The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 59

of Roman Ce.t,holio Christenrlom, who lrns Doe~ t.he 1tuthor of Dnniol ever att.rihnl.e for lhe !net twolve oenlnriee nlwnye osenmed to Nebuchadnezzar th" words on whidt Pro- Bnolher thnn hie originnl nnrno on neocnd- fessor Bevo.n grounds his chr1rge? Thr, ing tho p11pal throne. With members of B words are not in the Septuagint. Thus munnroh'e court this ie octeily intelligible. Professor Bevan-never admitting the pn-- The deeiro was to h11vo namoe of good omen ; eibility of the name Bolteslrnzzar having a foreign no.me might either be me1>ning- been modified from something else, althn'l£slt leee or suggest anything but though te full the evidence of the versions pointa rn0,t of good omon. In considering these no.mos, distinctly to that, and although he crinrlirlly there nro certain preliminary f11,cte we must admits it to h11,ve taken place in regard t0 bear in mind. In the first pl11,ce, there ie a Abed-nego-11,eeumes an etymology for ii, grent probability that e.ll the no.mes had a as if it were the only possible one, whicl1 it Divine element in them, that ie, contained ie not; and on the ground of this etymology, ae an element the name of 11, Babylonian and on the BBBumption that certain words god. The great mBSB of the names of B11,by- were in the original text of Dn.niel, which lonian 11,nd Assyrian offici11,le ho.d this. Next, e.re yet not in the Septuagint, he conclurlea it is by no means improbable tho.t, at the tho.t the author of Daniel did not know tl1e hands of the Jewish scribes, the names have meaning of the no.me he had given to his sUBtained some oonsidero.ble cho.nge, more hero. Surely this is special pleading. If especially ae regards the Divine element. there h11,s been o.ny te.mpering with the The Jewish scribe had few scruples BB to nBme or modi.liCBtion of it, then Professor altering a name when there was anything Bev11,n's BSsumption falls to the ground, and in it to hurt hie sensibilities. It is hor- his argument with it; but there seems rible to him that Jone.than, the son of every probability that there h11,s been such Gershom, the son of Moses the great law- modification, 11,nd the effect of such modifi- giver, should be tbe originator of the false co.tion would be to deface the name of the temple at Do.n, o.nd so he inserts o. 11u11, heathen divinity in the name if there were and ohangcs Moshe," Moses," into "Manas- such. Further, if Professor Fuller's ety- seh." The scribe that copied out 2 Samuel, mology mo.y be mainte.ined, again Profeesor ooming to the name of Jerubbe.al, cannot Bevan's 11,esumption falls to the ground. endure to chronicle the fact that e. judge These two arguments do not conflict. A in Israel ever bore the name of the abomi- Jewish scribe, ignorant of ancient .Assyrian, nation of the Zidoniane as part of his name, might easily introduce e. modification which, and altered it to Jerubesheth. So we have despite his intentiori, did not remove all in the same book Ishbosheth for Ethbe.al, heathen divinity from the n11,me, onl_v and Mephibosheth for Meribbe.e.1. With a changed the divinity. If the original text foreign potentate it is different; but in the of Daniel did not contain the phrBSe in the oBSe of a Jew there always was a tendency fourth oho.pter, "according to the no.me of to blink such an awkward fact o.s bee.ring a my god," then agBin Professor Bevan's as- no.me with heathen elements, by o. slight sumption is proved groundless, and his change, The no.me given to Daniel is, in argument without value. The phrase in the Mo.ssoretio text, Belteehe.zze.r. From the question is not in the Septuagint, and there- fact that in the Septuagint, Theodotion, fore it is, to say the least, suspicious. It and the Vulgate, we have the king Bel- ho.a no such intimate connection with the shazzar and Daniel, as Babylonian magician, context as to show it p11,rt of the text; it is called by the same name, "Balle.ear," and just suoh e. phrase as would be put on the when in the Peshitta, the difference ie mugin as a gloss, 11,nd get into the text by very slight, and not always maintained, blunder of o. copyist. It may be observed we, for our po.rt, a.re strongly inclined tho.t Professor Benn merely follows Schra- to believe both names to have been der, alike in his derivation 11,nd deduction; the same. Professor Bevan (' The Book but he, not 8chta.cler, had before him con- of Daniel,' 40) is quite sure tho.t the tinually the Septuagint version of Daniel, author did not understand the meaning and he, not Schrader, is commentator on of the no.me given to Daniel. He (Pro- Daniel. .And to Hananiah of Shadrach. This fessor Bevan) derives the no.me from name is explained by Dr. Delitzsch as being Balaf-zu.ufzur, "Protect thou hie life." a modified transliterntion of Shudur-aku, Professor Full,r, with 11,e great plausibility, "the comm11,nd of Aku" (the moon-deity). 111akes it Bilat-sarra-ulzur, "Beltis protects With this Sohrnder agrees. There is always the crown." • If that· be the true deriva- the possibility of the n11,me having under- tion, then N ebuohadnezzar could quite cor- gone a change. Ou the other band, o.s the rectly say that he was called after the name name of the deity, Aku, does not appear in of hie god. Still more nocurnte would this Scripture, the Puritanio scribe might be etntement be if the name were Belshnzznr. unaware of its presence here. And to llut an uueney suspicion crosses onr n1ind. M·ishael of Meshac/1. This name hns cuuse,i DANlEL, 0  18 THE BOOK OF DANIEL. [CH, I, 1-21,