4. On the supposition that the commencement of the reign of Artaxerxes, and the flight of Themistocles, fall in 465, an extravagant old age must be attributed to Charon of Lampsacus. According to Suidas, he was still flourishing under the first Darius, Ol. 69, 504 B. C. Since now, in his history, he mentions the flight of Themistocles to Artaxerxes, this being placed in 465, he must have been employed in writing history at least forty years. This is not, indeed, absolutely impossible; but in a doubtful case it must be rejected as the more improbable alternative. "Historiæ enim non sunt explicandæ, says Vitringa, (Proll. in Zach. p. 29,)-ex raris et insolentibus exemplis, sed ex communi vivendi lege et ordine. Si res secus se habeat, in ipsa historia ascribitur ne fallut incautos." Compare his farther excellent remarks on this subject. That this argument is not without force, is evident even from the efforts of some advocates of the false chronology, to set it aside by cutting the knot. Suidas, after he has cited the abovementioned determination of the time of Charon, as he found it in his more ancient authorities, subjoins, μãλhov dè yv énì twv Пegσixшv. Creuzer, on the fragm. historr. Græc. p. 95, rejects this date without farther examination, because it gives too great an age to Charon.

5. According to Thucyd. 1, 136, Themistocles, on his passage to Asia, fell in with the Athenian fleet, which was besieging Naxos. This siege of Naxos, however, according to the testimony of Thucydides, chap. 100, which makes all other arguments superfluous, happened before the great victory of the Athenians on the Eurymedon, which, according to Diodorus, belongs to the year 470, and cannot be placed later, because this was the first considerable undertaking of the Athenians against the Persians, the war with whom formed the only ground for the important requisitions which they made upon their allies; comp. Thucyd. 1, 94. Hitherto, since the supremacy had passed over to the Athenians, scarcely any thing had been done against the Persians, except the taking of the unimportant Egon. Thucydides also leads us to about the same year as that given by Diodorus, who connects the defection of Thasos (467) with zęórą

Tegov, which cannot stand where events immediately succeed each other. Even for these reasons the siege of Naxos and the flight of Themistocles do not fall after 471. If, however, we consider, that Naxos was the first confederate city with which the Athenians were involved in discord, comp. Thucyd. P. 1, 98, (which, from the nature of the case, as is rendered especially clear by the remarks of Thu

cydides and a comparison of the later historians, could scarcely have first happened after seven years), and if we farther consider the way in which Thucydides, chap. 98, connects the events, from the transfer of the supremacy until the capture of Naxos, with one another, we shall, without hesitation, place the latter some years earlier, in the year 474 or 473.

6. The flight of Themistocles falls at least three years earlier than the battle on the Eurymedon, because in all probability he was dead before the latter event. His death, however, must have been some years subsequent to his coming into Asia, comp. Thucyd. chap. 138. One year passed in learning the language, and some time, in any event, was required for what is implied in ταύτης ἦρχε τῆς χώρας, δόν TOS X. T. λ. Thucydides relates, that, according to the account of some, Themistocles took poison, ἀδύνατον νομίσαντα εἶναι ἐπιτελέσαι βασιλεῖ, ἃ ὑπέσχετο. This presupposes that Themistocles was compelled to fulfil his promises, and had this not been the case at his death, the report, that Thucydides only in this instance relied upon himself, could not have arisen. Plutarch expressly connects the death of Themistocles with the expedition of Cimon. This is done by several writers, with the mention of the most special circumstances, compare the passages in Staveren on Nep. Them. 10, all which may be regarded as they are by Cicero, Brut. chap. 11, and Nepos, as fictitious, and yet the historical basis on which alone every thing depends, the fact that Thucydides died before the battle on the Eurymedon, is firmly established.

7. Krüger, 1. c. p. 218, has shown that the account of Plutarch, that Themistocles reached an age of sixty-five years, forbids us to place his death beyond the year 470, and therefore his flight beyond the year 473. According to an account which has internal evidence of credibility in Ælian, Var. Hist. III. 21, Themistocles, as a small boy coming from school, declined going out of the way of the tyrant Pisistratus. Assuming that this happened in the last year of Pisistratus, B. C. 529, and that Themistocles was at that time six years old, he must have been born 535, and died 470. Nor is it a valid objection, that according to Plutarch, Themistocles was still living at the time of the Cyprian expedition of Cimon (449, B. C.), and was still young at the battle of Marathon. For the former rests on a manifest confounding of the former event, with the victory over the Persian fleet at Cyprus, which is supposed to have immediately preceded the victory on the Eurymedon, (comp. Diodor. 11, 60,

Dahlmann, Forschungen, I. p. 69,) and the latter merely on a conclusion drawn from this error. "Whoever," remarks Dahlmann, p. 71, "reads without prejudice the passage, Thucyd. 1, 138, will perceive that the death of Themistocles followed pretty soon after his settlement in Persia; probably in the second year, if Thucydides is worthy of credit.”

Until all these arguments are refuted, it remains true, that the Messianic interpretation of the prophecy is the only correct one, and that the alleged Pseudo Daniel, as well as the real Daniel, possessed an insight into the future, which could have been given only by the Spirit of God; and hence, as this favor could have been shown to no deceiver, the genuineness of the book necessarily follows, and the futility of all objections against it is already manifest.

THE LAST WEEK AND ITS HALF.

