<1r>

Chronological Observations upon ye foregoing Interpretation

This Chronology depends principally upon \the history of the Iews delivered in/ the books of Ezra & h|N|ehemiah. {illeg} And this history consists of these parts: the return of the Iews from captivity \& {illeg}|l|aying the foundation of the Temple/ {illeg}|i|n ye reign of Cyrus. & the finishing of the Temple in the reign of Darius, the return of Ezra & his companions from captivity in ye seventh year of Artaxers|x|es & building of the wall & City by Nehemiah soon after.

1. Of the History of the Iews in the reign of Cyrus & Cambyses. /& Darius Hystaspis\

This history is conteined partly in the three first chapters of ye book of Ezra & by five first five verses of ye 4th & partly in the book of Nehemiah from the 5t vers of the 7th chapter to ye 9th verse of the 12th For Nehemiah copied all this out of the Chronicles of the Iews as may appear by reading the place & considering that ye men \Priests & Levites/ who sealed the covenant in ye 24th day of the seventh month were the very same wth the {sic} those who returned from captivity in the first year of Cyrus \& yt all those who returned sealed it/ This you will perceive by ye following comparison of their names.

The Priests who returned Nehem. 12.The Priests who sealed Nehem. 10
Nehemiah. Ezra 2.2Nehemiah
SerajahSerajah
*Azariah
IeremiahIeremiah
EzraEzra Nehem. 8
*Pashur
AmariahAmariah
Mallúc vel Melicu. v. 2, 14Malchiah
HattushHattush
Shechaniah als Shebaniah v. 3, 14Shebaniah
*Malluc
Rehum als Harim v,|.| 3, 15Harim
MeremothMeremoth
IddoObadia, {illeg} |or| Obdia
*Daniel
Ginnetho vel Ginnethon. v. 4, 16Ginnethon
*Baruch
*Meshullam
AbijahAbijah
MiaminMiamin
MaadiahMaaziah
BilgahBilgai
ShemajahShemaiah
The Levites who returnedThe Levites who sealed
IeshuaIeshua
BinnuiBinnui
KadmielKadmiel
Sherebiah שרביהShebaniah שבניה levi mutatione
Iudah or Hodaviah. Ezr. 2.40 & 3.9.Hodiah. Ωδουϊα sept.

|The \Levites/ Kadmiel & Hodaviah or Iudah here mentioned, are recconed chief fathers among the people who returned with Zerubbabel at first (Ezra 2.40) & they assisted as well in laying the foundation of the Temple (Ezra 3.9) as in reading of the Law & making & sealing the Covenant Nehem 8.7 & 9.5 & 10.9, 10.|

<1v>

Comparing therefore the return of ye history of ye Iews und books of Ezra & Nehemiah, the history of the Iews under Cyrus & Cambyses \& Darius Hystaspis/ will be that they returned from Captivity \to Ierusalem & Iudah every one to his city/ under Zerubbabel in ye first year of Cyrus with the holy vessell|s| & a commission to build the Temple \& came to Ierusalem & Iudah every one to his City &/ {sic} dwelt in the|ir| cities of Iudah & {illeg} till ye seventh month & then coming to Ierusalem the|y| \first/ built the Altar & on \the 1st day of ye 7th month/ began to offer the dayly burnt offerings & read in the book of the law & they kept the feast of Tabernacles & on the 24th day of this month they kept a solemn fast & sealed a covenant & \thenceforward/ the r|R|ulers of the people dwelt at Ierusalem & ye rest of ye people cast lots to d{illeg}|w|ell one in ten at Ierusalem & ye rest in the cities of Iudah & in the second year of their coming in ye 2d month they laid the foundation of the Temple, but ye the adversaries of Iudah troubled them in building & hired counsellours against them all the days of Cyrus & [untill the reign of \afterwards, vizt the reign of Cambyses]/ untill ye reign of Darius king of Persia. /2. Of the History of the Iews in the reign of Darius Hystaspis.\ But in the second year of his reign by the prophesying of Z|H|aggai & Zechariah they returned to the work & by the help of a new Decree from Darius finished it \on the 3d day of the month Adar/ in the six {sic} year of his reign & kept the Dedication wth joy & the Passover & Feast of unleavened bread.

