A dissertation on the prophecy contained in Daniel IX. 24-27

Front matter

DISSERTATION ■ —

N THE

CONTAINED IN

Contents

CONTENTS.

GHAP. I.

Concerning the proper mode of computing the /event y weeho

Chap. II

Concerning the chronology of the decrees enacted by the Kings of Persia for the rebuilding of the temple and city of Jerusalem and for the restoration of the civil and ecclesiastical polity of Judah. J. IT has generally been said that four decrees were enacted for these several purposes, but it does not appear that there were any more than three, p. 78.

II. The

( XVI )

If- The date of the first decree, enacted in the first year of Cyrus, is A. P. J. 4178 and A. A. C. 536. p. 82.

|IJ. It has been questioned, whether the second decree was enacted by Parius Hystaspis or Darius Notlius. The latter opinion may be proved to be erroneous by four arguments, p. 83.

1. The first argument, p. 83.

2. The second argument, p. 84,

3. The third argument, p. 87.

4. The fourth argument,, The second decree therefore was

enacted in the third year of Pari us Hystaspis, A. P. J. 4195 and A. A. C. 519- p. 9h

IV. There is a dispute respecting the true commencement of

the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus. p. £4.

1. The opinion of Petavius considered. p„ 97.

2. The opinion of Usher considered, p. IU1.

3. The opinion of Ptolemy and Prideaux adopted: whence

the edict of the seventh year of Artaxerxes is fixed to A. P. J. 4256 and A. A, C. 458. p. 106.

V. A table shewing the dates of the three edicts and the ver*

bal permission of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, according to the years of the era of Nabonassar, the years of the Julian period^ and the years before the Christian era. p. 106.

VI. The result from the preceding discussion is, that no inter-

pretation of the prophecy can be admitted, unless it computes the seventy weeks from some one of the established dates of the Persian edicts, p. J 07-.

Chap. III

Concerning -the various interpretations which hare been given of the prophecy of the seventy weeks,

I. Interpretations, which reckon the period of the seventy wee ks from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. p. 109.

J ? Inter-t

( xvii )

Si Interpretation of Africatius. Objections to it p. 109. 2* Interpretations of Petavius and Usher. Objections ttf them. p. 112.

3. Interpretations of Lloyd, Marshall, Butt, and Wintle. p. 118.

(1.) First objection, p. 12(1

(2.) Second objection, p. 12&

(3.) Third objection, p. 123.

(4.) Fourth objection, p. 128; It. Interpretations, which reckon the period from ihk tnird or the sixth year of Darius, erroneously supposed to be Darius Nothus. Those of Scaliger and Mede. Objections to them. p. 136.

III. Interpretations, which reckon the period from the seventh

year of ArtaxerxeS Longimanus. p. 137.

1. Interpretation of Sir Isaac Newton. Objections to it.

2. Interpretation of Prideaux. Objections to it. p. i44.

3. Interpretation of Cornelius a Lapide. Objections to it 9

IV. Interpretations^ which reckon the period from the first

year of Cyrus, p. 158.

1. Interpretation of Blayney. p. 158.

(1.) Objections to the proposed new readings, p. l6S. (2.) Objections to the interpretation founded on them* p. 177.

2. Interpretation of Lancaster, p. 202* (1.) First objection, p. 208.

(2.) Second objection, p. 21 1„ (3.) Third objection, p. 2L8« (4.) Fourth objection, p. 221 c (5.) Fifth objection, p. 224„

CHAfc

( xviii )

CHAP. IV. Concerning the proper translation cf the prophecy*

THE supposed genuine original text exhibited and translated*, p. 228.

I. A defence of four various readings, p. 230. J. The first reading, p. 230. .2. The second reading, p. 230.

- 3. The third reading, p. 230.

4. The fourth reading, p. 231.

3Io A defence of certain variations from the common English version, p, 232.

