THE SEVENTY WEEKS

THIS chapter is occupied with the prayer of Daniel, and with the famous vision of the seventy weeks which has led to such interminable controversies, but of which the interpretation no longer admits of any certainty, because accurate data are not forthcoming.

The vision is dated in the first year of Darius, the son of Achashverosh, of the Median stock. We have seen already that such a person is unknown to history. The date, however, accords well in this instance with the literary standpoint of the writer. The vision is sent as a consolation of perplexities suggested by the writer’s study of the Scriptures; and nothing is more naturally imagined than the fact that the overthrow of the Babylonian Empire should have sent a Jewish exile to the study of the rolls of his holy prophets, to see what light they threw on the exile of his people.

He understood from "the books" the number of the years "whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet for the accomplishing of the desolation of Jerusalem, even seventy years." Such is the rendering of our Revisers, who here follow the A.V ("I understood by books"), except that they rightly use the definite article. Such too is the view of Hitzig. Mr. Bevan seems to have pointed out the real meaning of the passage, by referring not only to the Pentateuch generally, as helping to interpret the words of Jeremiah, but especially to Leviticus 26:18; Leviticus 26:21; Leviticus 26:24; Leviticus 26:28. It was there that the writer of Daniel discovered the method of interpreting the "seventy years" spoken of by Jeremiah. The Book of Leviticus had four times spoken of a sevenfold punishment-a punishment "seven times more" for the sins of Israel. Now this thought flashed upon the writer like a luminous principle. Daniel, in whose person he wrote, had arrived at the period at which the literal seventy years of Jeremiah were-on some methods of computation-upon the eve of completion; the writer himself is living in the dreary times of Antiochus. Jeremiah had prophesied that the nations should serve the King of Babylon seventy years, {Jeremiah 25:11} after which time God’s vengeance should fall on Babylon; and again, {Jeremiah 29:10-11} that after seventy years the exiles should return to Palestine, since the thoughts of Jehovah towards them were thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give them a future and a hope.

The writer of Daniel saw, nearly four centuries later, that after all only a mere handful of the exiles, whom the Jews themselves compared to the chaff in comparison with the wheat, had returned from exile; that the years which followed had been cramped, dismal, and distressful; that the splendid hopes of the Messianic kingdom, which had glowed so brightly on the foreshortened horizon of Isaiah and so many of the prophets, had never yet been fulfilled; and that these anticipations never showed fewer signs of fulfilment than in the midst of the persecuting furies of Antiochus, supported by the widespread apostasies of the Hellenising Jews, and the vile ambition of such renegade high priests as Jason and Menelaus.

That the difficulty was felt is shown by the fact that the Epistle of Jeremy (Daniel 9:2) extends the epoch of captivity to two-hundred and ten years (7 X 30), whereas in Jeremiah 29:10 "seventy years" are distinctly mentioned.

What was the explanation of this startling apparent discrepancy between "the sure word of prophecy" and the gloomy realities of history?

The writer saw it in a mystic or allegorical interpretation of Jeremiah’s seventy years. The prophet could not (he thought) have meant seventy literal years. The number seven indeed played its usual mystic part in the epoch of punishment. Jerusalem had been taken B.C. 588; the first return of the exiles had been about B.C. 538. The Exile therefore had, from one point of view, lasted forty-nine years- i.e., 7 X 7. But even if seventy years were reckoned from the fourth year of Jehoiakim (B.C. 606?) to the decree of Cyrus (B.C. 536), and if these seventy years could be made out, still the hopes of the Jews were on the whole miserably frustrated.

Surely then-so thought the writer-the real meaning of Jeremiah must have been misunderstood; or, at any rate, only partially understood. He must have meant, not "years ," but weeks of years-Sabbatical years. And that being so, the real Messianic fulfilments were not to come till four hundred and ninety years after the beginning of the Exile; and this clue he found in Leviticus. It was indeed a clue which lay ready to the hand of any one who was perplexed by Jeremiah’s prophecy, means, not only the week, but also "seven," and the seventh {Leviticus 25:2; Leviticus 25:4} and the Chronicler had already declared that the reason why the land was to lie waste for seventy years was that "the land" was "to enjoy her Sabbaths"; in other words, that, as seventy Sabbatical years had been wholly neglected (and indeed unheard of) during the period of the monarchy-which he reckoned at four hundred and ninety years-therefore it was to enjoy those Sabbatical years continuously while there was no nation in Palestine to cultivate the soil.