Now this Darius was \not Darius Nothus but/ Darius Hystaspis as I gather by these arguments. First considering that ye second year of this Darius [when by the prophsying {sic} Haggai & Zechary they Iews returned to ye work] was ye 70th of ye desolation of ye Ci{illeg}|t|y (Zech. 1.12 & 7.5) \wch is true of Darius Hystaspis/ & yt at that time there were men living who had seen the first Temple (Haggai 2.3) whereas ye second Temp year of Darius Nothus was 167 years after the desolation of the City. a|A|nd \further/ if the finishing of the Temple be deferred to ye sixt year of Darius Nothus, Ieshua & Zerubbabel must have been ye one High Priest the other Capitain of ye people for 112 years together, besides their ages before; wch is surely too long. For in the first year of Cyrus the chief \chief/ Priests were Seraiah, Ieremiah, Ezra, Amariah, Malluch, Shechaniah, Rehum, Meremoth, Iddo, Gen{illeg}|e|tho, Abijah, Miamin, Maadiah, Bilgah, Shemajah, Iojarib, Iedaiah, Sallu, Amock, Hilkiah, Iedaiah. These were Priests in ye days of Ieshua, and the eldest sons of them all were Priests in ye days of Iojakim (Merajah ye son of Serajah, Hanamiah ye son of Ieremiah Me|s|hullam the son of Ezra &c) were chief Priests in ye days of Iojakim the son of Ieshua (Nehem 12) & therefore the High Priesthood of Ieshua was but of an ordinary length.

2 Of the History of the Iews in the reign of Xerxes & Artaxerxes Longimanus Artaxerxes Longimanus.

I place th{illeg}|e| Histories of Ezra & Nehemiah in ye reign of this Artaxerxes not in that of Artaxerxes M{illeg}|ne|mon. For during all the Persian Mo
narchy there were six High Priests in continuall succession of father & son namely Ieshua, Iojakim, Eliasib, Iojada, Ionathan, Iaddua, & if by an equal division of the times of their Priesthood their|re| be allotted about 34 years to each, so that all together may take up the whole time of that Monarchy wch stood 200 years the High Priesthood of Eliasib \& by consequence the days of Ezra & Nehemiah/ will fall in with the reign of the first Artaxerxes. For Ezra & Nehemiah flouished in the High Priesthoods of Iojakim & Eliasib Nehem 3.1 & 12.26 & 13.28 But if Eliasib & Nehemiah be placed in ye second year reign of the second Artaxerxes, since they lived beyond the 32th year of that King (Nehem 13.28) there must be at least 157 years allotted to the three first High Priests <2r> and but 43 to ye five last, a division too unequal. For the High-Priesthoods of Ieshua Iojakim & Eliasib were but of an ordinary \length/, that of Iesshua fell in with one generation of the chief Priests & that of Iojakim with the next generation (as we have shewed already) & that of Eliasib fell in with the third generation. For at the dedication of the wall Zechariah ye son of Shemaaiah Ionathan the son of Shemaiah was Priest one of the Priests (Nehem 12.35) & Ionathan \& his father Shemaiah/ was|er||e| contemporary|ie||s| to Iojakim & Ieshua \{sic} his father/ Ieshua (Nehem. 12.6, 18.) I observe further that in the first year of Cyrus Ieshua & Bani or Binnui were chief fathers of the Levites (Nehem 8.10 & Ezra 2.4 & 3.9) & that Iozabad the son of Ieshua & Noadiah ye son of Binnui were chief Levites in the seventh year of Artaxerxes when Ezra came to Ierusalem (Ezra 8.33) so that this Artaxerxes began his reign before the end of the second generation. And that he reigned in ye time of ye third generation is confirmed by two instances more. For Meshullam the son of Berechiah ye son of Meshezabeel & Azariah the son of Maasejah the son of Anamiah were fathers of their houses at the repairing of the wall (Nehem 3.4, 23) & their Grandfathers Meshezabeel & Hananiah subscribed the covenant in the reign of Cyrus Nehem 10.21, 23. Yea Nehemiah himself this same Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah was then Tirshatha & subscribed it (Nehem. 10.1 & 8.9 & Ezra 2.2, 63) & therefore in the 32th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus was above 120 years old & if you produce his age to ye 32th of Artaxerxes Mnemon he will be above 180 years old, an age surely too great. The same may be said of Ezra if he was that Priest & Scribe who read the Law Nehem 8. For he is the son of \Serajah the son of/ Azariah the son of Hilkiah the son of Shallum &c (Ezra 7.1) & this Serajah went into captivity at the burning of the Temple & was there slain (1 Chron. 6.14) & 2 King. 25.18) & from his death to ye 20th year of Artaxerxes Mnemon is above 200 years, an age too great.

