litary operations in general; nor, consequently, that the report of its approach, which was manifestly received just after the siege had been begun, could have been received except in the summer.

If so, the siege, which was broken up for a time by the rumoured approach of the Egyptian army, was altogether a different transaction from the siege, which was begun in the tenth month afterwards. Yet there is no reason why both should not be supposed to have made part of the transactions of the same year: the one, about its middle, as the other much nearer to its end.

On this principle, the first siege also would be laid in the ninth of Zedekiah, and, according to the Bible chronology, sometime in B. C. 590. about its middle. At this particular juncture, a year of release was either arrived, or at hand; which, if the latter was the case, might extend from B. C. 590-B. C. 589. If B. C. 709-B. C. 708. was actually a Sabbatic year, then B. C. 590-B. C. 589. must have been, or ought to have been, one also: for 709-590=119= 7x17: whence if B. C. 709-B. C. 708. was the first of the series, B. C. 590-589. was the eighteenth.

In Pingre's Tables of Eclipses, I find an eclipse of the moon B. C. 590. on March 12. at 8. 45. in the morning, for the meridian of Paris; or 10. 57 in the morning, for the meridian of Jerusalem. The next mean full moon to this would fall April 10-at 11. 41. in the evening: in which case the 15th of Nisan would coincide with April 11. and, therefore, the 15th of Tisri with October 5. From the 15th of Tisri exclusive, to the 10th of Tebeth inclusive, the interval is eighty-three days. And from the 5th of October exclusive, to the 27th of December inclusive, it is the same. In this case, the tenth of the Jewish Tebeth coincided with the twenty-seventh of the Julian December; and the siege of Jerusalem, which began on the former, began also on the latter. If it began, therefore, B. C. 590. it began B. C. 590. exeunte; and if it lasted, from the time of its beginning to the time of its close, eighteen months in all, and if the last month of the siege expired on the tenth of

the fourth month of the Jewish year, B. C. 588-the sixth month expired on the tenth of the fourth month of the same year, B. C. 589-and, consequently, the first began on the tenth of the tenth, B. C. 590.

Now it has been shewn, at least with presumptive certainty, that B. C. 588. when the 14th of Nisan coincided with April 17-April 17. was a Sunday. On the same principle, December 27. B. C. 588. was a Tuesday—and, therefore, December 27. B. C. 590. was a Saturday. The siege of Jerusalem, then, was begun on the Jewish sabbath ; and it has been shewn that it ended on the same. For the ninth of the fourth month, (when Zedekiah attempted to escape by night from the city,) if the premises on which I founded this conclusion were correct, has been demonstrated to have been a sabbath. B. C. 588. if Nisan 14. coincided with April 17. and April 17. with Sunday-Thamuz 9. coincided with July 9-and July 9. with Saturday*.

* It is possible, indeed, that the tenth of Tebeth, B. C. 590. might have coincided with December 28: in which case, while the siege would expire on the Saturday as before, it would begin on the Sunday-a circumstance of agreement, which would bring the analogy between the first siege, under Nebuchadnezzar, and the last, under Titus, to a degree of correspondence truly remarkable.

* Vol. i. Diss. x. 359. note.

DISSERTATION VIII.

PART I.

General prospective survey of the ministry of our Lord in Judæa.

THE entire history of our Lord's public ministry is divisible into that part of it, which was discharged in Judæa, and that part of it, which was confined to Galilee: and these parts were not only distinct in themselves, beginning at different times, and proceeding subsequently at different times, independent of each other, but are recorded in distinct and independent Gospels. The ministry in Judæa began before the ministry in Galilee; and the history of the ministry in Judæa is confined almost totally to St. John -the history of the ministry in Galilee, almost as exclusively, to the other three Evangelists. A general and prospective survey of our Saviour's public ministry must regard it in each of its parts-and as that part which relates to Judæa was both prior to, and ever after, distinct from, that which relates to Galilee, it will properly begin with, and make an end of, the former, before it passes on to the latter.