Another consideration may also have led the writer to his discovery. From the coronation of Saul to the captivity of Zachariah, reckoning the recorded length of each reign and giving seventeen years to Saul (since the "forty years" of Acts 13:21 is obviously untenable), gave four hundred and ninety years, or, as the Chronicler implies, seventy unkept Sabbatic years. The writer had no means for an accurate computation of the time which had elapsed since the destruction of the Temple. But as there were four hundred and eighty years and twelve high priests from Aaron to Ahimaaz, and four hundred and eighty years and twelve high priests from Azariah I to Jozadak, who was priest at the beginning of the Captivity, -so there were twelve high priests from Jozadak to Onias III; and this seemed to imply a lapse of some four hundred and ninety years in round numbers.

The writer introduces what he thus regarded as a consoling and illuminating discovery in a striking manner. Daniel, coming to understand for the first time the real meaning of Jeremiah’s "seventy years," "set his face unto the Lord God, to seek prayer and supplication with fasting and sackcloth and ashes."

His prayer is thus given:-

It falls into three strophes of equal length, and is "all alive and aglow with a pure fire of genuine repentance, humbly assured faith, and most intense petition." At the same time it is the composition of a literary writer, for in phrase after phrase it recalls various passages of Scripture. It closely resembles the prayers of Ezra and Nehemiah, and is so nearly parallel with the prayer of the apocryphal Baruch that Ewald regards it as an intentional abbreviation of #/RAPC Bar 2:1. Ezra, however, confesses the sins of his nation without asking for forgiveness; and Nehemiah likewise praises God for His mercies, but does not plead for pardon or deliverance; but Daniel entreats pardon for Israel and asks that his own prayer may be heard. The sins of Israel in Daniel 9:5-6, fall under the heads of wandering, lawlessness, rebellion, apostasy, and heedlessness. It is one of the marked tendencies of the later Jewish writings to degenerate into centos of phrases from the Law and the Prophets. It is noticeable that the name Jehovah occurs in this chapter of Daniel alone (in Daniel 9:2, Daniel 9:4, Daniel 9:10, Daniel 9:13, Daniel 9:14, Daniel 9:20); and that he also addresses God as El, Elohim, and Adonai.

In the first division of the prayer (Daniel 9:4-10) Daniel admits the faithfulness and mercy of God, and deplores the transgressions of his people from the highest to the lowest in all lands.

In the second part (Daniel 9:11-14) he sees in these transgressions the fulfilment of "the curse and the oath" written in the Law of Moses, with special reference to Leviticus 26:14; Leviticus 26:18, etc. In spite of all their sins and miseries they had not "stroked the face" of the Lord their God.

The third section (Daniel 9:15-19) appeals to God by His past mercies and deliverances to turn away His wrath and to pity the reproach of His people. Daniel entreats Jehovah to hear his prayer, to make His face shine on His desolated sanctuary, and to behold the horrible condition of His people and of His holy city. Not for their sakes is He asked to show His great compassion, but because His Name is called upon His city and His people.

Such is the prayer; and while Daniel was still speaking, praying, confessing his own and Israel’s sins, and interceding before Jehovah for the holy mountain-yea, even during the utterance of: his prayer-the Gabriel of his former vision; came speeding to him in full flight at the time of’: the evening sacrifice. The archangel tells him: that no sooner had his supplication begun than he sped on his way, for Daniel is a dearly beloved one. Therefore he bids him take heed to the word and to the vision:-

1. Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people, and upon thy holy city-

1. to finish (or "restrain") the transgression;

2. to make an end of (or "seal up," Theodot.) sins;

3. to make reconciliation for (or "to purge away") iniquity;

4. to bring in everlasting righteousness;

5. to seal up vision and prophet; and

6. to anoint the Most Holy (or "a Most Holy Place").

7. From the decree to restore Jerusalem unto the Anointed One (or "the Messiah"), the Prince, shall be seven weeks. For sixty-two weeks Jerusalem shall be built again with street and moat, though in troublous times.

2. After these sixty-two weeks-

1. an Anointed One shall be cut off, and shall have no help(?) (or "there shall be none belonging to him");

2. the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the cityand the sanctuary;

3. his end and the end shall be with a flood, and war, anddesolation;

4. for one week this alien prince shall make a covenant with many;

5. for half of that week he shall cause the sacrifice and burnt offering to cease;

6. and upon the wing of abominations [shall come] one that maketh desolate;

7. and unto the destined consummation [wrath] shall be poured out upon a desolate one(?) (or "the horrible one").

