tures. Yet there are cases which bear some analogy to this, in the Hebrew; there is a very close analogy also to this mode of expression in the Greek; and the nature of the events described in the context may help us, moreover, to form some proper opinion in respect to the meaning of the peculiar phrase before us.

Nothing is more common in Hebrew, than the repetition of the same word, either in order to denote intensity of number, power, quality, etc.; or else to denote distribution. As specimens of the first kind, the reader may consult Gen. 14: 10. Ex. 8: 13. 2 K. 3: 16. Joel 4: 14; of the second, Gen. 32: 17. Num. 17:17. Ezek. 24: 6. Gen. 7:9. But these usages do not bear directly on our present difficulty; for presents us with two different words; which moreover are without any conjunction between them. On this latter circumstance stress has been laid by some critics, who aver that distribution is meant to be designated by the form of expression (without conjunction), so that in reality only half the number of days, : 1150, is meant. But on the circumstance that the Vav conjunction is omitted, it would seem that stress of this kind cannot well be laid. In cases where the repetition of the same noun denotes the conjunct idea of all, each, every, e. g. each year or every year, sometimes the Vav is omitted, and sometimes it is inserted; for examples of omissión, see Deut. 14: 22. 2 K. 17: 29. 1 Chron. 9:32. Num. 9: 10; yet Vav is inserted in Ezra 10: 14. Ps. 87:5. Esth. 3: 4. Deut. 32: 7, and many other cases, without any seeming difference of sense. If any thing is to be argued from the omission of the copula, it would seem to be, that the two words, thus brought together, are to be considered as a kind of compound word. So Gesenius, Lehrgeb. p. 519. Indeed it would be quite natural here, in case the writer did design

:

66

that the two words should be separately considered, so that each of them should be reckoned as a constituent part of the 2300, to put a Vav between them. Thus where absolute severalty is intended between nouns repeated, the copula Vav is always inserted; e. g. Deut. 25: 13. Ps. 12: 3. So where the two words and come together, and each is designed to be separately considered or counted, the copula is put between; e. g. in 1 Chron. 16: 40. 2 Chron. 2 3. 31: 3. Ezra 3:3. Jerome says, that, in the case before us, vespere et mane successionem diei noctisque significat," i. e. evening and morning signifies the succession of day and night. Indeed the whole seems plain, when referred to Gen. 1., where the evening and the morning constitute one day, Gen. 1: 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31. That the writer had the usage in his mind which these last cited passages develope, seems plain from the order in which he has placed the words, viz. by making evening to precede morning, because it began the day among the Hebrews. And in the same manner the Greeks put the two parts of the day together, in their vvzvýμɛgov (see 2 Cor. 11:25), in order fully and emphatically to designate one complete day. That this is the simple object of the expression now under examination, I cannot well doubt. The principal support of those who regard the 2300 as designating the offerings of the morning and the evening, and so as marking only 1150 whole days, is derived from the supposition that is necessarily implied before the expression 7. Yet in v. 26 such an addition is neither made, nor is admissible before these words. On the whole, then, we must consider these 2300 evening-mornings as an expression of simple time, i. e. of so many days, reckoned in the Hebrew manner. So Gesenius, Rosenmueller, Hävernick, and others.

The termination or terminus ad quem of these is given

in the closing phrase: Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. The original Hebrew here, 7, might afford room for some doubt as to the true meaning. The word, rendered sanctuary, has no article, (we should naturally expect one if it has this meaning); and the verb pappropriately means to justify. But this verb also means to put right, to restore, viz. that which is in a defective or wrong state; and so it may not unnaturally be employed here, to designate the restoration of the temple or sanctuary to its proper state or condition. This was done by Judas Maccabaeus, as we have seen above, on the 25th of Dec. 165 B. C. Counting back from this as the terminus ad quem of the 2300 days, we come to Aug. 5th of the year 171 B. C. What are the events of this year, then, which correspond to that which is said to be done from and after the commencement of the period in question?

