that the sixth 
hour of the night also expired 
with the point of midnight. A- 
gain, ad vers. 303 and 304: 
σῆμα δέ τοι κείνης ὥρας καὶ μηνὸς 
ἐκείνου | Sxoprios ἀντέλλων εἴη πυ- 
μάτης ἐπὶ vuxrds—That is, says 
the Scholiast, ἐπὶ ὄρθρου" περὶ 
γὰρ ἑνδεκάτην καὶ δωδεκάτην ὥραν ὁ 
Σκορπίος ἀνατέλλει... ὁ γὰρ Σκορπίος 
μικρὸν πρὸ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνατολῆς 
θεωρεῖται ἐπὶ τῆς ἀνατολῆς τοῦ ὁρί- 
ὥονντος. This implies that the 
twelfth hour of night would ex- 
pire with the appearance of the 
sun in the horizon, that is, with 
the point of πρωΐ. Cf. the Scho- 
lium on verses 309, 310: ὁ δὲ 
δύεται ἠῶθι mpd | ἀθρόος ’QXpiav— 
ὀλίγον yap πρὸ τῆς ἡμέρας δύεται, 


δωδεκάτην ὥραν τῆς νυκτός. 

There is no passage, however, 
which seems to set this ques- 
tion in a clearer light than the 
following from Ammianus Mar- 
cellinus, xxvi.1. 447, where, hav- 
ing had occasion to speak of Va- 
lentinian’s election to theempire, 
in a leap year, A. D. 364. and 
on the day before the Bissex- 
tile day itself, he enters into an 
account of the Julian year, and 
the reasons of the intercala- 
tion of an entire day every 
fourth year. Sed anni interval- 
lum verissimum, says he, memo- 
ratis diebus et horis sex adusque 
meridiem concluditur plenam : 
annique sequentis erit post ho- 
ram sextam initium porrectum 
ad vesperam. tertius a prima 
vigilia sumens exordium, ad 
horam noctis extenditur sextam. 
quartus a medio noctis adusque 
claram trahiturlucem. Nothing 
can be plainer than it hence is 
that the sixth hour of the day 
expired at noon, the sixth hour 
of night at midnight, and the 
twelfth at sunrise. In like 
manner, Philo Judeus, i. 692. 
1.41. Quod a Deo mittantur 
somnia, lib. 11.: ὅταν μὲν yap λέ- 
γώωμεν, ἀπὸ πρωΐας ἄχρις ἑσπέρας 
ὥρας εἶναι δώδεκα, καὶ ἀπὸ νουμη-- 
νίας ἄχρι τριακάδος ἡμέρας τριάκον- 
Ta’ συγκατατάττομεν THY τε πρώτην 
ὥραν καὶ τὴν νουμηνίαν : which 
passage proves that the first 
hour began to be current from 
mpaia, that is, as it signifies here, 
from πρωΐ. Cf. Sextus Empiri- 
cus, Adversus Physicos, Liber 
ii, δ: 183. 185. p. 664. and 
§. 242. p.673. which obviously 
imply the same thing. 


L12 


APPENDIX. 





DISSERTATION XXV. 


On the yourney of St. Paul from Philippi to Jerusalem, 
U.C. 809. Vide supra, Dissertation xix. page 156—189. 


Ir may not be disagreeable to the reader to see the 
account of St. Paul’s journey from Philippi to Jerusa- 
lem, U. C. 809, exhibited in detail; particularly as 
there have been objections raised that it could not be 
accomplished within the time supposed; and also be- 
cause, among those parts of the New Testament, which 
furnish the data for probable calculations respecting 
the days of the week, and their coincidences with cer- 
tain days of the month, this account is as full of in- 
formation as any. 

As the greatest part of the journey was performed 
by sea, the refutation of the objection above mentioned 
requires that something should be said in the first 
place concerning the rate of a ship’s progress in a day 
and a night respectively; or the number of miles 
which might thus be travelled in twenty-four hours. 
Both these things are to be taken into account; for 
St. Paul sailed night and day; and the diwrna and 
nocturna navigatio each had their appropriate mea- 
sure. Qua de causa, observes Pliny, ad occasum navi- 
gantes, quamvis brevissimo die, vincunt spatia nocturne 
navigationis, ut solem ipsum comitantes®*. 