Much is uncertain in the text, and much in the translation; but the general outline of the declaration is clear in many of the chief particulars, so far as they are capable of historic verification. Instead of being a mystical prophecy which floated purely in the air, and in which a week stands (as Keil supposes) for unknown, heavenly, and symbolic periods-in which case no real information would have been vouchsafed-we are expressly told that it was intended to give the seer a definite, and even a minutely detailed, indication of the course of events.

Let us now take the revelation which is sent to the perplexed mourner step by step.

1. Seventy weeks are to elapse before any perfect deliverance is to come. We are nowhere expressly told that year-weeks are meant, but this is implied throughout, as the only possible means of explaining either the vision or the history. The conception, as we have seen, would come to readers quite naturally, since Shabbath meant in Hebrew, not only the seventh day of the week, but the seventh year in each week of years. Hence "seventy weeks" means four hundred and ninety years. {Leviticus 26:34 Ezekiel 4:6} Not until the four hundred and ninety years- the seventy weeks of years- are ended will the time have come to complete the prophecy which only had a sort of initial and imperfect fulfilment in seventy actual years.

The precise meaning attached in the writer’s mind to the events which are to mark the close of the four hundred and ninety years-namely,

(a) the ending of transgression;

(b) the sealing up of sins;

(g) the atonement for iniquity;

(d) the bringing in of everlasting righteousness; and

(e) the sealing up of the vision and prophet {or prophecy Comp. Jeremiah 32:11; Jeremiah 32:44}-

cannot be further defined by us. It belongs to the Messianic hope. {See Isaiah 46:3, Isaiah 51:5; Isaiah 53:11 Jeremiah 23:6. etc.} It is the prophecy of a time which may have had some dim and partial analogies at the end of Jeremiah’s seventy years, but which the writer thought would be more richly and finally fulfilled at the close of the Antiochian persecution. At the actual time of his writing that era of restitution had not yet begun.

But another event, which would mark the close of the seventy year-weeks, was to be "the anointing of a Most Holy."

What does this mean?

Theodotion and the ancient translators render it "a Holy of Holies." But throughout the whole Old Testament "Holy of Holies" is never once used of a person , though it occurs forty-four times. Keil and his school point 1 Chronicles 23:13 as an exception; but "Nil agit exemplum quod litem lite resolvit. "

In that verse some propose the rendering, "to sanctify, as most holy, Aaron and his sons for ever"; but both the A.V and the R. V render it, "Aaron was separated that he should sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons forever." If there be a doubt as to the rendering, it is perverse to adopt the one which makes the usage differ from that of every other passage in Holy Writ.

Now the phrase " most holy" is most frequently applied to the great altar of sacrifice. It is therefore natural to explain the present passage as a reference to the reanointing of the altar of sacrifice, primarily in the days of Zerubbabel, and secondarily by Judas Maccabaeus after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes. {#/RAPC 1Ma 4:54}

2. But in the more detailed explanation which follows, the seventy year-weeks are divided into 7 + 62 + 1.

(a) At the end of the first seven week-years (after forty-nine years) Jerusalem should be restored, and there should be "an Anointed, a Prince."

Some ancient Jewish commentators, followed by many eminent and learned moderns, understand this Anointed One (Mashiach) and Prince (Nagid) to be Cyrus; and that there can be no objection to conferring on him the exalted title of "Messiah" is amply proved by the fact that Isaiah himself bestows it upon him. {Isaiah 45:1}

Others, however, both ancient (like Eusebius) and modern (like Gratz), prefer to explain the term of the anointed Jewish high priest, Joshua, the son of Jozadak. For the term "Anointed" is given to the high priest in Leviticus 4:3; Leviticus 6:20; and Joshua’s position among the exiles might well entitle him, as much as Zerubbabel himself, to the title of Nagid or Prince.

(b) After this restoration of Temple and priest, sixty-two weeks (i.e., four hundred and thirty-four years) are to elapse, during which Jerusalem is indeed to exist "with street and trench"-but in the straitness of the times.