WE showed, that the last week begins with the public appearing of the anointed, and that his death falls in the middle of it, while the confirmation of the covenant extends entirely through it. There is here no occasion to show, except in reference to one point, the death of Christ, how accurately the prophecy and fulfilment coincide. For the terminus ad quem of the confirmation of the covenant being more or less indefinite, is incapable of any accurate chronological determination. It is sufficient to remark, that in the first years after the death of Christ, the exλoyǹ was collected from among the ancient covenant people, — with what success is shown, e. g., by the history of the first Pentecost, and that then the message concerning Christ was carried also to the heathen, so that the prophet might justly represent the salvation, as subjectively and objectively completed in the end of the 70 weeks, for the covenant people, of whom alone he speaks.

The view, that the death of Christ is separated from his baptism by a period of three and a half years, is found in several fathers. Thus in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 1, 10: οὐδ ̓ ὅλος ὁ μεταξὺ τετραέτης παρίaτatαι xgóvos; and while he makes an erroneous calculation to sustain his result, (comp. Valesius, Anm. on the passage,) in Theodoret an entirely correct basis, almost beyond his age, is adopted. See on

the passage, Tom. II. p. 1250, ed. Hal.: ɛi dé tig naì tòv xgóvov xataμαθεῖν ἐθέλει, ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωαννὴν ἐυαγγελίου μαθήσεται ὡς περὶ τὰ τρία ἔτη καὶ ἥμισυ κηρύξας ὁ κύριος καὶ τοὺς ἁγίους αὑτοῦ μαθητὰς τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ καὶ τοῖς θαύμασι βεβαιώσας, τότε το πάθος η ὑπέμεινε.

6

The decision depends entirely on the Evangelist John. Three passovers during the ministry of Christ are expressly mentioned by him, comp. 2: 13, 6: 4, and then the last. A fourth is the subject of controversy. According to what may be proved from chap. 5: 1, (μετὰ ταῦτα ἦν ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, καὶ ἀνέβη ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα,) must the death of Christ be placed in the fourth or in the third year after his public appearance.

The answer of the question, what feast is meant in this passage, is greatly simplified by the circumstance, that in recent times it is generally confessed, that the choice can lie only between the feast of Purim and the Passover. This concession, moreover, rests on so good a ground, that we can confidently pass over the remaining opinions in silence. It appears particularly from John 4: 35, where the Lord says, There are yet four months to the harvest, that at that time, before the feast mentioned chap. 5: 1, and since the first passover mentioned chap. 2: 13, eight months had already elapsed. For the terminus ad quem of these four months, is the new passover, since, with the passover, according to law and custom, the harvest in Palestine began. The feasts of Pentecost and of Tabernacles of this year are therefore excluded, because both lie within the abovementioned period of eight months, and, should it be referred to one of these feasts in the following year, it would be equally in favor of our view. It would, thereby be taken for granted, that John has omitted to mention one passover.

The assertion, that the feast of Purim is mentioned, the more deserves a thorough investigation, since having, in former times, been kept more in the background, it has lately found many able defenders. The first place among them is occupied by Hug, Einl. Th. 2, p. 197, ff. ed. 2. He is followed by Lücke and Tholuck.

The chief argument advanced for this opinion, and against the passover, is the following. As the Lord remained at home till after the passover, of which mention is made some days after his return, he did not appear in Jerusalem from the time of the supposed passover, until this, i. e. for a whole year, and for six months longer, until the feast of tabernacles, and consequently neglected the duty

of the public worship of God for a year and a half. This supposition entirely contradicts the purpose of Jesus to fulfil even external righteousness; besides, by such conduct, he would have exposed himself to public reproach. Truly a strange reason; for, by his going to the feast of Purim, the case of Christ would have been neither better nor worse. Attending on this feast could not be reckoned as a fulfilment of righteousness; for it was not prescribed in the law of God, and it was only under this, and not human ordinance, that the Son of God was placed. Prudential reasons could just as little have moved him to this course; for no human ordinance required the celebration of the feast of Purim at Jerusalem. If, therefore, the difficulty were real, it would affect the defenders of this view, no less than ourselves. Whoever was at Jerusalem through the whole of the rest of the year, and absented himself only in the three feasts, whose celebration in Jerusalem had been prescribed, was just as much guilty of the violation of the law, as he, who never set his foot in Jerusalem. Besides, the whole difficulty is only an apparent one. The reason why Jesus remained so long away from Jerusalem, is plaiuly enough given, chap. 7 : 1 : οὐ γὰρ ἤθελεν ἐν τῇ ̓Ιουδαία περιπατεῖν, ὅτι ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ ̓Ιουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι. But this reason was completely decisive for the Lord, according to the position which he always took in reference to the ceremonial law. He held himself bound to the observance of it, only so far as it did not conflict with higher purposes. These were never sacrificed to it. Classic, in this respect, is the passage, Matt. 12: 3. The Lord there points those, who accused his disciples of violating the ceremonial law, for proof, that it is not binding under all circumstances, to the example of David, who, without being on that account blamed in the Scripture, ate the shew bread, contrary to the law. He next points to his absolute authority, which justifies him in breaking the law, when this would promote his higher purposes. He calls himself the Lord of the Sabbath. He designates himself, as a greater than the temple. The hour of Christ was not yet come; his presence at Jerusalem, must have been an occasion to his enemies, to strive to hasten it before the time; not to employ the human means to avoid this danger, would be to tempt God.. Even for those, who were not like the Son of God, the Lord of the Sabbath, and of the feasts, but unconditionally subject to the law, the binding force of the outward religious ordinances of the law was daily becoming weaker. Was the temple at the time already changed into a den of robbers, Luke