first month for their festivals and all the solemnities observed in honour of God, but he preserved the original order as to all common affairs of life." If this rule were followed "the 3rd month" in speaking of a siege ought to mean the 3rd of the Civil year; at any rate, it would justify such a use. And it is strongly in favour of this view that it may be inferred from Neh. ii. 1 compared with i. 1, that the accessions of kings were dated from the 1st month of the Civil year.Now, a fast was observed on the 6th of this 3rd month in commemoration of Jehoiakim's burning the roll of Jeremiah's prophecy. But we would specially direct attention to the fact that in the Antiochian persecution "the abomination of desolation" was set up on the 15th of Casleu, while the consummation of the profanation was accomplished on the 25th in the sacrificing to idols on the altar of Jehovah. The latter day was set apart as a Festival in commemoration of the subsequent purification. What more probable than that the former was observed as a solemn fast in memory of the profanation? We confess we are inclined to think that a coincidence with this former desolation was intended by the historian. There is an obvious parallelism between the entrances of Antiochus and of Pompey into the Holy of Holies. And a fast in commemoration of so remarkable an event in Jewish history as the profanation by Antiochus may well have been known as "The fast."

568. Perhaps as Josephus made a distinction between the destructions and the captures of Jerusalem (Wars VI. x.), so also he marked the distinction and made a gradation of parallelisms by the days to which he assigned them. The three destructions under Nebuchadnezzar, Vespasian, and Hadrian are said to have happened on the same day of evil omen, the 9th of Ab. In like manner, the captures may

have been attributed to the 15th of Casleu.

569. After all, there seems to be some mystery in the parallelisms and coincidences existing in connexion with the years of the two usurpers, Aristobulus and his son, which we are not able fully to penetrate. That each should have retained the dominion a "half-week";-that both should have been put down by a Roman General, who substituted the rival competitor,-that, in each case, it should be stated that the city was taken on the day of the same Fast, these things are indicative rather of mystical adaptation than of an historical character. It has been shewn that the siege by Herod is said in one place to have lasted 6 months. Hence it would seem that Antigonus's reign was reckoned at 3 as well as

E E

3 years. And, in different places Aristobulus's reign is set down at 31 and 3 years. So that the parallelism between them appears to have been made complete in every respect. But, further, it is evident that Antigonus's reign must have been reduced to 3 years; for otherwise 27 years to a day could not have been placed between the two captures,-24+ 3 making 27 years. And consequently, to preserve the parallelism which was so manifestly intended to be perfect in every respect, we may presume that the time of Aristobulus was similarly reduced. We shall then have attributed to each 3, 34, and 3 years, making together, 6, 6, and 7 years. This we take to be another and a striking example of the way in which the "half-week" has been expanded and contracted, and formed into "a week."-On the whole, we shall probably be not far from the truth if we conceive the mystical scheme to have been something of this kind. The two usurpers' accessions were severally placed 3 years and 3 months before that Fast-day "in the 3rd month," which was thought to be a fitting day for the occurrence of so dire a calamity as the capture and pillage of the Holy City and the profanation of the Temple by the heathen. The fatal "half-week" in years (i. e. 3 years) was assigned to the dominion of each of the usurpers. At the expiration of this, "the consummation," ,"" the time of the end" began in the investment of the city. The Roman eagles, those hated emblems which gave occasion to such commotions and calamities subsequently, were gathered together against it round about, being brought thither by a native Prince,-himself the High Priest or his representative. And here we may observe that there seems to have been a parallelism had in view between the events which terminate this and the last Division; that is, those which severally led to the introduction and the exclusion of the Asmonæan dynasty,-with this exception indeed, that the position which the Maccabees occupied was reversed in appropriate conformity with the result. In the first instance, they had come forward as the defenders of the people's rights against a heathen power which maintained the cause of a High Priest, who had, if not a good, at any rate a better legal claim than theirs to this office; and in so good a cause they succeeded. In the second, when they had the best claim according to the law, they failed; because they rested on the arm of the heathen, and were the instruments of bringing their people under subjection to them.-It is no

* Pompey, if not Sosius, entered "the Holy of Holies." (Wars I. vii. 6.)

valid objection to this that it was Herod who on the last occasion had brought in the Romans; for he and his father had all along previously acted in the name of Hyrcanus, and hence the cause and the party of the Idumæan family, and those of the Senior branch of the Asmonæan, had come to be regarded as identical. How much this was the case is shewn by the fact that after Herod had obtained the dominion, Hyrcanus returned to Jerusalem, in the expectation that his family would be restored, if not to the supreme civil power, yet to the possession of the High Priesthood. But, to return to the mystical scheme. The siege, or "time of the end," would, on this view, have been made to begin in each case at the end of the " "half-week of years, and to have lasted a "half-week" of months, attaining the climax of consummation in both instances on the same fatal day. The variations must be supposed to have been made for the purpose of working out the coincidences, and dovetailing the half-weeks into the chronometrical lines. It accords with this that on some grounds it is requisite to place the capture by Pompey in B. c. 64, but on others in B.c. 63. And it has been shewn that the sum of these 2 usurpers' years may be taken at 7 and at 6 years.

xii. DURATIONS OF DIVISION C.

