Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

motions, is the only fixed standard by which they can be reduced to calculation at all; and yet the mean length in the case of motions, which are perpetually varying more or less, can never at a given time be an exact measure of the true: nor is it an impossible contingency that, though A. M. 4001, the mean solar motion would make the second of April fall on the Saturday, it might actually have fallen on the Friday.

This liability to a difference between mean motions and actual motions is greater for small periods of time than for large. In the present instance, the excess appears to have been generated in the interim of time between A. M. 2445, the year of the Exodus, and A. M. 4001, the year of the nativity; an interval of 1556 years. For 1556 tropical years = 568317 days, one hour, twenty-six minutes, twelve seconds; or 81188 weeks, and one day, one hour, twenty-six minutes, twelve seconds over; that is, if we deduct two hours, thirty-five minutes, and thirty-six seconds, for the excess of the Newtonian standard of the length of the tropical year above that of Delambre, as accumulated in 1556 years-more than one hour less than an entire day. Hence, if A. M. 2445, April 3 truly fell on Saturday; A. M. 4001 it would be within twentythree hours of falling upon Saturday again. And even this is some approximation to a coincidence with that day at least.

It is, however, to be remembered that our Saviour's birthday, considered in its connection with the Jewish passover, was the tenth of Nisan; and the tenth of Nisan, like every other Jewish vuxenμepov, does not admit of being expressed by any single Julian or tropical day, which cannot be regarded as a vʊx¤ýμeρov as well as it. The tenth of Nisan in any year would be coincident with parts of two Julian or tropical

days; and an event which happened on the tenth of Nisan, might be so far considered to belong in common to both. Hence the birthday of our Lord, A. M, 4001, if it can be determined to the tenth of Nisan in that year, and the tenth of Nisan can be proved to coincide partly with the second and partly with the third of the tropical April in the same year, may be said to be either the former or the latter, pro re nata; the former, if the precise time of the nativity was the evening, the latter, if it was the morning, of the corresponding Jewish day. Now this, as I hinted in the Twelfth Dissertation, vol. i. p. 402, seems actually to have been the case; and the true time of the nativity to have been the midnight of the Jewish tenth of Nisan; which midnight would almost coincide with the tropical 3rd of April. The same thing appears to have held good with the original separation of the lamb for the passover, A. M. 2445; which, as there can be no question, was some time on the tenth of Nisan. The tenth of Nisan in that year, it has been proved, fell on the Saturday, and on the 3rd of April; and it may also be proved that it must have expired on that day, not begun upon it, which will render the coincidence so much the more complete. For if the fifteenth of the second month expired on the Saturday, the tenth of the first must have done the same. And as the time of setting apart the lamb was appointed to some time on the tenth, four days before its sacrifice on the fourteenth, it is to be presumed it was required to be set apart, on the former, about the same time at which it was required to be sacrificed, on the latter; that is, between the evenings, or towards the close of a Jewish vuxenμepov, in the one case as well as in the other *.

* Should any one still consider it a difficulty that the re

sult of our calculations concerning the succession of days and

To proceed then with the course of our inquiry; I

nights, for the latter part of the period between the Creation and the birth of Christ, does not square so exactly with the true place of the third of April in the year of the Nativity; as the former part squared with the assumption of its place in the year of the Exodus: perhaps the following considerations may contribute to mitigate this difficulty, if they do not remove it altogether.

The calculation, for each of the periods in question, proceeded upon the supposition, that the succession of days and nights, between the Creation and the Exodus, and between the Exodus and the Nativity, went on alike; and that the mean length of one vuxenμepov was always the same with the mean length of another: a supposition which, with respect to the first of the intervals so determined, there is no reason whatever to consider doubtful. But with respect to the latter; there were two occasions, one in the time of Joshua, B. C. 1520, the other in the reign of Hezekiah a, B. C. 710, when the constant, unvaried, and uniform succession of days and nights did experience some interruption; the nature and effect of which will best be estimated by considering what would have been the case if it had never happened.

Between a certain νυχθήμερον,

B. C. 1560, inclusive, and the same νυχθήμερον in the time of Joshua, B. C. 1520, exclusive, there would be forty natural years; or 14,609 days and nights, sixteen hours, which I shall consider equivalent to another day and night and consequently, 2087 weeks, and one day of another. Let this vuxenpepov, for argument's sake, be assumed as April 1, which B. C. 1560 fell upon Thursday; and therefore B. C. 1520 would fall upon Friday. In this case, the next vvxonμepov, April 2, ought to have fallen on Saturday; and if the succession of νυχθήμερα went on as before, it would fall upon Saturday.

