Selected quad for the lemma: death_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A50868
|
A brief examination of some passages in the chronological part of a letter, written to Dr. Sherlock in his vindication in a letter to a friend.
|
Milner, John, 1628-1702.
|
1700
(1700)
|
Wing M2076; ESTC R37638
|
7,596
|
12
|
for the Levites that were in the days of Eliashib Joiada Johanan and Jaddua the heads of those Levites and also the Priests all that were in the Reign of Darius Nothus were recorded in the Book of Chronicles but afterwards the Priests were not recorded but only the Heads of the Levites and those only during the High Priesthood of Eliashib and Joiada By Afterwards here nothing can be meant but after the Reign of Darius Nothus and so the Gentleman saith Afterwards i.e. after the Reign of Darius Nothus the Priests were not recorded but only the heads of the Levites and then when he adds and those only during the High Priesthood of Eliashib and Joiada it cannot be avoided but that he makes Eliashib to have been High-Priest after the Reign of Darius Nothus being contrary herein that I may say nothing of Archbishop Vsher to himself for pag. 10. he makes Joiada to have succeeded Eliashib five years before the end of Darius's Reign But to pass this the Gentleman says that the heads of the Levites were recorded only during the High Priesthood of Eliakim and Joiada who were then dead but not of Johanan But if the heads of the Levites in the days of Iohanan and so in the days of Iaddua were not recorded I would gladly know why they are named v. 22. as well as those in the days of Eliashib and Ioiada But his giving us both so strange a translation of part of v. 22. and so strange an Interpretation of the two verses proceeded from hence that he thought the Darius spoken of was necessarily Darius Nothus Thence also proceeded that which follows in the same pag. 7. As for Jaddua he is mention'd both here i e Neh. 12. 22. and before in this Chapter i.e. v. 11. not as being High Priest then how could he be in his Father's days but only as being then living and Heir apparent of the High Priesthood so the words are understood by the most Learned Primate By Then this Gentleman means the time when the Book of Nehemiah was written which he fansies was when Jaddua's Father Johanan entred upon the High-Priest's Function hence is that Parenthesis how could he be in his Father's days But it hath appear'd already that it is a Groundless fancy that Nehemiah writ his Book at that time and so all this that is buile upon it falls of it self As to the Primate's judgment I attribute very much to it but this Gentleman that takes leave to depart from it when he thinks fit cannot reasonably deny the like liberty to others Page 12. We are told concerning him that married the Daughter of Sanballat the Horonite that Nehemiah ch 3. 28. calleth him one of the Sons of Ioiada the Son of Eliashib the High Priest and that this is plain enough to shew that he was the younger Brother of Johanan the Father of Jaddus But I deny that it is plain enough to shew it and my Ground is from this Gentleman 's own words Pag. 5. he says that Iohanan the High-Priest is called the Son of Eliashib Neh. 12 23. who indeed was his Grandfather and his Father was Joiada Neh. 12 10. Just so here Iaddus's Brother is call'd one of the Sons of Joiada who indeed was his Grandfather and his Father was Iohanan 'T is usual to call Grandsons by the name of Sons So that with the greatest part of the Learned Men that have writ on this subject we may still believe not the Uncle but the Brother of Iaddus to be the person spoken of Neh. 13. 28. and that Iosephus his Narration concerning Manasseh is an excellent comment upon that Text. I willingly acknowledge that I want some light to help me to discover the necessity of those consequences pag 9. If Jaddus was but 30 years old when he came to be High-Priest then the age of Joiakim when he dyed must have been at least 90 years his Son Eliashib at least 62 his Son Joiada near 70 his Son Johanan near 60 and each of these it is very probable much more and four of these must have been born when their Fathers were but 20 years old How these consequences can be made out I do not apprehend It remains that we examine that view of the years of the Persian Kings and Jewish High-Priests which he gives us pag. 10. and we shall quickly find that his Chronology therein is as to a great part of it meerly conjectural or at the best very uncertain Of the time of Nehemiah's writing his Book I have shew'd the uncertainty above This Gentleman tells us pag. 9. that Jaddus might have been born any year before his Father Johanan came to be High-Priest and that he suppos'd him born 30 years before in compliance with the most Learned Primate Which Primates Judgment he notwithstanding this departs from in other particulars of this view as to omit other instances when the Primate reâ—ers Nehemiah's coming from Sasa to Jerusalem to the 454th year before Christ this Gentleman refers it to the 445th year before him As to the Persian Monarchs the View out of Ptolemy's Canon makes Darius Nothus to have reigned 19 years Artaxerxes Mnemon 46 Ochus 21 Arses 2. But Diodorus Siculus whose Authority may at least counterbalance Ptolemy's gives only 43 years to Artaxerxes Mnemon but 23 to Ochus and speaks of Arses his third year see Diod. Sic. l. 13. l. 15 and l. 16. Sulpitus Severus also gives 23 to Ochus and 3 to Arses The same Sulpitius Severus allots 62 years to Artaxerxes Mnemon which Plutarch in Artaxerxes doth also and Câ—esias who had the greatest advantages of knowing how long he reign'd gives to Darius Nothus 35 years So that the best Authors differing thus one from another how can we determine how long they reign'd I have not Ptolemy's Canon by me but take it for granted that he allots the number of years forementioned to these Kings As for the High Priests the View out of Georgius Syncellus assigns to Eliashib 34 years but the Chronicon Alexandrinum gives him 40 years as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Scaliger also doth It is somewhat strange that this Gentleman should refer the death of Ioiakim to An. 445. before Christ and yet refer his Son Eliâ—shib's being High Priest to the year after I had thought that the Son being Heir apparent to the High Priesthood had succeeded immediately upon the Father's Death It is the more strange because having said pag. 8. that it appears that Ioiakim dyed the same year that Nehemiah Government began he gives this reason for it for his Son Eliashib was High Priest at the time when the Wall of Jerusalem was building For I believe that the Wall of Ierusalem was building yea was finish'd the same year that Nehemiah's Government began And if so it is more certain that Eliashib was High Priest the same year that his Government began than it is that Ioiakim dyed that year Yea but says this Gentleman It is certain that Joiakim was High Priest within the time while Nehemiah was Governour And this he thinks may be prov'd from Neh. 12. 26. where the words are These were in the days of Joiakim the Son of Jeshua the Son of Jozadak and in the days of Nehemiah the Governour Now it is certain from these words that Joiakim was High Priest within the time while Nehemiah was Governour it is said in the same Chapter that all Israel in the days of Zerubbabel and in the days of Nehemiah gave the portions of the Singers Neh. 12 47. Is it certain from hence that Zerubbabel and Nehemiah govern'd for some time together I say then that it is more certain particularly from Neh. 3.1 that Eliashib was High Priest the same year that Nehemiah's Government began than it is that Ioiakim dyed the same year This Sir may suffice to give you a taste of the Gentleman 's Chronology I only add that I am Your very Affectionate Friend and Servant FINIS