The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 298

Ho refers to Ewald's • Grammar,' but at his diversity or opinion a.e to the date &t which roferonce Ew11Id says that •:., ie the sign of that event occurred. But, further, we are the semi-oblique nnrrative need in Hebrew. not to expect that prophecy shall lrnve the In a note Ewald refers to icM~ as lntrodno- ac!111racy we ha.':'e in astronomico.l ephem- i ng speeches; but that ie not in ~int here, endes. We admit there are great difficulties. I£ dabar hnd meant "promise' or "pro- We admit, further, that seven weeks me.rk phecy" here, it would have been followed with wonderful precision, the time which with tho words in which the prophecy was elapsed from the capture of Jerusalem to announced. If, on the other hand, dabar ie the accession of Cyrus to the throne of taken 11e" a decree," the infinitive ie natural. Babylon. The interval w1111 really fifty 'l'he question, then, arises, "Whose decree ie years. We do not know the occnrrencee it thnt is here referred to?" Daniel was that marked the relation of the Jewish hoping for a decree being issued by Cyrus ; people to their Persian masters during tbe of this he would naturally think, but what century and more which elapsed between he thought is not to be taken as necessnrily this twentieth year of Arta.xerxee a.nd the true. 'l'he prophets did not always know overthrow of the Persian Empire by Alex- the meaning of their own prophecies. We ander the Great. The city wa11s and in- must oxamine the record, and see what ternal buildings of Jerusalem may have decree suiLs best with the words of our text. tRken fifty years to erect-we simply cannot Many oommonta.tors think the reference tell. It is, at all events, a singulo.r thing here is to a Divine decree (Hengstenberg, that the date of our Lord's crucifixion so Wolf, etc.). The difficulty of this view is nearly coincides with the termination of that there ie in appearance a definite start- the 483 years. What is the result of start- ing-point given for the period named to ing from the date at which the prophecy begin. Now, a. decree of God baa no visible was given? Assuming that the writer lived time-relation. Thie view, when maintained in the reign of Epiphanee,;md meant t.o by those who hold that the prophecy of indicate the date of some event near his Jeremiah is referred to, ma.y have some own period by the end of the 490 or the justification, only that a prophecy is never 483 years, let ns see what follows. If we regarded a.s a decree, rendering certain its take the Massoretic date of the prophecy, fulfilment. It must be, then, a human it wa.s given in the year of the a.cceHion decree. The decree of Cyrus did not in- of Nebuchadnezzar, or the next year-his volve a.ny rebuilding of the city of Jeru- first year, according to Babylonian chrono- salem. The altar wa.e set up-that was logy, that is to say, B.c. 606 or B.C. 605. a.ll: the temple, even. was not built. The Subtract 483 from either of theae, and we terms of the decree of Cyrus, 118 we have it have the utterly inconspicuous years e.c. in Ezra i. 2, are, "The Lord God of heaven 122 e.nd B.O. 123, that is to se.y, twelve or . . . ha.th charged me to build him a.n house thirteen years after the death of Simon the in Jerusalem." This clearly is not the Maccabee. If three years and II half a.re decree intended. When Darius Hysta.spis added, to reach the middle of the week, we founded his permission to build the temple have B.C, 119, an equally inconspicnoua on the decree of Cyrus, there wa.s no word year. Professor Bevan, however, follows of permitting them to rebuild the city Ewald, and begins with the destrnction of walls. When, in the seventh year of Arle.- J ernsalem. That the statement contradicts xerxes, Ezra a.nd hie companion» left Baby- the text, which dates "from the going forth lon and ea.me to Jerusalem, still, though of a promise to people and build again there wa.e no command given to build a.go.in Jerusalem," according to Profe990r Bevan's the we.Ila of Jerusalem, there is more nearly own translation, not from the destruction of implied a restoration of Jerusalem as a Jerusalem, is looked upon evidently as of no city. We ma.y, then, start from B.O. 458. importance. Of conrae, the refuge is the To Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of the ignorance of the author of Daniel, not• reign of Arte.xerxes, wa.s there a positive withstanding that Jeremiah (:uv. 1) dates command given to build the wall of Jeru- his first prophecy "the foruth year of J e- salem. This date brings us to B.O. 445. hoiakim," and his letter ( xxh. 2), after Starting from the first date, the end of the the captivity of Jeooniah, and immediately 490 years ie A.D. 32, and the encl of the 69 after. Moreover, something more than weeks (equivalent to 483 years) is A.D. 25. ignorance is needed to explain the author If, a.gain, we start from the latter of these of Daniel oonfounding the going forth dates, the termination of the 490 years is of a prophecy to rebuild Jerusalem with A.D. 45, and of the 483 years A.D. 38. No the destruction of it. If we take the date one can foil to be struck with the fact that of the destruction of Jerusalem, B.C. 588, these do.tee are very near the most sacred and add 483 years, we reach B.C. 105-a date of all history-that of the crucifixion year conspicuous only for the death of John of our Lord. We know there i.s considerable Hyrcanns. This is so obvious, that many 2i0 THE BOOK OF DANIEL. [llB, IX, 1-27,