Page images
PDF
EPUB

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. Č. 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.

[ocr errors]

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, nab, 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 ww I scarcely know by what standard to measure the probability or the improbability of 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 (ND

), the Samaritan reads three hundred (D 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 ya has been written for wow, or wow for vs. Talib will moreover find a complete variation

of the patriarchal number, all the nate, if that number, when calcuway through, between the Hebrew lated back from the supposed end of and the Samaritan, to say nothing the 1260 years, brought us not, acof the LXX. Talib adduces the MS. cording to any one of its three readof Dr. Buchanan. This proves his ings, to a probable commencement point just as little as his argument. of the vision of the ram and the heIt shews indeed, that it supports the goat, we might then be quite sure common Hebrew; but it does not that I had misdated the 1260 years; annihilate the evidence of Jerome, but if the contrary, there would that there were copies in his time then be a strong presumption, both which read two hundred; whence it that I had rightly dated the 1260 is plain, that even then the reading years, and that I had detected the three hundred was not established on genuine reading of Daniel's number. the firm basis whereon Talib would This I then said; this I still say place it; even then the accurate and this, in all human probability, Jewish scribes had blundered in a I shall continue to say. But I was number. Nor is this all: I presume led to adopt the reading of the LXX. I need not tell Talib, that the Greek by the independent reasonableness of version of Daniel, which ordinarily the thing, as well as from an argubears the name of the LXX. and is ment a posteriori. My notions on now always printed with their ge- the subject are as follows; and it nuine translation of the rest of the Old might have been as well if I had Testament, was in reality the work introduced them into my work with of Theodotion, who flourished in the more definiteness than I have done. 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.

5. Accordingly, unless I be much mistaken, it is already determined. Talib very unfairly, just like one of the reviews (I forget which), represents me as ascertaining the true reading by an argument solely drawn from a conjecture respecting the probable date of the 1260 years. What I really said was to this purpose-I proved abstractedly, that the 1260 years and the number in Dan. viii. 4, must conterminate and the validity of my proof is so fully acknowledged by Talib himself, that he builds his whole scheme upon it. From various concurring circumstances I pitched upon a probable date for the 1260 years. I then observed, that there were three various readings of Daniel's number. I next argued, that since the 1260 years and Daniel's number contermi CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 109.

:

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 it is not twisted from its natural meaning to favour a system. Therefore it must be computed from some time, when the two-horned ram was standing still, and before he began to push. But he first had two horns and first stood still in the first year of Cyrus, and he afterwards began to push successfully in the year A. C. 508. Therefore the date of the vision must be sought for between the first year of Cyrus and the year A. C. 508. It cannot be the year A. C. 508: because that would exclude a portion of the vision, namely, the period during which the ram was standing still; whereas, the number comprehends the whole length of the vision. Neither ean any good reason be assigned, why an intermediate year between the first of Cyrus and

C

the year A. C. 508, should be pitched upon because we may be morally sure, that a prophetic period ought to be computed from some memorable era; whereas not one of those years furnishes a more memorable era than another. Hence it is only natural to conclude, that the date of the vision is the first year of Cyrus; and, would we be minutely particular, perhaps some remarkable occurrence (if any such can be found) within the limits of that year. This is so natural, that I am persuaded any person, who had not a system to maintain, would immediately say, that the date of the vision must be sought for in the first year of Cyrus; because then the ram first had two horns, and then first stood still in the symbolical attitude of the vision after his previous conquests. I repeat it, that I can hardly form a conception how the vision, and therefore the num ber, can commence from any other than the first year of Cyrus: because it must commence before his pushing in the year A. C. 508; and because no satisfactory reason can be given, why it should commence from one year of his quiescence rather than from another; from the third year of Cyrus (for instance) rather than from his sixth; from the first of Cambyses rather than from his second. But, if it be little less than absolutely certain, that the vision commences from the first year of Cyrus, then the event has, proved that 2400 must be the true reading of the number. The first of Cyrus began in the spring of A. A, C. 536, and ended in the spring of A. A.Ç. 535. Now, if we reckon the number 2300 from this era, we shall be brought to A. D. 1765 or 1766, according as we calculate from the former or the latter part of the first year of Cyrus: if the number 2200, to A. D. 1665 or 1666. But at neither of these epochs did the 1260 years end, with the termination of which Daniel's number allowedly conterminates: therefore the event itself has proved the erro

