it just as clearly denotes succession of time, as in Rev. xiii. 11, it denotes synchronization. I quote the Apocalypse without scruple, because Talib roundly says "the sacred writers," without specifying either Hebrew or Greek Talib will find four other instances, where the is wanting, and yet consecution of time spoken of, in Dan. iii. 1, iv. 1, v. 1, and vi. 1. I may add, that in the Greek of the LXX. the very conjunction on which this argument of Talib is founded, is actually inserted: verse 4 begins with a xzi; and most probably the true reading of the Hebrew would insert a 1. 3. If then I have at all succeeded in proving that the vision of the ram comprehends a certain period anterior to the commencement of the ram's pushing, Talib's date of the vision must, on his own principles, be false; and if, consequently, he is unable to make the number, according to any one of its three readings, conterminate with the 1260 years, according to his computation of them, the presumption is, that his computation is erroneous. I might add, that 2300 years reckoned from the year A. C. 508, will terminate A. Ď. 1793, not A. D. 1792; but possibly I ought not to quarrel with him for a single year, more or less, certainly not for a few months, in so long a period. 4. Talib strongly objects to my adopting the reading of the LXX. instead of that of the Hebrew; and pays so high a compliment to the accuracy of the Jewish scribes, as to think it "improbable," nay, almost "impossible," that they should have written three instead of four; and this argument he backs by the divine inspiration of Ezra as an editor. All this seems to me strangely foreign to the purpose. I doubt not, that the Esdrine edition originally contained the true reading: but how is the inspiration of Ezra to preserve future scribes from error? Talib dwells largely on their extreme accuracy. Surely he is not ignorant of the existence of those various readings called the Keri, acknow. ledged by the Jews themselves: surely he is not unacquainted with the labours of the excellent Kennicott. The Bible has various readings as well as other books; and the idle fancy of a divine providence miraculously preserving the Jewish scribes from error, has been long exploded. But Talib may say, that the errors of transcription are confined to single letters. What then does he think of the memorable omission of two whole words in Gen. iv. 8.? The necessary speech of Cain, ab, which is wanting in the Esdrine edition, is supplied by the Samaritan. Still Talib may say, that, respecting numbers, the scribes would be more careful: there a mistake is impossible. Alas! the Esdrine edition of Daniel, as it now stands, omits a number in Dan. ix. 25.; a number expressed by two whole words. Commentators are pretty generally agreed, that the sense requires the insertion of seven weeks before threescore and two weeks. But what the sense palpably requires, and what Aquila and the Arabic have fortunately preserved, we shall vainly seek for in the present Esdrine edition. But Talib may deem the omission of a number more credible, than the alteration of one: he thinks y can never by any mistake have been changed into wh I scarcely know by what standard to measure the probability or the improbability of a blundering scribe's mistakes: but this I know, that I can produce an instance of the very mistake, which Talib deems improbable, not to say impossible. Let him forthwith turn to Gen. xi. 13, and he will find that, where the Hebrew reads four hundred (MND 7), the Samaritan reads three hundred (p ww). In which side the error lies, I pretend not to say : but it is obvious, that the identical transcriptorial mistake, which Talib deems so incredible, has here taken place; either y has been written for wbw, or wow for 278. Talib will moreover find a complete variation of the patriarchal number, all the way through, between the Hebrew and the Samaritan, to say nothing of the LXX. Talib adduces the MS. of Dr. Buchanan. This proves his point just as little as his argument. It shews indeed, that it supports the common Hebrew; but it does not annihilate the evidence of Jerome, that there were copies in his time which read two hundred; whence it is plain, that even then the reading three hundred was not established on the firm basis whereon Talib would place it; even then the accurate Jewish scribes had blundered in a number. Nor is this all: I presume I need not tell Talib, that the Greek version of Daniel, which ordinarily bears the name of the LXX. and is now always printed with their genaine translation of the rest of the Old Testament, was in reality the work of Theodotion, who flourished in the second century of the Christian era. Hence it appears, that the Hebrew copy, which he used, and therefore preferred (doubtless not without some good reason), contained the reading four hundred. For my own part, I think it in the abstract quite a matter of uncertainty which is the true reading: it must be determined by the event. nate, if that number, when calcu lated back from the supposed end of the 1260 years, brought us not, according to any one of its three readings, to a probable commencement of the vision of the ram and the hegoat, we might then be quite