The kings of the Persian universal monarchy, according to Ptolemy, were ten, and the whole sum of their reign two hundred and seven years — from the time of Cyaxares II., to the time of Al exander the Great. But Ptolemy's spe- be no permission to rebuild the city with i cific object being chronology, he omitted any degree of its ancient strength and | those who continued not on the throne a splendor, and none to surround it with \ full year, and referred the months of their walls — a very material thing in the struc- 1 reign, partly to the preceding, and partly ture of an ancient city, (c) This inter- to the succeeding monarch. The whole pretation is confirmed by the latter part number of sovereigns was in reality fourof the verse: ' the street shall be built teen, as appears by the following table: again, and the wall, even in troublous times.' If the word rended wall, means trench or ditch, as I have supposed, still it was a trench or ditch which was de signed as a defence of a city, or which was excavated by making a wall, or for the purpose of fortifying a walled city in order to make it stronger, and the ex pression is one which would not be ap plied to the mere purpose of rebuilding the temple, nor would it be used except in a command to restore the city itself. We are, then, in the fair interpretation of the passage required now, to show that $uch a command went forth from the Persian king to ' restore and rebuild' the city itself — that is, a permission to put it into such Vas before.
condition of strength, as it
Under the reign of this last prince, B. C. 331, the kingdom was entirely sub dued by Alexander the Great
In respect to the question whether any | ing him, Ctesias x; Justin i. 9; Herod, order or command was issued pertaining | iii. 61 — 67. " To this monarch the-Samato the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem j ritans again addressed themselves, cornthat corresponds with the meaning of the prediction as above explained, the fol lowing facts will probably furnish all the knowledge which can he obtained:
•ixares II. Of course there was plaining that the Jews were building (that is, fortifying) the city of Jerusalem, which they had never thought of doing; and in consequence of this false accusa tion, Smerdis issued a positive prohibition nothing in the time of Cyaxares II., the of their work." Ja/m. Two things, there- Darius of Daniel (vi. 1; ix. 1), as it was fore, may be remarked respecting this under him that Babylon was conquered, j reign: (1) The order or commandment and there was no movement towards a j referred to by Daniel could not have been restoration of the Jews to their own land j issued during this reign, since there was commenced by him, the first movement an express ' prohibition' again;
of that kind being under Cyrus.
(b) Cyrus. What was the nature of the against the work of building and fortifying the city; and (2) This confirms what is said above order issued by him we have seen above, about the improbability that any order It was a command to build the temple and j would have been issued by Cyrus to rewas limited to that, and involved no ref- j build and fortify the city itself. It could erence to the city. The command as we j not but have been foreseen that such an have seen above, did not extend to that, { order would be likely to excite opposition and there were probably good reasons j from the Samaritans, and to cause interwhy it was not contemplated that it nal dissensions and difficulties in Palesshould be rebuilt in its former strength, \ tine, and it is not probable that the Perand fortified as it was before. The pur- | sian government would allow the rebuildpose to fortify the city, or to encompass j ing of a city that would lead to such colit by a wall or ditch, or even to build it! lisions.
at all, could not have been brought with in the order of Cyrus, as recorded in Ezra, and that is the only form of the
(e) Daniel Hystaspis. He reigned thirtysix years. He was a mild and benevolent ruler. "As Smerdis was a mere usurper, order which we have. The language of | his prohibition of rebuilding the temple Daniel, therefore, seems to have been was of no authority." Jahn. In the chosen of design when he says that the j second year of his reign, Haggai and command would be issued to rebuild the Zechariah appeared, who plied the govcity, not the temple. At any rate, such is ernor, Zerubbabel, the high priest Joshua, the language, and such was not the order and the whole people, with such powerful
After the death of Cy rus, the Samaritans wrote to Cambyses (called by Ezra, Ahasuerus) against the Jews. We are not informed what effect this letter produced, but we can easily judge from the character of this degene rate son of Cyrus, as it is represented in history. He was a " thoughtless, glutton ous, furious warrior, who was considered as raving mad even by his own subjects." Jahn. He madly invaded Egypt, and on his return learned that Smerdis, his brother, had usurped the throne in his absence, and died of a wound received from the falling of his sword from its sheath, as he was mounting his horse. No order is mentioned during his reign
(d) Sm.erdis. He retained the throne about seven months. In the Bible he has the name of Artaxerxes. Comp., respect- appeals to the divine commands, that the building of the house of God was once more resumed. Upon this Tatnai, the Persian governor on the west side of the Euphrates, came with his officers to call the Jews to an account, who referred him to the permission of Cyrus, and the Jews were suffered to proceed. The whole matter was, however, made known to Darius, and he caused search to be made among the archives of the State in refer ence to the alleged decree of Cyrus. The edict of Cyrus was found which directed that a temple should be built at Jerusa lem at the royal expense, and of much larger dimensions than the former. A copy of this was sent to Tatnai, and he was commanded to see that the work pertaining to the rebuilding either of the should be forwarded, and that the ex penses should be defrayed from the royal treasury, and that the priests should be supplied with whatever was necessary to keep up the daily sacrifice. The work was, therefore, pressed on with renewed vigour, and in tbe sixth year of his reign the temple was completed and consecrated. The remainder of his reign was spent in unnecessary wars with Scytbia, Thrace, India, and Greece. He suffered an over throw at Marathon, and was preparing for a more energetic campaign in Greece when he died, and left his dominion and his wars to Xerxes. No order was issued during his reign for the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. All his edicts pertain to the original grant of Cyrus — the per mission to build the temple.
(/) Xerxes I. The career of Xerxes is well known. He was distinguished for gluttony, voluptuousness, and cruelty. He is celebrated for his invasion of Greece, for the check which he met at Ther mopylae, and for the overthrow of his naval forces at Salaniis by Themistocles. In the twenty-first year of his reign he was murdered by Artabanus, commander of his life-guard. He died in the year 464 B. C. According to Jahn, it is pro bable that " the Artaxerxes of Ezra, who is mentioned next after Darius Hystaspis, and the Ahasuerus of Esther, are names of Xerxes I." If so, it was under him that the second caravan of Jews went to Judea, under the direction of Ezra. Ezra vii. Xerxes, if he was the prince referred to, gave Ezra an ample commis sion in regard to the temple at Jerusalem, granting him full power to do all that was necessary to maintain public worship there, and committing to him the vessels of gold and silver in Babylon pertaining to the temple, <tc. The decree may be found in Ezra vii. 13—26. This decree, however, relates wholly to the temple — the 'house of God.' There was no order for rebuilding the city, and there is no evidence that any thing material was done in building the city, or the walls. Respecting this reign, Jahn remarks,
" The Hebrew colony in Judea seem never to have been in a very flourishing condi tion. The administration of justice was particularly defective, and neither civil nor religious institutions were firmly es tablished. Accordingly the king gave permission anew for all Hebrews to emi grate to Judea." p. 172. Ezra made the
journey with the caravan in three months; deposited the precious gifts in the temple, caused the Scriptures to be read and ex plained; commenced amoral reformation, but did nothing, BO far as appears, in re- 33* constructing the city — for his commission did not extend to that.
(f/) Artaxerxes Lovgimanuf. Accord ing to Jahn, he began to reign B. C. 464, and reigned forty years and three months. It was during his reign that Nehemiah lived, and that ho acted as governor of Judea. The colony in Judea, says Jahn, i which had been so flourishing in the time! of Ezra, had greatly declined, in conse- | quence of the fact that Syria and Phenicia had been the rendezvous of the ar mies of Artaxerxes. "Nehemiah, the
cup-bearer of Artaxerxes, learned the un happy state of the Hebrews, B. C. 444, from a certain Jew named Hanani, who had come from Judea to Shushan with a caravan. Of the regulations introduced by Ezra 478 B. C. there was little re maining, and, amid the confusions of war, the condition of the Jews continu ally grew worse. This information so afflicted Nehemiah that the king observed his melancholy, and inquiring its cause he appointed him governor of Judea with full power to fortify Jerusalem and thus to secure it from the disasters to which I unprotected places are always exposed in I time of war. Orders were sent to the royal officers west of the Euphrates to as- \ sist in the fortification of the city, and to furnish tbe requisite timber from the j king's forest; probably on Mount Libanus,! near the sources of the river Kadisha, ag; that was the place celebrated for its ce-! dars. Thus commissioned, Nehemiah i journeyed to Judea, accompanied by mil-; itary officers and cavalry." pp. 175, 176. Jahn further adds, "as soon as Nehe-! miah, on his arrival in Palestine, had i been acknowledged governor of Judea by I the royal officers, he made known his prei parations for fortifying Jerusalem to the i elders who composed the Jewish council. j All the heads of houses, and the high! priest Eliashib, engaged zealously in the; work. The chiefs of the Samaritans, | Sanballet, Tobiah and Geshem, endeai voured to thwart their undertaking by I insults, by malicious insinuations that it; was a preparation for revolt, by plots, and j by preparations for a hostile attack. The i Jews, notwithstanding, proceeded earn- I estly in their business, armed the Jaj bourers, protected them still further by a guard of armed citizens, and at length happily completed the walls of their city."
