« PreviousContinue »
Jews to express the period of an enigmatical number : on the conseven days by any one word. I be. trary, its singularity would of itself lieve (he continues) that the in- rather lead to the suspicion, that it spired writers did not use yw, was so intended. In this instance 'ny w or Y720, or any other word, however, we do not believe it to be to signify a week, but that they so unusual an expression as Mr. expressed the period by myzu Maitland supposes. The exceptions
seven days. He like- he has himself alleged are ponderous wise supports his arguments by quo- enough in our minds to outweigh tations from the Misnic writers, his objection ; more especially the which we shall further notice pre- Feast of Weeks, which being an sently. On these grounds he con- ecclesiastical calculation, renders cludes that an unprepossessed per- the term weeks the more suitable son would most probably understand for a prophetical date. Daniel to speak of
“ sevens" of But as, on this part of the subject, years; and he goes on to insist, that authority must be opposed to auto sustain the argument built on this thority, the testimony of Dr. J. passage it ought to have been ex- Owen, the eminent Puritan writer, pressly written“ weeks of days.”p may be of some service, he being
It is important first to notice the the contemporary, and (as regards admissions and exceptions made in prophetical interpretation) opposed the course of this argument. First, to the views of Mede. In his TreaMr. Maitland allows, that " the tise on the Sabbath are the following ' Feast of Weeks was indeed fixed by passages :
“ All nations, I say, in counting seven weeks from a given all ages, have from time immemotime,”and that it is mentioned eight rial made the revolution of seven times, as “the feast of sevens.” He days to be the first stated period of admits that the word wecks in Dan. time. ” So fixed was this comX, 2, 3, where the Prophet says he putation of time [by weeks] on was sick three weeks, is also an ex- the minds of the Chaldeans and ception. In Leviticus xii, 5, it is · Egyptians, who retained the deepsaid, a woman shall be unclean after ' est tincture of original traditions, the birth of a female “ two weeks,” that, though they knew not the or sevens Dyw. Again, he says, reason of it, yet, when they made
Wishing to bring forward every 'a disposition of the days of the thing which others might produce 'year into any other period, on acagainst my statement I add the
'counts civil or sacred, they still seven' (920) translated 'week, ' retained this also.” Then, after Gen. xxix, 27, 28 ; though com- noticing that Noah observed this 'mentators are not agreed, whether weekly revolution of days, in send
it belongs to the days of Leah's ing forth the dove out of the ark, ' wedding feast or the years of (Gen. viii, 10-12) he adds, “ And · Jacob's servitude.” Of all these 'in Gen. xxix, 27, a week is spoken exceptions he observes, I do not • of as a known account of days or feel that they have much weight.”? ' time : 'Fulfil her week; that is
Now to us the circumstance, that ' not a week of years, as he had the term weeks would appear “some- done for Rachel ; but a week of what singular,” would form no ob- days in the festivals of his marjection against its being in Daniel riage with Leah. For it was the
p No. 8, p. 5--13.
I No. 8, p. 6 and 8.
« For by an
he tells ,שבע and שבת between •
.הג שבעת which has the name of *
custom, in those ancient times of · Thus in the passage just quoted, • the world to continue the cele- forty-nine years are expressed, bration of a marriage feast for • first by the phrase, seven sabbaths seven days or a week; as Judges now of years and in the next, xiv, 12-17, The seven days of 'by that of seven years SEVEN TIMES • the feast,' is spoken of as a thing REPEATED, Spyg yw."r commonly known and in vulyar Again, (in reply to the word,
Finally, quoting Theo). when it stands alone, never signifyphilus of Antioch, he tells us, that ing a week of days,) having defied Theophilus nevertheless mistook the Mr. Maitland to produce a single origin of the term :
example of the word y920 and its error common to many of the an- plural forms signifying a seven, or a cients, who could not distinguish week, or weeks of years ;
he adds : • ,
On the other hand, (as Mr. Maitus, that among the Hebrews it land himself admits,) the same was called sabbath, which in Greek ' word is uniformly used to signify is week. It is also to this purpose
the feast of weeks, or Pentecost, observed by Rivet and Selden,
. (from Salmasius, out of Georgius In Genesis xxix, 27, 28, y2w (the · Syncallus, in his Chronology,) that 'y being supplied by the kibbuts ' the patriarchs reckoned the times, point) is also used to express a or distinguished them, by weeks week of days, being that of Leah's ONLY.”+
wedding feast. It is also found in Mr. Cuninghame, who has in his “Jer. v, 25, to signify the weeks of critical works afforded good evi- • the harvest. Indeed it will be apdence that he possesses an adequate parent, on examining a Hebrew knowledge of the Hebrew Scrip- concordance, that wherever the tures, declares the whole foun- word stands alone in the Scriptures, dation of Mr. Maitland's reasoning (the disputed text in Daniel being to be “utterly erroneous,” in sup- of course excepted, as the point to posing the word vw and its plural be proved,) it signifies a week or O'yu have in Daniel ix the sig- ' weeks of days, and in no case whatnification of the numeral seven. He ' ever a week of years. Mr. Maitrefers to any Lexicon or Grammar land's assertion, that it might have to evince, that they are pointed dif- been understood to mean weeks of ferently : but that which appears of years in Daniel ix, is therefore not most import is, “ that where more only without support from the • than one, or at least two sevens Scriptures, but is directly opposed are intended, as in Lev. XXV, 8, ' to the whole testimony of the the number is expressed, not by a Scriptures.''s plural form of the numeral, as to The Morning Watch had pre· the very existence of which in He- viously argued in a similar manner : • brew grammarians are silent, but We assert that the word ‘sevens' by adding the word Dys, denoting does not occur in the (disputed) a time or repetition of a thing. passage at all, and that our trans
* Thus Jerome says—" Non igitur, ut quidam male existimant, post septem annos alios Jacob accepit Rachel uxorem, sed post septem dies nuptiarum uxoris primæ." Verse 30 will be sufficient proof of this with the considerate reader. of Pages 64-69 of the Revised Edition, published by Hatchards, London. r No. 16, p. 5.