J, The first variation* p. 232*

2. The second variation, p. 233»

3> The third variation, p. 234* { 4. The fourth variation, p. 235*

5. The fifth variation, p. 235. €, The sixth variation, p. 235, 7. The seventh variation, p. 237»

S. The eighth variation, p. 238. p. The ninth variation, p. 242.

10. The tenth variation, p. 242.

11. The eleventh variation, p. 245*

12. The twelfth variation, p. 245.

13. The thirteenth variation, p. 253»

14. The fourteenth variation, p. 254»

15. The fifteenth variation, p. 254.

Chap. V

Concerning the mutual relation of the different clauses of the prophecy considered in the abstract,

THE importance and utility of establishing certain abstract positions, deduced from an examination of the prophecy itself without reference to any system of interpretation, p. 256,

( xix^ )

S. The first abstract position* p. 258* ' 2. The second, p. 259.

3. The third, p. 260.

4. The fourth, p. 260.

5. The fifth, p. 262.

6. The sixth, p. 262*

7. The seventh, p. 265. fi. The eighth, p. 265. 3. The ninth, p. 268.

10. The tenth, p. 268.

11. The eleventh, p. 271.

12. The twelfth, p. 274.

Chap. VI

An inquiry into the proper interpretation of the prophecy* I. A DISCUSSION of the first clause of the prophecy, contained in Ver. 24. p. 281. 1. An inquiry into the import of the six particulars con* tained in this clause, p. 281. (1.) The first particular, p. 282. (2.) The second particular, p. 286., <3.) The third particular, p. 290. (4.) The fourth particular, p. 292. (5.) The fifth particular, p. 293. (6.) The sixth particular, p. 297.

With three of these particulars, which are synchronical and chronologically later than the other three particulars, the seventy weeks must terminate : and, since these three later particulars synchronize with the crucifixion, the seventy weeks must terminate with, the crucifixion. Therefore they must commence seventy weeks or 490 years before the crucifixion. And this epoch of their commencement precisely coincides a; ,2, . with with the date of the going forth of the decree in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Therefore that decree must be the decree mentioned in the pro. phecy, p. 299.

3« The question discussed, how this arrangement agrees with the seventy weeks being the times of the hqly city, p, 302.

(1.) In order to reconcile them, we are necessarily led , to conclude, that the holy city is not the literal Jerusalem, but a figurative holy city, namely the Levities! church and polity, p. 302.

(2.) This point is established by comparing the prophecy with the edict of the seventh year of Artaxerxes. p, 303.

(3.) It is likewise established by the context of the prophecy itself, p. 310.

(4.) Such an interpretation accords with the acknowledge^ exposition of other parallel passages, p. 312. II. A discussion of the second clause, contained in Ver« 25« p»

314;

I. Arrangement of the smaller periods comprehended within, the seventy weeks, p. 31 6. {I.) The sixty nine weeks reach unto the Messiah, by which must be understood unto the commencement of the G?spel dispensation* Accordingly, if reckoned from the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, they terminate in A. P. J. 4739; which is the fifteenth, year of Tiberius calculated from his admission to a copartnership of the empire, and in which the ministry of John the Baptist (declared by our Lord to be the beginning of the Gospel dispensation) Commence ed. p. Sl6.

(2.) A reply to Mr. Marshall's objections against this arrangement of St. Luke's fifteenth year of Tiberius, p,

( xxi )

The seyen weeks reach to the completion of the rebuild* ing of the figurative holy city, which must have taken place about A, P. J. 4305. p. 327. (I.) The first objection against this arrangement answered, p. 332.

(2.) The second objection answered, p. 333. (3.) The third objection answered, p. 336*. 3. In what manner the rebuilding of the holy city was to be

carried on i#itk perpetual increase and firm decision. p v

A discussion of the third clause, contained in the former part of Ver. 26. Messiah's divorce of the Levitical church after the expiration of the sixty nine weeks, p. 340.

JW A discussion of the fourth clause, contained in the latter

part of Ver, 26. p. 348.