This, too, is clear and easy of comprehension. It exactly corresponds with the depressed condition of Jewish life during the Persian and early Grecian epochs, from the restoration of the Temple, B.C. 538, to B.C. 171, when the false high priest Menelaus robbed the Temple of its best treasures. This is indeed, so far as accurate chronology is concerned, an unverifiable period, for it only gives us three hundred and sixty-seven years instead of four hundred and thirty-four:-but of that I will speak later on. The punctuation of the original is disputed. Theodotion, the Vulgate, and our A.V punctuate in Daniel 9:25 "From the going forth of the commandment" ("decree" or "word") "that Jerusalem should be restored and rebuilt, unto an Anointed, a Prince, are seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks." Accepting this view, Von Lengerke and Hitzig make the seven weeks run parallel with the first seven in the sixty-two. This indeed makes the chronology a little more accurate, but introduces an unexplained and a fantastic element. Consequently most modern scholars, including even such writers as Keil, and our Revisers follow the Masoretic punctuation, and put the stop after the seven weeks, separating them entirely from the following sixty-two.

3. After the sixty-two weeks is to follow a series of events, and all these point quite distinctly to the epoch of Antiochus Epiphanes.

(a) Daniel 9:26 -An Anointed One shall be cut off with all that belongs to him.

There can be no reasonable doubt that this is a reference to the position of the high priest Onias III, and his murder by Andronicus (B.C. 171). This startling event is mentioned in #/RAPC 2Ma 4:34, and by Josephus ("Antt.," 12. 5:1), and in Daniel 11:22. It is added, " and no to him. " Perhaps the word "helper" {Daniel 11:45} has fallen out of the text, as Gratz supposes; or the words may mean, "there is no [priest] for it [the people]." The A.V renders it, "but not for himself"; and in the margin, "and shall have nothing"; or, "and they [the Jews] shall be no more his people." The R. V renders it, "and shall have nothing." I believe, with Dr. Joel, that in the Hebrew words veeyn lo there may be a sort of cryptographic allusion to the name Onias.

(b) The people of the coming prince shall devastate the city and the sanctuary (translation uncertain).

This is an obvious allusion to the destruction and massacre inflicted on Jerusalem by Apollonius and the army of Antiochus Epiphanes (B.C. 167). Antiochus is called "the prince that shall come ," because he was at Rome when Onias III was murdered (B.C. 171).

(g) "And until the end shall be a war, a sentence of desolation" (Hitzig, etc.); or, as Ewald renders it, "Until the end of the war is the decision concerning the horrible thing."

This alludes to the troubles of Jerusalem until the heaven-sent Nemesis fell on the profane enemy of the saints in the miserable death of Antiochus in Persia.

(d) But meanwhile he will have concluded a covenant with many for one week.

In any case, whatever be the exact reading or rendering, this seems to be an allusion to the fact that Antiochus was confirmed in his perversity and led on to extremes in the enforcement of his attempt to Hellenise the Jews and to abolish their national religion by the existence of a large party of flagrant apostates. These were headed by their godless and usurping high priests, Jason and Menelaus. All this is strongly emphasised in the narrative of the Book of Maccabees. This attempted apostasy lasted for one week- i.e., for seven years; the years intended being probably the first seven of the reign of Antiochus, from B.C. 175 to B.C. 168. During this period he was aided by wicked men, who said, "Let us go and make a covenant with the heathen round about us; for since we departed from them we have had much sorrow." Antiochus "gave them license to do after the ordinances of the heathen," so that they built a gymnasium at Jerusalem, obliterated the marks of circumcision, and were joined to the heathen. {#/RAPC 1Ma 1:10-15}

(e) For the half of this week (i.e., for three and a half years) the king abolished the sacrifice and the oblation or meat offering.

This alludes to the suppression of the most distinctive ordinances of Jewish worship, and the general defilement of the Temple after the setting up of the heathen altar. The reckoning seems to be from the edict promulgated some months before December, 168, to December, 165, when Judas the Maccabee reconsecrated the Temple.

(z) The sentence which follows is surrounded with every kind ofuncertainty.

The R. V renders it, "And upon the wing [or, pinnacle] of abominations shall come [or, be] one that maketh desolate."

The A.V has, "And for the overspreading of abominations" (or marg., "with the abominable armies") "he shall make it desolate."

It is from the LXX that we derive the famous expression, "abomination of desolation," referred to by St. Matthew {Matthew 24:15 cf. Luke 21:20} in the discourse of our Lord.

Other translations are as follows:-

Gesenius: "Desolation comes upon the horrible wing of a rebel’s host."

Ewald: "And above will be the horrible wing of abominations."

Wieseler: "And a desolation shall arise against the wing of abominations."

Von Lengerke, Hengstenberg, Pusey: "And over the edge [or, pinnacle] of abominations [cometh] the desolator"; -which they understand to mean that Antiochus will rule over the Temple defiled by heathen rites.

Kranichfeld and Keit: "And a destroyer comes on the wings of idolatrous abominations."

