The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 70

or his dream, then the statement in the curse removed, nn<l Judah 11ermitted to text is 1011a objcctionl\hlo. This was 11110h retnm to their dty and temple. 'l'he a marvellous feat, 11.nd one that BO put objection to this view, urged by Professor Daniel above a.II the wise men of Babylon, Bevan, is that the author elsewhere" never that the language of the vene before ua alludes t.o the event save indirectly (ob. ix. is mtber rhetorical than exaggerated. 25)." To this it m11.y be answered that the Yer. 21.-.&.nd D&D.iel oontinued even whole ninth chapter goes on the sssump• unto the ftnt year of King Cyru.1. The tion that the seventy yeare are now all Septuagint supplies n,,.,,..;,~. Theodotion but over, and therefore that the return snd the Peahitta 11.gree with the Me.ssoretio. cannot be long dolo.yed. Wo regard this It h&11 been objecte<I by Ca.non Driver that silence of Daniel in respect to the return the nstural classical order of the lKtter two from Babylon aa one of the strongest words should have been hammewk Kor&h, evidences of the authenticity of the book, not, aa it is in the MaBBoretio, Koresh Everybody knows how largely it bulks in hammelek. The Septuagint text seems to preceding prophecy, and how important it have had paneem, which would make the is in after-days. No one writing a religious order perfectly classical. A greater diffi- romanoe could have failed to have laid cultr is to explain bow it is said that great prominenoe on this event, and in- De.11icl "continued," or, if we take the trodnoed Daniel as inducing Cyrus to issue Hebrew literally "was," until the fint the decree. On the contrary, be does not veo.r of " Cyl-ns the king," when in the even mention it. This is preoisely the ienth cho.pter the third yee.r of Cyrus is oonduct that would be followed by 11 referred to. There are several ways of contemporary at the present time. In getting over this diffioulty. The fuat way religious biographies of the past genera- is to suppose that some words have dropped tion thnt involve the year 1882, when the out of the te:r.t. There are, however, Reform Act was passed-the greatest po- different ideaa &a to the words so lost. litical change of this century-we find that Thus Bleek would supply "in high respect most of them never once refer to it. If any iu Ba.bvlon." Earlier commentators would one should take Cowper's' Letters,' written supply·.. in Babylon," tbinl.-ing that not im- during the American War, he will find possibly he returned to Palestine. Jerome comparatively few references to the whole --one of these--does not, however, intrude matter, although from, at all events, 1780 his suggestion into the text, &a does Ewald. to 1788, we have letters for nearly every His suggestion is that th,e om;itte~ words week, and they occupy nearly three hundred are "iu the king's court,' which 1B much pages. Now, if a person were condensing the same as Delitzsch's "at the court." these and selecting passages from them, he liitzig is credited by Kranicbfeld_ with might easily make such a selection ns would asserting that the author dtd not intend contain not a single reference to that to IJlRke his hero live beyond the year war or to any political event whatever. he refers to-the first year of Cyrus. In Yet Cowper was interested in the struggle his commentary, however, Hitzig suggests that was going on. The main objection that b''sha'ar hammelek," in the gate of the to Hengstenberg's view is the gramma- king," has dropped out. He does certainly tical one that it implies that we should hint that the sentence, to be complete, would read 'TT' instead of •:,•, and there is no need ~u,yah (:i:.i;:), not ha.yah (:i;,:i)- Zockler trace in the versions of this various rending. would supply the same word. There is The LXX. has ;jv; Theodotion has •-ylv<To; certain] v this t.o be seid for the above the Pesbitta has jo01 (hu): Jerome hRII theory....:.that the sentence as_ it sta.nds is fuit. It is somewhat difficult to come to incomplete. The verb /1Q,11ah 1s ~ever used any conclusion, but there are certain thing■ instead of ?!,ayah. At the same_ time, there we must bear in mind. In the first place, is no trace in any of the versions of e.ny an author does not usually contradict hie difficulty in regard to the texL .A:nother statements elsewhere directly. He may :method of meeting the difficulty 1s that implicitly do so, but not when direct dates ad.opted by Hengstenber~, followed by are given. If he should fail to put the Jlii,vernick 0 but suggested Ill the eleventh matter right, some other will be sure to do century by Jephet-ibn-Ali. It is this-that so, if his work attains sufficient popularity e.s tl.ie first year of Cyrus was the year to be commented upon. We may thus be when be allowed the Jews to return to ~ure that there is some solution of the tLeir own land, that the attainment ?f th!-9 apparent contra.diction between the verse a1tnu, ,r.irabilis was a.n element lD blS before us and ob. x. In the next pie.co, wonderful prosperity, tLat he who had we must note that tliis verse is the work mourned for tl,e sins of his people, who of the editor, probably also the trandator bad. keen one of the earlitest to feel the e.nd condenller, of this eo.rlier part of Do.nieL 'll'ot:ti of captivity, should live io see the  OH. I, 1-21.] THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 29