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 Approx. 26 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 7 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A50868 Wing M2076 ESTC R37638 16993906 ocm 16993906 105652 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A50868) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 105652) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1097:2) 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. 12 p. Printed and sold by Randal Taylor ..., London : [1700?] Attributed to Milner by Wing and NUC pre-1956 imprints; occasionally attributed to Samuel Grascome. Reproduction of original in the Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. Bible. -- O.T. -- Nehemiah -- Criticism, interpretation, etc. Theology, Doctrinal. 2000-00 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2002-01 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2002-03 TCP Staff (Michigan) Sampled and proofread 2002-03 John Latta Text and markup reviewed and edited 2002-04 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion 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 . London , Printed and Sold by Randal Taylor near Stationers-Hall . A Brief Examination , &c. SIR , AS to the Letter which I mention'd in my last , I shall only reflect upon some Passages in the Chronological part of it ; the Examination of the whole I leave to the Ingenious person , that is more especially concern'd . The Gentleman , that writ the Letter , manifests in one passage of it , that his Chronology doth according to his own Judgment depend much upon this , that the Sanballat in Iosephus is not the same with the Sanballat in Nehemiah . For pag. 19 speaking of the Convocation , ( he says , ) that by making his Sanballat ( i.e. Iosephus's ) the same with Nehemiahs , it appears , that they follow Scaliger and Calvisius in their Chronology : So that whosoever makes him to be the same Sanballat that is mention●d in both , he , in this Gentlemans judgment , follows Scaliger and Calvisius in their Chronology . Of which he gives this account , pag. 18. They begin Daniel's 70 weeks in Darius Nothus his time , and make Nehemiah's Artaxerxes to be Mnemon , instead of Longimanus , as the Darius mention'd by him , they make not to be Nothus , but Cod●mannus , and the Priest , that Nehemiah depriv'd , to be Manasses , the same that we read of in Josephus . All this ( says he ) Scaliger and Calvisius are for , and he would persuade us , that the Convocation are also for it , but he himself is against it . As to the Convocation , I believe they do not say that Iosephus's Sanballat is the same with Nehemiah's ; but telling us out of Iosephus , that Jaddus and Manasses fell at variance , that Manasses married Sanballat's Daughter , and was remov'd from the Priesthood , they set in the Margin , Neh. 13. 28. from whence this Gentleman concludes , that they make his Sanballat the same with Nehemiah's ; and by their so doing ( says he ) it appears that they follow Scalig●r and Calvisius in their Chronology . But against the necessity of this consequence , I argue thus ; If every one that makes Iosephus's Sanballat the same with Nehemiah's , must follow Scaliger and Calvisius in their Chronology , and so make Nehemiah's Artaxerxes to be Mnemon , not Longimanus ; how comes it , that so many excellently Learned Men , Bishop Montague , Functius , &c. do make the same Sanballat to be spoken of in both , and yet hold , that Nehemiah ●s Artaxerxes was Longimanus ? If they did not follow Scaliger and Calvisius ( notwithstanding that they held the aforesaid opinion , touching Sanballat ) then this Gentleman concluded too hastily , that the Convocation did follow them . Besides , the only reason which this Gentleman gives , pag. 11. why , if we hold Nehemiah and Iosephus to speak of the same Sanballat , it is necessary to make Nehemiah's Artaxerxes to be Mnemon , not Longimanus , is because the Sanballat , that was the Adversary of the Iews in the 29th year of Longimanus , must have been much above 120 years old in Alexander's time . But Bishop Montague answers readily to this , by giving instances of several persons , that have liv'd to much above 120 years . Further , why should not this Gentleman have thought that the Convocation follow'd Sulpitius Severus , rather than Scaliger and Calvisius ? For it is known , that Sulpitius , &c. begun Daniel's weeks in Darius Nothus his time , ( long before Scaliger did ; ) as also he referr'd Nehemiah's building the Walls and Gates of the City , to the Reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon ; and I believe that the Reverend Clergy of the Convocation , studied such ancient Writers as Sulpitius , more than they did Scaliger , or other Neotericks● As to Calvisius , they might not have seen his Chronology , yea , I question , whether it was extant , when the Convocation-Book was finish●d , and then there is no reason why they should be said to follow Calvisius . I have inlarg'd on this the more , because I conceive that this Gentleman hath made