"And instead thereof" (i.e., in the place of the sacrifice and meat offering) "there shall be abominations."

It is needless to weary the reader with further attempts at translation; but however uncertain may be the exact reading or rendering, few modern commentators doubt that the allusion is to the smaller heathen altar built by Antiochus above (i.e., on the summit) of the "Most Holy"- i.e., the great altar of burnt sacrifice-over-shadowing it like "a wing" (kanaph), and causing desolations or abominations (shiqqootsim) That this interpretation is the correct one can hardly be doubted in the light of the clearer references to "the abomination that maketh desolate" in Daniel 11:31 Daniel 12:11. In favour of this we have the almost contemporary interpretation of the Book of Maccabees. The author of that history directly applies the phrase "the abomination of desolation" to the idol altar set up by Antiochus. {#/RAPC 1Ma 1:54; 1Ma 6:7}

(h) Lastly, the terrible drama shall end by an outpouring of wrath, and asentence of judgment on "the desolation" (R.V) or "the desolate" (A.V).

This can only refer to the ultimate judgment with which Antiochus is menaced.

It will be seen then that, despite all uncertainties in the text, in the translation, and in the details, we have in these verses an unmistakably clear foreshadowing of the same persecuting king, and the same disastrous events, with which the mind of the writer is so predominantly haunted, and which are still more clearly indicated in the subsequent chapter.

Is it necessary, after an inquiry inevitably tedious, and of little or no apparent spiritual profit or significance, to enter further into the intolerably and interminably perplexed and voluminous discussions as to the beginning, the ending, and the exactitude of the seventy weeks? Even St. Jerome gives, by way of specimen, nine different interpretations in his time, and comes to no decision of his own. After confessing that all the interpretations were individual guesswork, he leaves every reader to his own judgment, and adds: "Dicam quid unusquisque senserit, lectoris arbitrio derelinquens cujus expositionem sequi debeat."

I cannot think that the least advantage can be derived from doing so.

For scarcely any two leading commentators agree as to details; -or even as to any fixed principles by which they profess to determine the date at which the period of seventy weeks is to begin or is to end; -or whether they are to be reckoned continuously, or with arbitrary misplacements or discontinuations; -or even whether they are not purely symbolical, so as to have no reference to any chronological indications; -or whether they are to be interpreted as referring to one special series of events, or to be regarded as having many fulfilments by "springing and germinal developments." The latter view is, however, distinctly tenable. It applies to all prophecies, inasmuch as history repeats itself; and our Lord referred to another "abomination of desolation" which in His days was yet to come.

There is not even an initial agreement-or even the data as to an agreement-whether the "years" to be counted are solar years of three hundred and forty-three days, or lunar years, or "mystic" years, or Sabbath years of forty-nine years, or "indefinite" years; or where they are to begin and end or in what fashion they are to be divided. All is chaos in the existing commentaries.

As for any received or authorised interpretation, there not only is none, but never has been. The Jewish interpreters differ from one another as widely as the Christian. Even in the days of the Fathers, the early exegetes were so hopelessly at sea in their methods of application that St. Jerome contents himself, just as I have done, with giving no opinion of his own.

The attempt to refer the prophecy of the seventy weeks primarily or directly to the coming and death of Christ, or the desolation of the Temple by Titus, can only be supported by immense manipulations, and by hypotheses so crudely impossible that they would have made the prophecy practically meaningless both to Daniel and to any subsequent reader. The hopelessness of this attempt of the so-called "orthodox" interpreters is proved by their own fundamental disagreements. It is finally discredited by the fact that neither our Lord, nor His Apostles, nor any of the earliest Christian writers once appealed to the evidence of this prophecy, which, on the principles of Hengstenberg and Dr. Pusey, would have been so decisive! If such a proof lay ready to their hand-a proof definite and chronological-why should they have deliberately passed it over, while they referred to other prophecies so much more general, and so much less precise in dates?

Of course it is open to any reader to adopt the view of Keil and others, that the prophecy is Messianic, but only typically and generally so.

On the other hand, it may be objected that the Antiochian hypothesis breaks down, because-though it does not pretend to resort to any of the wild, arbitrary, and I had almost said preposterous, hypotheses invented by those who approach the interpretation of the Book with a priori and aposteriori assumptions-it still does not accurately correspond to ascertainable dates.