I consider further that Ezra \(chap. 4)/ names Cyrus, \*/, Darius, Ahasverus (or Achswerus \or Asswerus Tobit 14 Asveres/) & Artaxerxes in continual order as successors to one another & these names agree to Cyrus, \*/, Darius Hystaspis, Xerxes & Artaxerxes Longimanus & to no other Persian Kings. When th Ezra had told how the people of the land \in ye days of Cyrus/ weakened the Iews hands of Iudah {illeg} & troubled troubled Iudah & hired counsellours against them to frustrate their purpose \in building the temple/ all the days of Cyrus untill ye & \further/ untill ye reign of Darius, before he proceeds to tell how the people they built the Temple \was built/ in ye reigne of this king he proceeds to tell how they pu wrote accusations against ye Iews to Ah \same people hindred the Iews also in the reigns of/ Achswerus & Artaxerxes the not in building ye Temple for that was finished before, but in building ye City & the wall & then returns back Some here {illeg} take this Artaxerxes to be \{illeg}des not the successor but/ the predecessor of Darius Hystaspis, in whose reign the temple was built, not \not/ considering that in the|i||s| reign \of this Artaxerxes/ the Iews were busy in building the City & the wall (Ezra 4.12) & by consequence had finished the Temple before. Ezra describes first how the I|p|eople of the land hindred the land hindred the building of ye Temple all the days of Cyrus & \further/ till the reign of Darius & after ye Temple was <2v> built how they hindred the building of the city in the reign of Acha|s|werus & Artaxerxes & then returns back to ye story of the Temple in ye reign of Cyrus & Darius. And this will is confirmed by the book comparing the book of Ezra wth ye first book of Esdras. For if in ye book of Ezra you omit the story of Achswerus & Artaxerxes & in that of Esdras you omit the same story of Artaxex|r|xes & yt of the three wise men the two Books will agree so that ye book of Esdras was \originally/ copied of out of fragments scattered leaves from the sacred wr \(if you except the story of the three wise men) was originally copied/ from fragments of the s writings of good authority|.| except the story of ye three wise men. Now the story of Artaxerxes wch \(wth that of Ahaswerus)/ in ye book of Ezra interrupts the story of Darius, \does not interrupt it/ it in the book of Ezdras \but is there/ inc|s|erted into ye story of Cyrus between the first & second chapter of Ezra & all the rest of the story of Cyrus & that of Darius is told in ye book of Ez|s|dras in continual order wthout any interruptiō. So that the Darius ye in ye book of Ezra precedes Achswerus \& Artaxerxes/ & the Darius wch \in the same book/ follows them is by ye book of Esdras one & the same Darius, & I take the book of Esdras to be the best interpreter of the book of Ezra. So then the Darius mentioned next after Cyrus \between Cyrus & Achsuerus/ is Darius Hystaspis & his successors therefore Achswerus & Artaxerxes who succeed him are Xerxes & Artaxerxes Longimanus & they who the Iews who came up from Artaxerxes to Ierusalem & began to build the city & the walls \Ezra 4.13/ are Ezra wth his companions. Which being understood the history of ye Iews in the reign of those Kings |w|is|l||l| {illeg} \be/ as follows.

In ye After ye Temple was built & the Darius was dead the enemies of ye Iews in ye beginning of the reign of \his successor Achswerus or/ Xerxes wrote unto him an accusation against these|m| \Iews/ But (Ezra 4.6) but in ye seventh year of his successor Artaxerxes Ezra \& his companions/ went up from Babylon \&/ with many Iews wth offerings & Vessels for the Temple & power to bestow \on it/ out of ye Kings Treasure for ye House of God what should be requisite (Ezra 7.) Whence the Temple is said to be finished according to ye commandmt of Cyrus & Darius & Artaxerxes the King of Persia (Ezra 6.14) Their commission was also to set Magistrates \& Iudges/ over the land & {illeg} & thereby becoming a new Body Politick they were encouraged to attempt the rebuilding of ye {sic} \wall of/ Ierusalem{sic} |& its wall. And thence Ezra saith in his prayer that God had extended mercy to them in the sight of the Kings of Persia & given them a wall reviving to set up the house of their God, & to repair the desolation thereof & to give them a wall in Iudah & in Ierusalem. (Ezra 9.9.) But t|w|he|n| enemies of ye they had begun to repair the wall their enemies wrote &c| & But their enemies \of the Iews/ wrote against them to ye King. Be Artaxex|r|xes & the King gave order that they should ce Be it known, say they, unto ye King that if ye Iews ye came up from thee to us are come into Ierusalem building the rebellious & the bad City & have set up the walls thereof & joyned the foundations &c Whereupon \And/ ye King wrote back that ye Iews should cease & ye City not be built untill another commandment should be given from him, whereupon their enemies \went up to Ierusalem &/ made them cease by force & power (Ezra 4.) But in ye 20th year of the King E Nehemiah hearing that ye Iews were in great affliction & distress & that ye wall of Ierusalem \(that wall (wch \{illeg}/ had been \newly/ repaired) {illeg}/ was broken down & the gates thereof burnt wth fire ob (Nehem 1.3 \& {Ezra}/) & that he obteined {illeg} leave of the King to go & built|d| \the City & the Governours house/ {illeg} (Nehem 1.3 & 2.176, 8, 17) but after he had built the wall the people in the City were but few & the houses were unbuilt (Nehem. 7.1, 4) \And/ In this condition he left Ierusalem in ye 32th year of the King & after some time returning back refor{illeg}|m|ed such abuses as had been committed in his absence (Nehem 13.) And here ends ye sacred history \of ye Iews/ except that |in| the original manuscript of the Chronicles the Genealogy of the Priests & Levites was recorded till about ye end of the Persian Monarchy (Nehem 12.22, 23

<3r>

Chap
Of the sacred history of the Persian Empire.