570. (1). The durations of this Division shewn in our Table are 122, 138, and 140 years. (2). It has also been shewn that there are variations in the first three items, which may allow of 120 and 124 years having been assigned. (3). In Ant. XVII. vi. 3 Herod is made to say in his last oration, that "the Asmonæans, during the 125 years of their government had not been able to perform any so great work" as he had accomplished in restoring the Temple. (4.) Ant. XIV. xvi. 4. "Thus did the government of the Asmonæans cease, after it was set up 126 years." (5). The title-numbers of Bks. 13 and 14 of

Note that the title-number of Bk. 14 assigns 32 years to the reigns, which the particulars in the Table make to amount only to 30 years. This appears somewhat in favour of our

hypothesis that the reigns of Aristobulus II. and Antigonus have been reckoned at two "half-weeks."

(6). For the interval between the deaths of J. Maccabæus and Qn. Alexandra, the title-number of Bk. 13 gives 82 years. But the sum of the particulars in the Book is 84 years. If to these particulars be added 3 years for Judas, and 4 (3) for Jacimus, the first subdivision will contain 91 (90) years.The title-number of Bk. 14 is 32 years. But the particulars amount to 30. Hence, for this Division there may be obtained 82+3+3 (4)+30=118 (119); -91 (90) + 30 = 121 (1201); -91 (90) +32=123 (122) years. But as in Wars I. ii. 8, 2 years more is assigned to the high priesthood of John Hyrcanus, these durations might be raised to 1201, 121, 123, 122, 125, 124 years. (7). Some chronologers have computed this Asmonæan period to amount to 120 years, and No. 2 above is sufficient to justify such a computation. In inspecting the Table (No. 10) of the Captivities we were led to observe that it appeared to be made up of 24's. Though we do not find this in respect of the component items of this Division, it is worthy of notice that the whole duration is the same, and of course = =24 × 5 or two sexagintal periods. It may also be observed that the following durations are parts of periods. 120-480 120-480. 122/ =490. 124-372. 125-1000. 126-1260. (8). A passage in the 2nd Book Con. Ap. 12 may be noticed here. "We have had the dominion of the cities that lie round about us for nearly 120 years until Pompey the Great."This appears to be a strange assertion when considered in connexion with the historical statements. Presuming that the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey is had in view, and placing that event in B. c. 63, it carries us back to B. c. 183. If on the strength of the word "nearly" we may cut off the odd 3 years, the date from which " the dominion of the cities" is said to have been possessed is the very year in which the mission of Heliodorus to plunder the Temple has been placed. Certain it is that we are brought into the reign of that king, who was distinguished for the exactions he made on his subjects, and who on this account was designated in Daniel's prophecy as "the raiser of taxes" (xi. 20).—If, again, we reckon from B. C. 64, we shall be carried back to B. c. 184, – which will give 400 Sacerdotal Cycles before the Vulgar Era. But when we see how ill this statement accords with the facts of the history, and also observe that the number which occasions the discrepancy is the same with those which measure the Captivity periods (¶ 435), and which are uni

formly reduced to the amount of 30 years, we are led to suppose that the same reduction may be applicable in the present instance. And we find that a subtraction of 30 years brings the epoch of the predicated "dominion" down to the year in which Jonathan " put on the holy robe"; and this is an event which may with probability be supposed to have been the æra in view. The coincidence adds new testimony in favour of our hypothesis of such reductions having been systematically made. We ought, however, rather to say "expansions" than "reductions," seeing that the smaller number in each case is that which is deemed to be historical.

So.

[4]. MISCELLANEOUS PERIODS, COINCIDENCES, &c.

571. The following are coincidences and periods proper to be noticed in this Division. As in other instances, so in this, it is not intended to maintain that none of them are accidental, but it is deemed quite incredible that all of them should be (1). Era of independence B. c. 162+ a. D. 70=232 years to the destruction of Jerusalem. (2). Jonathan's accession is placed by the date in Maccabees midway between the Jewish and Christian æras. (3). John Hyrcanus established the complete independence of the Jews in B. c. 130. The destruction of Jerusalem was A. D. 70, making 200 years. (4). The full establishment of Alexander's Empire was B. C. 330. Hence the interval between the complete triumphs of "the 4th kingdom," and of " the unhewn stone," in reference to the Jews, was 400 years, and just at the point of bisection their nation attained to full independence. (5). At this precise epoch, too, Hyrcanus destroyed the rival temple on Gerizzim, which was now made desolate "200 years after it was built." (Ant. XIII. ix. 1). (6). In B. c. 107 (+28) Aristobulus assumed the royal diadem;-a sexagintal period after J. Maccabæus assumed the command of the Jews. (7). 107 × 2=214 B. C. brings us to the time when Simon II. refused to allow Ptolemy Philopator to enter the Holy of holies. (8). 107 × 3=321 B.C.: In this or the following year P. Lagi overran Palestine. (9). 107 x 4. =428 B. C.;-3 years before the end of the reign of Artaxerxes I. This is about the epoch of the cessation of prophecy and completion of the Old Test. Canon. Scott places Nehemiah's leave to return to Judæa in B. C. 432, so that the close of his administrative reform may have been in B. c. 428. -(10). 107 x 5 B. c. 535. This year is conumerary with the 2nd of Cyrus, - a Josephean date of the Return.—If