12. This interpretation of the words, might it be admitted, would, I confess, solve all difficulties, and entirely preserve the sacred and
340 COMPUTATION OF DANIEL’S WEEKS. [EXERC. XV.
profane accounts from all appearance of interfering. But there are two reasons upon the account whereof I cannot assent unto it. The first is, Because indeed there is no other instance in the Scrip- ture to give countenance unto it, namely, wherein a number of years coming so far short of the true and exact account as this doth is yet put for the whole, especially considering this number is given out for this very purpose, that men might aright compute it, and so come to know the time of its expiration. But to name four hundred and ninety for five hundred and sixty-two seems rather to be a conjecture than a prophecy. This may be the condition, then, of some few odd years that may be cast in unto a full round number, but, of so considerable a part of the whole as seventy-two is, there is no reason to suppose it so disposed of. Secondly, The word used by the angel to express the limitation of this time, 7973, plainly proves that a precise duration of time and number of years is signi- fied. The Vulgar Latin renders that word “abbreviate,” “short- ened,” or cut short; and a learned man of our own approves of that interpretation of it, in opposition unto our own translation and that of Junius. “De annis,” saith he, “porro loquitur signanter pro- pheta quod sint, non decisi” (as Junius), “non ‘ determinati’” (as ours), “apud Deum statuti (quod tamen verum erat), sed quod erant ‘abbreviati’ quemadmodum transtulit doctissimus interpres vetus,” Mon. App. ad Orig. Eccl., and thereon disputes at large how the years are said to be “shortened;” and yet concludes, “ Dicuntur autem abbreviate hebdomade, eo quod erant decisee et determi- natz;” as though “shortened” or “abbreviated” were the proper sense of the word, only it might be interpreted “ determined,” or that the days are said to be shortened because they were determined. But the truth is, J27 doth not signify “to abbreviate” or make short, and all the reasons given to show why the times here are said to be shortened are perfectly cast away. It is in this place only used in the Scripture, and that in the singular number, joined with a noun of the plural, to intimate that every week of the whole number was limited, and determined, and cut out; as is usual in the Hebrew. Among the rabbins it is “ to cut off,” and from it is Hann, “a piece cut off;” as, wa Sy nonn, “a piece of flesh cut off;” and qnn is “a cutting,” or incision. So that the word in its precise signification is “cut out,” or “ cut off,” that is, set apart, limited, or determined,— a portion of time “ cut out,” limited, and apportioned unto the end, for the accomplishment of the work foretold. Now, there is nothing more contrary unto a precise determination of time than that a cer- tain number of years should be named to signify an uncertain, and that so exceeding distant from the exact account as four hundred and ninety years are from five hundred and sixty-two. So that here is no place for the conjecture of that most learned and renowned person.
SECT. 13, 14.] COMPUTATION OF DANIEL’S WEEKS. 34]
13. The Jews take another course to solve this difficulty, as also to give some countenance unto their computation in dating the weeks from the destruction of the temple by the Chaldeans, and ending them in the desolation of the second house by the Romans; for they will allow no more kings of Persia than are mentioned in the Scripture, nor that they reigned any longer than they find men- tion therein of the years of their reign; as though, whether they did good or evil towards Jerusalem, it was fatal unto them, so that they must needs die immediately upon it. Thus they allow not above four or five kings of Persia at most, and thereby take in the dura- tion of that empire from two hundred years and upwards unto fifty years at the most! But this supposition stands in open contradic- tion to all generally-allowed computations of time in the world; and not only so, but it excludes all consideration of things done, as notorious to mankind as that ever there was such a thing as the Persian empire. Of this nature are the transactions and wars with other nations, especially the Grecians, which fell not out in the days of any of the kings mentioned in the Scripture, especially that famous expedition of Xerxes, which the whole world looked on, and waited for its event. And yet I acknowledge that this imagination might deserve consideration, could it be pretended that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah did intentionally give us an account and his- tory of the Persian empire, and the reign of the kings thereof, as some books do of the kings of Israel and Judah. But whereas it is evident that their design is quite otherwise, and that they only occasionally mention some of the kings of Persia, and some years of their reign, as they related unto the state and actions of the people of the Jews, it is no less madness and folly to contend from thence that there were no more kings of Persia than are men- tioned in them, and that they reigned no longer than is in them expressed, than it would be to say that there were never above three or four kings of the Assyrian empire, because there are no more mentioned in the Scripture, and so many of them are spoken of. This dworopyoia is beneath all consideration.