We have reached a point, then, in the history of the kings of Persia, when there was a distinct order to restore and fortify Jerusalem, and when there wis an ex press expedition undertaken to accom plish this result. In the history of these kings, as reported by Jahn, this is the first order that would seem to compre hend with the language of Daniel — ' the commandment to restore and rebuild Je rusalem/ and the assertion that 'the street should be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.' It may be well, therefore, to pause here, and to look more distinctly at this order of Ataxerxes Longimanus, and inquire into its conformity with the language of Daniel. The cir cumstances, then, as stated in the book of Nehemiah, are these: (a) Nehemiah learned from Hanani the state of his brethren in Judea, and the fact that the "walls of the city were broken down, and that the gates were burned with fire," and that the people who were at Jerusa lem were in a state of "great affliction and reproach," and gave himself to weep ing, and fasting, and prayer, on that acco,unt. Neh. i. (b) On coming into the presence of Artaxerxes, to perform the usual duty of presenting the wine of the king, the king saw the sadness and dis tress of Nehemiah, and inquired the cause. Neh. ii. 1, 2. This, Nehemiah (ii. 1) is careful to remark, occurred in the twentieth year of his reign, (c) He states distinctly, that it was because Je rusalem was still in ruins: "Why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are con sumed with fire." ch. ii. 3. (d) The re quest of Nehemiah, in accordance with the language in Daniel, was, that he might be permitted to go to Jerusalem and rebuild the city: "And he said unto the king, if it please the king, and if thy eervant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldst send me unto Judah, nnto the city of my fathers' sepulchre, that I may build it." ch. ii. 5. (e) The edict of Artaxerxes contemplated the game thing which is foretold by the angel to Daniel: "And a letter untoAsaph, the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates for the palace which appertained to the gates of the house, and for the wall of the city," <fec. ch. ii. 8. (/) The work which Nehemiah did, under this edict, was that which is supposed in the predic tion in Daniel. His first work was to go forth by night to survey the state of th« city. " And I went out by night, by the gate of the valley, &c., and viewed the walls of Jerusalem which were broken down, and the gates thereof were con sumed by fire." ch. ii. 13. His next work was to propose to rebuild these walls again: "Then said I unto them, Ye see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste; and the gates thereof are burned with fire; come and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach," ver. 17. The next work was to rebuild those walls, a full description of which we have in the third chapter of Nehemiah, vs. 1 — 32, and in ch. iv. 1 — 23. The city was thus for tified. It was built again according to the purpose of Nehemiah, and according to the decree of Artaxerxes. It took its place again as a fortified city, and the promised work of restoring and rebuild ing it was complete, (g) The building of the city and the walls under Nehemiah, occurred in just such circumstances as are predicted by Daniel. The angel says: " The wall shall be built again, even in troublous times" Let any one read the account of the rebuilding in Nehemiah — the description of the ' troubles' which were produced by the opposition of Sanballatand those associated with him (Neh. iv.), and he will see the striking accuracy of this expression — an accuracy as entire as if it had been employed after the event in describing it, instead of having been used before in predicting it.
It may confirm this interpretation to make three remarks: (1) After this de cree of Artaxerxes there was no order is sued by Persian kings pertaining to the restoration and rebuilding of the city. Neither Xerxes II., nor Sogdianus, nor Darius Nothus, nor Artaxerxes Mnemon, nor Darius Ochus, nor Arsos, nor Darius Codomanus, issued any decree that cor responded at all with this prediction, or any that related to the rebuilding of Je rusalem. There was no occasion for any, for the work was done. (2) A second remark is, that, in the language of Hengstenberg: " Until the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, the new city of Jerusalem was an open, thinly inhabited village, exposed to all aggressions from its neigh bours, sustaining the same relation to the former and the latter city, as the huts erected after the burning of a city for the first prostration from rain and wind, do to those which are still uninjured, or j its restoration. (6) That the angel does which have been rebuilt." Chris, ii. 381. not profess to answer the precise point of This is quite apparent from the remarks the inquiry which Daniel had suggested, which have been already made respecting j The prayer of Daniel was the occasion of the state of the city. The want of any per mission to rebuild the city and the walls; the fact that the permission to return ex tended only to a right to rebuild the uttering a higher prophecy than the one which he had been contemplating, (c) It is not necessary to suppose that the de sign was that Daniel should be able to temple; the improbabilities above stated j compute the exact time when the Mesthat the rebuilding of the city in its siah would appear. It was sufficient for strength would be allowed when they first returned, and no account which Nehemiah gives of the condition of Jerusalem at the time when he asked leave to go and * build' it, all tend to confirm this supposition. See Hengstenberg, as above, pp. 381 — 386. (3) A third remark is, that a confirmation of this may be found in the Book of Ecclesiasticus, showing how Nehemiah was regarded in respect to the rebuilding of the city: " And among the elect was Neemias, whose renown is great, who raised up for us the walls that were fallen, and set up the gates and the bars, and raised up our ruins again." ch. xlix. 13. On the other hand, Joshua and Zerubbabel are extolled only as rebuilders of the temple: "How shall we magnify Zorobabel? even he was as a signet on the right hand: So was Jesus the son of Josedec: — who in their time builded the house, and set up a holy temple to the Lord." vs. 11, 12. These considerations make the case clear, it seems to me, that the time referred to — the terminus a quo — according to the fair interpretation, was the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. To this we are conducted by the proper and necessary exposition of the language, and by the orders actually issued from the Persian court in regard to the temple and city.
If it should be objected — the only ob jection of importance that has been al leged against it — that this would not meet the inquiry of Daniel; that he was seeking for the time when the captivity would cease, and looking for its termina tion as predicted by Jeremiah; that it would not console him to be referred to a period so remote as is here supposed — the time of the rebuilding of the city; and, still more, that, not knowing that time, the prophecy would afford him no basis of calculation as to the appearing of the Messiah, it may be replied: (a) That the prediction contained all the consola tion and assurance which Daniel sought him if he had the assurance that he would appear, and if he were furnished with a basis by which it might be calculated when he would appear, after the order to rebuild the city had gone forth, (d) At any rate, the prophecy must have ap peared to Daniel to have a m\ich more important meaning than would be implied merely by a direct answer to his prayer — pertaining to the close of the exile. The prophecy indubitably stretched far into future years. Daniel must have seen at once that it contained an important disclosure respecting future events, and, as it implied that the exile ivould close, and that the city would be rebuilt, and as he had already a sufficient intimation when the exile would close, from the pro phecies of Jeremiah, we may suppose that the mind of Daniel would rest on this as more than he had desired to know — a revelation far beyond what he anticipated when he set apart this day for special prayer.
The only remaining difficulty as to the time referred to as the beginning of the seventy weeks — the terminus a quo — is that of determining the exact chronology of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes — the point from which we are to reckon. The time, however, varies only a few years according to the different estimates of chronology, and not so as materially to affect the result. The following are the principal estimates:
It will be seen from this, that the differ ence in the chronology is, at the greatest, but ten years, and in such a matter, whero the ancient records are so indefinite, and so little pains were taken to make exact dates, it cannot perhaps be expected that the time could be determined with exact
— the assurance that the city would be re- j accuracy. Nor, since the numbers used built, and that an order would go forth for j by the angel are in a sense round numbers — 'seventy weeks,' 'sixty-two weeks,'! If, notwithstanding the confusion of an- 'one week,' is it necessary to suppose that cient dates, the time is so nearly deterthe time could be made out with the ex- mined with accuracy, is it not rather actness of a year, or a month — though j to bo presumed that if the facts of ancient this has been often attempted. It is suf- J history could be ascertained that the exficient if the prediction were so accurate act period would be found to have been and determinate that there could be no j predicted by the angel? doubt, in general, as to the time of the III. The next point properly is, what appearing of the Messiah, and so that when he appeared it should be manifest that he was referred to. Hengstenberg, however, supposes that the chronology can be made out with literal accuracy. See Chris, ii. 394—408.
