be fhewn, that he died in the spring of the Varroniari year 710, A. M. 4005, and of the Jul. Per. 4710. Hence deduct 70, the difference 4640 is the date of his birth. Ufher, and after him Prideaux, bring it lower by two years, but neither affigns a reason for rejecting the authority of Jofephus.

2. Made Governor of Galilee.

"ANTIPATER made his eldeft fon Phafaelus governor of Jerufalem and its precincts; to Herod, then a very young man of 15, he committed the adminiftration of Galilee *." Ufher and Prideaux, on the authority of Cafaubon, correct this notation by subftituting 25. But both these great men, having mistaken the year of Herod's birth, ought to have marked the number 27. The prudence, experience, and spirit, which he displayed at his entrance on that arduous province, did great honour to his abilities and years. The Varronian year 707 is the true date of this his first promotion.

3. Different Dates of his Reign.

IN 714 was he created king of Judea by a deed of the Roman fenate. But Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, claiming the right of inheritance and poffeffion, difputed his title by an appeal to the sword; and after an ineffectual opposition, with inferior force, was overcome, taken prifoner, and tragically executed, in 717.

Jofephus, Ant. xiv. 9. 2.

Herod

Herod thenceforth reigned without a competitor, and his acceffion is reckoned by both terms.

4. Rebuilds the Temple..

As an allufion to this date occurs in the gofpel hiftory, in connexion with a certain year of our Lord's miniftry, it merits regard, as a chronological character. "Forty and fix years was the temple in building *." By every criterion of time this conference with the Jews refers to the first year of Chrift's miniftry, a fhort time, perhaps a few months, after the first Passover, Jofephus affigns two dates for this great and expensive undertaking.

"IN the 18th of his reign, Herod projected a very great work, the rebuilding of the temple; and fufpecting that the Jews, fo far from contributing to the coft, would not confent to his taking on himself the whole charges, called together an affembly of the people, to whom he fignified his resolution. They apprehending, that were the old edifice once demolished, he might either change his mind, or, having begun the new structure, fhould not be able to finish, ftrongly remonftrated. To convince them of his fincerity, Herod told them, that he should not pull down the fabric, till all things were ready for the new building. He accordingly provided 1000 waggons, and employed 10,000 of the most skilful artificers, ftone-cutters, carpenters, &c. for preparing the materials, as foon as

they could be brought to the spot. Convinced of his fincerity, the people approved with chearfulness an overture so beneficial to themselves, and honourable to their fovereign*.

It

IN another paffage + a different date is expreffed: "In the 15th year of his reign Herod rebuilt the temple." Which of the notations is to be preferred? is fcarcely probable, that the historian would compute Herod's reign from the decree of the fenate; for the Jews accounted him an ufurper during the life of Antigonus. But, as in several parts of his works, Jofephus counts by either reckoning indifferently, sometimes diftinguishes the one from the other by mentioning both, and always ftates three years for the intermediate space, let his fpecified numbers be fairly examined, and a selfconfiftent inference deduced.

THAT the arrangements of this very eminent hiftorian be not rafhly difmiffed from the tribunal of impartial criticism, two previous enquiries are equitable; first, What is the usual mode of reckoning in fimilar cafes ? and next, What might be the point which the Jews, in their arguing with our Lord, meant to establish?

FIRST, from computations in the retrograde series, the paffing year, efpecially about the time of its commencement, is, as the fource of reckoning, excluded. It has been remarked, that the Jews, in the first year of our Lord's ministry, and some short time after the Passover, (folemnized, according to Varro, A. U. C. 783.), told

him, that the temple had been then 46 years in building, as our publick verfion renders their words. In this view the firft of the 46 years is included in 783. The first year in the retrograde or afcending feries was, confequently, 782.

SECONDLY, the meaning of the Jews was rather to amplify than abbreviate the number. This is the purport of their argument: "This temple employed many hands, during the lapse of 46 years;-10,000 ftonecutters and carpenters, not to speak of other workmen in preparing the materials, before the foundation was laid : -befides double, triple, or 20 times that number in rearing this immense pile ;—and art thou able, by thine own fingle ftrength, to demolish the whole in three days?

SUCH is the prefumptive refult of the argument, according to the fentiments of our Lord's antagonists. Its agreement, or incongruity with the notations of Jofephus, is now to be examined: and for this end the scheme stands as below, for the two terms of Herod's reign.

SOURCE of retrograde computation for the foundation of Herod's temple.

THE true fources of Herod's reign are, in the diftinct columns, marked conformably with the faithful report of genuine history; but by both dates, the years. 714 and 717, were respectively the first of Herod. The computation must have proceeded from 713 and 716. On this principle, the foundation of the temple must have been laid, neither in the 15th nor 18th; but in the 23d or 20th of Herod. Thus far the notations of Jofephus vary from the number specified in the Gospel. But in favour of the Jewish hiftorian juftice demands, that the terms he employs be interpreted, according to his probable meaning. In a quotation, already produced in the way of reference, he remarks, "that the priests built the temple itself in 18 months; or in the fecond year from the foundation of its walls. The author's dates are not now uniformly, without variation, in the several copies, expreffed 15 and 18. Be it supposed, that the Jews reckoned the 46 years from the finishing of the work, the computation then begins in the year when Antigonus died, as by the fecond column, the temple was begun in the 18th and finished in the 20th of Herod. The Jews altered their opinion of the temple's age, about 50 years before Jofephus wrote its history: and if both they and he committed a miftake in numeration, the Evangelift, who reports the remonftrance as it was ftated, is not refponfible. If both parties merit the character of precifion, the 46 years expired in the year before Chrift's appearance in his prophetical office; and if this were the notion of the Jews, their words ought to be rendered, " Forty and