But let it be further supposed, for argument's sake also, that the miracle in the time of Joshua was wrought upon Friday; and that upon Friday, April 1. The effect of this miracle was that one day as such was prolonged to the length of two; that is, a day of twelve hours was made a day of twenty-four b— without affecting the day of the month, or the day of the week ; (for April I did not thereby become April 2, nor Friday become Saturday ;) but only the absolute length of one individual νυχθήμερον, compared with what the length of every νυχθήμερον was before, and what it continued to be afterwards. The actual April 1 was Friday, and the actual April 2 was Satur

a Josh. x. 12-14. 2 Kings xx. 8-11. 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. b The author of the book of Ecclesiasticus says the same thing of this day in the time of Joshua: ch. xlvi. 4. So likewise Justin Martyr, Dialogus, 419. 1. 15. and Dionysius the Areopagite, Epistola vii. Ad Polycarpum. Operum ii. 90. and the Scholia of Maximus, Ibid. 94, 95.

shall mention only one circumstance more and then

conclude.

day; but the actual length of that νυχθήμερον, of which this April 1 was a part, was twelve hours greater than usual.

If then a stranger to this effect were calculating the succession of days and nights from a certain date, before the time of this anomaly, up to a certain date after it; and calculating it upon the supposition that they had always gone on alike, and had always been of uniform length; it is manifest that he would arrive at a conclusion which would be true in theory, but false in fact; viz. that a given vuxenμepov of calculated time began twelve hours later than the same portion of actual time did. He would suppose, for instance, that the vuxenμepov expressed by April 1, B. C. 1520, was an ordinary vuxenμepov of twenty-four hours; whereas it

was

an extraordinary one of thirty-six and that the next vuxenμepov, expressed by April 2, began as usual at the expiration of twenty-four hours of actual time; whereas it did not begin until the expiration of thirtysix. Twelve hours of the calculated second of April were merged in the actual first; and instead of coinciding with Saturday, actually made a part of Friday. But one who was ignorant of this anomaly would suppose they made part of the Saturday, and he would compute them accordingly; that is, his calculated April 2 would be supposed to begin twelve hours later than the vuxenμepov which it expressed. His calculated April 2 would be reckoned to belong wholly to

Saturday, whereas in reality twelve hours of it were merged in the Friday.

If the effect which ensued in the time of Joshua was repeated in the time of Hezekiah, then another twelve hours of time, which should belong to the calculated νυχθήμερον, would be merged in the actual vvxonpepov immediately before it; and both these anomalies together would produce this effect: that reckoning from a certain date before

the time of Joshua to a certain date after the time of Hezekiah, and ignorant of each of these miracles, I should suppose a certain calculated νυχθήμερον (we will suppose the third of April) to have been wholly coincident with a certain day of the week, (we will assume the Sunday,) when in fact it was wholly merged in the day before it. That is to say, ever after the miracle in the time of Hezekiah, the actual place of a given vuxnμepov which I might calculate to be Sunday, would be truly the Saturday.

On this principle, April 3, B. C. 4, the place of which was found by calculation to be Sunday, would actually be Saturday; that is to say, the first vuxenμepov of the 208, 710th week, from the Creation, B. C. 4004, which I calculated to begin at sunset on the Sunday, B. C. 4, did actually begin at sunset on the Saturday, B. C. 4 and if I must call that vuxenμepov April 3, then April 3, which I supposed to be Sunday, was in reality Saturday. Now it makes no difference whether

In the second year after the Exodus f, A. M. 2446, B. C. 1559, on the first day of the first month, the Tabernacle being complete in all its parts, was set up; and either at the same time or soon afterwards the Tabernacle service must have begun. On the fourteenth day ensuing the first Levitical passover was celebrated in its season. It is a natural and obvious question, On what day of the week this celebration would fall? in answer to which I think it is capable of proof that the passover fell in the year after the Exodus, relatively to the days of the week, exactly as it had fallen in the year of the Exodus itself. If so, the same must have been the case with the tenth of Nisan.

In order to this proof I shall assume only, that from the time of the commencement of the Levitical service, the year of the Jews must necessarily be con- . sidered lunar, whatsoever it was before; and therefore, that the celebration of the passover, in this year, must have coincided with the full of the moon, whatsoever had been the case in the year before it. The fourteenth of Nisan, in the year after the Exodus, A. M. 2446, or B. C. 1559, would be determined by the paschal full moon, and either fall on the same day with that, or immediately before it; and the paschal full moon

we were ignorant of the anomalies in question, or did not take them into account: which yet was the case when I instituted the calculation given above. It is not surprising, then, that the ultimate result did not square with the truth; but was found to be a whole νυχθήμερον in ex

cess.

The difference is now explained; for the above course of reasoning, I think, must be al

lowed to be just: and perhaps this very difference between the matter of fact, and the result of calculations which would otherwise be true, is some confirmation reflexively of the truth of the miracles which produced it; miracles indeed attested by certain obscure traditions of profane history itself. Vide Herodotus, ii. 142. Pomponius Mela, i. 9.

f Exod. xl. 2. 17. Numb. ix. 3. 5.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »