governor of Judah' in the twentieth year of the king, and that he continued in office until his thirty second year*, when he returned to Artaxerxes to Babylon t. Hence I cannot refrain from thinking, that the bare commission granted by the king to Nehemiah has very improperly been esteemed a fourth edict; and consequently that we are scarcely warranted, by the terms of the prophecy, in computing the seventy weeks from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. If then there be any weight in what has been here advanced, no more than three deerees in favour of the Jews were enacted by the kings of Persia, from one or other of which the period in question must be reckoned. I proceed to Consider their chronology. II. Respecting the date of the first decree there is not much dispute ‡, for chronologers agree in placing the first year of Cyrus in the year 4178 of the Julian period and in the year 536 before the Christian era. Nehem. v. 14% + Nehem. xiii. 6. I may almost venture to say no dispute with respect to the year. Mr. Lancaster does indeed throw back the scriptural first year of Cyrus two years, and makes it coincide with the scriptural first year of Darius the Mede, instead of being suceessive to it: but for this opinion he has not much warrant. It will be discussed hereafter. The year itself is sufficiently determined; but the precise time of the year is not positively declared in Scripture. III. But, III. But, respecting the second decree, there is a question whether it was enacted by Darius Hystaspis, or Darius Nothus; that is to say, whether it was enacted in the year 4195 of the Julian period and in the year 519 before the Christian era, or in the year 4293 of the Julian period and in the year 421 before the Christian era. The latter opinion is maintained by Scaliger and Mede*. Its untenableness will be manifest from the following considerations. 1. According to profane history, there were three sovereigns of the Medo-Persian empire before Darius Hystaspis; namely Cyrus, Cambyses, and Smerdis the Magian impostor: and, according to Ezra, there were likewise three sovereigns of the Medo-Persian empire before that Darius who enacted a decree in favour of the Jews; namely Cyrus, Ahasuerus, and Artaxerxes †. It appears therefore from profane history, that a prince called Darius was the fourth Medo-Pèrsian sovereign: and it also appears from Ezra, that a prince called Darius was the fourth Medo-Persian sovereign. Hence there is the very strongest presumption, that these two princes, each described as the fourth * Scalig. de Emend. temp. 1. vi.-Mede's Treatise on Daniel's Weeks. Works. p. 697. ↑ Ezra i. 1-iv. 1-iv. 7, 11, 24. Medo-Persian sovereign and each denominated Darius, are one and the same person; and consequently that the Darius Hystaspis of profane history is that Darius, who, according to Ezra, enacted a decree in favour of the Jews. 2. Nor is this the only reason. Joshua the highpriest, and Zerubbabel the governor, were the persons who were sent to Jerusalem with the original decree of Cyrus*: and they were likewise the persons who carried into execution the edict of Darius f. But, between the first year of Cyrus and the third year of Darius Nothus, there is a period of 115 years. Now, when the decree of Cyrus was enacted, Joshua must have been at the least 40 years of age, because he had sons engaged in the work of the temple, the youngest of whom was upwards of 20 years old: and we cannot suppose Zerubbabel to have been much younger, because an inexperienced boy would scarcely have been appointed governor. Such being the case, if we adopt the opinion of Scaliger and Mede, that the Darius who enacted the decree was Darius Nothus, we shall make Joshua and Zerubbabel at the era of the second decree to have been, upon the most mo Ezra ii. 2. iii. 8. ↑ Ezra v. 2, 5, 6. vi. 1-Haggai i. 1-Zechar. i. 1. iii. 1. iv. 6, 7, 9. ↑ Ezra iii. 8, 9. derate derate calculation, little less than 160 years of age. This chronological objection Scaliger attempts to remove by urging, that there have been instances, even in our own days, of equal longevity-Instances, it is true, of remarkable longevity have occurred; but they have been solitary instances: whereas, if Darius Nothus be the Darius in question, there must have been, at the time when his edict was put into execution, not a single individual merely, but several persons even of a yet greater age than the supposed age of Joshua and Zerubbabel. In the second year of the Darius who enacted the decree, Haggai is directed by the Lord to inquire of the assembled residue of the people, "Who is left among you that saw this house in its "first glory? and how do ye see it now? Is it "not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing*?" Now the first house was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in the year A. C. 588, and the second year of Darius Nothus synchronizes with the year A. C. 422: consequently, between the destruction of the first temple and the second year of Darius Nothus, there is a period of 166 years. But the very earliest that we can suppose a person to be a competent judge of the comparative magnificence of two * Haggai ii, 3. buildings buildings is the age of 10 years: and even this supposition, which is plainly far too low a one, would make every person, who had viewed with the eye of observation the first temple, no less than 176 years old in the second year of Darius Nothus. Granting then the possibility that Joshua and Zerubbabel might have attained to the advanced age which the hypothesis of Scaliger and Mede requires, it is surely incredible that there should be many among the residue of the people nearly 180 years old, to whom Haggai could appeal respecting the comparative magnificence of the two temples. But this we shall be obliged to suppose, if we adopt the scheme of Scaliger and Mede and attribute the enacting of the second decree to Darius Nothus instead of Darius Hystaspis, Scaliger does indeed attempt to obviate this diffi culty also, by explaining the words in Haggai interjectionally, Oh! if any of you had seen the glory of the first house! whence it would appear, that, so far from there being many who had seen the first house, there were none then alive-But the original will not bear such a translation. The literal version of it is, Who amongst you is left, that hath seen this house in its first glory? And what do ye see it now? Is it not in comparison of that as nothing in your eyes? Here an appeal is plainly made to persons who had seen both houses; other |