Taking the dates above given as the terminus a quo of the prophecy — the time from which to reckon the beginning of the sixty-nine weeks to the 'Messiah the Prince' — or the four hundred and eightythree years, we obtain, respectively, the following results: The period of 444 B. C., the period of
Jahn and Hales, would extend to A. D.
is the time referred to by the phrase 'unto the Messiah the prince' — the terminus ad quern. Here there can be but two opin ions: — that which refers it to his birth, and that which refers it to his public manifestation as the Messiah, or his taking the office upon himself. The remarks under the last head, have conducted us to the probability that the latter is intended. Indeed, it is morally certain that this is so if we have ascertained the terminus a quo with accuracy. The only question then is, whether this is the fair construc tion, or whether the language can prop erly be so applied. We have seen, in the interpretation of the phrase above, that
That of 454 B. C., the period of Heng- the grammatical construction of the Ianstenberg and Usher, to A. D. 29. \ff»?S* >s su<* a/ miShTt Wlthout "?Pr°- mains only to look at the probabilities that the latter was the design. It mny
It is remarkable how all these periods terminate at about the time when the Lord Jesus entered on his work, or assumed, at his baptism, the public office of the Messiah — when he was thirty years of age. It is undeniable be admitted, perhaps, that before the event occurred there might have been some uncertainty on the subject, and that with many, on reading the prophecy, the supposition would be that it referred to the birth of the Messiah. But a careful consideration of all the circumstances of reckoning be correct, or whatever com putation we may suppose to have been Jhrpassage^mTghTeven^tnen liaveied to employed by the Jews, the expectation diffeVent expectation, and might have would have been excited in the public mind that the Messiah was about to ap pear at that time. Perhaps the real truth may bo seen in a stronger light still by supposing that if a sagacious imposter had resolved to take upon himself the of fice of the Messiah, and had so shaped shown that tho probabilities were that it was the public manifestation of the Mes siah that was intended. Those mnj7 be regarded as stronger now, and mny be such as to leave no reasonable doubt on tho mind; that is, we may now see what would not likely to have been seen then — his plans as to meet the national expec- ag in the cage of all the propbecies. tations growing out of this prediction of; Among these considerations arc the fol- Damel, he would have undoubtedly set lowin?._/„) guch an interpretation may up his claims at about the time when the b after ftll the Inost prot)able. If we Lord Jesus publicly appeared as the Mes siah. According to the common chrono logies there would not have been a vari ance of more than nine years in the cal culation, and, perhaps, after all, when we consider how little the chronology of an- conceiveof one who should have predicted the appearance or coming of Jenghio Khan, or Alaric, or Attila, as conquerors, it would not be unnatural to refer this to their public appearing in that character, as to the time when they became known dent times has been regarded or settled, it | as such, and still more true would this be is much more to be wondered at that there! if one who should be inaugurated or set should be so great accuracy than that the time is ro more certainly determined.
apart to a public office. If, for example, there had been a prophecy of Gregory
tho Great, or Leo X. as Popes, it would [appears from the more accurate determibe most natural, unless there was a dis- i nation in ver. 27, in the middle of tho tinct reference to their birth, to refer this j seventieth, he shall be cut off. As now, to their election and consecration a* | according to the passage before us, sixty- Popes, for that would in fact be the pe- nine weeks shall elapse before the Mesriod when they appeared as such, (b) In \ siah, there remains from that event to the
the case of this prophecy there is no allusion to the birth of the Messiah. It is not 'to his birth/ or 'to his incarna tion,' but 'unto the Messiah the Prince:' that is, most manifestly, when he appeared as such, and was in fact such. In many instances in the prophecies there are allusions to the birth of the Messiah, and
completion of salvation, only a period of seven, until his violent death of three and a half years; a certain proof that ' unto the Messiah' must refer, not to his birth, but to the appearance of the Messiah as such." Christol. ii. 337.
IV. The next question, then is, whether according to this estimate the time can so numerous and accurate had they be- i be made out with any degree of accuracy, come that there was a general expecta- j The date of the decrees of Artaxerxes are tion of the event at about the time when j found to be, according to the common he was actually born. But in the pas- reckoning of chronologists, either 444, or sage before us, the language is that which 454, or 449 B. C. The addition of 483 would be used on the supposition that the j years to them we found also to reach, re designed reference was to his entering as j spectively, to A. D. 39, to A. D. 29, and Messiah on the functions of his office, | to A. D. 34. One of these (29) varies and not such as would have been so natu-! scarcely at all from the time when the rally employed if the reference had been i Saviour was baptized, at thirty years of to his birth, (c) His taking upon him- j age; another (34) varies scarcely at all self the office of the Messiah by baptism from the time when he was put to death; and by the descent of the Holy Spirit on J and either of them is so accurate that the him, was in fact the most prominent! mind of any one who should have made event in his work. Before that he had j the estimate when the command to build passed his life in obscurity. The work the city went forth, would have been which he did as Messiah, was commenced directed with great precision to the ex it that time, and was to be dated from pectation of the true time of his appear- *hat period. In fact he was not the Mes- ance; and to those who lived when he siah as such till he was set apart to the j did appear, the time was so accurate that, office — any more than an heir to a crown j in the reckoning of any of the prevailing is king until he is crowned, or an elected i methods of chronology, it would have chief magistrate is President before he • been sufficiently clear to lead them to the has taken the oath of office. The position expectation that he was about to come, which he occupied was, that he was de- i Two or three remarks, however, may be signaled or destined for the office of tho made in regard to this point. («) One is, Messiah, but had not in fact entered on I that it is now, perhaps, impossible to deit, and could not as yet be spoken of as | termine with precise accuracy the historisuch. (d) This is the usual method j cal period of events so remote. Time of recording the reign of a king — not j was not then measured as accurately as from his birth, but from his coronation.! it is now; current events were not as dis- Thus in the table above respecting the i tinctly recorded; chronological tables Persian kings, tho periods included are! were not kept as they are now; there was those from the beginning of the reign, not | no uniform method of determining the from the birth, to the decease. So in all • length of the year, and the records were statutes and laws, as when wo say the; much less safely kept. This is manifest lirst of George III., or the second of Vic-: because, even in so important an event aa toria, Ac. (e) To these considerations j the issuing of the command to rebuild the may be added an argument stated by i city in the time of Artaxerxes — an event Hengstenberg, which seems to make the { which it would be supposed was one of proof irrefragable. It is in the following sufficient moment to have merited an ex-
words: "After the course of seventy act record, at least among the Jews, there
weeks shall the whole work of salvation
is now, among the best chronologists, a
to bo performed by the Messiah, be com- difference of ten years as to the computapletod j after sixty-nine weeks, and, as it | tion of the time, (b) There is a variation
arising from the difference of the lunar or the solar year — some nations reckoning by the one, and some by the other, and the difference between them, in the pe riod now under consideration, would be greater than that which now occurs in the ordinary reckonings of chronology, (c) Till the exact length of the year, as then understood, is ascertained, there could be no hope of fixing the time with the exactness of a month or a day, and if the usual and general understanding of the length of the year be adopted, then the time here referred to would be so intelligible that there would be no dif-
to the highest pitch, when it appears from an accurate examination of these determinations, that the only one among them, which is correct, makes the pro phecy and history correspond with each other, even to a year.
" Happily, to attain this end, -we are not compelled to involve ourselves in a laby rinth of chronological inquiries. We find ourselves, in the main, on
ground. All chronologists agree, the commencement of the reign of Xer xes falls in the year 485 before Christ, the death of Artaxerxes, in the year 423. The difference concerns only the year of
ficmlty in ascertaining at about what time the commencement of the reign jf Arthe Messiah was to appear, or when he taxerxes. Our problem is completely
solved, when we have shown that this falls in the year 474 before Christ. For then the twentieth year of Artaxerxes ia the year 455 before Christ, according to
did appear in determining that it was he. This was all that was really necessary in regard to the prophecy. Yet (d) it has been supposed that the time could made out, even under these disadvan tages, with almost entire accuracy. The examination in the case may be seen at length in Hengstenberg, Chris, ii. 394 — 408. It is agreed on all hands that the commencement of the reign of Xerxes occurred in the year 485, before Christ,
"We should probably have been saved the trouble of this investigation, had not the error cf an acute man, and the want
and that Artaxerxes died in 423. The j Of independence in his successors, darkdifference concerns only the beginning of j ened what was in itself clear. Accordthe reign of Artaxerxes. If that occurred; ing to Thucydides, Artaxerxes began to in the year 464 B. C. then the problem is j reign shortly before the flight of Thesolved, for then the decree of the twen-; rnistocles to Asia. Deceived by certain tieth year of Artaxerxes would occur 444; specious arguments, hereafter to be ex- B. C., and if 483 be added to that, the re-; amined, Dodwell, in the Annall. Thncyd., suit is A. D. 29 — a difference then, even i placed both events in the year 465 before in reckoning whole years, and round num-; Christ. The thorough refutation of Vibers, of only one year between that and tringa, in the cited treatise, remained, the time when Jesus was baptised by strange as it may appear, unknown to John. The full proof of this point, about the philologians and historians, even as the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes, ' it seems to those of Holland, as Wesselniay be seen in Hengstenberg as above, ing. The view of Dodwell, adopted also
The argument, portant, and though long, is so imclear, that it may with out impropriety place.
