The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 50

~YII of reckoning the YMl'B of 11, king's ing the reign of a vassal king ma11 he.ve r1;ign-the Babylouie.n and Aesyrie.n, which beeu need iu Babylon, we know nothing did not begin to reokon till the new yee.r of it ; certe.inly there is no instance iu after the 1..-i.ug's M00811ion; and the Jewish, Scripture of anything parallel. Moreover, which dated the king's yee.!'8 from his ao- it implies the.t for three or four years oeesion. It might eRSily be that D1miel Nebuche.dnezzar allowed Phe.re.oh • Necho used the one mode of reokoning, e.nd Jere- to preserve, in the he.nde of hie v11.11sal miah the other. We will not press the Jehoiakim, e. frontier fortress in Jerusalem. fe.ct the.t the whole critioe.l argument 118· Yet agnin the state of matters, as implied 11mnes the statc,menta in Jeremiah to be in the narrative or 2 Kings xxix., is thnt acoure.te, e.l though it is notorious the.t the time elapsed during whioh bands of Che.1- te:i;t of that book is in e. woeful condition. deans e.nd Moe.bitos ravaged Judea.. We The IU!sertions of critics who ground eo feel this explanation is to be abandoned, as much on so little ought to be received with giving e. non-natural sense to the words. the ll&llle reserve as we receive the state- We would wish a further word with ments of the counsel for one side or the Professor Bevan and other oritios of hie other in e. oe.se before a court of law. The school. Professor Bevan reoognizes thnt it critics, however, wish to be regaxded as is not only necessary to point out a blunder, judges summing up evidenoe. but also to show how it a.rose. As we have We must, however, notice the method by already said, Professor Bevan would ex- which Hengetenberg gets over this alleged plain this alleged blunder by a confusion chronological difficulty, in which he is of the three years of submission to Nebu- followed by Kre.nichfeld and Keil He ohadnezze.r with the years of Jehoie.kim'e says tbe.t i.i\::i means .. to set out for,'' e.s reign. "The author or Daniel follows the well as .. to come," and brings an instance, e.coount in Chronicles, e.t the ea.me time Jonah i. 3, .. a ship going(~~) to Te.rshish.'' assuming that 'the three yee.rs' in Kings Keil alleges numerous other inste.noes which, de.te from the beginning of Jehoie.kim's however, must be considered of doubtful reign, and the.t the bands of the Chaldeans validity. Although we do not agree with were a regular army commanded by Nebu- this interpretation, the instance from Jonah chadnezzar." By the above hypothesis the prevents us enrlol'Bing the reckless statement author of Daniel was well acquainted with of Professor Bevan, that Hengstenberg's in- Kings and Chronicles; elsewhere Professor terpretation is "no less contrary to Hebrew Bevan assumes the.t he was intimately the.n English usage." A person standing on acque.inted with the prophecies of Jeremiah. the landing-stage at Liverpool, seeing e. Let us look at this alleged blunder in the Cunarder getting up steam to depart, would light of this knowledge. not say, "That is a ship coming to New The natural conclusion from 2 Chron. York;" but a Jew could use ttl::l in such mvi. 7, 8, compared with Jer. :u:xvi. 30, a CSBe. Professor Bevan, as we have already is that Jehoiakim we.a bound in order to be said, holds a brief against the authenticity ce.rried to Babylon, but was put to death by of Daniel, and he will spe.re no device to Nebuchadnezzar instead. This is very gain his case. We admit the.t the meaning much the idea of whe.t happened according which Hengstenberg and those who follow to Josephus. How was it that the author him attach to the word is not the common or of Daniel started with the beginning of nntural one in the connection. If e. person the reign of Jehoie.kim? In the light of asked permission of e. landowner to visit his Chronicles this made his reign really only demesne, and was e.nswered, " If you wish three years, but Chronicles e.nd Kings to enter my grounds, I will let you," he make his reign eleven yee.re. He knew the would be surprised were his entrance op• Book of Jeremiah intimately: how did he posed, and would think he was mocked if not know that the fourth year of Jehoiakim it were pointed out to him that "let" meant coincided witli the first of Nebuchadnezzar? at times "to hinder." He knew the Book of Kings, he knew the Another attempt at getting over the various chronological notes in it; how could difficulty here is that of Michaelis, Bashi, he conceivably be ignorant, to the extent and other older commentators, Jewish and Professor Bevan imagines him to be, of what Chru.tie.n. It is that the tliird year of naturally follows from these notes? There Jehoiakim is, in the verse before us, reckoned are only two suppositions-that he knew a from the time when he became V8.!illal to solution of the apparent contra.diction, and the King of Babylon. This is the view took it for granted that everybody else knew w hicL, in some sort, Professor Bevan adopts, it ale~ mood of mind more natural to a not with ti,e iutention of getting over the contemporary of the events he is narrating, difficulty, Lut, e.s Bertholdt, of explaining than to e. /aleariue writing centuries after; ho\\· the alleged blunder ea.me to he com- or these chronological notes were not io the mitted. Although such a mode of reckon- text of these books when he wrote, in which en.,. 1-21.] THE BOOK OF DANil<:L. 0