sure that I had misdated the 1260 years; but if the contrary, there would then be a strong presumption, both that I had rightly dated the 1260 years, and that I had detected the genuine reading of Daniel's number. This I then said; this I still say and this, in all human probability, I shall continue to say. But I was led to adopt the reading of the LXX. by the independent reasonableness of the thing, as well as from an argument a posteriori. My notions on the subject are as follows; and it might have been as well if I had introduced them into my work with more definiteness than I have done. The number is the length of the vision. Therefore it must be computed from the opening of the vision. But the vision opens with a view of the ram, now having two horns, standing still on the bank of the river: and afterwards the prophet sees him begin to push; for such clearly appears to me to be the obvious import of the narration, when 5. Accordingly, unless I be much it is not twisted from its natural mistaken, it is already determined. meaning to favour a system. ThereTalib very unfairly, just like one of fore it must be computed from some the reviews (I forget which), repre- time, when the two-horned ram was sents me as ascertaining the true standing still, and before he began reading by an argument solely to push. But he first had two horns drawn from a conjecture respecting and first stood still in the first year the probable date of the 1260 years. of Cyrus, and he afterwards began What I really said was to this pur- to push successfully in the year pose-I proved abstractedly, that A. C. 508. Therefore the date the 1260 years and the number in of the vision must be sought Dan. viii. 4, must conterminate and for between the first year of the validity of my proof is so fully Cyrus and the year A. C. 508. acknowledged by Talib himself, It cannot be the year A. C. that he builds his whole scheme 508: because that would exclude a upon it. From various concurring portion of the vision, namely, the circumstances I pitched upon a pro- period during which the ram was bable date for the 1260 years. I standing still; whereas, the number then observed, that there were three comprehends the whole length of the various readings of Daniel's number. vision. Neither ean any good reaI next argued, that since the 1260 son be assigned, why an intermediate years and Daniel's number contermi- year between the first of Cyrus and CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 109. C the year A. C. 508, should be neousness of those two readings. On the other hand, the reading 2400, preserved by the LXX. or rather Theodotion, if reckoned from the first year of Cyrus, will bring us to A.D. 1865 or 1866: and then 1260 years, reckoned back from that epoch, will bring us to A. D. 606; which, from a variety of circumstances, previously seemed to bid fair to be the true date of the 1260 years. 6. To conclude: the jut of the argument rests upon the point, whether Talib or I be right in our ideas of the opening of the vision. Talib the ram denies that Daniel saw standing in one particular place, viz. the bank of the river, before he saw him push. I assert, that the prophet did see him, and on the bank, before he saw him push. If I be right, Talib's whole system falls to the ground; for, by a necessary consequence, the vision must be dated from the first year of Cyrus: if I be wrong, then Talib's date of the 1260 years may prove to be the right one. I subjoin a literal translation of the disputed passage; and let the unsystematizing reader I have said my judge between us. say; and I suspect that Talib has said his let us cease then to weary the public with the endlessness of repetition. I lift up my eyes, and I saw, and behold, one ram was standing before the river, and to him were (two) horns-I saw the ram butting westward, and northward, and southward. 7. Independent of all that has been said respecting Daniel's number, my objections to Talib's plan of making the 1260 years expire in the year 1792, remain just as strong as ever. They are set forth at large in the preface to the second edition of my work on the Jews. My main objection, which I shall never give up until confuted by the event, is this: with Mede, More, Jurieu, Whitaker, and (unless I misunderstand them) Bishop Hurd and Dean Woodhouse, I think it abundantly clear that the era of the restoration that they must be near the end of the 70 weeks; exactly at this period, à systematic attempt to convert the Jews is made by a society, formed within the empire of the greatest maritime state that ever existed; a state, moreover, precisely answering to the prophetic description of that power, to which the blessed work is ascribed by Isaiah. What success the London Society may have, and whether or not their attempt be premature, God only can tell: but of this I am sure, that both time and circumstance, as set forth to us in prophecy, hold out to them every encouragement to persevere in their work and labour of love. I might dwell largely on other circumstances besides the one which I have mentioned: I might urge the fearful signs of the times, which have occurred during the last twenty years; might urge those mighty political revolutions, which