s Ibid. p. 6.
שבעת or שבת
lation,' weeks,' is the true ren- order to prove that in the Mishna dering of 'yaw. We must fur- the space between one sabbatical year "ther state, that " days” added to
and another is uniformly expressed this word, would not convey the by yw placed simply—that is, as * meaning Mr. M. supposes, of any
it stands in the book of Daniel, and seven days ; but would denote one without any addition to signify that or other of the two holiday weeks of years are meant. He adds however. • the year, namely,
- unleavened I do not say that yw is never • bread and tabernacles.” Then • used by these writers to signify a having quoted Buxtorf, Cocceius, week of days, because I know it is Gussetius, and various other Lex- • sometimes found in that sense ; icons, &c. to show that the word in • but as far as I know they most Daniel ix, 25, commonly denotes a commonly use week of days, and in this passage 'Dignu To this Mr. Cuningalone was to be regarded as a week hame replies.-" The quotations of of years, because the fulfilment so ' the learned writer from the Misnic required it; they add, -". On these ' writers seem to be no more to the
authorities we deny Mr. M.’s purpose than his arguments from ''general rule,' and require better the Scriptures. He has indeed authority than Grotius, or any he brought from the Baba Metzia, a adduces, before we can receive it. passage, which distinguishes a • The word in question is clearly workman of a sabbath (or week of • masculine-Diyaw-andas clearly days,) of a month, of a year, and of 'the plural of yow, which last oc- a week (of years), from each other ;
curs but twice in Scripturemyiz. ' and he thereby proves that, in that · Gen. xxix, 27, 28,--and both , words always mean
a week of means a workman of a week, (viz. ' days, and nothing else. Seven (the . of days) and y920 73w a work• numeral) and its derivatives are al- man of a week, viz. of years. It ways feminine ; and these do of therefore seems indisputable that, course require days to be added to in these Rabbinical writings nu designate a week.”
'denotes, exclusively, a week of It may be needful to observe, that days, yw (usually, though not we have not noticed in Mr. Mait- exclusively, as I learn from Mr. land's latest pamphlets any reply to ·M.) a week of years. But then, this refutation of his statements. ' unhappily for Mr. Maitland's arMr. Cuninghame's is indeed the last gument, the former word is empublished work that we have seen ployed in the Scriptures in no such on the subject, and there may not exclusive sense, being used in Lev. have been time for a reply ; but XXV, 8, for sabbaths or sevens of since the Review from which the years, in which passage it merits above passages are taken appeared particular attention that the word in the Morning Watch, Mr. Digby's 'years, bw, is added) as it is in attack on Mr. Maitland's statements Lev. xxiii, 15, for sabbaths, or has appeared, as also Mr. M's reply. ' weeks of days. On the other hand,
Mr. Msaitland is as unhappy in his the second word, which by the appeal to the Misnic writers. He rabbies is used for a week of years, brings quotations from the Baba has, in the Scriptures, the excluMetzia, Sheviith, Nedarim, &c. in sive sense of a week of days. It
שכיר שבת book, the expression
t No. 13, p. 455.
u No. 8, p. 10.
thus appears, that the rabbinical In regard to the application of use of both words is directly the this prophecy the Morning Watch reverse of the Scriptural use; and observes, that the most cursory it follows, that Mr. Maitland's ar- examination will convince us that gument from the rabbinical writ- days will not answer to any of the ings in support of his sense of the 'circumstances of the vision ; for it word vy2w is good for nothing.' * clearly begins with Alexander, and
We have yet to refer to another runs beyond "the latter time" passage of importance in this con- (v. 23) of the four successors of troversy: viz. Dan. xiii, 13, in Alexander; whereas 2300 days are which the vision therein described • little more than six years.
