The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 51

case they are Jato lnterpole.tions, and there- house of the Lord, and a. le.rge number of Coro ve.l ueless. Professor Bevnn cannot be hostages, and then returned north. Some- permitted to invalide.te proofs of the e.ntben- thing like this seems to have occurred now. ticity of De.niel drawn from the e.ocure.oy The king was taken by the Bnbyloninna of the statements concerning Be.bylonie.n and the city submitted and ransomed tb~ ho.bits, by BBsertlng that these statements king by handing over a portion of the might hnve been deduced from Jeremiah e.nd vessels of the house of the Lord. The city, Kings, e.nd then assail the o.utheuticity of however, was not taken by asee.ult. Miqtzalh, De.niel, because some of its statements differ "part of," occurs also in Neh. vii. 70 in from Jeremiah. If he hnd shown Daniel this sense: we have it three times lat~r ignornnt of one or other of these documents, in this chapter-vers. 5, 15, and 18; but in nnd, from this, convicted him of incorrect- these cases it means " end." A word conso- ness, the e.rgument would he.ve had weight, nantally the same occnre in the sense before but, e.s it is, his arguments are mutue.lly us in J udg. xviii. 2, translated "ooaets." destructivo. Geeeniue would write the word miqq'lzath, We have thus endeavoured to show the.t and regard mi as representing the partitive there is no oh.ronologicol blunder in the preposition min. He would therefore trans- verses before us, that the basis on which late, "He took some from the number of the e.ssertion is me.de is in the highest the vessels." Kranichfeld objects to Hitzig'a degree doubtful, e.nd that the e.rgnments 11ssertion that m:p means" a part," and is fol- depend on snob minute points, that to lay lowed by Keil 11nd Zockler in regarding it, stress on them proves such an e.nimns 11s as a short form of the phrase, "from end to deprives the decision of e.11 the weight end," equivalent to the whole, thus making the.t otherwise would be due to the le11m- miqtzath mean "a portion from the whole." ing of the writer. The omission from the Syriac of the words which indicate that the vessels taken were Ver. 2.-And the Lord gave 1ehoiakim only a portion of those in the house of the King of 1udah into his hand, with part of Lord, shows how natural it was to imagine the veBBels of the house of God : which he that the deportation was total, and therefore oarried into the land of Bhi.na.r to the house we may lay the more emphasis on its of his god ; and he brought the vessels into presence ae proving that the temple wae not the treallUl'e-house of his god. The Greek plundered, but these vessels were the ransom versions of this verse agree with each other paid for the freedom of the king. Several and with the M11ssoretio text, save that the times had the treasures of the house of God Septuagint has K11pfo11 instead of e,oi) in the been taken away. In the days of Behoboam end of the first clause, and omits ot1Co11. The (1 Kings xiv. 26) Sbishak, acting probably Syriac Version omits the statement that it as the ally of Jeroboam, took away all the was " part" of the vessels of the house of treasures of the house of the Lord, and of God that was taken. It is to be observed the king's house, "he even took away all." that our transl11tors have not printed the It may be doubted whether Jerusalem wWI word "Lord" in capitals, but in ordinary captured (2 Oh.ran. xii 7); certainly the type, to indicate that the word in the original name of Jerusalem has not been identified is not the sacred covenant name usne.lly in the list of captured towns on the we.ll of written in English "Jehovah," but .A.donai. the temple at Karnak. We have referred That the Lord gave Jehoie.kim into the to the case of Joa.sh and Ame.ziah. The hand of N ebuohe.dnezze.r does not prove th11t succession of the pb..rsses, "Jehoiakim King Jerusalem w11s c11ptured by him. F1u from of Judah," and "pa.rt of the Teasels of the it, the natuml deduqtion is rnther thnt he house of God," is remarked by Ewald as did not capture the oity, although he cap- being abrupt, and he would insert," together tured the Iring. Thus in 2 Kings xvii. 4 with the noblest of the land." There is, we are told that Shalmnneser shut upHoshea however, no trace of &:::iy such omission to b., "and bound him in prison ; " in the follow- found in the ver,ious. It is possible that ing verse we nro informed that the King of this chapter may be the work of the early Assyria "besieged Samaria three years." collector and editor, and that he condensed That is to say, 11fter Shulmaneser had cap- this portion as well as, not unlikely, trans- tured Hoshea the king, he had still to besiege lated it from Ars.maio into Hebrew. Cap- the city. A similar event occurred earlier tives certainly were taken as well as booty, in the history of Judah and Israel. When as is implied by the rest of the narrative. Joush of Iemel defeated Amaziah a.nil took Which he carried into the land of Shillar to him prisoner, he proceeded then to J eru- the house of his god. There is no word in ealom. The city opened its gates to the the Hebrew corresponding to" which." The conqueror, and he curried off 1111 tho liteml rendering if, "And he carried them," treasures of the house of the Lord, anil of etc. It has been the subject of discussion tho king's house, and all the vessels of the whether we Ille to maintain that it ill 10 THE IlOOK OF DANIEL. [oo. 1. 1-21,