have altered the face of the whole western empire, and which exactly correspond with those that were expected to usher in the restoration of the Jews by our best commentators on prophecy long before the events of the present day took place. For myself, I cannot behold them unmoved: and I think it as much the interest as the duty, of every Englishman, to give his serious attention and encouragement to the efforts which are now making to convert the Jews: for, if we be of Judah is the era of the expiration of the 1260 years. But 18 years have elapsed since Talib's supposed end of that period; and still are the Jews a dispersed nation, nor is there any appearance of their immediate return into their own country. I think it indeed absolutely certain (I speak not these words lightly), that the restoration of Judah cannot be very remote, though I doubt whether it will take place quite so soon as Talib's principles must lead him to expect: because, from whatever precise epoch the 1260 years be computed, history itself, according to the admirable practical argument of Bishop Hurd, will teach us, that we must be comparatively near their end, inasmuch as the corrupt system of popery has prevailed at the least 12 centuries; and whenever the 1260 years end, the Jews will be put in motion. But, since they are I still led away captive into all nations, I cannot believe that the times of the Gentiles have yet expired. To this positive assertion I scruple not to add a remark, which must however be couched in terms somewhat less peremptory. Since one portion of the Jews will clearly be restored in a converted state, their conversion must evidently precede their restoration; and what precise time may elapse between the two events, we are not authorized to pronounce. Now there is much reason to believe, that some mighty mari- the mighty maritime nation for time nation of faithful worshippers which the conversion of Judah is will, towards the close of the 1260 reserved, we may set at nought every years, be the instrument both of effort of our enemy; we may rest converting and restoring one branch assured, that, though to him may be of Judah. Such being the case, given the domination of the contisince we must (agreeably to Bishop nent, to us will belong the trident Hurd's argument) be near the end of the ocean. That mysterious of the 1260 days, I think it at the people, the Jews, seem destined to stone to every nation connected with However hold the beginning of Judah's conversion. For, consider the strange them in the last ages. coincidence of time and circumstance. weak the present attempt to convert Exactly at a period when (as Bishop them may be at its commencement, Hurd excellently argues) we may be just as sure that we are near the small things. The greatest moral end of the 1260 years, as the Jews revolutions, even Christianity itself, at the advent of Christ were sure so far as outward appearances are concerned, have ordinarily arisen out of the smallest beginnings. I QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD consider the attempt, an attempt as in former ages, unknown one among the many remarkable signs with which the close of the 1260 years is ushered in: as such, in my judgment, it ought not to be slighted. It may indeed come to nothing, because the time possibly may not have arrived: but who shall venture to pronounce that to be the case. The presumption is certainly in favour of the contrary opinion, on account of the singular coincidence of time and circumstance which I have already noticed. 8. I shall take the opportunity of mentioning an idea which has reTalib has cently occurred to me. often objected with some vehemence to my translating ombona, in Dan. viii. 23, in the futurity or conNow, sequency of their kingdom. although I still continue to think, with Buxtorf and Parkhurst, that consequency or futurity is one of the senses of ns, and therefore that my translation was tenable; I am half inclined to suspect, that both Talib and myself have erred in supposing the word, as it here occurs, to relate to time. It is well known, that, with its cognates, it denotes place as well as time. In this sense it occurs in Psalm cxxxix. 9.; and such probably is its import in the present passage. If then we translate the phrase in the extremity, or in the back part of their realm, every difficulty of a chronological sort will be removed, and we shall obtain an exact local description of Arabia with reference to the Greek empire of Alexander and his successors; the scite of Arabia is behind and upon the extremity of that empire. It may be observed, that in Dan. vii. 24, the LXX. translate the cog nate preposition behind, not after; and that they render the present phrase ' esxarwy, which more probably relates to place than time*. (To be continued.) * See Parkhurst's Gr. Lex, Vox, XUTO5? 6 iv. TESTA MENT IN THE NEW, COLLATED WITH (Continued from Vol. IX. p. 740,) xv. 16, 17. This quotation, in ge- Tατανία ανατρεψει, και ανοικοδομήσω. tion to it. xxii. 5. From the Septuagint, agreeing with the Hebrew. xxviii. 26, 27. (See on Matt. xiii. 14, 15.) St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. 16 i. 17. Ο δε δικαιος εκ πίςεως ζη ii. 24. το γαρ όνομα το Θεό |