According to the prophecy, the ter minus a quo, the twentieth year of Arta xerxes, is separated from the terminus ad qucm, the public appearance of Christ, by a period of 69 weeks of years, or four by Corsini in the Fasta Attica, became the prevailing one, at which we cannot wonder, when we consider how seldom, in modern times, chronological investi gations in general have been fundamental and independent; when, e. g., we observe that Poppo, a generally esteemed recent editor of Thucydides, in a thick volume en titled in Thucydidem Commentarii politici,
*The intelligent reader will perceive that the author has intentionally made his investi gation entirely independent of the difficult '
hundred and eighty-three years. If, now, we compare history with this, it must appear, even to the most prejudiced, in the highest degree remarkable, that among all the current chronological de terminations of this period, not one dif-; times.~'by~tne 'introduction of uncertain astrofers over ten years from the testimony! U0imcal combinations, particularly by Muntef »f the prophecy. This wonder must rise j and Idelcr, been led far aatray.
sonable efforts of Pausanias first com menced; the flight of Themistoclcs, how ever, was a consequence of the complaint, which was raised against him, out of the documents found after the death of Pau sanias. But Isocrates says, in the Panathenaikos, that the dominion of the Lace demonians had endured ten years. The
f/cograpJi., cJironologici, furnishes, in re ference to the last, nothing more than a reprint of the school edition of the chro nological tables collected from Dodwell, excusing himself with an odio quodam inveterato totiua IiKjus disciplines! Clin ton also (Fasti Hellein'ci, Int. vert. Kriiger, Leipz., 1830), though he clearly perceives,
that Dodwell has confused the whole j expedition of Xerxes taken as the terchronology of this period (comp., e. g., minus a quo, this transfer falls in the pp. 248 — 253), has not been able to free; year 470." But we may spare ourselves himself from him in the most important! the labour, which Vitringa takes, to inpoints, though he successfully opposed \ validate this alleged testimony of Isohim in several; and thus the confusion! crates, since all recent scholars, in part only becomes still greater, since now j independent of one another, agree that neither the actual chronological succes- j Isocrates speaks of a ten years' dominion, sion of events, nor the one ingeniously j not before, but after that of the Atheinvented by Dodwell, any longer remains, nians; comp. Coray, on Pan. c. 19. Nevertheless, the truth is advanced by j Dahlmann, Forschungen, I. p. 45. Kruthis increased confusion. For now the j ger, p. 221, Clinton, p. 250, ff. 2. That harmony introduced by Dodwell into the | Themistocles in the year 472 was still ir fictitious history is destroyed. The hon- j Athens, Corsini infers (Fasti Att. Ill our, however, of having again discovered I p. 180) from JEl. lib. 9. c. 5. According the true path, belongs to Kruger alone, to this, Themistocles sent back Hiero, who, after more than a hundred years, j who was coming to the Olympic games, as an entirely independent inquirer, co- asserting, that, whoever had not taken incides with Vitringa, in the same result, part in the greatest danger, could not be and in part in the employment of the a sharer of the joy. (The fact is also resame arguments. In the acute treatise, lated by Plutarch.) Now, as Hiero 01. Ueber den Cimonischen Fricdcn, (in the 75, 3 (478) began to reign, only the 01. Archiv f. Philoloyie und Padagog. von 77 (472) could bo intended. But who Seebodc, I. 2. p. 205, ff.,) he places the does not at once perceive, that the referdeath of Xerxes in the year 474 or 473, ence to the games of the 01. 76 (476) was and the flight of Themistocles a year far more obvious, since the occurrence later. This treatise may serve to shame j pre-supposed that the /^yiarof rdv Kivfovuv those, who reject in the mass the grounds i was still fresh in remembrance? 3. Acof our opinion, (to the establishment of, cording to this supposition, Xerxes would which we now proceed,) with the remark, i reign only eleven years; Artaxerxes, on that the author has only found what he j the contrary, fifty-one. This is in opposought. Whoever does not feel capable j sition to the testimony of the Can. Ptoof entering independently upon the inves- | lem. (comp. thereon Ideler, I. p. 109, ff.), tigation, should at least be prevented which gives to Xerxes twenty-one, and from condemning, by the circumstance, that a learned man, who has no other to Artaxerxes forty-one years; and of Ctesias, who gives to Artaxerxes forty-
design in view, than to elucidate a chro- two years, and of some other writers; nologically confused period of Grecian compare the passages in Bahr on Ctesias, history, gives, for the event which serves p. 184. Ceten's paribns, this argument to determine the terminus a quo of our j would be wholly decisive. But when prophecy, the precise year, which places j other weighty authorities are opposed to prophecy and fulfilment in the most exact j it, it is not of itself sufficient to outweigh harmony. j them. The canon has high authority,
;We examine first the grounds which only where it rests on astronomical ob-
seam to favour the opinion, that the reign of Artaxerxes commenced in the year
servations, which is here not the case. Otherwise it stands on the same ground
465. 1. "The flight of Themistocles! as all other historical sources. The whole must precede the transfer of the dominion J error was committed, as soon as only an of Greece from Athens to Sparta by se- '<* in an ancient authority was confounded veral years. For this happened during j with a \d; for when a reign of twenty - the siege of Byzantium, when the trea- j one years had thus been attributed to
Xerxes, the shortening of the reign of ' the account soncerning Nebuchadnezzar Artaxerxes to forty-cue years, necessarily, 'eomp. Beitr. I. p. 63). But we find followed. Wesseling (on Diod. 12, 64,) I even in the book of Esther itself, plain attributes forty-five years to Artaxer- • indications of this mole of reckoning, xes, thus without hesitation rejecting the j The account of the great feast, chap. 1, authority of the canon. To these argu- | is placed in its true light by this supposiruents, already adduced by others, we j tion. The occasion of it was the actual subjoin the following. 4. It seems to bo I commencement of the reign of Xerxes, evident from Ctesias, chap. 20, that Arta- though we need not on this account exxerxcs was born a considerable time after elude, what has hitherto been regarded the commencement of the reign of Xer- j as the exclusive object, consultations with xes. Ctesias, after relating it, proceeds: the nobles respecting the expeditions ya/m (5e Hep^r/f 'Qv6$a Snyarcpa "ApioTpiv! about to be undertaken. 'What is related, KCU yivtrai airu ira?j Aa/i£(a?o;, Kal trrpoj I chap. 2: 16, then falls precisely in the lura ovo srij 'Tord<r;rr)?, Kal sri 'Aprajepfrjf, I time of the return of Xerxes from Greece, If he relates the events in the true chro- | while otherwise, and this is attended with nological order, Artaxerxes in the year | difficulty, about two years after that 474 could at most have been seven years i event.
old. On the contrary, however, all ac counts agree, that at the death of Xerxes, although still young, (comp. Justin, 3, 1,) he was yet of a sufficient age to be capa ble of reigning himself. We must not be
" We now proceed to lay down the posi tive grounds for our view; and in the first place, the immediate, and then themediate proofs, which latter are far more numerous and strong, since they show,
satisfied with the answer, that it is very j that the flight of Themistocles, which improbable that Xerxes, who was born at must precede the reign of Artaxerxes, the beginning of the thirty-sixth year of i cannot possibly be placed later than 473 the reign of Darius, (comp. Herod. 7, 2,) before Christ.