The times and occasions of the ministry in Judæa are likewise twofold; the times and occasions when our Saviour was visiting Jerusalem, and the times and occasions when he was residing elsewhere in Judæa. The first instance on record of any attendance at Jerusalem is the attendance at the Passover, John ii. 13; which has been fully considered already a: and the first instance of any residence in Judæa, apart from Jerusalem, is that which begins to be recorded, John iii. 22. and is supposed to continue, or go on still, to the time of the return into Galilee, iv. 1. 2. 3; which also has been discussed in the preceding Dissertation. Of any instances of attendance at Jerusalem, posterior to the first, I shall speak by and by; but of any similar residence in Judæa, out of Jerusalem, the only other instance,

a Vol.ii. Diss. vii. supra.

distinct from the first, is that which is specified at John xi. 52-for Ephraim, though it might border upon Samaria, was, notwithstanding, a city of Judæa. The length of this residence, as well as the period in the course of our Lord's ministry to which it belongs, will require to be considered hereafter, and must, therefore, for the present be dismissed.

Besides these two instances, however, there is none other on record, either in St. John's Gospel, or out of it, during which there is any reason to suppose our Saviour was residing in Judæa: for as to Bethabara, which is mentioned at John x. 40. as the scene of a temporary residence also, it is proved, by a comparison with other passages b, to have been probably in Peræa; and we may take it for granted was either in Peræa, or, at least, in Galilee. Now each of these occasions stands entirely independent of the rest of the course of our Lord's ministry-the former, as very early in his first year-and the latter, as very late in his third-and they are the only occasions, on which, as we shall better perceive hereafter, from the course of that ministry in general, there could have been an opportunity for the occurrence of any such residence in Judæa; and, consequently, a priori, any reason to suspect it. I take it for granted, then, that, excepting these two occasions in particular, our Lord was never resident in Judæa, either for a longer, or for a shorter time, in the course of his ministry altogether.

With regard, in the next place, to the times and occasions of the attendances at Jerusalem, these were, in every instance, the times and occasions of an attendance at some of the feasts and there are five such instances actually on record; two, of attendances at a Passover C-one, of an attendance at a feast of Tabernacles done, of an attendance at a feast of Dedication and one, which is left indefinite f-but, besides these, there are no more. The occasion of each of these visits is so far exactly determined; and as bi. 28. iii. 23. 25. 26. cji. 13. xii. 1.

d vii. 2-10.

ex. 22.23.

f v. I.

to what period, in the course of our Lord's ministry generally, they are also each to be referred to, will appear, in due time, hereafter. The only question, which seems to require our consideration at present, is this-whether the five instances, thus recorded, embrace all the instances of our Saviour's attendance in Jerusalem, at any of the feasts? or, whether there is reason to suppose he might ever have been up to Jerusalem, in the course of his ministry, at times and on occasions, distinct from these, and not recorded by St. John? The affirmative, upon the former question, and the negative, upon the latter, appear to me to be the truth.

For, first, the Gospel of St. John is supplementary to the rest not only in general, and even where they may all relate to transactions in Galilee, or elsewhere out of Judæa, but especially so, with respect to the transactions in Judæa. It was in this department of their common history, that the preceding accounts were principally, or rather totally, defective; since, with the exception of the history of passionweek, that is, of seven or eight days before the close of our Lord's public ministry, it is a notorious fact that they no where speak of any visit to Jerusalem; they no where, except by implication, prove him to have been in Judæa at all. The reverse of this is true of St. John; the whole scene of whose accounts, with the same exception of a very little transacted in Galilee, or on the other side the Lake of Tiberias, is placed in Judæa. The entire history of our Lord's ministry in this country must thus be collected solely from St. John: it is reasonable, therefore, to presume that he has furnished the data necessary for that purpose; and if so, that the instances of attendance at Jerusalem, which he has specified as such, are actually all which occurred. These visits of our Lord to that city were cardinal points in the discharge of the ministry in Judæa; the incidents which then transpired were always of a peculiar kind, and eminently deserving of record. They prove not merely the fact of our Lord's compliance with the legal requisitions, which enjoined such attendance, at stated times, on all the male Israelites, but what was still more to be ex