14, Others there are, men learned and pious, who, resolving to date these weeks from the first of Cyrus, and to make four hundred and ninety years the exact measure of the time from thence unto the death of the Messiah, and not being able to disprove the compu- tation from Alexander unto that time, fall also upon the Persian empire, and cut it short above fifty years of the true account of its duration, to fit it unto the place and measure provided for it. To this end they reject the accounts of the Chaldeans, Grecians, and Romans, concerning the time of its continuance, as fabulous, and give us a new, arbitrary account of the reign of those kings whom they will allow.
342 COMPUTATION OF DANIEL’S WEEKS. — [EXERC. XY.
This course steers Beroaldus, Broughton, Genebrard, and Willet, with sundry others. And the truth is, were the supposition once cleared, that the decree or commandment mentioned by Gabriel must needs be given out by Cyrus, there were some colour for offer- ing of this violence unto all consent of time, with accounts of things done, though written by men prudent and sober in their own days. But this is so far from being a basis or foundation sufficient to warrant such a procedure, that take it nakedly of itself, without the burden upon it, and it is destitute of all probability. The word, decree, or commandment, mentioned unto Daniel, is that for the building of Jerusalem; that is, the restoring of it into a condition of rule and government; that is, the building of a city, and not only the setting up of houses. Consequent unto this, their building of the walls also for the defence of the people is mentioned. Of this it is said that it should fall out in a troublesome time, or a time of straits; as accordingly it did fall out, in the days of Nehemiah, In the whole there is not the least mention of building the temple, which, had it been intended, could not, I suppose, have been omitted. But in the decree of Cyrus, the principal thing mentioned and aimed at is the re-edification of the temple, the city and the walls thereof being not spoken of in it; as may be seen in the first of Ezra at large.
It seems evident, then, that the decree mentioned by Daniel for the building of the city and walls, and not the temple, and that given out by Cyrus for the building of the temple, and not the city and walls, were diverse. Besides, this decree of Cyrus, although foretold long before, and made famous because it was the entrance into the people’s return and settlement, yet took effect for so short a space of time, being obstructed within less than three years, and utterly frustrated within four or five, that it is not likely to be the date of this prophecy, which seems to take place from some good settlement of the people. That alone which is pleaded with any colour for this decree of Cyrus is the prediction recorded, Isa. xliv. 28. It is prophesied of him, that he should “say to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.” But yet neither is it here foretold that Cyrus should make any decree for the building of Jerusalem, nor that it should be done in his days; and, indeed, it was not until an hundred years after, as is evident from the story in Nehemiah. The whole intention of this prophecy is only that he should cause the people to be set at liberty from their captivity, and give them leave to return to Jerusalem; which he did accordingly, and thereupon both the building of the city and temple ensued, though not without the intervention Of other decrees; of which afterwards.
15, The only argument wherewith this opinion of the duration of
SECT. 15.] COMPUTATION OF DANIEL’S WEEKS. 343
the Persian empire, [as] not above one hundred and fifty years at the most, maintains itself, is taken from the life and age of Nehe- miah. In Ezra ii. 2 he is reckoned among them that came up with Zerubbabel unto Jerusalem in the first year of Cyrus. Then he may rationally be supposed to have been at least twenty or twenty-five years of age. And it seems, from the last chapter of Nehemiah, that he lived unto the reign of Darius Codomannus: for Sanballat the Horonite assisted Alexander in his wars; and Jaddua, whom he mentions chap. xii, 11, was high priest when Alexander came to Jerusalem, as appears from Josephus. Now, if the Persian em- pire continued for the space of two hundred years, which we have allotted unto it, then he who went to Jerusalem in the first year of Cyrus, and continued unto the reign of Codomannus, must needs live two hundred and twenty years at the least, which is not credible that any one should do in those days; and therefore the space of time must needs be shorter than is pretended by at least fifty or sixty years.
But, indeed, there is no force in this exception: for,—First, There is no necessity why we should conclude that Nehemiah wrote that genealogy, chap. xii., where mention is made of Jaddua, who was afterwards high priest, verse 11; for he ends his story in the high- priesthood of Eliashib, chap. xiii. 28, who was great grandfather unto Jaddua, as appears chap. xii. 10, 11. Or, however, if he did, Jad- dua might then be a child, and, it may be, not come unto the high- priesthood until fifty or sixty years after, after the death of Eliashib, Joiada, and Jonathan, his great grandfather, grandfather, and father. So that no evidence can be taken from hence for the continuance of his life unto the end of the Persian monarchy. And for that San- ballat mentioned by Josephus in the time of Alexander, it is not improbable but that he might name him as the head of the Sama- ritans, there being no name of any other after him left upon record. Secondly, There is no reason to think that the Nehemiah men- tioned, Ezra ii. 2, who came up with Zerubbabel, was that Nehe- miah who was afterwards governor of Judah, and whose actions we have written probably the most part by himself, no more than there is to think that the Seraiah there mentioned was the Seraiah that was slain at the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The Daniel mentioned, Ezra viii. 2, was not Daniel the prophet; nor Baruch, Neh. x. 6, that Baruch who was the scribe of Jeremiah; nor that Jeremiah mentioned, Neh. xii. 12, Jeremiah the prophet. Besides, Ezra is said to come up with Zernbbabel, Neh. xii. 1, which either must not be that Ezra the great scribe, or he must be said to come up with Zerubbabel, because he followed him on the same errand and account. It cannot be denied but that there were sundry men at the same time of the same name. As the same person had