and was already 34—35 years old at his \ "To the first class, belong the following, death, was not married until so late a 1- It must appear very strange to those, period. Ctesias himself frees us from the; who assume a twenty-one years' reign embarrassmentinto which we were thrown I of Xerxes, that the whole period from by his inaccuracy. According to chap, j the eleventh year, is a complete tabula 22, Megabyzus was already married, be- j rasa. The biblical accounts stop short fore the expedition against Greece, with \ at the close of the tenth year. Ctesias a daughter of Xerxes, who, already men-! relates only one inconsiderable event after tioned, chap. 20, if Ctesias is there chro- I the Grecian war, chap. 28, which ocnologically accurate, could not have been curred immediately after its termination, born before that time. According to No later writer has ventured to introduce chap. 28, Megabyzus, immediately after anything into the ten years, which, acthe return of Xerxes from Greece, com- cording to our view, the permutation of plained to him of the shameful conduct! an « and * adds to his age. of this wife of his. 5. There can be no j "We possess atwofbld testimony, which doubt that the Ahasuerus of the book of places the return of Xerxes from Greece, Esther, is the same as Xerxes. But the j and his death, in so close connection, that, twelfth year of this king is there ex- without rejecting it, we cannot possibly pressly mentioned, chap. 3: 7, and the! assume a fifteen years' reign after this events related in the following context! return, but are rather compelled to place fall, in part, about the end of the same | his death not beyond the year 474. The year. But this difficulty vanishes, as ' first is that of Julian, For. Hist. 13, 3: soon as we include the years of the co- ' tlra iitavt^uv^ aivxiara dvSpunuv dn-tSa/'tv, regency of Xerxes with Darius. Accord- i dTroo-^aytij vvxrup iv rrj cvvfj {md rov mov. ing to the full account in Herodot. 7. chap. 2 — 4, Xerxes, two years before the
The second, that of Justin, 3, 1. "Xer xes rex Persarum, terror ontea gentium, bello in Grceciam infeliciter gesto, etiam
death of Darius, was established by him,
as king, comp. e. g. chap. 4.: dnifcle <5t j siria contemtui esse coepit. Qiiippe Artaj3a<riA/ja nipogoi Aaptij -.i-rfca. Of the lames prcefectus ejtts, deficiente quotidie custom of the Hebrew writers to include regia majestate, in ftpem regni adductus, the years of a co-regency, where it ex- j cum septem robustissirnis Jiliitt," etc. leted, we have a remark;) Lie example in j " 3. The testimonies of Justin, L c.* ro-
specting the age of his sons at his death, ] the fact, that Nehenmh, at his return, are not reconcilable with the twenty-one j according to v. 23, found a great many years' reign of Xerxes. " Secnrior de foreign women in the colony. That these Arlnxerxe, puero admodum, fingit regem marriages had already existed for some a Dnrio, qui erat adoleseens, quo matu- \ time, appears from v. 24, where it is said, riua regno jwtiretur, occisum." If Xerxes j that the children of them had spoken reigned twenty-one years, his first born, j half in the language of Ashdod, and could Darius, according to a comparison of not speak Hebrew. A long absence is also
Ctesias, chap. 22, could not at his death have been an adolescens, but at least thirty- one years old. On the contrary, if eleven years' reign be assumed, these determinations are entirely suitable. Da rius was then towards twenty-one years old. Artaxerxes, according to Ctesias, chap. 20, near four years younger than Darius, about seventeen. This determi nation shows also, that it cannot be ob jected against a fifty-one years' reign of Artaxerxes, that it would give him too
implied in the other abuses which Nehe miah, according to chap. 13: 10 sq., found on his return. He saw the fruits of the former labours almost destroyed. The same is also evident from the pro phecies of Malachi, which were delivered exactly in the time between the two periods of Nehemiah's presence at Jeru salem; comp. Vitringa's excellent Dis sert, de ^State Mai., in his Obss. ss. VI. 7. t. 2. p. 353 sq. The condition of the people appears here, as it could have
great an age. The suggestion can be re- I been only after they had already been futed by the simple remark, that the deprived, for a considerable time, of their length of his life remains exactly the | two faithful leaders, Ezra, who, having same, whether he reigned fifty-one or arrived thirteen years earlier, had cofortv-one years. If he ascended the operated for a considerable time with
throne at seventeen, his life terminated at sixty-eight.
"4. According to the most numerous and weighty testimonies, the peace of Cimon was probably concluded after the battle of the Eurymedon (before Christ 470). Now as all agree that this peace was concluded with Artaxerxes, the com mencement of his reign must, in any event, be placed before 470. Comp. Kiirger, 1. c. p. 218.
" 5. The history of Nehemiah is scarcely reconcilable with the supposition, that Artaxerxes reigned only forty-seven years. After Nehemiah had accomplished all that is related in chap. 1 — 12 of his book, he returned to Persia to discharge the duties of his oSice, at court. This hap- 1
Nehemiah, and Nehemiah himself. But, if we consider barely the first-mentioned fact, the marriages with foreign women, it will be evident, that a longer period than nine years would be required. For each change, there will then only three years be allowed, and as this is undeni ably too little for the third, according to v. 24, the two first must be still moro shortened, which is inadmissible. Be sides, wo do not even have nine years for these events, if the reign of Arta xerxes is fixed at forty-one years. For the relation of Nehemiah pre-supposes, that Artaxerxes was yet living at the time of its composition. This, however, cannot be placed in the time immediately after the return of Nehemiah, since it
second year of Artaxerxes. The time of his return is not accurately determined. It gays merely, after a considerable time, the D^DJ ff?S- That his absence, however, must have continued a whole series of
If, however, we are conducted by the authority of Nehemiah, which is liable to no exception, since he was contemporary, and closely connected with Artaxerxes, a few years over fortyone, we have gained much. For then
years, appears from the relation of that | the only objection to our determination, which took place in the mean time. The I the testimony of the canon, is completely law against marriage with foreign wo- ' set aside, men, to the observance of which the peo- j " We must premise a remark, before we
?le had bound themselves ane\v, chap, bring forward our indirect proofs, in order 0: 30, was first violated during his ab-: to justify the connection, in which we sence; then again by a decree of the place the commencement of the reign of people, executed in all severity, 13: 1—3, Artaxerxes with the flight of Theinistound then again broken, as appears from j cles. This connection has not, indeed,
the unanimous testimony of the ancient writers in its favour. The vouchers for it are, Thucydides, chap. 137, where it is said of Themistocles, who had come into Asia, ianivmti Ypa^ara ig J3a<ji\ta ' A p™ ££/>$>// rov Efyifou, I'tuarl /JaaiXEVoira, and Charon of Lampsacus, who, according to Plu tarch, Thent. chap. 27, makes him in like manner fly to Artaxerxes. On the con trary, others, as Ephorus, Dinon, Klitarch, and Heraclides (comp. Plut. 1. c.), represent him as going to Xerxes. If, now, we examine these testimonies, ac cording to the authority of the witnesses, the decision will unquestionably he in favour of that of Thucydides and Charon. Thucydides was contemporary with Ar taxerxes, and was born about the time of the flight of Themistocles. This prince of Greek historians gives, chap. 97, as the cause, why he relates the events be tween the Median and Peloponnesian war, that all his predecessors had passed over these events in silence, and that the only one who touched upon them, Hellanicus,
inenvfiaSr) them, from which it is evident, first, how little certain are the accounts of this period in later authors, because they can have no credible contemporary vouch er, since he could not have been unknown to Thucydides; and second, that Thucydi des himself claims to be regarded as a care ful and accurate historian of this period, and therefore must be esteemed such, be cause so honest a man would assume no thing to himself, which did not belong to him. The other witness, Charon, was the less liable to err, since, at the very time of this event, he was a writer of history, and even lived in Asia. On the other hand, the oldest witnesses for the opposite sup position, lived more than a century after the event. Ephorus (see on his Akrisic, Dahlmann) outlived the dominion of Al exander in Asia; Dinon was father of Klitarch, who accompanied Alexander.
" In weighing these grounds, the au thority of Thucydides and Charon was unhesitatingly followed in ancient times. Plutarch, 1. c. does this, with the remark, that the testimony of Thucydides agrees better with the chronological works. Nepos says: " Scio plerosque ita scrips\Hne, Themistoclem Xerxe regnnnte in A.si<im tranaiisse: Bed ego potixximum Thucydidi credo, quod cetate proximua de it*, qui illortim, temporum Tiiatorias reli-
qucrunt et cjusdem civitatis fuit." Suidas, and the Scholiast on Ariatoph. Equites, from which the former borrowed verbatim his second article on Themistocles, makes him flee, ffpoj TOV 'Apra^tp^rif^ -rov Etpfou rov Ittpaov ffau?a, without even mention ing the other supposition. And in this respect, we have the less fear of contra diction, since, as far as we know, all mo dern critics, without exception, follow Thucydides and Charon. We only still remark, that the opposite view can the more easily be rejected, since us origin can so readily be explained, either from the fact, that this event fell on the bor der of the reign of Xerxes and of Arta xerxes, or from a simple confounding of the two names, the assumption of which is more easy, the more frequently it oc curs; we find it even in Aristotle, the contemporary of those writers, Pol. 5, 8, and twice in Ctesias, chap. 35, where Bahr would make a change in opposition to all the manuscripts, and chap. 44. Comp. Biihr on the passage, and Reimarus on Dio Cnas. II. p. 1370. Finally, the error might arise also from the circum stance, that the flight of Themistocles was placed in the right year, but twentyone years were attributed to Xerxes, from which it necessarily follows, that he j took refuge with Xerxes. This last opi nion is favoured by the coincidence of several contemporary writers in the same error, which pre-supposes some plausible reason for it.
