The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 49

in tho reign or Jehoinchin; hut in 2 Chron. shut hie gat~s agninst tho conquerord. xxxvl. there le no reference too. siege. As '!'hat ho should bo mnde prisoner withn 11 t tho critico.l decision is that ChronioleA is tho city being captured or plundered, miv\,t derived from Kings, this silence is a thing we have said, easily happen. 'l'hat its ;ur'. to be nolecl; o.nd we might thus clccluce tho.t rcnrlor should follow was fliso naturo.l; that the notico of suoh a siege was no pnrt of tho conqueror shoulrl demanrl numomu 8 tho genuine text or Kings. We might, hostages and a huge ransom, .,n,l that this indeed, proceed to say, "In such a case the ro.nsom should have been snpplierl from tho argument from silenoe is very strong, if vessels of the house of the Lord, was simply not absolutely CO[lclusive," e.e cloes Pro- what he.d happened timo e.nd a.go.in before. fessor Bevan in o.nother connection. In Fairly interpreted, the words before us mean Jcr. :uxvi. 30 we have the cleath of Je- no more. hoiakim prophesiecl. If the prophecy he.d We see, then, that not later the.n the fiftlt been falsified by the result, the temptation yee.r of Jehoie.kim-even on the supposition would have been immense to omit or modify that the de.le in J er. xlvi. 2 applies to the the prophecy; yet there is no account of battle of Carchemish-N ebuchadnezzar must hie death, either in Kings or Chronicles, the.t have received the submission of Jehoiakim. fits the prophecy. The account Josephus In the verses before us this is so.id to have gives.of the event suits the prophecy, e.nd is to.ken place in the third year of Jehoiakim; not incredible in itself. The 11rgument from the dilference, then, is simply the matter silence is always hazardons, and doubly so of one yee.r, or e.t most two. No student in the present oo.se. of Scripture can be ignorant of the hopeless Professor Bevan asserts that, according confusion of the chronology of the Books or to Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar" plundered the Kings, e.nd how completely they are at temple." This is the third of the alleged variance with the Assyrian Co.non. Much contradictions· of fact and Scripture which can be done to get over these difficulties by critics have found in Dan. i. 1. There is showing that there were different modes of nothing about" plundering" in the passage: reckoning. Sometimes a king associated his it is not even said that he took the city. It son with him, e.nd the son's reign might is so.id that Jehoie.kim was to.ken, which be reckoned from his father's dee.th or his might be without the city being captured, association with his father. Even in matters e.s was the case with Hoshea e.nd So.maria.. much more recent-there me.y be statements The fact that N ebuche.dnezzar took "o. e.s to dates differing by e.s much e.s the portion of the vessels of the house of God " date given in Daniel differs from that is decisive against there being o.ny plunder- deduced from Jeremiah. Profe,sor Rawson ing. If the temple he.d been plundered Gardiner, in his ' History of the Gree.t Civil after a successful siege, the portion of the War,' under date January 30, 1649, tells n11 vessels which escaped the hands of the of the execution of Charles I. In the Babylonians would have been inconsider- appendix he gives the text of the warrant, able. If the city he.d been taken, a fact of and it is dated January 29, 1648, and com- suoh importance would have been men- mands the execution to take place "on the tioned. In this case certainly "the e.rgu- morrowe." When we turn to Clarendon's me[lt from silence is very strong." The • History of the Great Rebellion,' bk. xi., capture of the oity we.s the nature.I termi- we find him saying, "This unparalleled nation of the process begun, e.nd when that murder e.nd parricide was committed upon termination is not mentioned, the conclusion the thirtieth J e.nne.ry in the year, according is inevitable the.t it was never reached. to the account used in England, 1648." Let us look at the probabilities of the Critics of the type of ProfessoP Bevan ought cnse. Nebuchadnezzar pursues the broken necessarily to declare Professor Gardiner's Egyptian army, demanding the homage of history altogether unworthy of credit, be- all the recent vassals of Egypt, formerly, of cause of this difference. The only thing course, ve.sse.ls of A.ssyi:io.. J ehoiakim he.d that might hinder them would be the fa.et been plo.ced on the throne by Egyptinn that they, e.s do all intelligent people, know power, superseding his younger brother, who that, according to "the account u.,ed in he.d been crowned by the Be.bylonie.n pe.rty, England," at thA.t time the year began, not e.nd, probably, passing over also his elder with January 1, but with March 25. Did brothel Johanan. All his interests were they not feel the.t they held e. brief a.go.inst bound up in Egypt; he would not believe the authenticity of Daniel, they would the defeat of Egypt was so utter o.nd irre- ree.lize how weak the argument we.a which trievable; he was e.lwe.ys hoping the.t the depended merely on the difference of one King of Egy}'t would venture again beyond year. There we.s, according to some, e. the river of Egypt, e.nd hence, even after difference of nearly six months between his submission to Nebuche.dnezze.r, he re- the Jewish oo.lendar e.nd the Babylonian. belled ngainst him. Ho woult! certainly We know, further, tha.t there were two  8 THE BOOK OF DANIEL. [cu. 1. 1-21.