[1] This history is described in ye books of Ezra & Nehemiah & to adjust it wth prophane history has perplext learned men. I shall not stand to adjust \recite/ other men's opinions but propose as shortly as I can what I take to be ye truth.

I op|b|serve therefore 1st that Ezra & Nehemiah lived \flourished/ in ye times of \one &/ ye same Artaxerxes. For \the/ Ezra the|i|s Ezra the scribe was \wth Nehemiah/ at ye dedit|c|ation of ye wall of Ierusalem Nehem 12.36.

2. Between Cyrus & Alex During the \That/ During all ye Persian Monarchy there were six High Priests in a continual succession of father & Son, namely, Ieshua Iojakim, Eliaship|b|, Iojada, Ionathan, Iaddua,|.| & That if by an equal division of their times \of their priesthood/ there be allotted about 34 years to each, \so that all together may take up the whole time of that monarchy wch stood 200 years,/ the high Priesthood of Eliashib will fall in with \almost all/ the reign of the first Artaxerxes. But t And that Nehemiah floure|i|shed in ye reign of High Priesthood of Eliashib Eliashib, \Nehem 3.1 & 13.28./ But if Eliasib |& Nehemiah| be d placed in ye reign of ye 2d Artaxerxes, he will since they lived beyond ye 32th year of that king \Nehem 13.28)/ there must be at least 157 years allotted to ye three first High Priests & but 43 to ye five last, a division too unequal.

3 The times \ages t ages/ /times\ of ye three first \of these/ high Priests fell in wth ye ordinary generations of ye other \rest of the all the other chief Priests/ Priests & so |mentioned in Nehem. 12.| |& so| were but of an ordinary length. For in ye high-priesthood of Ieshua the \chief/ Priests were Serajeh, Ieremiah, Ezra, Amariah, Malluc or Melicu, Hattush, Shechaniah or Shebaniah, R{illeg}ehum or Harim, Meremoth, Iddo, Ginnetho, Abijah, Miame|i|n, Maadiah, Bilgah, Shemaiah, &c |Nehem. 12.1| Iojarib Iedaiah And th in the high-priesthood of \his son/ Iojakim the {illeg} \their {illeg}/ immediate sons were ye \chief/ Priests were their immediate \eldest/ sons, Merajah, Hananiah, Meshullam, Iehohanan, Ionathan, Ioseph, Adna, Helkai, Zechariah, Meshullam, Zichri, * Piltai, Shammua, Iehonathan, &c. \This Iehonathan or Ionathan was son of Shemaiah above mentioned/ And in the high priesthood of Eliashib the highpriesthood was at ye dedication of the wall, Zechariah ye son of Ionathan {illeg} Iehonath ye son of Shemaiah was one of the Priests \Nehem. 12.35/. So <4r> then these thre {sic} ages were but ordinary ones & therefore {illeg} scarce reach beyond the age \reign/ of the first Artaxerxes.

4. At ye seventh year of Artaxerxes \when Ezra came to Ierusalem/ Z|I|ozabat|d| the son of Ieshua & Noadiah ye son of Binnui were Levites \Ezra 8.33./ And their fathers Ieshua & Binni fl were Levites \of chief note/ at the return of the captivity under Cyrus ye therefore could no