"We now proceed to lay down our indi rect proofs. 1. We begin with the testi mony which gives precisely the year of the flight of Themistocles, that of Cicero, Lcel. chap. 12. It is true, Corsini, 1. c. 3, p. 180, asserts, that Cicero speaks of the year in which Themistocles was ban ished from Athens; but we need only examine the passage, to be convinced of the contrary: " Themistocles — -fecit idem, quod 20. annis ante a pud iws feccrat Coriolanus." The flight of Coriolanus to the Volci falls in the year 263 U. C., B. C. 492. The flight of Themistocles is accordingly placed by Cicero in the year 472, a year later than by us, which is of no importance, since the round number twenty was the more suitable to the ob ject of Cicero, as the more accurate nine teen, for the Chronologies. If Dodwell's view were correct, there would be the space of twenty-seven years between the two events.
"2. DiodorusSiculus,wh o,l 1,55, places iference to the assumed termination. the flight of Themistocles in 01. 77, 2 Also, Thucyd. chap. 128, the expedition (B. C. 471), in any event favours our against Cyprus, and that against Byzandetermination, which ascends only two ' tium, are connected as immediately sucyears higher, far more than the opposite | ceeding each other. If, however, Dodone. We remark, however, that he also well were compelled by the force of the places in the same year the residence of arguments to acknowledge, that these Themistocles at Magnesia, and his death; events, which he compresses into one and thus it is evident, that whether by year, do not, as he assumes, (p. 61,) bemistake or design, he compresses the long to the year 470, but to the year 477, events in the life of Themistocles, which he would surely be compelled, perceiving filled up some years, into the year of his it to be impossible to lengthen out the death. If this took place in the year thread of the events until the year 465, 471, the flight must be dated at least as to give up the whole hypothesis. The far back as 473. Our determination dif- dissatisfaction of the allies was followed fers only a single year from that of Euse- by the recall of Pausanias. That thia bius, who relates the flight of Themis- j belongs still to the same year, plainly tocles in 01. 77, 1. i appears, partly from the nature of the
«3. But that which forms the chief ar- case itself, since it pre-supposea a congument, the whole series of transactions, tinuance of supremacy, partly from Thuas they have been recorded in accurate i cydides, chap. 95: iv rourw 6 i ol order, especially by Thucydides, compels &a.Kt&ain6vioi ^mn-^Troi/ro Tlavaaviav dvaxns without reserve to place the flight of i piixtovres u>v Tft.pl inwSavovro, Pausanias rhemistocles not below the year 473. ' having come to Sparta, and been there Chat the expedition of the allied Greeks j set atliberty, now betook himself privately xinder the direction of Pausanias, against j in a galley to Byzantium. This cannot Cyprus and Byzantium, the capture of j have happened long afterwards, for Thuthe latter city, and the transfer of the cydides, chap. 128, immediately subjoins supremacy from the Lacedemonians to j it, and what is of the most importance, the Athenians, occasioned by the inso- j Pausanias finds the fleet still at Byzanlence of Pausanias, fall in the year 477, i tium. That his residence there did not we may regard as established beyond i long continue, appears from the account dispute by Clinton, p. 270 sq.# The of Thucydides, chap. 131, that he was view of 0. Miiller (Dorier, II. p. 498), | forcibly expelled thence by the Atheniwho distributes these events into a period j ans. He now retired to the colony in of five years, is contradicted by the ex- Troas; frcm there, he was recalled to pression if r/}<k rrj /jye/*oi>t'a of Thucydides, Sparta, after it had been reported that chap. 94, whereby the capture of Byzan- i he kept up an understanding with the tium is brought into the same year with! barbarians. The Ephori threw him into the expedition against Cyprus. That prison, but soon after released him. At these words cannot be connected with this time, his intercourse with Themiswhat follows, without a change of the: tocles took place, who, being at the time text in opposition to all critical authority, already expelled from Athens, resided at is shown by Poppo. Moreover, the very Argos, and thence made excursions into last of these events is placed, by the the rest of the Peloponnesus. That Pauunanimous testimony of antiquity, in the J sanias then for the first time drew Theyear 477. Clinton shows, p. 249, that all i mistocles into his plan, when the latter reckonings of the time of the supremacy j had been driven from Athens, is asserted of the Athenians, setting out from this ' by Plutarch, and a personal intercourse year, differ from one another only in re- i between them is rendered certain by all
| accounts. That there was no consider-
*The grounds are thus briefly summed up I ablt: Period between this release of Pauby Win., p. 252. " Dodwelli ration! neutiquam ' S!)nias> antl his death, is clear. Pausafavet Isocratia auctoritas. Repugnat rerum j nias was not condemned, because there was Kestarum series, repugnat quod Thucyd. sign!- j no certain proof against him. It is, howficat, Plutarchus et Aristides diserte tradunt, ever? psychologically improbable, that repugnat demque teinpons spatmm, quod I i J-j f «• i • *u
erates ipse, Plato, Demosthenes, Aristides, quibus fortasse addeudus est Lycurgufl."
dently kept himself from giving open offence' for a series of years, when we
consider thafc he was deprived of all pru dence by his haughtiness, arising to mad ness, that he himself rendered the execu-
TU>V 7roXird>j>) would cause the decision to be hastened as much as possible. The-
tion of his treasonable plan impossible; \ migtocles, persecuted both by the Athethat, according to Thucydides, chap. 130,!nians an(j Lacedemonians, now flees
he went about in a Median dress, and caused himself to be accompanied on a journey through Thrace with Median and Egyptian satellites, spread a Persian table, made difficult the access to his per son, gave free course to his passions, of whom Thucydides himself very signifi
from the Peloponnesus to Corcyra. Be ing denied a residence there, he retires to the opposite continent. In danger of being overtaken by his persecutors, (Thucyd. chap. 136: KUI ^IUKO/^OJ vnd T&V TrpoirT£riiyniva)v Kara TTVOTIV 77 X(JP°"7)) he sees himself compelled to flee to Admetus, the king of the Molossians. Nor can he have long resided there, for, acnpalttv, \ cording to Thucydides, chap. 137, he was and of whose senseless arrogance the j sent forward by Admetus, as soon as his same historian, chap. 132, gives an ex- j persecutors came. And how can we supample, even out of the time immediately! pose, that they would have been long beafter the battle of Platea. The discovery j hind him? How long could his place was effected by him who was to bring to! of residence have remained a secret? It
letters to the king.