Now not to fatigue the attention of the reader by 
the production of a multitude of examples, though a 
vast number might be collected; let me observe that 


2 HN. ii. 73. 


Journey of St. Paul from Philippi to Jerusalem. 517 


the ancient geographers, such as Marinus or Ptolemy”, 
when they employ the rate of a ship’s sailing for the 
measure of distances, commonly put it at one thou- 
sand stades to a day and a night. Even the Periplus 
of Scylax, ancient as that composition has been sup- 
posed to be, reckons a night’s sail equivalent to a 
day’s, and each at five hundred stadia®. But this is 
too low a computation, especially under favourable cir- 
cumstances. Pliny tells us¢ that Alexander, in his 
voyage down the Indus, never sailed less than sta hun- 
dred stades in a day; and though the statement may 
possibly be false, yet it proves that he supposed it ca- 
pable of being true. A day and a night’s sail in the 
summer time, and with a favourable wind, is reckoned 
by Herodotus? at thirteen hundred stades, or one hun- 
dred and sixty-two Roman miles: and such appears to 
have been the estimate of Strabo also’. Agatharchides® 
and Diodorus’ both take it for granted that a ship, 
which set out from Rhodes, would arrive at Alexandria 
in Egypt on the fourth day afterwards; and no pas- 
sage could be more common than this: yet the dis- 
tance is never calculated at less than four thousand 
stadia. St. Paul, in his voyage to Rome, was not more 
than thirty-six hours in sailing from Rhegium to Pu- 
teolil; a distance which cannot be estimated at less than 
one hundred and fifty Roman miles in twenty-four 
hours. There is a story in Pliny* respecting the pro- 
duction of a fig in the Roman senate, which had been 
gathered ¢ertium ante diem Carthagine ; on the fourth 
day before at the latest. The ship which brought this 
fig had sailed, therefore, at least one hundred and 
twenty-five Roman miles in twenty-four hours. Nor 

Ὁ Ptolemzi Geographica,i.g. © Apud Geographos Minores,i.30. 4 H.N. 
vi.21. εἶν. 86.  £f xiii. 1. ὃ. 63. 404. gs Apud Geographos Minores, i. 48. 


h iii, 33. i Acts xxviii. 13. k H. N. xv. 20. Cf. Tertullian, Ad Nationes, 
ii. 16: Operum v. 196: Plutarch, Cato Major, 27. 


Biba 


518 Appendix. Dissertation TwentySifth. 


was this any thing extraordinary; insomuch as even 
without wind or sails there were many examples, In 
tranquillo mari, nulloque velorum impulsu, fertio die 
ex Italia provectorum Uticam estu fervente!: and in- 
stances to this effect, or others of a similar description, 
are actually cited by Pliny™; to which the reader is 
referred. 

In like manner, Strabo® reckons three hundred and 
twenty stades, or forty Roman miles, an eight hours’ 
sail; which is at the rate of one hundred and twenty 
to the twenty-four *. The circumnavigation of Sicily 
was computed by Ephorus at five days’ and nights’ 
sail; which according to the ancient rate of the mea- 
surement of that island, would be one thousand stades 
to the νυχθήμερονο. The distance of the promontory 
called Criumetopon in Crete, from the nearest point in 
the opposite region of Cyrene, Eratosthenes computed 
at two thousand stades, Pliny at two hundred and 
twenty-five Roman miles, Strabo at two days’ and two 
nights’ 5811}, The distance between Sammonium, an- 
other of the headlands of Crete, the Salmone of St. 
Luke‘, from Alexandria in Egypt, not less than four 
thousand stadia, is called in like manner four days’ 
and four nights’ sail?. Diodorus makes the island 
of Pityusa three days’ and nights’ sail from the pil- 
lars of Hercules, and one day and night’s sail from 
the continent of Africa'+: neither of which could be 


* Dio, xxxix. 50, makes this also one day’s sail from the con- 
distance 450 stades, Pliny, H.N.  tinent of Spain: which Pliny, 
iv. 30, fifty Roman miles. H.N. iii. 11, shews to be a dis- 

+ Diodorus, loco citato, calls it tance of 700 stades. 


1 Pliny, H.N. ii. 99. Μὲ xix. 1. Cf. Plutarch, Marius, 8. See also an instance 
in point, Procopius, De Bello Vandalico, i. 14. N iv. 3. ὃ. 4. 40. © Pliny, 
H.N. iii. 13. Strabo, vi. 2. §. 1. Diodorus Sic. v. 2. P Pliny, H.N. iv. 20. 
Strabo, x. 4. §. 5. 229, 230. q Acts xxvii. 7. ry. 16. 


