"Grotius, Wetstein, and others, make 'ExλEKTИ the proper name. But against this supposition is, partly, the order of the words (for in this case it should have been either T Kupia T 'Ekλ. or Exλ. Tn Kupia), partly v. 13, where the sister is evidently called exλEKT in the same sense as S. Paul so calls Rufus, namely, in respect of the divine ékλoyń, Rom. xvi. 13: partly, again, as it seems, the vocative Kupía, v. 5. Besides, I doubt very much whether it was ever a custom among the Greeks to couple the term kupia with a proper name. In the vocative, without the name, it was usual enough to say kupia, as Kúpie: Epictetus remarks, Enchirid. 62 (40), that women after their fourteenth year were addressed by men with the term Kupía. And lastly, it seems to me that the fem. pr. n. 'ExλEKTИ was not yet in use, because this word, like arytos and the like, was a standing designation of Christians in general. (In a later age Electus occurs as a man's name, Herodian. Hist. i. 16, 17, under Commodus. Tzetz, Chiliad. vi. hist. 55).

"As the fem. pr. n. Kupia was at that time not unusual, it is much more probable that this Christian lady was so named. (See Gruter, Corpus Inscr. 1127. 11. ÉVITTOS Kai ǹ yuvǹ avτoû Kupía. Lex. Hagiol. 448, where two female martyrs of this name occur. The pr. n. Kúpos is not uncommon.) It is true, in strict grammar, we ought to have Kupią tŷ ékλektŷ; comp. v. 13. and 3 Ep. 1. Tai rê άyanητê, and Rom. xvi. 5,8, 12, 13; but the placing of ékλekтy first is perhaps sufficiently excused by the omission of the article (only Cod. 73 has τῇ before ἐκλ. and κυρίᾳ, and Cod. 31, alone before κυρία), and by the custom which perhaps already obtained of using the epithet exλ. without much emphasis. See 1 Pet. i. 1. Πέτρος, ἀπόστολος Ι. Χ., ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις.” Lücke, u. s.

Bishop Middleton maintains that if Kupía be the proper name, the phrase ought to be Kupią Tỷ εKλEKT, as Apollon. de Syntagm. directs us to write Τρυφώνι τῷ ἀγαθωτάτῳ. (This however seems to me sufficiently met by Lücke's remark). Bishop Middleton takes 'Exλ. to be the proper name, and supposes TηS ÉKλEKTя in v. 13 to be a marginal gloss, explanatory of σου. Then ̓Εκλεκτή Κυρία is parallel with Παῦλος ἀπόστολος, and with Ευσταθίῳ ἰατρο, Λεοντίῳ σοφιστῇ, Bоaπорi ETIσKÓT, in the titles of S. Basil's Epistles. But

are these parallel instances? I think not, for kupia is not a title of office, rank, or profession, as those are.

Against the interpretation which makes neither 'Exλ. nor Kupía a proper name, (E. v. "to the elect lady") Bishop Middleton urges that it would require either τῇ κυρίᾳ τῇ ἐκλ. or else T ÉKλ. Kupią: Lücke, that it is contrary to the analogy of the Third Epistle, and to the epistolary style of the ancients. But the absence of the article is justified by 1 Pet. i. 1. ekλekTоis πарeπidnμois, and Lücke's reasons seem to me worth very little. I think then (with Clem. Alex., Jerom, Cassiodorus,) that the Second Epistle was addressed to a particular church, as a letter commendatory of certain brethren whose soundness in the faith S. John attests by implication. What church this was, we can only conjecture; but, I conceive that the Third Epistle was written as a private communication to a member of the same church, Gaius (its bishop?) in consequence of the opposition with which Diotrephes met the former public communication, which I take to be intended in v. 9, ἔγραψά τι τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ:—i. e. I suppose the vl here mentioned to be no other than the Second Epistle, and by T ἐκκλ. I understand the ἐκλεκτή Κυρία καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς. The term EKλEKT, applied to a church in v. 1. and v. 13, is completely justified by 1 Pet. v. 13, donačeтaι vμās ǹ év Βαβυλώνι συνεκλεκτή : the only difficulty is the appellation κυρία, which it is vain to explain as equivalent to κυριακή. Being a title of honour, it would seem to be most appropriate to the church of Jerusalem, or perhaps of Rome: yet it does not necessarily imply either of those churches, for why might not the Apostle thus address the body of Christian people composing one of his own churches,-humbling himself as the Church's servant (hence ὁ πρεσβύτερος, not ἀπ. or έπισκ.) and, in short, exemplifying the spirit of S. Peter's exhortation, ἐπισκοποῦντες...μὴ ὡς κατακυριεύοντες τῶν κλήρων comp. Philem, 8, 9. To this demeanour of the Apostle, that with which it was met by Diotrephes. (o piλoжρwτeuw) forms the direct contrast. I should therefore render the address thus: "The Elder to (his) elect Lady (the Church)." The omission of the article, or of the pronoun μou, may be justified by the inscriptional or titular style, as e. g. on monuments, φιλτάτῳ δεσπότῃ: ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ. though doubtless τῇ ἐκλ.