With what haste the transactions were carried on, and that by no means a space of four years was consumed, is evident
is expressly said by Thucydides, that the coming of his persecutors, and the flight of Themistocles to Asia, very soon hap pened (wrrepov ov TroXXw). It is true, that from the fact, that the king, in order to I if we could credit the account of Stesimaccelerato them, had expressly sent Ar- | brotus, in Plut. chap. 24, we must assume
tabazus to Asia Minor. His death im mediately followed the discovery (comp. Thucyd. 133). We surely do not assume that the residence of Themistocles with Admetus continued some months. For he related that his friends brought to him too little, when we give to these events a j there, his wife and children, whom they period of three years. That we need not. had secretly conducted out of Athens, go beyond this, is shown by Diodorus, j But that no dependence is to be placed who compresses all these events into the ' upon this, is evident from the absurd ficyear 477 (01. 75, 4.) How could he j tion of Stesimbrotus that immediately have done this, or how could such an i follows, which, to the surprise even of error have arisen, if the beginning and j Plutarch, tir oiiK olti oTrwj ' x " ' end had been separated from each other ' by a period of 8 — 9 years? How impossible it was for him, with his sources, to place the destruction of the Pausanias
TrXfiWi ipriaiv K. T. X.,) he brings forward, without observing that the one fable does away the other, viz., that Themistocles
far beyond this time, appears from his wag sent by Admetus to Sicily, and had fiction, which can in no other way be | desired Of Hiero his daughter in marriage, explained, of a twofold accusation of j with the prom{so to bring Greece under Themistocles. If, now, we must place I subjection to him. Plutarch designates the death of Pausanias about the year | Stesimbrotus as a shameless liar. Peri- 474, and in no event later, the flight of j cle^ chap> 13> That the sons of Themis- Themistocles cannot be placed farther • tocles remainea in Athens, is manifest back than the year 473. For Themis- i from a relation in Suidas, and the testitocles at the death of Pausanias had mony of Thucydides, chap. 137, and of already been a considerable time in the piutarch, that the gold was first sent to Peloponnesus. His accusation followed j Themistocles by his friends, after his immediately after the event; comp. Ihu- I arrivai jn Asia, to enable him to reward cydides, 1, 135; and the combined in- j the service Of the captain who brought terests of the Lacedemonians, to whom him to Asia> shows at the same time the nothing could be more desirable than to! incorrectness of the assertion of Stesimhave the Athenians share their disgrace, ' brotns, and confirms the opinion, that and of the enemies of Themistocles at i Themistocle? remained in no one place Athens (Plut Them. c. 23: nartftfav <i«»! of his flight long enough for his friendi
to send to him there the necessary gold. Themistocles was conducted by Admctus to Pidna, and from there he betook him self in a boat directly to Asia. This, accordingly, since between the death of Pausanhi?, and the coming of Themisto cles into Asia, there could at most be only a year, can at latest have happened in the year 473, perhaps in 474; and even in the former case, we are com pletely justified in placing the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes, which still can not have immediately coincided with the
Athenians against the Persians, the -war with whom formed the only ground for the important requisitions which they made upon their allies; comp. Thucyd. 1, 94. Hitherto, since the supremacy had passed over to the Athenians, scarcely anything had been done against the Per sians, except the taking of the unimport ant JEgon. Thucydides also leads us to about the same year as that given by Diodorus, who connects the defection of Thasos (467) with \p6vw vcrrepov. which cannot stand where events immediately
coming of Themistocles, in the year 474. j succeed each other. Even for these rea- "4. On the supposition that the com- sons the siege of Naxos and the flight of mencement of the reign of Artaxerxes, j Themistocles do not fall after 471. If, and the flight of Themistocles, fall in however, we consider, that Naxos was 465, an extravagant old age must be attri- the first confederate city with which the buted to Charon of Lampsacus. Accord- j Athenians were involved in discord, ing to Suidas, he was still flourishing; comp. Thucyd. P. 1, 98, (which, from the under the first Darius, 01. 69, 504 B. C.; nature of the case, as is rendered espe- Since now, in his history, he mentions j cially clear by the remarks of Thucydides the flight of Themistocles to Artaxerxes, • and a comparison of the later historians, this being placed in 465, he must have j could scarcely have first happened after been employed in writing history at least seven years), and if we farther consider forty years. This is not, indeed, abso- the way in which Thucydides, chap. 98, lutcly impossible; but in a doubtful case connects the events, from the transfer it must be rejected as the more improba- j of the supremacy until the capture of ble alternative. " Histories cnim non aunt Naxos, with one another, we shall, withexpHcandcE, — says Vitringa, (Proll. in j out hesitation, place the latter some years Zach. p. 29,) — ex raris et innolentibus ex- earlier, in the year 474 or 473. emplis, sed ex communi vivendi leije et\ "6. The flight of Themistocles falls at ordine. Si res secus se habeat, in ipsn \ least three years earlier than the battlo liifitoria ascribitur ne fallat incautos." • on the Eurymedon, because in all proba-
Compare his farther excellent remarks on this subject. That this argument is not without force, is evident even from the
bility he was dead before the latter event. His death, however, must have been some years subsequent to his coining into Asia,
efforts of some advocates of the false chro- comp. Thucyd. chap. 138. One year nology, to set it aside by cutting the knot, passed in learning the language, and
Suidas, after he has cited the abovernentioned determination of the time of Cha
ron, as he found it in authorities, subjoins,
his more ancient
Creuzer, on thofrac/m.historr.
some time, in any event, was required for what is implied in ravrrjg
K. r. X. Thucydides relates, that, according to the account of some, Themis tocles took poison, d^vvarov vofiiaavra tivai
Grtec. p. 95, rejects this date without I irrtT£\Eaai ftaoti.tl a vrtetrxero. This prefarther examination, because it gives too supposes that Themistocles was compelled great an age to Charon. | to fulfil his promises, and had this not
"5. According to Thucyd. 1,136, The- j been the case at his death, the report, mistocles, on his passage to Asia, fell in | that Thucydides only in this instance rewith the Athenian fleet, which was be- j lied upon himself, could not have arisen, sieging Naxos. This siege of Naxos, j Plutarch expressly connects the death of however, according to the testimony of Themistocles with the expedition of Ci- Thucydides, chap. 100, which makes all mon. This is done by several writers, other arguments superfluous, happened j with the mention of the most special cirbefure tho great victory of the Athenians ' cumstances, compare the passages in Staon the Eurymedon, which, according to | veren on Nep. Them. 10, all of which may Diodorus, belongs to the year 470, and j be regarded as they are by Cicero, Brut. cannot be placed later, because this was j chap. 11, and Nepos, as fictitious, and the first considerable undertaking of the j yet tho historical basis on which alone
•very thing depends, the fact that Thucydides died before the battle on the Eurymedon, is firmly established.
"7. Kriiger, 1. c. p. 218, has shown that the account of Plutarch, that Themistocles reached an age of sixty-five years, forbids us to place his death be yond the year 470, and therefore his flight beyond the year 473. According to an account which has internal evidence of credibility in ^Elian, Far. Hist. III. 21, Themistocles, as a small boy coming from school, declined going out of the way of the tyrant Pisistratus. Assuming that this happened in the last year of Pisistratus, B. C. 529, and that Themis tocles was at that time six years old, he must have been born 535, and died 470. Nor is it a valid objection, that according to Plutarch, Themistocles was still living at the time of the Cyprian expedition of Cimon (449, B. C.), and was still young at the battle of Marathon. For the former rests on a manifest confounding of the former event, with the victory over the Persian fleet at Cyprus, which is supposed to have immediately preceded the victory on the Eurymedon, (comp. Diodor. 11, 60, Dahlmann, Forschungen, I. p. 69,) and the latter merely on a conclusion drawn from this error. 'Whoever,' remarks Dahlmann, p. 71, 'reads without preju dice the passage, Thucyd. 1, 138, will perceive that the death of Themistocles followed pretty soon after his settlement in Persia; probably in the second year, if Thucydides is worthy of credit/
" Until all these arguments are refu ted, it remains true, that the Messianic interpretation of the prophecy is the only correct one, and that the alleged Pseudo Daniel, as well as the real Daniel, pos sessed an insight into the future, which could have been given only by the Spirit of God; and hence, as this favour could have been shown to no deceiver, the genuineness of the book necessarily fol lows, and the futility of all objections against it is already manifest."*
V. Tho only remaining point of in quiry on this verse is, as to the division of the whole period of sixty-nine weeks into two smaller portions of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; that is, of the four hundred and eighty-three years into one period of four hundred and thirty-four years, and one of forty-nine years. This Uiquiry resolves itself into another, whether, after the issuing of the com mand in the twentieth yenr of Artaxerxes there was a period of forty-nine years that was in any manner distinguished from that which followed, cr any reason why an epoch should be made there. If the command in the twentieth of Arta xerxes was in the year B. C. 454, then the subtraction of forty-nine years from this would make the year 405 B. C., the marked period; that is, about that time some important change would occur, or a new series of affairs would commence which would properly separate the previ ous period from that which followed. I Now the fair interpretation of this pas- I sage respecting the seven weeks, or forty - | nine years, undoubtedly is, that that time | would be required in rebuilding the city, and in settling its affairs on a permanent foundation, and that, from the close of | that time, another period of sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four j years would elapse to the appearing of the Messiah. It is true that this is not distinctly specified in the text, and true that in the text the phrase 'the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times,' is not limited ex pressly to either period, but it is also said in the next verse that the period of! sixty-two weeks would be terminated by the appearing of the Messiah, or by his being cut off, and, therefore, it is fair to presume that the previous period of seven weeks was to be characterized particu larly as the ' troublous times' in which the street and the wall were to be built again. The inquiry now is, whether that jtime was actually occupied in rebuilding! and restoring the city. In regard to this, it may be remarked (1) that there is a strong probability that a considerable time would be necessary to rebuild the walls of the city, and to restore Jerusalem to a condition like that in which it was before the captivity. We are to remem ber that it had been long lying in ruins; that the land was desolate; that Jeru salem had no commercial importance t > make its growth rapid; that there were few in the city on whom reliance could be placed in rebuilding it; that a large portion of the materials for rebuilding it was to be brought from a distance; that