Journey of St. Paul from Philippi to Jerusa'em. 519 


less than one thousand stades to the νυχθήμερον, but 
must have been even more than that *. 

‘Quororynpuévoy yap τοῦτο, says Marcian of Heraclea °, 
ὅτι ἑπτακοσίους οὐριοδρομοῦσα ναῦς διὰ μιᾶς ἀνύει τῆς ἡμέ- 
ρας" εὕροι (δέ) τις ἂν καὶ ἐννακοσίους διαδραμοῦσαν ναῦν, ἐκ 
τῆς τοῦ κατασκευάσαντος τέχνης τὸ τάχος προσλαβοῦσαν" 
καὶ ἑτέραν μόλις πεντακοσίους διανύσασαν, διὰ τὴν ἐναντίαν 
τῆς τέχνης αἰτίαν. 'To which testimony of Marcian, we 
may add that of Aristides, Oratio xlviii. 483. §. 15: καί- 
τοι ναῦς πανημερία θέουσα ὑπ᾽ ἀνέμου κατὰ πρύμναν πνέοντος, 
προσθήσω δὲ καὶ λιγέος, οὐκ εἴκοσι καὶ ἑκατὸν σταδίους ἀνύ- 
σει μάλιστα, ἀλλ᾽ ἴσως μᾶλλον διακοσίους καὶ χιλίους. καὶ 
ἡμεῖς τοσούτους ἐν εὐπλοίᾳ πολλάκις ἠνύσαμεν, τὸ πᾶν διελό- 
μενοι πρὸς τὰς ἡμέρας ὕστερον. 

There can be no doubt that both the art of shipbuild- 
ing, and the art of navigation, like every thing else, must 
have improved with the course of time; and there is ap- 
parently authority from Pliny, vi. 24. to rate this im- 
provement in the latter instance at almost three to one: 
Quondam credita xX dierum navigatione ...ad nostra- 
rum navium cursus, VII dierum intervallo taxato: and 
Pliny, it should be remembered, was a seaman himself, 
and commanded the Roman fleet at the very time of 
his death. St. Paul’s voyage from Macedonia to Judea 
was performed in the finest season of the year, and 
along a well-known route, through a sea the most fa- 
miliar of all to the ancients: nor does he appear to 
have been once detained by stress of weather, or ad- 
verse circumstances of any kind. We should be justi- 
fied, therefore, in estimating his progress for the four 

* Livy xlv. 41. (Cf. Appian, time. Appian, De Bellis Civili- 
ix. 17.) Plutarch, Aimilius Pau- bus, v. 101: Menodorus, U.C. 
lus, 36: Aimilius Paulus accom- 718, made a passage of 1500 sta- 


plished the passage from Brun- des in two days and nights and 
disium to Corcyra, in nine hours’ part of a third day, εἰρεσίᾳ only. 


s Apud Geographos Minores, i. 67. 
1,14 


520 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty/ifth. 


and twenty hours uniformly at one thousand stades, or 
one hundred and twenty-five Roman miles, and one 
hundred British; and if the occasion required it at 
even two hundred stades more. 

The object of St. Paul’s last journey was to arrive 
in Jerusalem by the time of the recurrence of Pente- 
cost ; and we must begin with tracing it from Philippi ; 
from whence it set out after the days of unleavened 
bread, or τὰ ἄζυμα ; that is, not until the close of the 
Paschal week, U. C. 809, A. D. 56. In that year the 
mean full moon, as it has been already observed, fell 
upon March 20: but the Passover, according to our 
calculations, would be kept on March 19. The last 
day of the Paschal week A. D. 56, was consequently 
March 26: which the tables exhibit upon Friday, but 
which I should consider to be Sunday. 

The language of St. Luke will not allow us to sup- 
pose that St. Paul set out before March 26: but he 
might have set out upon March 27: the necessity 
of which supposition will further appear hereafter. 
On this principle he would set out on a Monday. In 
five days’ time he arrived at Troas; and at Troas he 
is said to have stayed seven days. Let us assume that 
as he left Philippi on Monday, March 27, so he ar- 
rived at Troas on Saturday, April 1, and that his 
seven days’ residence there expired on Saturday, 
April 8. 

