purpose the rule was adduced. If the first, he must pardon me for saying that he is mistaken. The wary Parkhurst justly observed, that such was often the power of the Vau, which I never denied: but he presumed not to say, that such was always its power. Even in the very chapter of Daniel, on which we are now engaged, an example occurs in which the Vau has no such power; and it is somewhat remarkable, that the verb to which it is there prefixed is the selfsame verb as that to which it is prefixed in ver. 40, though in one place it is translated sball come and in the other shall enter. The example is this: and in it I shall distinguish the connecting Vau or and by Italics. "But his sons shall be stirred up, "and shall assemble a multitude of great forces; " and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through"* Now, if Parkhurst's rule be of such invariable application as Mr. Whitaker seems to think, by his bringing it forward to decide a point of grammar between us; then by just such a literal translation as he requires us to accept of ver. 40+, which no doubt effectually restrains the verb shall enter to the king of the north, the example which I have adduced would run as follows: "But "his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a "multitude of great forces, and certainly come, and "overflow, and pass over". This translation, so far as mere grammar goes, is perfectly accurate; and will make the passage precisely accord with the example which Parkhurst brings from Judges i. 16, as Mr. Whitaker will find, if he will take the trouble of comparing them together: but, if we 66 * Dan. xi. 10. See his Letter, P. 49. adopt adopt it, what is to become of the accomplishment of the prophecy? The sons here spoken of, according to St. Jerome and Bp. Newton (and Mr. Whitaker will scarcely controvert their exposition), are the two sons of Seleucus Callinicus. Now it appears from the event, that both these sons were stirred up; but that only one of them came, and overflowed, and passed through*. The translation therefore ought undoubtedly to be as it stands in our present version. I wish Mr. Whitaker would compare together in the original Dan. xi. 10 and xi. 40; and then explain to me, why the very same Hebrew word, grammatically circumstanced in the very same manner, may in the one text have a different nominative case from its predecessor to which it is linked by the connecting Vau, but in the other (by the contrivance of what he calls a literal translation, and on which indeed the whole of his necessary application of the verb shall enter to the king of the north entirely depends) must have the same as its predecessor. Mr. Whitaker will find two other parallel examples in Eccles. x. 3 and in 2 Chron. xxiv. 22; in both of which a verb in its simple radical form is connected by Vau to a preceding verb, and yet has a different nominative case from that preceding verb: nevertheless one of Mr. Whitaker's literal translations will, without at all violating the rules of Hebrew grammar, assign in both cases the same nominative case to each of the connected verbs; and thus turn the two passages into complete nonsense. Thus, for any thing that I can discover to the contrary, Mr. Whitaker's * See Bp. Newton's Dissert. in loc. P criticism criticism leaves the matter exactly as it found it. In point of grammar, the clause and be shall enter certainly may be referred to the king of the north, which I never denied; and it as certainly may be referred to the wilful king*. The matter must be decided by the context of this and other parallel passagest. Now I assert, that this context absolutely obliges us to refer the clause in question to the wilful king. In the first place, it is much more agreeable to the analogy of Daniel's predictions respecting the two little borns, that a continued history of the wilful king should be given from his first developement to his final destruction; than that, after he has been represented as a monster of iniquity, no account should be given of his end, but that the prophet should digress from his original subject, and relate the exploits and overthrow of quite another power, which, instead of having committed any I consider it not unworthy of notice, that the very Vau, upon which Mr. Whitaker builds so much, appears not to have been in the Hebrew copy which the authors of the Syriac version used. At least so I judge from the Latin translation annexed to it, for I do not understand Syriac. "Tempore ❝ autem postremo dimicabit in eum rex austri, et concitabitur "in eum rex aquilonis cum bijugis, et equitibus, navibusque "multis: terram permeabit, pervenietque ad terram "Israelis". + Mr. Whitaker says, that both our translators and myself have omitted the conjunction found in the original at the beginning of ver. 41. (Letter, p. 49.) He is mistaken. Our translators have merely rendered the Vau by also, instead of by and; "He shall enter also, instead of "And he shall enter; and I thought it of too little consequence wantonly to deviate from them. The Vau itself neither they nor I have omitted. particular particular wickedness, is first represented as laudably opposing with all its forces the wilful tyrant. Such inconsistency can only be avoided by referring the clause to the wilful king, not to the king of the north-This however is by no means all. Granting, merely for the sake of argument; granting, I say, for a moment, that the time of the end means the whole 1260 years, that the king of the North is the Turk, and that the prophecy has been accomplished as far as to the end of the 43d verse which is all that Mr. Mede and Bp. Newton supposet: still the 44th and 45th verses will remain yet to be fulfilled, and these never can be fulfilled in the Turk consistently with another prophecy. I will say nothing of the extreme improbability, that the Ottoman power, now fast verging to destruction even in Mr. Whitaker's own opinion, should ever go forth with great fury to devote many to utter extermination on a religious account, should succeed in planting the curtains of his pavilions between the seas in the glorious holy mountain, and should there finally meet with destruction: of the utter improbability of all this I will say nothing; because I pretend not to the gift of prophecy, and am not prepared positively to assert that such an event is absolutely impossible. But this I will fearlessly assert, that the time assigned for the destruction of the power which (according to Daniel) will come to its end in Palestine, let it be the one * See my Dissert. Vol. I. p. 353, 354. See Mede's Works, B. iv. Epist. 54. and Bp. Newton's Dissert. xvii. in loc. + Comment. p. 487-490. P 2 king king or let it be the other king, cannot be made to quadrate with the time assigned by St. John for the overthrow of the Ottoman power: therefore the power, that comes to its end in Palestine, cannot be the Ottoman power. Let us compare together the two prophets. “ And at the time of the end a king "of the south shall butt at him; and a king of the "north shall come against him:—and he shall "enter into the countries;-and he shall plant the "curtains of his pavilions between the seas in the 66 glorious holy mountain: yet he shall come to his “end, and none shall help him. And at that "time shall Michael stand up, the great prince " which standeth for the children of thy people: " and there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that same "time: and at that time thy people shall be deli"vered". Here let us pause, and ask, At what time? The expression at that time can only refer, either to the time of the end, or to the period when the power which had occupied the holy mountain is destroyed. To the one, or the other, it must refer. I believe it myself to refer to the time of the end; because I believe the time of the end to commence, when the 1260 years terminate. To the present argument however this is immaterial: and, since Mr. Whitaker of course will not refer it to the time of the end, he must refer it to the time when the power in question perishes*. This power he supposes to be the king of the North, who according to his * So accordingly both Mr. Mede and Bp. Newton refer it. See Mede's Works, B. iv. Epist. 54-Newton's Dissert. xvii. in loc. |