too bold with the Convocation in this passage , ( as both he and others have done in other things ; ) for by making Iosephus's Sanballat the same with Nehemiah's , it doth not appear , that they follow'd either Scaliger or Calvisius . To return to that which we were saying at first , since this Gentleman 's Chronology in his judgment depends much upon this , that Josephus's Sanballat is not the same with Nehemiahs , it will not be amiss to examine what this Gentleman hath to say , pag. 11. against his being the same . Iosephas ( says he ) describes him by those Characters , by which we may be sure that he was not the same Sanballat . If you ask what Characters they are , ( he says ) First , that this was a Chuthaean , of that race from which the Samaritans came ; and f●rther , that he was sent to be Governour of Samaria by the last Darius ; whereas this Gentleman tells us of this other Sanballat , that he was a Moabite of Horonaim , whom Nehemiah found in Palestine 100 years before in Artaxerxes his time . But first , The Scripture doth not plainly say of Nehemiahs Sanballat , either that he was a Moabite , or of Horonaim ; it only calls him the Horonite , whether from Horonaim , or from some other place , is uncertain . But to pass this , secondly , He might be a Chuthaean originally , and yet his Habitation might have been for the most part at Horonaim , and he thereupon call'd the Horonite . Thirdly , Arch-bishop Vsher , Grotius , and others think that he was Toparch , or Deputy-Governour of the Moabites ; and it is in no wise improbable , that the same person , who was constituted Governour of the Moabites by Artaxerxes , should afterwards be advanc'd to be Governour of Samaria by Darius . Fourthly , As to that of 100 years , they who hold Nehemiah's Artaxerxes to be Longimanus , must grant that Nehemiah found Sanballat in Palestine 100 years before the time of the last Darius , ( and they say that he liv'd to so great an age that that might be , ) but Sulpitius Severus , and those that follow him , must and do deny it . Thus it appears , that we cannot be sure that he was not the same Sanballat , either by the Characters by which Josephus describes him , or by any thing which this Gentleman saith . As this Gentleman made bold with the Convocation , so he also makes bold with the Iewish Chronologers , though I willingly grant that they deserve not that regard which the Convocation doth . He tells us , pag. 14. that they make the whole time of the second Temple , till the sixth year of Alexander the Great ( in which sixth year they say he came up against Jerusalem ) to be but 34 years , and for this he cites Ganz , pag. 57 , and 64. But indeed the Iewish Writers differ among themselves about the time of the continuance of the Persian Empire , after the finishing of the second Temple , yet Ganz expresses his Opinion very plainly , viz that the time of the second Temple , to the first year of Alexander , was 34 years , but till the sixth year of Alexander it was forty years , and so we read in Iuchasin fol. 13. 2. that Alexander came to Ierusalem forty years after the building of the Temple . But this Gentleman makes more bold with the Iewish Writers , when he makes them to say of Iaddus the High Priest , and all the Elders of Israel , that they made a Covenant with Alexander , ( though Darius was then living , ) for which he cites Ganz , p. 59. But these are not Ganz his words ; he only says that Alexander made a Covenant with Jaddus , whom he calls Simeon the just : And I believe you will be strangely surpriz'd when I tell you from R. Abraham F. David his Cabala , what that Covenant was : He covenanted ( says he ) with the High Priest , that every Child that was born to any of the Priests that year , should be call'd Alexander , after his name , and that they should begin their AEra contractuum from him . Iosephus , l. 11. c. 5 , and 8. acquaints us , that both Nehemiah and Sanballat liv'd to old age : and of Nehemiah , this Gentleman saith , pag. 8. No doubt he lived to a very great age , for he was Cupbearer to King Artaxerxes in the 20th years of his Reign . We may suppose him to have been then about 25 years of age ; after that he liv'd to see the High Priesthood pass from Father to Son for four Generations : And he saw a fifth coming in view , namely , Jaddua , whom we suppose to have been then about 30 years old . All this might very well be , if Nehemiah were born 470 years before Christ , and writ in the year 347 before Christ , then he was about 104 years o●d . There are this Gentleman 's own words out of which we must pick his sense as well as we can ; and when we have done our best , I doubt we shall scarce understand , either how the things cohere , or how they prove , that Nehemiah liv'd to a very great age . 