The day when he departed again to Assus is called 
the jirst day of the week"; and such it would be if 
these calculations are true: and I think the coincidence 
itself is a strong confirmation of their truth. The nar- 
rative indeed at first sight may be thought to imply 
that it was the day after the first day of the week ; 
but upon further consideration, the circumstances of 

t Acts xx. 6. u Ibid. 7. 13. 


Journey of St. Paul from Philippi to Jerusalem. 521 


the account must leave no doubt that St. Luke dates 
his μία τῶν σαββάτων from the time when the disciples 
met to break bread, and St. Paul’s discourse, begun be- 
fore μεσονύκτιον, or midnight, was protracted ἄχρις 
αὐγῆς, that is, until daylight, on the very morning of 
his departure. These particulars then began after the 
close of the Jewish sabbath, Saturday, April 8, and ex- 
pired on the morning of Sunday, April 9. 

Between April 9, znclusive and the day of Pente- 
cost, May 9, exclusive the interval was just therty days: 
and it was so spent partly by the time taken up in 
travelling, and partly by the stoppages specified in par- 
ticular places that, according to the conjecture ad- 
vanced, St. Paul must actually have arrived in Jerusa- 
lem the day before Pentecost, May 8. 

I. From Troas to Assus the distance was not so 
great but that a person might easily accomplish it by 
a single day’s journey on foot*. We may assume, 
then, that St. Paul took shipping at Assus, not later 
than Monday, April 10. 

II. After he set sail from Assus, having touched 
the same day at Mitylene, τῇ ἐπιούση he made the 
island of Chios; τῇ δὲ ἑτέρᾳ he touched at Trogilium, 
a small island close by Samos’; and τῆ ἐχομένη he 
came to Miletus. All this was by the regular track τ, 
and in no instance over a space which would exceed 
an ordinary day’s sail; and in the last instance of all, 
it would not be one half so much +. We may assume, 


* Confer Pausanias x. 12. speaking of the relative dis- 


who makes Marpessus 240 sta- 
dia distant from Alexandria 
Troas, which would be almost 
twice that of Assus. 


+ Apuleius, Florida, 128: 


Vv Strabo, xiv. 1. §. 13, 14.518, 519. Pliny, H. N. v. 37. 


112. V.37—39- 


tance of Samos and Miletus by 
sea from each other, observes, U- 
trumvis clementer navigantem 
dies alter in portu sistit. 


w Pliny, H.N. ii. 


522 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-fifth. 


then, that St. Paul would arrive at Miletus early in 
the day, not later than Thursday, April 13. 

III. The distance of Miletus from Ephesus, accord- 
ing to the maps, was less than twice the distance of 
Ephesus from Magnesia ad Mzandrum: which Pliny 
calculates at fifteen Roman miles, and Strabo at a cor- 
responding number of Greek stadia, one hundred and 
twenty*. The entire distance from Ephesus to Smyrna, 
which was greater than from Ephesus to Miletus, is 
estimated by the latter only at three hundred and 
twenty stadesY. Hence the distance of Ephesus from 
Miletus, according to the Tabulz Peutingeriane, is 
considerably overrated: and it would be very possible 
that, if St. Paul sent messengers to Ephesus as soon 
as he arrived at Miletus, on Thursday, April 13, the 
elders from that church might be come to him at Mi- 
letus, and hear his parting address, on the morning of 
Saturday, April 15. 

IV. On leaving Miletus he came first to Cos—and 
τῇ ἑξῆς to Rhodes; and thence to Patara: the two 
former of which distances we will reckon at one day’s 
sail each; but the last was not so much. I assume 
then that he touched at Patara, early on Monday, 
April 17: and therefore might find the ship, bound 
for Tyre, that same day*. 


* Numerous instances might 
be produced of voyages to or 
from the Hellespont, along the 
track pursued by St. Paul, which 
would illustrate the truth and 
fidelity of St. Luke’s account. I 
will mention one only—that of 
Pompey, as described by Lu- 
can in the eighth book of his 
Pharsalia. 

Setting out from Mitylene in 
Lesbus in the evening, (109. 


x H. N. v. 31. Strabo, xiv. 2. δ. 29. 651. 


146. 159.) it passes the same 
night, (195-)—Quas Asie cau- 
tes, et quas Chios asperat un- 
das: | and the next day (202. 
244.)—Ipse per Icariz scopulos, 
Ephesonque relinquens | Et pla- 
cidi Colophona maris, spuman- 
tia parve | Radit saxa Sami: 
spirat de litore Coo | Aura flu- 
ens: Gnidon inde fugit, claram- 
que relinquit | Sole Rhodon, 
magnosque sinus Telmessidos 


Y xiv. 1. δ. 2. 498. 2. δ. 29. 651. 