I. The corruption of the people was the cause of Messiah's

divorcing the Levitical church, p. 34S. £, TKe punishment of the people for their corruption, p,

353,

3. Jn what manner there were desolations to the end of the

(1.) The miseries experienced by Jerusalem, p. 353. (2.) The miseries experienced byJudea. p. 357.

4. How the war was firmly decided upon. p. 36'0.

V, ^ discussion of the fifth clause, contained in the former part of Ver. 27- The making of the new covenant during one week, and the disannulling of the old one. p. 364.

yi. A discussion of the sixth clause, contained in the latter part of Ver. 27. p. 373.

J. The abolition of the daily sacrifice in half a week. p. 373. (1.) Dr. Prideaux's great error is the supposing this half week to be the half of the seventieth week, p. 373.

( xxii )

(2.) It is the three years and a half that elasped before the abolition of the Levitical sacrifices towards the close of the siege of Jerusalem, p. 3/6. 1. The Messiah caused them to cease by the instrumentality of the Roman arms. p. 3/9-

3. Yet it is foretold in this last clause of the prophecy, that

the Romans themselves are in their turn destined to destruction, and that the Jewish sacrifices shall be restored in a spiritual manner, at the expiration of the great period of 1260 years, p. 379.

(i .) This interpretation is necessary for various reasons. It alone reconciles Daniel with Jeremiah. It exhibits Daniel in unison both with himself and with all the other prophets. It appears to be the very interpretation given by our Lord himself. It removes certain objections built on the connection of the pro*, phecy with Daniel's previous supplication, p. 383.

(2.) Objection to it answered, p. 392.

4. How the end poured upon the desolator is firmly decided

VII. An explanatory paraphrase of the whole prophecy* p. 395.

1. Paraphrase of the first clause, p. 395.

2. Paraphrase of the second clause, p. 396'.

3. Paraphrase of the third clause, p. 397*

4. Paraphrase of the fourth clause, p. 398.

5. Paraphrase of the fifth clause, p. 398«

6. Paraphrase of the fixth clause, p. 398,

An examination of the objections which may be made to the preceding interpretation.

1. THE first objection to the mystic interpretation of Jerusalem. p. 4-00.

1. The

( xxiii )

|. The first answer to it. p. 401. 2. The second answer to it. p. 402.

(1.) The first corollary to the second answer, p. 403„

(2.) The second corollary, p. 404.

II. The second objection to the divorce taking place before the

times of the holy city had fully expired. The reply to it. p. 406.

III. The third objection to the deficiency of proof that the re-

building of the figurative holy city was completed at the end of the seven weeks. The reply to it. p. 408.

IV. The fourth objection to the referring the last week of the

seventy to the period of the ministration of the Gospel, on the ground of its being interposed in the midst of matters relative to the Jewish war. The reply to it. p. 413.

V. The fifth objection to the half week being considered as no

part of the seventieth week. The reply to it. p, 4>l6.

VI. The sixth objection to the computation of the seventy weeks

by solar years. The reply to it. p. 419*

CHAP. VIII. Observations by way of conclusion

An accomplished prophecy is not necessapily so clear as to be understood without labour or meiital exertion, p. 422.

An addres to the Jews. p. 424. 3. An address to Christians, p. 427.

Appendix

( xxiv 3

APPENDIX,

The astronomical canon of Ptolemy arranged synchronically with the kings of Judah and Assyria, the high-priests of Judah, the Greek kings of Syria^ and Che princes and kings of Judea. p. 43j0;

No. II.

Succession of the kings of Judah, the high-priests of Juda& and the princes and kings of Judea, from the commencement of the era of Nabonassar, arranged syiichronically with the kings of Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Egypt, Syria, and the Roman emperors, p. 433,

DISSERTATION

ON TH J

PROPHECY

OS THS

SEVENTY WEEKS.

A V

DISSERTATION, fyr