4 The reading of ye law & keeping sealing ye covenant, Nehem. 8, 9, 10, was al in ye first \of these/ generations \in ye time of the first priesthood of ye first generations of these generations./ as you may perceive by comparing ye names of the Priests & Levites who subscribed sealed wth it, Nehem. 10, wth those who returned from ye Captivity under Cyrus Nehem. 12 Now And ye {illeg} feast of Tabernacles then kept was the first fest|a|st wch they kept after that return Nehem. 8.14. & therefore kept in ye first year of ye return Ezra 3.4. Now at that time Ieshua & \Bani or/ Binnui were \chief fathers of ye/ Levites of chief note Nehem 8. & 10 \& Ezra 2.40 & 3.9/ & thi Iozabad ye son of Ieshua & Noadiah ye son of Binnui were \chief/ Levites Ezra in ye seventh year of Artaxerxes when Ezra came to Ierusalem. Ezra \2.40 &/ 8.33. This Artaxerxes \therefore/ bega{illeg}|n| his reign {illeg} There were two Nehemiah's {illeg} \&/ the first was the Tirshatha at ye first return from captivity Nehem. 8.9, & founded|in||g| a library gathered together the acts of ye Kings & the Prophets & of David wro                      before the end of ye \priesthood of the/ second generation. & so was |And|      5 And hence we have tw that the reigned in \the time of/ ye third \generation/ is yet confirmed by two instances more. For Meshullam the son of Berechiah ye son of Meshezabeel, & Azariah ye son of Maasejah the son of Ananiah were fathers of their houses i|a|t the repairing of the wall \Nehem. 3.4, 23/, & their grandfathers Meshezabeel & Azariah {illeg} Hananiah subscribed the Covenant in ye reign of Cyrus Nehem 10.21, 23. Yea Nehemiah himself, this same Nehemiah ye Son of Hachaliah, was then Tirshatha & subscribed it Nehem 10.1. & 8.9. & Ezra 2.\2,/ 63, & therefore was {thus} \in ye 32th year of Artaxerxes was/ above 120 years old & if you produce his ages to ye same \32th/ year of ye 2d Artaxerxes he will be above 180 years old, an age surely too great. The same may be said of Ezra if he was that Priest & scribe who read the law Nehem 8. For he is ye Son of Serai|j|ah ye son of Azariah ye son of Hilkiah ye son of Shallum &c \Ezra 7.11/ {illeg} & this Saraiah wth his eldest son Iozadat{sic} went into captivity at ye burning of the Temple \& was there slain/ 1 Chron 6.14 2 Kings. 25. 18. And from his death to the 20th year of ye 2d Artaxerxes is above 200 years.

<5r>

5. It conclude was therefore \So then it was/ in the reign of the first Artaxerxes that Ezra & Nehemiah came to Ierusalem & therefore since \ye second/ Darius reigned after this Artaxerxes it must be in ye reign of the first Darius yt the Temple was fir built. For {illeg} ye second year of {illeg} Darius wherein |in| \wch/ ye foundation was laid, was the sixt seventith {sic} of ye captivity (Zech. 1.12 \& 7.5/) & at that time there were were {sic} men living who had seen the first Temple {illeg} (Haggai 2.3) & if the finishing of the Temple be deferred to ye 6t year of ye second Darius, Ieshua & Zerubbabel must both of them ha{illeg}ve been the one Ca High{illeg} Priest ye other {illeg} of Capitain of ye people for 112 years together besides their ages before: wch surely is too long a time.

6. They that refer these things to ye second Darius & second Artaxerxes ground their opinion on ye order of five \five/ Persian Kings named in order \Temples being built in the reigne of the last of the five Persian Kings/ in Ezra {illeg} Cyrus, Darius, Ahasuerus \or Xerxes/, Artaxerxes, |&| Darius in ye reign of ye Ezra 4 Ezra 4 & named in order Ezra 4. & {illeg} And in this I agree wth them that Ahasuerus Achswerus or Axerxes is Xerxes but I say that ye last Darius is ye same wth ye first. For ye letters to Ahasuerus & Artaxerxes \there mentioned/ concern not ye building of ye Temple but ye building of ye City after ye Temple was finished And Ezra when he had related these letters \about ye City/ returns back to relate ye building of ye Temple in ye reign of the first Darius.

7. Or, to speak what I more suspect, these letters order of ye books o leaves of ye books of Ezra & Nehemiah hab|s| been changed since ye first writing & these \two/ letters inserted in a wrong place. For these books & the first book of Esdras consist of the same sheets \parts of history/ set together in different orders & these story of the Temple is there continued without the interposition of these letters. I suspect therefore that after \when/ Antiochus Epiphanes had burnt ye sacred writings & made it death for any man to conceale them & Iudas Maccabeus had recollected what he find could afterwards find: some of the sacred writings (as the book of ye Chronicles of ye Kings of Israel) <6r> {were} lost & others found only in scattered leaves & put together \sometimes/ in a wrong order. For tis agreed that ye a latter part of ye book of Zacchary now extant was written by Isaiah. part of the prophessy {sic} of Isaiah is now added to ye book of Zacchary. And some suspect |yt by| ye like accident in \in some le{illeg}|a|ves of/ ye book of Iob {&} & in ye have been set together in wrong order & that in ye book of Samuel the story of Davids playing before Saul to drive away his evil spirit & becoming his Armor bearer & Saul's loving him greatly has been set before the story of Davids killing Goliah {sic} when Saul knew him not but asked again & again whose son he was. Certainly the 1st book of Esdras {illeg} is made up of the same leaves \pieces of history/ wth yt of Ezra & Nehemiah but \set into/ in another order: & no man would have joyned them in a wrong order had ye right order been then known. I will not unders|t|ake to rectify the sacred books but out of them & ye 1st book of Esdras I will try to set down \only say {direct} how/ ye history \Iew history/ of ye Persian Empire \may be read/ in one continuall order of time.