Journey of St. Paul from Philippi to Jerusalem. 523 


V. The voyage from Patara to Tyre was performed 
day and night by sailing straight across the sea; 
which appears from this circumstance; that though 
they made (ἀναφάναντες ) the island of Cyprus, they 
did not touch at it, but left it upon their left. The 
distance between Patara and Tyre, in a straight line, 
according to Monsieur D’Anville, would amount to 
four hundred and fifty Roman miles. But at this 
time of the year the rate of St. Paul’s progress might 
be one hundred and forty or fifty miles in twenty- 
four hours: so that had he left Patara on Monday, 
April 17, he might easily arrive at Tyre on Thursday, 
April 20. 

VI. At Tyre he stayed seven days; the first of 
which might be Thursday, April 20; and, therefore, 
the last Wednesday, April 26. His next stage was 
Ptolemais; whither he proceeded by sea: and as the 
distance from Tyre to Ptolemais, even by land, was 
only a single day’s journey*, by sea it would not be 
half so much. The one day, spent at Ptolemais, 
might consequently be Thursday, April 27. 

VII. The distance between Ptolemais and Cesarea 
being about forty-four Roman miles”, the day of his 
arrival in the latter place would be Saturday, April 
29, or Sunday, April 30. The length of the stay 
there is stated at ἡμέρας πλείους ; which may be under- 
stood of one week. Let Sunday, April 30, be the 
first day of this, and Saturday, May 6, the last. 

VIII. The distance of Caesarea from Jerusalem, 


unde | Compensat medio pela- or Synedra in Cilicia; and 


gi. Pamphylia puppi | Occurrit 
tellus:—only that, instead of pro- 
ceeding to Patara, Pompey puts 
in for prudential reasons first at 
Phaselis, afterwards at Syedra 


Z Acts xxi. 3. 


a Itinerarium Antonini, et Hierosolymitanum. 


when he resumes his route, 456, 
it is by Cyprus, to the right, to- 
wards Egypt, as St. Paul did his 
by the left, towards Tyre. 


Ὁ Ibid. 


524 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-fifth. 


which Josephus reckons at six hundred stades *, might 
be more than two days’ journey, but it would be less 
than three. By setting out at the expiration of the 
Jewish sabbath, May 6, St. Paul might accomplish 
this distance before the commencement of the sabbath 
of Pentecost, sunset on Monday, May 8. The use of 
the term, ἀποσκευασάμενοι, with respect to the rest of 
the journey, is a proof that it was accomplished with 
dispatch. 

The day after his arrival on which he was tried be- 
fore Felix, and which he himself called the twelfth day 
ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἀνέβη“, that is, the twelfth day inclusive from 
the day of Pentecost, May 9, exclusive, (for so we con- 
cluded it to be meant‘,) would be Sunday, May 21. 
On this supposition, the day when he was apprehended 
in the temple, which we left indefinite, may also be de- 
termined. Let us suppose that he was examined by 
Felix, on Sunday, May 21: if so, he arrived at Cz- 
sarea (five days previously®) on Tuesday, May 16: he 
was therefore dispatched to Czsarea on Monday, May 
15: consequently he had been examined before the 
council on Sunday, May 14: and therefore, had been 
apprehended in the temple on Saturday, May 13: 
which would be the fourth of the days of purification, 
dated from Wednesday, May 10, ¢nclusive>: and as 
those days should have lasted seven days in all, some 
day later than the third of them even St. Luke’s lan- 
guage implies it to have been‘. Moreover the circum- 
stances of his apprehension shew that it was either 
evening, or the sabbath, at the time: otherwise his 
examination before the council would not have been 
deferred until the following morning *: and this too is 
in unison with the above conclusions, 


ς Ant. Jud. xiii. xi. 2. De Bello, i. iii. 5. 4 Acts xxi. 15. © xxiv. 11. 
f Supra, 190, 191. 8 Actsxxiv. 1. hxxi.18.26. ilTbid.27. * xxii, 30. 


APPENDIX. 





DISSERTATION XXVI. 
On the rate of a day’s yourney. 


Vide Dissertation xxi. vol. 11. page 218, 219, and Disserta- 
tion xxxvill. vol. 11. page 60—64. 