1. I cannot see the coherence , particularly of that last passage , if Nehemiah were born 470 years before Christ , and writ in the 347 th year before Christ , then he was about 104 years old ; for from the year 470 before Christ , to the year 347 before him are 123 years ; so that this Gentleman had express'd himself more coherently , if he had said , Then he was about 124 years old . Some perhaps will say , that 347 is the Printer's mistake for 374 ; for this Gentleman says , pag 1. that Nehemiah writ his Book Anno 374 , before Christ. Well , we now then suppose Nehemiah to have lived from the year 470 before Christ to the year 374 ; but then he would not have been about 104 years old , but about 96 ; so that I despair still of making things cohere . But then : 2. I cannot see how all together proves that Nehemiah lived to a very great age ; for 1. They are only Suppositions , which make up a great part of what is said , and those can prove nothing . 2. There is nothing certain , but that after Nehemiah came from Susa to Ierusalem , he liv'd to see the High Priesthood pass from Father to Son for some Generations ; but unless we were certain for how many Generations , whether four or three , or only two ; as also how many years every Person enjoy'd the High-Priest's Function , we cannot prove from thence , to what age Nehemiah liv'd . 3. When this Gentleman says , that Nehemiah saw the Priesthood pass from Father to Son for four Generations ; his meaning is , that it pass'd from Ioiakim to Eliashib from Eliashib to Ioiada , from Ioiada to Johanan ; and withal he begins his computation in the last year of Ioiakim , and ends it in the first of Iohanan ; so that the time of Eliashib's and Joiada's enjoying the Priesthood , being added to the 25 years , which he is suppos'd to have liv'd when he came from Susa to Jerusalem , is in effect all the time we have to make up Nehemiah's age , according to this Gentleman . He troubles himself much about the time of Nehemiah's writing his Book : 1. He affirms , p. 6. that it was writ after the Death of Longimanus , and in or after the time of his Successor Darius . This ( says he ) is certain , for in his Book he mentions the Reign of Darius the Persian : But why may we not think , notwithstanding this , that the rest of the Book was writ before the Death of Longimanus , and that this touching the Reign of Darius , and a few other passages , might be inserted by Nehemiah , or some other afterwards . 2. He insists upon it , pag. 7. that Nehemiah writ , when the Reign of Darius was expired : The Hebrew words ( says he ) shew it , for there ( i.e. Neh. 12 . 22. ) it is said , that the heads of the Levites , and also the Priests were recorded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over or throughout the Reign of Darius ; Our Translation hath , to the Reign of Darius ; other Translations , in the Reign , &c. but these not favouring , he must , without Example or Warrant , to serve his Hypothesis , translate Over or throughout the Reign of Darius . There is no question , but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies Over , as that is the same with Above ; but he should have alledg'd some other Text or Texts of Scripture , in which it signifies Over , in the sense of his Throughout , or some Authority for it ; and when he doth this , he doth something . But let the words signifie what they will , they must be understood as he would have them , which appears ( says he ) by what followeth in the next verse , where it is said , that the Heads of the Levites were recorded in the Book of the Chronicles , till the days of Johanan , i.e. till he came to be High-Priest . Yea , rather the contrary appears from thence , if we will acquiesce in Archbishop Vsher's judgment , for he ( in his Annals A. M. 3589. ) makes Iohanan to have been High Priest in the Reign of Darius , i.e. Nothus ; and if he was so , then these words , till the days of Johanan , Neh. 12. 23. cannot prove that the meaning must be Throughout the Reign of Darius , v. 22. but ( if any thing ) the contrary . Here and elsewhere I press this Gentleman with Archbishop Vsher's Authority , because he alledges him so oft in his Letter ; and declares his great esteem of his judgment , The most Learned Primate was as well a great Chronologer as a good Textuary ; so . pag. 7. and pag 9. when he had told how he supposed Iaddus born at such a time in compliance with the most Learned Primate , he adds these words , I attribute very much to his judgment in these matters . 3. This Gentleman makes Nehemiah to have writ his Book when Johanan came to be High-Priest , ( see pag. 7. also 9 , and 10. ) but if you demand his proof of this , he only saith , pag. 9. that he hath very good ground for it ; but he is not so kind as to tell what it is . So that by all that he hath said concerning Nehemiah's age , and writing his Book , he hath only demonstrated , that it cannot be determin'd particularly to what age he liv'd , or at what time he writ . This Gentleman also in pag. 7. troubles himself about Neh. 12. 22 , 23. He says , that Nehemiah in them tells us , that as 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 re●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 C●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 Eli●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 .