In order to this

< insertion from f 5v >

In order to this I would distinguish ye books of Ezra into several joint severall joynts or parts & then consider how they are to be set together. The first joynt I reccon the first chapter \of Ezra/, the second the second chapter to ye end of ye last vers but one, the third that vers & ye 3d chapter \to reach thence to ye {sic}/ to ye end of ye 7th vers of ye third chapter, ye fourth thence to the end of ye 5t vers of the 4th chapter, ye fift thence to ye end of ye 23d vers of ye same chapter ye sixt thence to ye end of ye book, the seventh thence to ye last vers but one of ye seventh chapter of Nehemiah, the eighth thence to ye end of ye three next chapters, the ninth thence to ye {illeg} end of ye next chapter ye 10th thence to ye end of ye 12th chapter & ye 11th thence to ye end of ye book. For the first & second joynts are found divided from another in {illeg} Esdras: T|t|he second is followed by the 4|8|th in {illeg} Nehemiah, but{illeg} ought to be followed by the ninth: The eighth ought to come in between the third & 4th, & T|t|he fift is wantint|g|ing in Esdras between ye 4th & sixt & between the 10th & 11th some sheets leaves seem to have been lost.

Now the history will become continued & clear & consonant to profane|phan||e| history if the joynts be read in this order, the first, the second, the ninth, the third, the eighth, the fourth, the sixt, the fift, the seventh, the ninth, ye eighth the 10th & 11th. And this will appear by these three things corrections \alterations/.

First that ye 11th chapter of Nehemiah ought in \ninth joynt ought in/ point of time to be inserted between the two last verses of the second chapter of Ezra, that is the ninth joynt between the {sic} second & third \joynts./ as also between the seventh & eighth. For-

< text from f 6r resumes >

Ez
The Book of Ezra.

Now in the first year of Cyrus – – – \Ezra 1, 2./ – – – – So the Priests & ye Levites & some of the people & the singers dwelt & ye porters & ye Nethenims dwelt in their cities & all Israel in their cities. And the rulers of the people dwelt at Ierusalem: the rest of ye people also cast lots to bring one of ten to dwell in Ierusalem the holy City & nine parts to dwell in other Cities – – – – – – – – – – – – Nehem. 11. – – – – – – – And of the Levites were divisions in Ia|u|dah & Benjamin.

First read{illeg} ye two first chapters of Ezra. For so far the narration is

First then I would insert ye 11th chapter of Nehemiah between the two last verses of ye second chapter of Ezra. For it conteins a relation how all the people upon their \first first/ return from captivity were under Cyrus distributed themselves by lot {illeg} at Ierusalen {sic} to |go| thence into their several cities \where they were found in ye seventh month beginning of ye next article/. This I gather partly by out of 1 Chron. 9 where I {illeg} th{illeg}|is| 11th chapter of Nehemiah is in part repeated & the people at this distribution are said to be ye first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions in their cities 1 Chron 9.2: & partly <6v> by the names of those who inhabitants who east when who were concerned in this distribution. For for \Akkub & Talmon/ the chief of the Porters were there were there & so was the Levite Mattaniah the son of Mica the son of Asaph \who was over the thanksgiving/ {illeg} Nehem 11.17, 19 & these returned from ye captivity wth Zerubbabel. Ezra 2.42 Nehem. 12.8.

Secondly that the 8th 9th & 10th chapters of Nehemiah \8th joynt ought {sic}/ ought \in point of time/ to be inserted between the seventh & eighth verses of ye 3d chapter of Ezra: that is the 8th joynt between ye {sic} 3d & 4th |joynts|. For the reading of the law began ye same day of ye wth ye sacrifices \at the first return/, as I shewed above by \comparing \{illeg}// ye names of those who subscribed ye covenant wth \compared wth the names of/ those who first returned from ye captivity. |For Ezra read ye law in ye seventh month next after Zerubbabels return Nehem 7.73 & 8.1, 2.|

Lastly that ye 4th chapter from ye 6t verse to ye {illeg}|23|th verse inclusively conteins fift joynt ought to come between the sixt & seventh. For in The chief Levites who re The chief fathers of ye Levites who returned wth Zerubbabel & stood up to lay ye foundations of ye Temple were Ieshua Kadmiel & Hodaviah, \Hodajah/ of Iudah Ezra 2.40. & these were chief in explaining the law to the people when Ezra \&/ read it Nehem. 3. & in making the covenant Nehem. 3 & 4. And ye names of them yt subs thes Priests & Levites who returned wth Zerubbabel subscr sealed it as you may see by the following comparison of their names