‘THOUGH the estimation of distances by days’ 
journeys is very common in ancient authors, yet the 
rate of a day’s journey is far from being uniformly 
represented. At one time we may meet with it stated 
as low as one hundred and fifty Greek stadia; at an- 
other as high as three hundred or more; but most 
commonly at some number between these extremes, 
from two hundred to two hundred and fifty. It is 
possible, that in some instances these variations may 
be accounted for by differences in the assumed length 
of the stadium; in others by understanding the calcu- 
lation of the rate of progress for long and continuous 
journeys, which would naturally be less than for a few 
days only; in others the statement is intended of the 
distance which might be travelled ἀνδρὲ εὐζώνῳ, that is, 
by a person equipped for expedition. In the midst of 
this uncertainty, an ordinary day’s journey may be 
safely estimated at neither less than twenty-five, nor 
greater than thirty, Roman miles, two hundred, or two 
hundred and forty, Olympic stadia, and twenty, or 
twenty-four, English miles. A day’s journey, avdpi 
εὐζώνῳ, would be about one third more than this *. 

* The reader will of course day’s journey, even ἀνδρὶ εὐζώνῳ, 


understand that this calculation is not intended to apply to the 
of the length of an ordinary — special case of the Hemerodro- 


526 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-sixth. 


These positions I shall illustrate by the citation of a 
few cases in point. 

I. Instances of the rate in question have been already 
exemplified in the length of time necessary to travel 
from Judza into Galilee, and from Cesarea to Joppa*. 
Yet Josephus makes Sebaste, the ancient Samaria, only 
one day’s journey distant from Jerusalem: which 
though limited to its distance from Bethel, on the 
verge of Samaria and Judea itself, is at the rate of 
thirty-five or thirty-six Roman miles to the day “. 

II. It is reckoned by Maimonides¢ a six or seven 
days’ journey from Jerusalem, via Ascalonis, to Egypt. 
Of this distance, as referred to Jerusalem and the river 
of Egypt, Gaza may be assumed as the mean point: 
and Gaza was just ezghty-one Roman miles from Jeru- 
salem*; which for a three days’ journey is at the rate 
of twenty-seven such miles to the day. 

III. Thucydides reckons it eleven days’ journey 
from Abdera in Thrace to the Danube; and thirteen 
from Byzantium to the Strymon'. According to the 
best maps, the direct distance, upon this calculation, 
would allow somewhat less than twenty-five Roman 


mi of antiquity ; persons train- 
ed to running, and some of 
them capable of travelling 150 
or 200 miles, in twenty-four 
hours, or less time, on foot. 
Many instances of such feats 
might be collected. Mr. Harmer 
informs us that there are still 
couriers or runners of the same 
description, to be met with in 
the piratical states of Barbary— 
and able to travel 150 miles on 
foot, in 24 hours: vol. i. ch. v. 
Obs. i. p. 418: see also Obs. viii. 


5 Dissertation xxi. vol. ii. 219. 
Palestina, ii. v. 423. xiv. 510, 511. 


b Ant. Jud. xv. viii. 5. 
4 De Ratione intercalandi, v. 10. 


Instances of extraordinary, and 
almost incredible dispatch of per- 
sons on horseback, are also on 
record. Vide what Socrates re- 
lates of the courier Palladius in 
the reign of Theodosius the 
younger, E. H. vii. xix. 357: 
and what is recorded of another, 
called Indacus, in the reign of 
Leo—of whom the extract quoted 
by Suidas, sub voce, gives a 
marvellous account. Cf. also the 
description of these ἡμεροδρόμοι 
in Suidas, sub voce. 


c Relandi 
e Jo- 
FAO] 


On the rate of a day’s journey. 527 


miles to the day; and the road distance somewhat 
more. 

IV. Herodotus in one instance reckons a day’s 
journey at one hundred and fifty stades; in another at 
two hundred*. But the former is for a long journey : 
and on the same principle Marinus and Ptolemy al- 
lowed one hundred and eighty stades to the day": and 
Timosthenes, admiral of Ptolemy Philadelphus, com- 
puted the distance from Meroé to Syene at sixty days’ 
journey, which a party of observation, sent out by 
Nero, discovered by measurement to be 873 Roman 
miles; or at the rate of fourteen miles and an half to 
the day’. 

V. Procopius De Bello Vandalico reckons a day’s 
journey at two hundred and ten stades, the distance 
from Athens to Megara, or nearly twenty-six Roman 
miles exactly **. 

