The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 47

mission of Jehoinkim, and that tho seventy ezlen8o by Josephus, once a1'owedly ,,,rba- yonrs of Jeremiuh reckon from then, we tim, to he" altogether untrustworthy." Dr. have a olosor approximation. N ebuchatl- Jingo Winckler, to whom he refors with nezznr's first year was n.o. G04, the year of respect ( Critical Re'l!ieu,, iv. 126), follows his accession wns u.o. G05. Heither in this this incriminated pnssnge in making N ebn- year or the yerLr before (Berosus, in Jo- cha.dnezza.r commo.ncl nt Carohemish while sophus, • Contra Apionem ') ho conquered his father r,et lived. Indeed, when he has Syria, in n.o. 605 or 606, he would receive not to assail Daniel, ProFeseor Bevan follows tho submission of Jehoiakim. We have thus Berosus as q noted by Joseph ne. If Ne bu- nn interval of sixty-six or sixty-seven years cho.dnezzar defeated Necho before his ac- bolween this date and the entrnnco oF Cyrus cession to the throne, then Jer. xlvi. 2 is into Babylon, and sixty-seven or sixty-eight further at variance with Kings and Chro- ye11rd to the issue of the decree of Cyrus in nicles than we have ma,!e it out to be. Jl.O. 538, which is n much closer approxi- Another synchronism is pointed out by mation to seventy yea.re than o.ny other K.ranichfolcl. In 2 Kings xxv. 27 (Jer. Iii. starting-point gives. 31) it is said," ln the seven and tliirtieth We ha.ve a.nether synclironism of the year of the captivity of JehoiachiD King kings of Judah a.nd the reign of Nebu- of Judah, in the twelrth month, on the cho.dnezza.r. We a.re told (2 Kings xxv. 2) seven and twentieth day of the month, Evil- tha.t Jeruse.lem "wns besieged unto the Meroclach . . . in the year that he began to eleventh yea.r of King Zedekio.h." In vcr. 8 reign die\ lift up the head of Jehoiachin we are told that "in the fifth month, on King of Judah out of prison." Berosus the seventh day of the month, which is the iuforms us that Nebuchadnezzar reigned nineteenth year of King N ebuchadnezze.r, ... forty-three years. If we may coUI1t the he entered Jeruso.lem." In Jer. xxxix. 2 years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign according we are told, "In the eleventh year of to the Babylonian mode of reckoning, we Zedekiah, in the fourth month, a.nd the may neglect the fragments on either side, ninth day of the month, the city wa.s broken and reckon his reign forty-three years com- up." We see, then, that the seventh of plete. We may subtract the thirty-seven the fifth month of the nineteenth year of years from the forty-three, and find that Nebucha.dnezzar coincided with the ninth it_wa.s in the sixth year of Nebuchadnezzar day of the fourth month of the eleventh that Jehoia.chin was carried away captive, yea.r of Zedekiah. We see further tha.t, contra.dieting 2 Kings xxiv. 12, and making notwithsto.nding tha.t Zedekioh is ea.id to it clear that, if this is the case, it was not have reigned eleven years (2 Kings xxiv. the fourth but the fifth year of Jehoiakim 18), he only reigned ten yeo.rs and little that synchronized with the first of N ebu- more than three months. His nephew chadnezzar. This is not an insuperable reigned three months (2 Kings x.xiv. 8), clifficulty to a student of Daniel, as N ebu- or three months a.nd ten days (2 Chron. cha.dnezz111· would merely be called king by xxxvi. 9). We cannot a.ssume that Je- prolepsis in the verse before us. It is hoinkim reigned eleven complete years; the signilicaut that Professor Bevan does not probability is tho.t it wne only ten years refer to any other possible basis of chro- and some months. If we take-pace the nology. When any other is guilty of suca critics-2 Chron. xxxvi. 10 as relating n an omission, he is severe in his criticism. It fact, then we may regard the reign of Je- certainly would be interesting to see Pro- hoinchin as completing the eleveuth year, fessor Bevan attempting to harmonize Jer. reckoning from his fo.ther's accession. In Iii. 31 with Jer. xxv. 1. tha.t oase the length of time from the ac- When we tum to 2 Kings x:riv. l-7, we cession of J ehoiakim to the capture of find nothing o.t variance with what we find Jerusalem was twenty-one years and three in D,miel, or in what we have deduced of months: from that subtra.ct the eighteen the progress of events. ProFessor Bevnn years and four mouths of Nebucho.dnezzar, says, "Tha.t J ehoiakim was the vassal of and we havo two years am! eleven months.• Babylon during the latter p1u-t of his rei~n If this was the Bo.bylouio.n reckoning of is certain." We should very much like to his !'eigu, then Nebuchadnezzar had really know the ground of his oerto.inty that the ascended the throne during the previous latter part of Jehoiak:im's reign was passed yea.r. Professor Bevan asserts the pnssnge in n sta.te of vassalage to Babylon. The from Derosns, whioh is twice quoted in Book of Kings in the passage before us distinctly s!lys tho.t afler three years he 1 Confirma.tory of this is 2 Kings xxiv. rebelle,1. We do not know when the three 12, "And the King of Bo.bylon took him years began, nor wheu they ended. We (Johoiachin] in the eighth year of his should like muoh to know what ground of reign." If eight is subtracted from eleven, oertainty Professor Bevan Ila.a. If we take the result is tliree. hill words as they stand, they ouglit to mean  6 THE BOOK 01? DANlEL. [en. 1. 1-21.