Kupią would have been more proper, as in Acts xxiii. 26. T κρατίστῳ ἡγεμονι'.

A.D.

41.

§ 159. SUMMARY OF THE PRECEDING RESULTS.

Dispersion of the Apostles. About this time, S. Matthew's
Hebrew Gospel.

48-52. Epistle to the Galatians.

51-54.

54.

55.

58.

S. Peter at Corinth, and thence to Rome, in one of these years.
Passover, First Epistle to the Corinthians.

Summer or Autumn. Second Epistle.

Passover, Epistle to the Romans.

S. Matthew's Greek Gospel, before 56.

S. Luke's Gospel, and the Acts.

Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians and Philemon.

58-61. Probable time of S. Peter's First Epistle, and S. Mark's

CHAPTER III.

FROM THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY TO THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

160. It will be our first object in this chapter to ascertain the cardinal dates which are determinative for the scheme as a whole, i. e. for the date of the Exode: for which purpose it will be sufficient if we can define and establish the epoch of the Seventy Years' Captivity, since from that date we can rise in the next chapter to the earlier epochs, the first year of Rehoboam, of Solomon, of David, &c. Having determined this, we shall investigate, in the descending order, the chronology of the Babylonian and Persian times of the Old Testament History. (Section i.) With respect to that portion of Jewish history (a term of about four centuries) which lies between the close of the O. T. canon and the opening of the N. T., it will be necessary, with a view to the ultimate and characteristic object of this work, to examine in detail that part of it which is the subject of direct prophecy, in the visions of Daniel-viz. the times of the Grecian empire from Alexander to the Maccabean Independence. (Sect. ii.) The time of the capture of the temple by Pompey and afterwards by Herod, which is likewise a matter of some interest, and on which indeed even the date of our Lord's Nativity in some measure hinges, will be fully discussed in an Appendix.

SECTION I.

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE CHALDEAN AND PERSIAN TIMES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, FROM THE EPOCH OF THE CAPTIVITY TO

THE CLOSE OF THE CANON.

§ 161. THE seventy years of Babylonian captivity began in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which Jeremiah calls the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon (xxv. 1.) This is the earliest recorded synchronism between sacred and profane history, and it introduces a series of such synchronisms which come to view in this concluding portion of the Old Testament. It is solely by means of these double dates that we are able to settle the chronology of the Old Testament, with anything like precision, in terms of our own æra. But providentially we have herewith the means of adjusting these two tracts of time-in other words, of measuring the interval between the 4th year of Jehoiakim and the commencement of our own æra-with a degree of exactness which leaves nothing to be desired.

In the Royal Canon of Ptolemy (infra § 439.) we possess an unquestionably authentic register of the reigns of the Chaldean and Persian kings with whom we are concerned in these fundamental synchronisms. And where the indications of this important document, owing to particular circumstances, might lead us to a wrong conclusion, we have the means of rectifying our adjustment. Thus, if we should on the authority of the Canon identify the 4th year of Jehoiakim, wholly or in part, with the year B. c. 604, to which the Canon assigns the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, we should be in error: for it can be proved that this is not Jeremiah's epoch of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Passing by this synchronism, we take the next, which is thus given, Jer. lii. 31, comp. 2 Kings xxv. 27, ff. "It came to pass in the 37th of Jehoiachin, (or Jeconiah, as I shall call him for the sake of distinction from his predecessor Jehoiakim) in the 12th month, the 25th day, that Evil-Merodach, king of Babylon, lifted up the head of Jeconiah and brought him forth out of prison," and this, "in the year that he began to reign." (comp. Jos. Ant. x. 11. 2. evous Twv deoμŵr ageis). Now the