VI. Livy makes twenty-five Roman miles and a 
day’s journey synonymous expressions!; and Polybius, 
in the parallel place of his history, specifies the same 
distance by two hundred stades™. 

VII. Horace, as he may be understood, seems to call 
it an ordinary day’s journey from Aricia to the Fo- 
rum Appii®. The Itinerary of Antoninus makes this 
more, the Jerusalem makes it less, than twenty-five or 
twenty-six Roman miles; while D’Anville’s map puts 
it at that exactly 7. 

VIII. Appian in the same passage estimates 1200 


* It is to be observed, how- 
ever, that Procopius, De Bello 
Gotthico, 1. 11, reckons 19 ση- 
peia or miles equal to 113 stades 
—which is at the rate of about 
6 stades to a mile. 


& v. 53. iv. IOI. 
ag 


35. ἔτ: 1 Χχι, 27: 


h Ptolemei Geographica, i. 11. 8. 
τῇ 11]. 42. 


+ According to Strabo, v. 3. §. 
12. 178, Aricia was 160 stades 
distant from Rome: according to 
Dionysius Hal. vi. 32, and Philo- 
stratus, Vita Apollonii, iv.12.194. 
B. it was 120. The latter com- 


i Pliny, H.N. vi. 
n Sermonum i. v. 5, 6. 


528 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-sixth. 


stades at five days’ journey, and 6000 at thirty®: the 
former implying 240 stades to the day, the latter 200. 

IX. Strabo reckons it a six days’ journey from Ma- 
zaca in Cappadocia to the Pyle of Cilicia?: and one 
day’s journey from Sagalessus in Phrygia to Apamea4. 
Both these calculations, according to the best maps, 
would not much exceed twenty-five Roman miles to 
the day. The same author cails it three or four days’ 
journey from Jericho to Petra in Arabia’; a distance 
which may be computed at rather more than one 
thousand stadia‘; and consequently above thirty Ro- 
man miles to the day at least. A similar statement 
occurs respecting the breadth of the isthmus between 
Pelusium, and Arsinoé on the Sinus Arabicus, one thou- 
sand stades‘t: which Pliny estimates at 125 Roman 
miles", forty-one Roman miles to the day at the utmost, 
and thirty-one at the least: the mean between which 
is about the ordinary length of a day’s journey, ἀνδρὶ 
εὐζώνῳ ; and of this the statements must be understood. 
It is another instance of the same mode of statement 
that the distance from Brundisium to Tarentum is 
called one day’s journey ; which yet Strabo reckons at 
three hundred and ten stades, and Pliny at thirty-five 
Roman miles’. Scymnus of Chius also makes it seven 


putation is confirmed by the Iti- 
nerary of Antoninus, and Lu- 
can, Pharsalia, vi.73. Cf. Cesar, 
De Bello Civili, iii. 44. and the 
Scholiast zx loc. who makes the 
distance sixteen miles. The true 
meaning of Horace is, that an 
expeditious traveller might have 
made one day’s journey of it 
from Rome to Forum Appii ; 


© Illyrica, i. 1. 
δι 5. 190. ¥ xvi. 4. §. 21. 442. 


Bello, iv. viii. 4. Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum. 
Vv Strabo, vi. 3. δ. 1. 284. ὃ. 5. 295. δ. 8. 300. 


ii. 158. u H. N.v. 12. 


H.N. iii. 16. 


Pp xii. 1. §. 10. 36. Pliny, H.N. ii. 112. 
s Diodorus Siculus, xix. 98. Josephus, De 


whereas he and his companion 
made two, (see the Scholiast in 
loco,) travelling about fifteen 
Roman miles the first day, and 
twenty-five the next. Forty 
Roman miles, or about thirty 
English, would actually be a 
day’s journey for an expeditious 
traveller. 


4 Strabo, xii. 6. 


t i. 94,95. Cf. Herodotus, 


On the rate of a day’s journey. 529 


days’ journey across Asia from Amisus on the Euxine, 
to Alexandria on the Sinus Issicus”: which could not 
be less than forty Roman miles to the day; and there- 
fore would be greater than could be accomplished by 
any but an expeditious traveller ἢ. 

