I. We are, for instance, met by what seems to be a remarkable error in the very first verse of the Book, which tells us that "_In the third year of Jehoiakim, King of Judah_, came Nebuchad_n_ezzar"--as in later days he was incorrectly called--"King of Babylon, unto Jerusalem, and besieged it."
It is easy to trace whence the error sprang. Its source lies in a book which is the latest in the whole Canon, and in many details difficult to reconcile with the Book of Kings--a book of which the Hebrew resembles that of Daniel--the Book of Chronicles. In 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6 we are told that Nebuchad_n_ezzar came up against Jehoiakim, and "bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon"; and also--to which the author of Daniel directly refers--that he carried off some of the vessels of the House of God, to put them in the treasure-house of his god. In this passage it is _not_ said that this occurred "_in the third year_ of Jehoiakim," who reigned eleven years; but in 2 Kings xxiv. 1 we are told that "in his days Nebuchad_n_ezzar came up, and Jehoiakim _became his servant three years_." The passage in Daniel looks like a confused reminiscence of the "three years" with "the third year of Jehoiakim." The elder and better authority (the Book of Kings) is silent about any deportation having taken place in the reign of Jehoiakim, and so is the contemporary Prophet Jeremiah. But in any case it seems impossible that it should have taken place so early as the _third year_ of Jehoiakim, for at that time he was a simple vassal of the King of Egypt. If this deportation took place in the reign of Jehoiakim, it would certainly be singular that Jeremiah, in enumerating three others, in the seventh, eighteenth, and twenty-third year of Nebuchadrezzar,[95] should make no allusion to it. But it is hard to see how it could have taken place before Egypt had been defeated in the Battle of Carchemish, and that was not till B.C. 597, the _fourth_ year of Jehoiakim.[96] Not only does Jeremiah make no mention of so remarkable a deportation as this, which as the earliest would have caused the deepest anguish, but, in the _fourth_ year of Jehoiakim (Jer. xxxvi. 1), he writes a roll to threaten evils which are still future, and in the _fifth_ year proclaims a fast in the hope that the imminent peril may even yet be averted (Jer. xxxvi. 6-10). It is only after the violent obstinacy of the king that the destructive advance of Nebuchadrezzar is finally prophesied (Jer. xxxvi. 29) as something which has not yet occurred.[97]
II. Nor are the names in this first chapter free from difficulty. Daniel is called Belteshazzar, and the remark of the King of Babylon--"whose name was Belteshazzar, _according to the name of my god_"--certainly suggests that the first syllable is (as the Massorets assume) connected with the god Bel. But the name has nothing to do with Bel. No contemporary could have fallen into such an error;[98] still less a king who spoke Babylonian. Shadrach _may_ be _Shudur-aku_, "command of Aku," the moon-god; but Meshach is inexplicable; and Abed-nego is a strange corruption for the obvious and common Abed-nebo, "servant of Nebo." Such a corruption could hardly have arisen till Nebo was practically forgotten. And what is the meaning of "the _Melzar_" (Dan. i. 11)? The A.V. takes it to be a proper name; the R.V. renders it "the steward." But the title is unique and obscure.[99] Nor can anything be made of the name of Ashpenaz, the prince of the eunuchs, whom, in one manuscript, the LXX. call Abiesdri.[100]
III. Similar difficulties and uncertainties meet us at every step. Thus, in the second chapter (ii. 1), the dream of Nebuchadrezzar is fixed in the _second_ year of his reign. This does not seem to be in accord with i. 3, 18, which says that Daniel and his three companions were kept under the care of the prince of the eunuchs for three years. Nothing, of course, is easier than to invent harmonistic hypotheses, such as that of Rashi, that "the second year _of the reign of Nebuchadrezzar_" has the wholly different meaning of "the second year after _the destruction of the Temple_"; or as that of Hengstenberg, followed by many modern apologists, that Nebuchadrezzar had previously been associated in the kingdom with Nabopolassar, and that this was the second year of his independent reign. Or, again, we may, with Ewald, read "the twelfth year." But by these methods we are not taking the Book as it stands, but are supposing it to be a network of textual corruptions and conjectural combinations.