The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 48

thnt these three yenrs ended with Jehoill• it incorrect. Tho words of Professor Dcv:\n kim's lifo, 11.nd thllt he never rebelled mny iudicnte that it is Derosus he suspcets. Against the Kinn: of Bnbylon. Dr. Htigo It seems haz,mlous for nny one to do so Wi11ekler, 'Gesohiehtc H11.b, und Aesyr.,' in the fe.ce of the numerous confirmations !!JO, spea\dng of the ~truggle bl'tween that Derosus is recdving as to the succes- Neclio and Nebuohadnezzar, says, "The sion of the monarchs within the historio conflict took plooe at Cerchemish, where pe1·iod. We sl,all quote from Professor Ncolio apparent,ly intended to cross the Devan the beginning of the pe.ssngo: "When Euphr,.l.es. NebuohAdnezzar was victorious, Nebuchadnezz1u's fnthor heard that the 11.ud compelled the Egyptians to evacuate satre.p who had beou set over Egypt and Syria nnd Pnlestine. He him~elf pursued the regions of C<Ble-Syria and Phoonioie1 them aucl took po81!888ion of the provinces had rebellod against him, he sent forth his that were formerly Assyrian, and made the son N ebuche.dnezze.r," oto. Professor Bevan vnssRl princes, one of whom was Jehoiakim comments on the passage thus : "Berosus of Judah, to do homage to himself." Dr. here assumes that Egypt as well ns Crole- H. Winckler is under no such misappre- Syrie. had already been conquered by the Lension as that which led Professor Bevan Chaldee.ns before the death of Nabopolnsse.r to Rssert that it was in the latter part only and the be.ttle of Carchcmish-a notion of Jchoiakim's reign that he submitted to contre.ry to all evidence." Is this con- Nebuchadnezzar. It was either the same clusion warranted? Is the interpretation ycar as the battle of Carchemish, or at most Professor Bevan puts on the passage oor- the year following, that Nebuchadnezzar rect? The interpretation we put on it is reached Syria and Palestine. Even on the a different one. Berosus regarded Necho date in Jeremiah, that could not be later as a satrap of the Babylonian monarch. than the fifth year of Jehoiakim. We have This is advanced by Keil, and, therefore, seen that there is probably no date given Professor Bevan must have known this in J crcwill-h for the battle of Ce.rchemish ; answer as possible; why did he not endea- it may as likely have been the second or vour to show it insufficient? There seems third yeo.r of Jehoi&kim as the foUJ'th. every probability that Necho himself or his If we may take the passage from Berosus immediate predecessors were the vassals of as nuthorito.tivc, and compe.re it with the Asshurbanipal. N abopolasse.r, who succeeded pnsso.,,<YCS in Kings, we reach the probability Asshnrbanipal as King of Babylon, may well that it was in the second year of Jehoiak.im have claimed the submission of Phe.re.oh- that the battle of Ce.rchemish took ple.ce. N echo as the vassal of his predecessor, ea We know that Professor Bevan has declared Sargon did the submission of the ve.ssals of this pa.ss:i.ge from Berosue "a.I together un- Shal1110.neser. It is quite after the manner trustworthy." Had there not been some of Babylonian and .Assyrian monarchs to support for the authcuticity of De.uiel in call resistance age.inst their autliority re- tl,is passaga, it never could he.\"e been dis- bellion whenever there was any plausible trusted. When an author, writing seriously, historical excuse for doing so. We have refers to an authority, gives references, really, then, in this passage from Berosus, and writes down a long passage which he a compendious account of the rompaign allcg-es to be quoted rerbatim, we generally which began with the victory of Carcheruish. credit him with fair accuracy. If the lt is easy to impose a false interpretntion passage in question is twice transcribed by on a passnge, and then, on the ground of him, we are yet more confirmed in our that interpretation, reject it. On the in• 1·iew. If other authors, acquainted alike terpretation we he.vo given above, the with the nuthor quoting and the nuthor account gh·en by Berosus exactly fits in quoted, refer to this quotation witliout any with the statements of Scripture. sign tliat there was any bad faith, we have Berosus, however, goes on to tell how e. elm.in of evidence of which only one Nebuchadnezzar wo.s stopped in his career recklessly prejudiced could \"enture ~o deny of conquest by the news of his fo.tuer's the cogtncy. Such is the case with the death, and how he proceeded with only his passage before us. Josephus quotes the light-armed troops across the desert, and passage twice (' Antiquities,' L 11. 2, and arrived in Babylon to assume the reins of • Contra .Apionem,' L 19); he gives the refer- government. All this suit.a very well the ence to the second book of Berosus's ' Chai- statements of Scripture, Daniel included. dean History; ' in the second of these cases Professor Bevan does not end here; he he professes to be ce.refully quoting verbatim, further denies the possibility of a siege of in the former he pr;1ctically does so, the Jerusalem and of o. plundering of the diiforences a.re such as might easily be due temple in the reign of Jehoiakim, on the to copyists. Eusebius also quotes Berosus, ground of the silence of Jeremiah and and knows Josephus, o.nd refers to this Kings. But in 2 Kings xxiv. 11 we are quotation, and mti,kes no note tho.t he found told that Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city ('II, J, 1-21.] TIIF~ IlOOK OF DANIEL. 7