In vs. 9-12 of the context, we are informed of what was to be done. "The little horn," i. e. Antiochus Epiphanes, "waxed great, and magnified itself," i. e. extended itself, "to the host of heaven, and cast down to the ground some of the host, even of the stars, and trampled upon them. Even to the prince of the host did it magnify itself, and by it was the daily sacrifice removed, and the dwelling place of the sanctuary was cast down." Here, it will be perceived, the aggressions of Antiochus commenced with his attack upon the priests of the temple, called the host of heaven, but specifically upon the high priest, who is called the prince of the host. These are the leading facts which characterize the doings of Antiochus, from and after the beginning of the 2300 days. The profanation of the temple and the taking away of the daily sacrifice follow on, very naturally, in the sequel. Does history present us with any thing that happened in the year 171 B. C., which corresponds with this representation in Daniel?

Menelaus had, by his artifices and by bribery, obtained a nomination to be high-priest in the room of his excellent elder brother, Onias III. Antiochus Epiphanes had promised this office to Menelaus, and he expected a large sum of money for bestowing it. But Menelaus, having obtained it, was tardy in the payment of the stipulated sum, and was summoned before Antiochus in order to answer for his delay. At his departure he substituted Lysimachus in his place ad interim; who, being urged by Antiochus and Menelaus, rifled the temple of its golden vessels, and sold them in order to pay the tribute exacted. Menelaus himself was kept in his office by Antiochus, merely because he had promised the king still larger sums of money in the way of tribute. In the mean time, Onias III., the elder brother and lawful high-priest, sternly rebuked Menelaus for his sacrilege; and soon after, at the instigation of the same Menelaus, Onias was allured from his retreat at Daphne, whither he had fled for safety after rebuking his brother, and was murdered by Andronicus, the vice-gerent of Antiochus who had gone to suppress a rebellion in Cilicia. The Jews at Jerusalem, being highly offended with the profanation of the temple and the sacrilege of Lysimachus who acted under the orders of Antiochus, rose in rebellion against Lysimachus and the Syrian forces who protected him, and cut off both this fraudulent administrator himself and the guards by which he was surrounded. Well might the prophet say then of the Syrian power or little horn, that it magnified itself against the prince of the host.

Here commenced a series of aggressions upon the priesthood and temple and city of the Jews, which, with occasional interruptions, continued down to the death of Antiochus, as before described. The difference, however, between this period of 2300 days and the other periods, (viz.,

"time, times, and half a time"=1260 days, the 1290 days, and the 1335 days), is very plain and striking. There were during the latter three periods (excepting at the very close of the last), no interruptions of the tyrannical and overbearing power of Antiochus. But any one who follows closely the history of the whole 2300 days, will see that frequent and somewhat long continued interruptions of active oppression took place, during the former half of this period. It is evidently the design of the writer, in Dan. VIII., to characterize the whole of the violent interpositions and assaults of Antiochus; and so he extends back his descriptions to a period which embraces the whole of his actual and grievous oppression. The tyrannical procedure, begun (as we have seen) in the latter half of the year 171 B. C., was occasionally continued by the murder of the Jewish ambassadors at Tyre in 170; by the subsequent slaughter and captivity of 80,000 Hebrews in the same year, and also by the profanation and rifling of the temple. In the year 169, Antiochus was wholly occupied with his war upon Egypt; but in 168 B. C. Apollonius, by order of Antiochus, took possession of Jerusalem and the temple, after which, for 3 years, was an entire and continued suspension of sacred rites and holy feasts.

Thus we find, upon due examination of ancient history, that all the times, thus far specified in the book of Daniel, may be easily and naturally interpreted according to their plain and obvious sénse. And inasmuch as the writer has not given us the least intimation that they are to be otherwise interpreted, what can be plainer in hermeneutics, than that the obvious sense of the words which designate time is to be followed? If this principle be not reasonable and certain, I know not where to find one within the whole circle of exegesis which is.

Only one period more is named in the book of Daniel,