Our is said to be « unto two thousand Lord also refers to this vision and three hundred days.” We have ' when speaking of the abomination before noticed, that the time in this of desolation preceding Jerusalem's instance is part of the vision itself; it destruction (Matt. xxiv, 15) which, is not written however in the ori- • taken in any possible sense, comginal 2300 days, but 2300 evenings- pels us to understand years : for mornings, as given in the margin. · 2300 days cannot by any ingenuity From this circunstance the Morning be extended down to the time of Watch seems to think, that at ' our Lord ; and if, on the other verse 26 it is called “ the vision of hand, the time is connected with the evening and the morning which • the last antichrist, 2300 days canwas told; “ told (as the Morning • not be extended back to the Watch justly observes) though a
« time of Jerusalem's destruction."y vision"w—which clearly indentifies Again they observe : “ The vision the time, as a part of that vision.* ' is for “ many days;”+ (v. 25 ;) and Mr. Maitland says:
" Most modern in the midst of the events of the writers, I believe, are prepared to vision (v. 13) stands “ the transfollow Sir Isaac and Bishop New- gression of desolation,” to which « ton in this matter, and to say our Lord refers in Matt. xxiv, 15; ( with the latter, these 2300 days Mark xiii, 4; and which we know
can by no computation be accom- from Luke xxi, 20 was the time 'modated to the times of Anti- when “ Jerusalem was compassed • ochus Epiphanes, even though with armies and the desolation the days be taken for natural thereof nigh.” The number 2300 days.'
Mr. M. further con- therefore of very necessity joins siders the period to mean natural on to or includes this event, bedays, “ because he knows of no rea- cause it is asked “How long shall son for supposing otherwise :" but be the vision to give both the why the expression “ mornings and ' sanctuary and the host to be evenings” should be used instead of trodden under foot;" which treaddays, he does not feel bound to give *ing under foot certainly began
A. D. 70. It must also of very a reason.x
v No. 16, p.
w No. 13, p. 458.
x No. 9, p. 31, 32.
y No. 10, p. 517.
* Mr. Maitland is disposed to think this expression, “ the vision of the morning and evening," arises from the subject matter of the prophecy being concerning the morning and evening sacrifice.
† On this Mr. Cuninghame says : “how a vision relating to the revolutions and fates of empires can be called for many days, if it be measured by a period of six years and less than four months, Mr. Maitland has not explained.”
necessity reach down to the word, in chap. iv, to signify one cleansing of the sanctuary - ' year, and in chapter vii, to signify "" Then shall the sanctuary be ' 360 years, and this merely because
cleansed;" (v. 14) an event which, in one case he speaks of an indiby the confession of all, is still vidual, and in the other of a com' future, and therefore cannot be
munity.” Again, in reply to included in 2300 literal days.”'z the Morning Watch, he turns one We need not enter into Mr. Cun- of their
canons of interpretation inghame's view of this particular against themselves, in regard to point; (which indeed is very sim- this passage. The Reviewer had ilar) for Mr. Maitland really makes said—“ Nor is there any difficulty
answer worthy of notice: he • in ascertaining when language is merely takes up the word 'IF,' symbolical, and when not; for the and sarcastically applies to it the symbolical language always forms whole argument.a
a part of the vision, and is often It would not be doing justice expressed in an unusual, and not to Mr. Maitland did we not revert in the ordinary manner.” Mr. M. once more to the passage in which rejoins—" Now surely, Sir, Nebuthe 1260 days is set forth by“ time, chadnezzar's vision of the tree was times, and dividing of time,” for the a symbolical vision, and the word purpose of stating what appears declaring the period of the vision to us his most forcible objection, formed a part of that vision. The though it occupies but little compass · Watcher and the Holy One said, in the controversy. In Dan. iv, we Let seven times pass over him.”” read of seven times, during which The proper solution of this difficulty Nebuchadnezzar should be excluded is given by Mr. Cuninghame, and from his kingdom; and which are is contained in a general prinadmitted by all interpreters to have ciple, applicable to all those Scripbeen seven literal years. Mr. Fa- tures wherein the times of future ber, apparently with an eye to this events have been literally fulfilled: passage, in laying down his prin- viz. that the period in Dan. iv was ciples of interpreting the 1260 days intended to be understood at the time symbolically, excepts individuals it was uttered : the other passage from the operation of this rule, and was not intended to be understood at only applies it to communities. the time, but was shut up and sealQuoting however one of Mr. Faber's ed. This
This appears the more conown principles against himself, Mr. sistent with Scripture from the facts, Maitland says-—" Surely' we may that the other symbols are explained ' venture to assume, that the same or interpreted, and therefore are not mode of computation which is used in that sense sealed; and that in the
by an author in one passage of his end of the last chapter, where several ' writings, will be used by him in periods are enumerated, the sealing ' all other passages.' Yet, (without is specially applied to them.* • the slightest hint of any change
It follows that we attach little or • of style in the author,) we are to no weight to another circumstance suppose Daniel using the same urged by Mr. Maitland; viz. that the
z No. 13, p. 459. a No. 12, p. 46.
b No. 8, p. 14. c No. 12, p. 45. * We pass over the period of ten days mentioned in Revelations ; for though we incline to think ourselves that it is not to be interpreted of literal days, we agree with Mr. M. that it is a questionable point, and cannot be justly assumed.