The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 79

EXPOSITION. OHAPTER IL but these contra.dictions were ench ea were not obvious. The only commentator who Vera. 1-49.-DANIEL FlBST BEOOMBS does not feel it incumbent on him, hnving DISTIN<lUISHED, noticed the difficulty, to give some hint of a poaaihle solution, ia Professor Bevan. Ver.1.-Andin the aeoondyearofthereign From the obviousness of the discrepBncy, of Nebuohadllezze.r Nebuohadllezzar dreamed we must assume that it was known to tl1e dreams, wherewith hie spirit we.a troubled, writer, and frorn this we must further and his sleep bra.ke from him. The versions aasume that the discrepo.ncy was regarded only differ verbally from the Ma.esorctic text by him o.e e. merely o.ppo.rent one, the ex- ea represented by the above. '.rhe Septuagint plo.nntion of which was so obvious e.t the renders, " And in the second year of the time he wrote that it wa.s needless to state reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he chanced to fall it. In making this statement, we refer to into dreams o.nd visions, o.nd to be troubled the origine.l documents from which our with his vision, o.nd his sleep went from present Do.niel was compiled. Another hy- him." The differences here tho.t mo.y evi- pothesis certainly is possible-that there is dence e. difference of text a.re slight. Theo- e. false reading here. Ewald has suggested dotion o.nd the Pesbitta. Bre very close to the the twelfth year, which implies tho.t the Massoretio. The Vnlga.te renders, "In the word ;,::,~)!. (esreh) has been omitted. The second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar main difficulty is that there is no sign that Nebucho.dnezze.r saw o vision, o.nd his spirit there is any difference of reading. If we was troubled, o.nd his vision (aomnium) a.re to correct the reading, we must go fled from him." If this is the true text of behind the present book to those docu.menta the Vulgete-nd it is pre-Olementine-the from which it has been formed. IT this vo.riation seems too great for po.re.phrase, portion of Daniel is a tro.nelation e.nd a con- o.nd yet it is o.n unlikely lectiono.l variation. densation of an Aramaic text, then J'i:1~ It is ea.sier to imo.gine the change to.king pl11ce in the Lo.tin, aomnua becoming aom- (tar'teen) is "two," bnt "three" would be l"l~l'.1 nium, especially if the final m wa.e repre- (t'lath). When the~ loses from any co.use.i~ sented, o.e so often in Lo.tin mo.nueoripte, upper pa.rt, it becomes little distinguisho.ble by a line over the preceding vowel. And from , ; this renders it not impossible that in the second year of the reign of Nebu• in the origino.l Aramaic narrative the events chadnezzar. Thie forms one of the chrono- in this oho.pier were dated "the third year logioal difficulties in the interpreto.tion of of N ebucho.dnezzo.r," not "the second." Daniel. There seems to be a contradiction This explo.ne.tion does not apply to the between the sto.tement iu this verse and older form of script as seen in Sind.schirli or the ohronologico.l date. afforded us by the in Egypt. There have been various other preceding chapter. If Nebuchadnezzar was ways of getting over the difficulty. One olreo.dy king when he placed Daniel and device, the.t of Josephns (' Antiq.,' x. 10. 3), his three companions in the ho.nde of mo.intained also by J ephet-ibn-Ali, is to date "Ashpen11z" and assigned them three the reign from the conquest of Egypt, when years of study, then as the three yea.re Daniel is supposed to reckon that Nebn- are by implication ended when the ex- chadnezzo.r bega.n to reign over the world. amination took place (oh. i. 18, 19), the The conquest of Egypt, by mee.ne of certain events narrated in this chapter must be recouditeinterpretatione of Soripture,Jephet d11ted not earlier th11u the third year of dates in the thirtieth year of N ebuchad- Nebuchadnezzar. Most oommento.tors re- nezze.r; the date of this chapter, then, ac- cognize this as e. difficulty, the explaining cording to him, is the tllirty-second yenr of of which is incumbent on them, whatever Nebuchadnezzar. Rashi explains this date their views as to the date or authenticity by referring it to the destruction of the of the book as e. whole m11y be. A really temple. Thero is, however, nothing to in- great writer - and th11t title cannot be dicate that any of these elates w11s ever denied to the author of" D11niel," if the book reckoned of importance in Babylonian be a. fiction-could never foll into such a ohronology. And, however important the glllring eelf-oontra.diction, We do not deny destruction of the temple was to the Jews, that even very great writers h11ve been few of them, even o.t the latest date critioism guilty of chro11ologio11l self-contradictions; assigns to Do.niel, would have the hardi-  TIIE BOOK OF DANIEL. [on. n. 1-40,