<7r>
The Priests who returned, Nehem. 12.The Priests who sealed, Nehem. 10.
Nehemiah. Ezra 2.2Nehemiah
SerajahSerajah
*Azariah
IeremiahIeremiah
EzraEzra, Nehem. 8
*Pashur
AmariahAmariah
Malluc alias Melicu. v.2, 14.Malchiah
HattushHattush
Shechaniah alias Shebaniah, v. 3, 14.Shebaniah
*Malluc
Rehum vel Harim v. 3, 15.Harim
MeremothMeremoth
IddoObadia
*Daniel
Ginnetho vel Ginnethon, v. 4, 16Ginnethon
*Baruch
*Meshullam
AbijahAbijah
MiaminMiamin
MaadiahMaaziah
BilgahBilgai
ShemajahShemaiah
The Levites who sign returnedThe Levites who sealed
IeshuaIeshua
Binnui
KadmielKadmiel
Sherebiah שרביה.Shebaniah שבניה levi mutatione.
Iudah or Hodaviah Ezr. 2.40 & 3.9.Hodiah. Ωδουϊα sept.

Thus you see all the chief Priests & Levites who returned wth Zerubbabel (besi & some others besides) sub sealed the covenant & therefore it was made soon after ye return, And being & therefore \by consequence/ ye first year \as was/ because at ye revival of ye feast of Tabernacles as was shewed above. Nehem 8.14. Ezr. 3.4

The third alteration is that \to place/ the fift joynt be placed next after the sixt that is \the Letters to Ahashuerus & Artaxerxes/ at ye end of the book of Ezra. For the fourth & sixt joynts are continued in ye book of Esdras. & ye fourth being about, by interposing the fift |& the sixt set in another place before ye 4th, so that it was a fragment wch the Collector knew not how to place. By placing the it 4|b|etween the 4th & 6t| the story of building ye temple is interrupted by ye story of building the city. {illeg} \This/ was of a later date & therefore \is misplaced &/ ought to come afterwards. In the letter to Artaxerxes there is no mention of building ye Temple as there would have been surely, had ye Iews been then about that \& therefore tis of a later date{sic}/. The letter represents that the Iews wch came up from Artaxerxes to Ie were \then/ come to Ierusalem building ye rebellious & bad city & had set up ye walls thereof & joyned the foundations: & therefore it was writ against Ezra & his companions not long \some time/ after their commi|ing| from ye King to Ierusalem upon occasion of their attempting to restore the C repaire the City. \These being \For these were/ the only men who came up from this King to do these things./ {illeg} And hence when ye enemies of ye Iews had by this letter procured ye Kings order that ye city should not be built till he gave a new commandment \& made them cease by force & power/, Nehemiah soon after enquiring of ye state of ye Iews \at Ierusalem/ hears that they {illeg} were in distress great reproach & affliction & reproach & yt ye wall of Ierusalem was broken down & ye gates burnt wth fire This was news to him in the 20th year of the King & therefore done not long \many months/ before by the enemies of Nehemia Ezra, as he had procured by vertue of the Kings letter. \as above./ For these reasons therefore I will subjoyn these letters to ye story of Ne Ezra as an introduction to the story of Nehemiah.

Also If n

If you now read over the sacred History according to ye order presented by these \three/ alterations, {illeg} you will find it agreable to regular \more eaven & intelligible &/ agreable to prof|p|hane history then <8r> before & to amount only to this, That in ye reign of Artaxerxes Cyrus when Zerubbabel came wth ye people to Ierusalem they went thence by lot into ye|their| cities till the seventh & then began to sacrifice to heare ye law {illeg} & to keep ye feast of Tabernacles. The next year they laid the foundation of ye Temple but were hindred from finishi building all ye reign of Cyrus & Camp|b|yses till ye 2d year of Darius \Hystaspis./ Then they finished it in four years. But so soon as their friend Darius was dead their enemies wrote in the beginning of ye reign of his son Ahashuerus or Xerxes wrote \an accusation/ against them to ye King. So the Iews continued in di distress till ye seventh year of his son Artaxerxes \Longimanus/ when Ezra {illeg} by a new degree carryed a bo new body of Iews from captivity to Ierusalem, adorned ye Temple restored \revived/ the \In/ worship, & polity restored the polity of the nation, &|but| when they had made good progress in building the City & ye walls \& the work went on fast,/ their enemies {illeg}|b|y a new accusation procured ye Kings order that ye City should not be built till he gave a new commandment, & thereupon \they/ made them cease by \armed/ force & burnt brake down the wall & burnt the gates. But so soon as this came to ye ears of Nehemiah, he procured ye Kings order for building the City & between ye 20th & 32th years of yt King repaired ye walls & took a register of all the people. Afterwards he returned to ye king & the people in his absence began to corrupt themselves but before ye King's death he came again to Ierusalem & reformed them. And here ends ye Iewish history excepting that the \fathers off t /genealogy\ of the/ Priests & Levites wer|as|e written in ye r|R|egisters te|i|ll ye end of ye Persian Monarchy. But these genealogies being lost & ye Iews having no history of ye later Kings of Persia, they have made ye duration of this Monarchy much shorter then it was.