More instances might be collected; but these are 
sufficient to illustrate and confirm our original posi- 
tion; and, what I have chiefly in view by them, to 
shew that our Lord’s day’s journey, previous to his 
stopping with Zacchzeus, admits of being computed at 
twenty-seven or twenty-eight Roman miles, as nothing 


* Xenophon, CEconomicus, xx. 
18: a day’s journey is reckoned 
at 200 stades. Aristides, Oratio 
ΧΙ]. 305. ὃ. 5: the circuit of the 
walls of Athens is called ἡμερη- 
σίας ὅδοῦ μῆκος τὰ σύμπαντα: 
which Dio Chrysostom, vi. 199. 
§. 29-35, calls 200 stadia in ex- 
tent, and half the periphery of 
Babylon. Xenophon, Hell. iii. 
ii. 11: Herodotus, v.54: Ephe- 
sus was three days’ journey from 
Sardis, and 540 stadia: two 
days’ journey of 200 stades, and 
one of 140. Demosthenes, De 
Corona, ὃ. 247. 289: 700 stades 
are reckoned a three days’ jour- 
ney. Cf. Xenophon, De Vectiga- 
libus, iv. 46, 47. Polybius, ii. 
25: Clusium was three days’ 
journey from Rome, that is, 
(Strabo, v. 2. ὃ. Ὁ. 142.) 800 
stades. Libanius, Oratio xi. 286. 
20. the distance of Antioch from 
the sea, 120 stades, (Cf. Strabo, 
XVi. 2. ὃ. 7. 308, 309. Procopius, 
De Bello Persico, ii. 11, a passage 
quoted by Suidas in Διέχουσαν) 
is reckoned a six hours’ journey 
ἀνδρὶ εὐζώνῳ. Pausanias, x. 33. ὃ. 
2: a day’s journey in the winter 


season is put at 180 stades. Ve- 
getius, De Re Militari, i.ix: Mi- 
litari ergo gradu viginti millia 
passuum horis quinque dumtaxat 
estivis conficiendasunt. plenoau- 
tem gradu, qui citatior est, toti- 
dem horis viginti quatuor millia 
peragenda sunt. Cf. cap. xxvii: 
also Spartian, Hadrianus, 10. A- 
chilles Tatius, Isagoge in Arati 
Phenomena, Uranologion, 137. 
C. D: Χαλδαῖοι... λέγουσι... πάλιν 
ἀνδρὸς πορείαν, μήτε τρέχοντος, μήτε 
ἡρέμα βαδίζοντος, μήτε γέροντος, μή- 
τε παιδὸς, τὴν πορείαν εἶναι τοῦ ἡλίου, 
καὶ λ' σταδίων καθαρῶν εἶναι : that 
is, as I understand it, at the rate 
of thirty stades in an hour. Jo- 
nah iii. 3: Nineveh is called a 
city of three days’ journey, 
which must mean in circuit ; 
that is, 480 stades ; which is at 
the rate of 160 stades a day. 
The same thing is implied of 
Babylon, Aristotle, Politica, iii. i. 
12: τοιαύτη δ᾽ ἴσως ἐστὶ καὶ Βαβυ- 
λὼν, καὶ πᾶσα ἥτις ἔχει περιγραφὴν 
μᾶλλον ἔθνους ἢ πόλεως, Hoye pa- 
σὶν ἑαλωκυίας τρίτην ἡμέραν οὐκ 
αἰσθέσθαι τι μέρος τῆς πόλεως. 


w Apud Geographos Minores, ii. 54. 1. 185-189. Cf. Herodotus, i. 72. ii. 34. 
grap »}}. 5 9 gl. 7 34 


VOL. IV. 


Mm 


530 Appendix. Dissertation Twenty-sixth. 


greater than common ; but not at thirty-two or thirty- 
three, which would probably be above the standard. 
Hence after travelling that distance on the Friday, he 
might well stop within three or four miles of Bethany ; 
and yet arrive there within an hour after sunset on the 
evening of the following Saturday. 


ΠῚ % 


a 
Di toa fi hs Ὁ 
9 i wrt MH afar. ig _ 4 AA, ς f iy Σ᾿ ; 


» oe. ἡ a 
jee: ΤΟΣ 


J 
cay 


Ἶ ιν J 
“4 Pek iy va” 

ere ap My ie 
πεν, be eee Tea 
ὁ 4 


4 


ἫΝ 


᾿ 
? 
5 





ἐλ ον “ gs <3 i 








PRINTEDINU.S,A, 


i 


ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ 
---- 
ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ- 


eolo 


viii 


Prin 


GAYLORD 








Md 2»: