The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 44

this event, Egypt, which hRd beon con- if the Babylonian method of rookoning wns quered b~· Esarlmddon and Asshurbanipe.1, applied to Jehoiakim's reign, ,vhot way reR!lserted ilBelf. The Assyrie.ns hRd broken reckoned his fomth yMr in Jerusalom would up Egypt into B(''l'Cral prinoipaliti01l, over be only his thirtl. Agaill8t botli these texts each of whi~h they had set vasSRl kings. and 2 Kings xxv. 8, Rnd, moreover, ngainst Psammelik, one of tbam vaese.l kings, re- Berosus, is the statement in Jer, :r.lvi. 2, belled, e.ud united all Egypt under his rule. which asserts tho be.ttle of Ca.rohemish to About sixteen years after the fe.11 of Nine- have been fought in the fourth year of veh, l1is son Phe.raoh-Necho-determined Jehoiakim. This contradicts the other to ri\"111 his predeoessors, Thothmee and statement, unless the battle were fouglit R:imeses-inv..ded the territory of Be.bylon. in the very beginning of the fourth year He maintained his oonquest only a little of Jehoia.kim, of which we have no evi- "·h ile, for N ebuohe.dnezzar, the young hcroio denoe. It has been noted by Dr. Se.yea son of the peaoeful Nabopole.ssar, marohed (' Higher Criticism,' 419), as a ohe.raoter- ngainst the Egyptians. A great battle was istio instanoe of the ca.refulness witli which fougl.it at Caroil.emiah, and the Egyptie.ns the materials have been treated in Kings, wPrc toti<lly defeated. Aft.er this victory that while Shalmaneser is se.id to hove Kebucbadnezzar pursued his dying enemy besieged Samaria, it is not se.id that he iownr<l Egypt, and probably visited Jerusa- (Sha.hne.neser) took it. It is to be noted lem nnd lo.id siege to it. He was not yet that there is e.n equal carefulness in the king, but it is not to be reckoned an ana- verse before us: Nebuchadnezzar, we e.re chronism that the writ.er here oalls him told, came unto J erusolem, and "beaieged king. We speak of the Duke of Wellington it.'' The usue.l and nature.I oonclusion to gaining his first victory at Assaye, altl.iough such a sta.tement would be "and took it; " his ducal title was 11.ot att.ained till long the fa.ot that this phrase is not added proves aft.er. If we follow Berosus, as quoted by that the writer does not wish to assert tliat Josephus (' Contra Apionem,' 119), while Nebuchadnezzar required to pusli the siege S ebuchadnczzar wa,; engaged on the ca.m- to e:r.tremities. paign of Palestine and Syria, he was sum- moned back to Babylon by the death of his father K abopolassar. "Lea,ing the heavy- Euuraus on the alleged anachronism of armed troops and baggage, he hurried, 11et·s. land 2. acoompanied by a few troops, across the Many strong statements have bean mnde desert to Babylon." Josephus professes to in regard to the alleged conflict between be quoting the very words of Berosus, and the chronology of the verse before us e.nd nG doubts have been thrown on his acouracy that of Jeremiah o.nd, it is se.id, other pa.rte or good faith in such cases. Berosus was in of Scripture. Even Lenorma.nt (' La Divi- a position to be well informed, and had no nation,' 179) declares the Book of Doniel to motive to speak other than the truth. The begin with a gross error," L'erreur grossiere evidence of Berosus establishes that before du premier verset du chapitre i. metta.nt en his nccession to the throne, N ebucha.dnezza.r l'a.n 3 de Joie.kim la. premiere prise de had made an expedition into Syria.. If we Jeruse.lem par Nebuchodorossor." A gree.t take the statement in the verse before us deal is ma.de of this by all assailants of the o.long with tbl1t of Jer. xxvi. 1 (where the authenticity of De.niel. Thus Hitzig says, text is, however, doubtful, as the clause is " The opening of the book is enoumbered omitted in the LXX.), that the fourth by an absurd de.ta and a statement of fe.ot yeu.r of Jeboiskim was the first of Nebu- which is primajacie doul,tful." chadnezzar, and look at them in the light What is the extent of this error, or of the account given by Berosus of the rather of these errors? They a.re: (1) The accession of N ebuchadnezzu, we oome to the statement that Nebuoha.dnezza.r visited conclusion tl,n.t he ascended the throne the Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim year a.ftt':r he visited Jeruse.lem. Moreover, King of Judah. (2) The further statement we must remember that the first yeu of that N ebncha.dnezzar was king at the.t date. Nebucl.ie.dnezza.r was not the year of his (3) The statement that he besieged the city accession, but was the year following the and plnnclered the temple. All whieh, it is next new year afl.t:r the.t event. If a monarch alleged, contradict other parts of Scripture, e.scended the throne e.ctually in the month mainly various pe.ssages in Jeremiah. I ,ya.r cf one year, that year would be Against the second of these statements r~ckoned e.s "the begilllli □ g of his reign;" is placed Jer. xxv. I, "In the fourth year nol till the firdt of the month Nisan in the of Jehoie.kim son of Josiah Kiug of Judah, following yt:&r did bis first year begin. In that WC18 the first year of Nebuchadnezzar Jerlil!alem the Cblcu.lation of the years of King of Babylon." Further, it is pro- a moll1l.rch began from his accession, and claimed that in .this prophecy thus dated, ww; independent of the ce.lenda.r. Hence, the coming of the Babylonian king is  CJI. I. 1-- 21.] TUE DOOK OF DANII◄:I.. 3