But to those who are guided in their exegesis, not by unnatural inventions, but by the great guiding principles of history and literature, this consideration presents no difficulty. Any exact accuracy of chronology would have been far more surprising in a writer of the Maccabean era than round numbers and vague computations. Precise computation is nowhere prevalent in the sacred books. The object of those books always is the conveyance of eternal, moral, and spiritual instruction. To such purely mundane and secondary matters as close reckoning of dates the Jewish writers show themselves manifestly indifferent. It is possible that, if we were able to ascertain the data which lay before the writer, his calculations might seem less divergent from exact numbers than they now appear. More than this we cannot affirm.

What was the date from which the writer calculated his seventy weeks? Was it from the date of Jeremiah’s first prophecy, {Jeremiah 25:12}B.C. 605? or his second prophecy, {Jeremiah 29:10} eleven years later, B.C. 594? or from the destruction of the first Temple, B.C. 586? or, as some Jews thought, from the first year of "Darius the Mede?" or from the decree of Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 2:1-9? or from the birth of Christ-the date assumed by Apollinaris? All these views have been adopted by various Rabbis and Fathers; but it is obvious that not one of them accords with the allusions of the narrative and prayer, except that which makes the destruction of the. Temple the terminus a quo. In the confusion of historic reminiscences and the rarity of written documents, the writer may not have consciously distinguished this date (B.C. 588) from the date of Jeremiah’s prophecy (B.C. 594). That there were differences of computation as regards Jeremiah’s seventy years, even in the age of the Exile, is sufficiently shown by the different views as to their termination taken by the Chronicler, {2 Chronicles 36:22} who fixes it B.C. 536, and by Zechariah, {Zechariah 1:12} who fixes it about B.C. 519.

As to the terminus ad quota, it is open to any commentator to say that the prediction may point to many subsequent and analogous fulfilments; but no competent and serious reader who judges of these chapters by the chapters themselves and by their own repeated indications can have one moment’s hesitation in the conclusion that the writer is thinking mainly of the defilement of the Temple in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, and its reconsecration (in round numbers) three and a half years later by Judas Maccabaeus (December 25th, B.C. 164).

It is true that from B.C. 588 to B.C. 164 only gives us four hundred and twenty-four years, instead of four hundred and ninety years. How is this to be accounted for? Ewald supposes the loss of some passage in the text which would have explained the discrepancy; and that the text is in a somewhat chaotic condition is proved by its inherent philological difficulties, and by the appearance which it assumes in the Septuagint. The first seven weeks indeed, or forty-nine years, approximately correspond to the time between B.C. 588 (the destruction of the Temple) and B.C. 536 (the decree of Cyrus); but the following sixty-two weeks should give us four hundred and thirty-four years from the time of Cyrus to the cutting off of the Anointed One, by the murder of Onias III in B.C. 171, whereas it only gives us three hundred and sixty-five. How are we to account for this miscalculation to the extent of at least sixty-five years?

Not one single suggestion has ever accounted for it, or has ever given exactitude to these computations on any tenable hypothesis.

But Schurer has shown that exactly similar mistakes of reckoning are made even by so learned and industrious a historian as Josephus.

1. Thus in his "Jewish War." (6:4:8) he says that there were six hundred and thirty-nine years between the second year of Cyrus and the destruction of the Temple by Titus (A.D. 70). Here is an error of more than thirty years.

2. In his "Antiquities" (20. 10.) he says that there were four hundred and thirty-four years between the Return from the Captivity (B.C. 536) and the reign of Antiochus Eupator (B.C. 164-162). Here is an error of more than sixty years.

3. In "Antt.," 13. 11:1, he reckons four hundred and eighty-one years between the Return from the Captivity and the time of Aristobulus (B.C. 105-104). Here is an error of some fifty years.

Again, the Jewish Hellenist Demetrius reckons five hundred and seventy-three years from the Captivity of the Ten Tribes (B.C. 722) to the time of Ptolemy IV (B.C. 222), which is seventy years too many. In other words, he makes as nearly as possible the same miscalculations as the writer of Daniel. This seems to show that there was some traditional error in the current chronology; and it cannot be overlooked that in ancient days the means for coming to accurate chronological conclusion were exceedingly imperfect. "Until the establishment of the Seleucid era (B.C. 312), the Jew had no fixed era whatsoever"; and nothing is less astonishing than that an apocalyptic writer of the date of Epiphanes, basing his calculations on uncertain data to give an allegoric interpretation to an ancient prophecy, should have lacked the records which would alone have enabled him to calculate with exact precision.

And, for the rest, we must say with Grotius, "Modicum nee praetor curat, nec propheta."