the work was opposed with much deter mination by the Samaritans; that it was necessary, as Nehemiah informed us, in building tho walls, that the workmea should have a -weapon of defence in one hand whilst they laboured with the other, and that those who were engaged on it were mostly poor. When these things are considered, it is at least not improba ble that the period of forty-nine years; would be required before it could be said that the work was fully completed. (2) A I more material question, however is, | whether the facts in the case confirm; this, or whether there was such a termi nation of the rebuilding of the city at ' about that period, that it could be said '• that the time occupied was seven weeks rather than, for example, six, or five, or nine. It may not be necessary so to make this out as to determine the precise j year, or the termination of forty-nine: years, but in a general division of the time,! it is necessary, undoubtedly, so to deter- j mine it as to see that that time should have been designated, rather than one equally general at the close of one week, or two,! or six, or nine, or any other number. Now that that was the period of the com-: pletion of the work contemplated by the decree issued under Artaxerxes, and the j work undertaken by Nehemiah, it is not j difficult to show: (a) It is reasonable to presume that the time referred to in the seven weeks would be the rebuilding of the city, and the restoration of its affairs to its former state — or the completion of the arrangements to restore the nation from the effects of the captivity, and to put it on its former footing. This was the main inquiry by Daniel; this would be a marked period; this would be that for which the 'commandment would go forth;' and this would constitute a natural division of the time, (b) As a matter of fact, the completion of the work under taken by Nehemiah, under the command of the Persian kings, reached to the pe riod here designated, and his last act as Governor of Judea, in restoring the peo ple, and placing the affairs of the nation o& its former basis, occurred at just about the period of the forty-nine years after the issuing of the command by Artaxerxes Lougimanus. That event, as is supposed above, occurred B. C. 454. The close of the seven weeks, or of the forty-nine years, would therefore be B. C. 405. This would be about the last year of the j reign of Darius Nothus. See the table ' above. Nehemiah was twice Governor of Judea, and the work of restoration which he undertook was not completed until his being the second time in that office. The first time he remained twelve years in office, for he received his commission in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and in the thirty-second year he returned again to him. Neh. xiii. 6. This, ac cording to the computation above, would bring it down to B. C. 442. How long ho then remained with the king of Persia, he does not definitely state himself, but says it was 'certain days.' Neh. xiii. 6. After this, he again obtained permission of the king to return to Jerusalem, and went back the second time as Governor of Judea. Neh. xiii. 6, 7. The time from his first return to Persia, after the twelve years that he spent in Judea to the year 405 B. C.. would be thirty-seven years. Ac cording to this, the close of the 'seven weeks,' and the completion of the enter prise of ' rebuilding and restoring' the city, must have been at the end of that thirtyfive years. In reference to this, it may bo remarked (1) that Nehemiah is known to have lived to a great age (Jotephut), yet, supposing he was thirty years old when he was first appointed governor of Judea, and that the time referred to at the close of the ' seven weeks' or fortynine years was the completion of his work on the restoration of the affairs of Jerusalem, the whole period would only reach to the seventy-ninth year of his age. (2) The last act of Nehemiah in restoring the city occurred in the fifteenth year of the reign of Darius Nothus — ac cording to Prideaux (Con. II. 206, aeq.) — that is, 408 B. C. This would make, ac cording to the common computation of chronology, a difference from the esti mate above of only three years, and, per haps, considering that the time of 'seven weeks' is a reckoning in round numbers, this would be an estimate of sufficient ac curacy. But besides this it is to be re membered that the exact chronology to a year or a month cannot be made out with absolute certainty, and taking all the cir cumstances into consideration it is re markable that the period designated in the prophecy, coincides so nearly with the historical record. The only remain ing inquiries, therefore, are, whether tho last act of Nehemiah referred to occurred at the time mentioned — the fifteenth of Darius Nothus, or 408 B. C.— and whether that was of sufficient prominence and importance to divide the two periods of the prophecies, or to be a proper closing
26 And after threescore and two
up of the work of restoring and rebuild- termination of that captivity in the fullest ing Jerusalem. What he did in his office sense, and divided the past from the fuas governor of Judea at his second vifita- ture — or constituted a peri 'odor epoch in the tion to Jerusalem, is recorded in Neh. xiii. history of the Jewish people. It remains 7 — 31. The particular acts which he only to add, on this verse — and the remark performed consisted in removing certain will be equally applicable to the exposition abuses which had been suffered to grow up! of the two remaining verses of the chapin his absence respecting the temple ser- ' ter — that, on the supposition that this had vice, by which the temple had become greatly polluted (ch. xiii. 7 — 14); in restoring the Sabbath to its proper ob servance, which had become greatly disregarded (ch. xiii. 15 — 22), and in constraining those Jews who had con tracted unlawful marriages to separate been written after the coming of lue Mes siah, and it had been designed to frame what would seem to be a prophecy or pre diction of these events, the language here would be such as would have been appro priately employed. From the time of the going forth of the command to rebuild themselves from their wives (ch. xiii. 23! the city, the whole duration would have — 31). These acts were necessary to put been accurately divided into two great the affairs of the temple, and the condi- [portions — that requisite for the completion tion of the city, on its former basis. The of the work of restoring the city, and that last of these acts — the separation of those ] extending to the coming of the Messiah, who had contracted unlawful marriages j and the former would have been made to from their wives, is that which designates I terminate where it is now supposed the the close of the seven weeks, and respect- | period of 'seven weeks,' or forty-nine ing which the date is to be sought. This! years did actually terminate. If this is stated in the book of Nehemiah (xiii. would have been the correct apportion- 28) to have occurred in the time of * one! ment in a historic review, it is correct aa of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib & prophetic review, the high-priest, son-in-law to Sanballetthe
Horonite.' That is, it occurred when Joi ada was high-priest. But, according to the
26. And after threescore and tico iccelct. After the completion of the last period of four hundred and thirty four years.
Chron. Alexandrinum, Joiada succeeded! The angel had shown in the previous his father in the office in the eleventh year j verse what would be the characteristic of of Darius Nothus, and Prideaux supposes, j the first period of ' seven weeks'— that duwithout improbability, that this event may! ring that time the wall and the street have occurred as long as four years after j wouid be built in circumstances of general he entered on the office of high-priest, I distress and anxiety, and he now proceeds which would bring it to the fifteenth to state what would occur in relation to the it to of Darius Nothus, or 408 B. C.
Jahn (Heb. Com.) p. 179—182, and Pri deaux, Con. II. 206—210. The time, then, if this be the event referred to, is suffi ciently accurate to make it coincide with the prophecy — sufficiently so to divide the previous period from that which succeeded it. The event itself was of sufficient im portance to have a place here. It was, in fact, finishing what was necessary to be done in order to a completion of the purpose to 'restore and rebuild Jerusalem.' It was in fact the restoration of Jewish af fairs under the Persian edict, or what was accomplished in fact under that edict in placing the Jewish affairs on the proper ba sis — basis on which they were substan tially before the captivity. This was the j would be, that this would be Mie next lar thing which would characterize that pe riod would be, that the Messiah would be cut off, and that the series of events would commence which would terminate in the destruction of the city and the temple. Ho does not say that this would be immediately on the termination of the sixty-two weeks, but he says that it would be 'after' — nnx — subsequent to the close of that period. The word does not mean necessarily im mediately, but it denotes that which is to succeed — to follow — and would be well expressed by the word afterwards. Gen. xv. 14, xxiii. 19, xxv. 26, et at. See Gesenius, Lex. The natural meaning here event in the order of events to be reck oned; it would be that on which the pro phetic eye would rest subsequent to the close of the period of sixty-two weeks. There are two circumstances in the pro phecy itself which go to show that it is not meant that this would immedi ately follow: (a) One is, that in the pre vious verse it is said that the ' sixty-two weeks' would extend 'unto the Messiah;' that is, either to his birth or to his mani festation as such, and it is not implied anywhere that he would be 'cut off' at once on his appearing, nor is such a sup-
The proper notion or meaning here is, undoubtedly, that of being cut off by death, and would suggest the idea of a violent death, or a death by the agency of others. It would apply to one who was assassinated, or murdered in a mob, or who was appointed to death by a judicial decree; or it might be applied to one who was cut down in battle, or by the pestilence, or by lightning, or by ship wreck, but it would not naturally or prop erly be applied to one who had lived out his days and died a peaceful death. We always now connect with the word the position reasonable, or one that would j idea of some unusual interposition, as have been embraced by an ancient stu- when we speak of one who is cut down in dent of the prophecies; (6) the other is, middle life< The ancient translators unthat, in the subsequent verse, it is ex- derstood it Of a violent death. So tho pressly said that what he would accom- | Latin Vulgate, occidetur christm. Syriac, plish in causing the oblation to cease would occur ' in the midst of the week;' that is, of tho remaining one week that would complete the seventy. This could not occur if ho. were to cut off' im- the Messiah shall be slain' or put to death. It need not be here said that this phrase would find a complete fulfilment in the manner in which the Lord Jesus was put to death, nor that this is the very mediately at the close of the sixty-two | language in which it is proper now to deweeks. The careful student of this pro-, gcribe the manner in wnich he was rephecy, therefore, would anticipate that the I moved. He was cut off by violence; by Messiah would appear at the close of the a judicial decree; by a mob; in the midst sixty-two weeks, and that he would con- o/his &c> If it should be admitted tinue during a part, at least, of the re- I that the a } meant to desCribe the manmain ing one week before he would be cut j ner of his death he could not have found
1!° len/€aS! * single word that would have better expressed it. f But not for himself. Marg., and shall have nothing. This phrase has given rise to not a little discussion, and not a little diversity of opinion. The Latin Vulgate is, et non erit ejits populus, qui eum negaturns est — 'and they shall