The history being cleared let us now see how it agrees wth ye Prophesy of Daniel's weeks.

Seventy weeks are de cut out upon thy people & upon thy holy city to finish transgression & |to| seal up sins & to expiate iniquity & bring in everlasting righteousnes & to seale ye vision & the prophesy & to annoint ye most h Holy. There were two returns from captivity, \the first under Zerubbabel the second under Ezra/ & at{illeg} ye second when Ezra by addition access \ye addition/ of the people he brought wth him became a by {illeg} re\vi/ving \{illeg}/ their worship Iewish worship \at Ierusalem/, & by {illeg}|o||rdaining| Magistrates in all the land \by the Kings/ to judge & govern them according <8v> to the law|s| of Moses & ye King, they became a people or body politick & a holy City. For till they had a polity & government of their own they were neither |a| people nor a City in the sense of Daniel. And by the death & resurrection of Christ was transgression finished & sins sealed up or absolved & iniquity expiated \& everlasting righteousness brought in/ & this prophesy ended & ye most Holy annoynted. And from ye first period to ye last that is from ye year of ye Iulian period 4257 to ye year 4747 are just 490 years, that is seventy weeks. For Xerxis was slain an 4 Olymp 78 (Diodor. l 11 Euseb. Chron.\Sulpitius/) Then Artabanus reigned 7 months & Artaxerxes {illeg} \Longimanus/ began his reign an 1 Olymp 79 (Diodor. l 11. Euseb. Chron.) & his 20th year fell in wth an 4 Olymp 83 (Africanus apud Euseb.) Whence his reign began about ye end of Summer \or in autumn/, a|A|nno. Per. Iul. 424|5|0 < insertion from the left margin of f 8v > ✝ For his 20th year extended from the ninth month to ye first month Nehem 1.1 & 2.1 & from ye first to ye fift Ezr. 7.7, 8, 9 & therefore his years began in the autumnal half year < text from f 8v resumes > & Ezra's journey in his seventh year being in spring was a|A|n. Per. Iul. 4257. The death of Christ is usually referred to ye \of Christ/ 4|3|3 but I had rather refer it to the year following \An. Per. Iul. 4747{illeg}/, this being both the sabbatical year & as Eusebius notes, the year of Iubile. {illeg} affords us \For this affords us/ a reason why ye disciples \first Christians/ had all things common, Act. 2.44, 45.And [Christ in |the beginning| the last day of ye feast of Tabernacles in ye great day of the feast in saying If any man thirst] it was to ye drawing out |manumission of servants & the drawing| of water out of ye river Siloam in ye end of ye feast of Tabernacles in ye beginning of this \sabattical/ year that Christ alluded to |at this time Feast when he spake of making servants free & drinking water of life & rivers of this water flowing out of his belly Iohn 7 & 8| when he said: {If a} The servant abideth not in ye house for ever but ye Son abideth for ever. If ye son shall make you free ye shall be free indeed. And again If any man thirst let him come unto me & drink He that beleiveth on me out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water Iohn 7 & 8.

Know also & understand that from ye going forth of the commandment to {illeg} cause to return & to build Ierusalem unto ye Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks The former \part of the/ Prophesy related to the capt first coming of Christ, this \being{illeg} dated to the coming of ye Messiah to be Prince./ seems to relate to ye {illeg} second{illeg}. For all Daniel's Prophesies reach to ye end of ye world & thi|e|re is scarce a prophesy in ye old Testament {illeg} concerning Christ ye does not in something or other relate to his second coming. Nor |is| is|t| this a new opinion \to apply some part of this prophesy {illeg} to that second coming. For so did/ For Irenæus l. 5. c. 25. æ \also/ Iulius Africanus the Chronologer, Hippolytus an Arabian Bishop & Apollinaris Bp of Laodicea as Ierom in his commentary on this place mentions This clause therefore being the only I had rather leave to time be explained by time then venture upon a rash interpretation Wha of what I do not yet understand.

[1] Vid. printed Chron. p. 358|5| &c

© 2017 The Newton Project

Professor Rob Iliffe
Director, AHRC Newton Papers Project

Scott Mandelbrote,
Fellow & Perne librarian, Peterhouse, Cambridge

Faculty of History, George Street, Oxford, OX1 2RL - newtonproject@history.ox.ac.uk

Privacy Statement

  • University of Oxford
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council
  • JISC