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 denies that Daniel saw the ram 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 subjo in a literal translation of the disputed passage; and let the unsystematizing reader judge between us. I have said my 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

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 sery 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 compated, 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 still led away captive into all na tions, 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 maritime nation of faithful worshippers will, towards the close of the 1260 years, be the instrument both of converting and restoring one branch of Judah. Such being the case, since we must (agreeably to Bishop Hurd's argument) be near the end of the 1260 days, I think it at the least highly probable that we now be hold the beginning of Judah's conversion. For, consider the strange coincidence of time and circumstance. Exactly at a period when (as Bishop Hurd excellently argues) we may be just as sure that we are near the end of the 1260 years, as the Jews at the advent of Christ were sure

that they must be near the end of the 70 weeks; exactly at this period, a 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: 1 might urge the fearful signs of the times, which have occurred during the last twenty years; I 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 the mighty maritime nation for which the conversion of Judah is reserved, we may set at nought every effort of our enemy; we may rest assured, that, though to him may be given the domination of the continent, to us will belong the trident of the ocean. That mysterious people, the Jews, seem destined to be either a blessing or a burdensome stone to every nation connected with them in the last ages. However weak the present attempt to convert them may be at its commencement, we ought not to despise the day of small things. The greatest moral revolutions, even Christianity itself, so far as outward appearances are

concerned, have ordinarily arisen

MENT IN THE NEW, COLLATED WITH
THE SEPTUAGINT.

(Continued from Vol. IX. p. 740,) ACTS xiii. 47. This quotation is madę exactly from the Alexandrian Septuagint; though it varies from the Roman. It is also a literal transla tion of the Hebrew, merely omitting the pronoun: salvation, instead of my salvation, (is. xlix. 6.)

out of the smallest beginnings. I QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAconsider the attempt, an attempt unknown in former ages, as 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 re. cently occurred to me. Talib has often objected with some vehemence to my translating baba mna, in Dan. viii. 23, in the futurity or consequency of their kingdom. Now, 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 jt 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 ET' esxarw, which more probably relates to place than time*.

(To be continued.)

xv. 16, 17. This quotation, in ge neral, seems to be taken from the Septuagint, (Am. ix. 10, 11): but with several verbal variations. Meτα ταύτα ανατρέψω, και ανοικοδομησω. (Acis) -- Εν τη ημέρα εκείνη αναπησω (Sept)- τα καλεσκαμμενα αυτής αν οικοδομήσω, και ανορθώσω αυτην, (Acts.)—avoixodouroOW Tα TETIT WHOTα αυτής, και τα κατεσκαμμένα αυτής αναζήσω, και ανοικοδομήσω αυτήν, καθώς αι ημέραι τε αιώνος.. (Sept.) Ows av. (Acts.)-Onws. (Sept.)— Tov xupio (Acts.) not in Sept. The passage, however, varies more materially from the Hebrew, especially in the clause, "That the residue of which is rendered in our version men may seek after the Lord;" from the Hebrew, That they may possess the remnant of Edom."The Septuagint evidently read yidroshu, not yiroshu, and Adam, noț Edom; and the quotation of it by the apostle, or the historian, according to that reading, gives great sanc

tion to it.

[ocr errors]

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 ζητ σεται. (Sept. Hab. ii. 4.) O dɛ dixalos EX TISEWS MB (YETAL. The Hebrew is "by his faith." But he, who is righteous by his faith, shall live." (The quotation is in the same words Gal. iii. 11, and Heb. x. 38.) ii. 24. το γαρ όνομα το di juas, &c.-(Sept.Is. lii. 5.) Ai

[ocr errors]

&c.

* See Parkhurst's Gr. Lex. Vox, εσχατος, υμας δια παντος το όνομα με, ἐν τοις εθνεσιν (“ among the na

$ iv.

« PreviousContinue »