EXPOSITION. the nineteenth of 2 Kings xxv.' Against CHAPTER lli. this is the fact that the month of the year of the reign of N ebucha.<lnezzar is given (2 Vere. 1-30.-TBE GOLDBN hu.GE, AND Kings xxv. 8), and this implies the adoption TH1!I FmBY FuBNACJJJ, of the Babylonian chronology. lt is cer- Ver. 1.-Nebuche.dnezze.r the king me.de tainly not to be expected that N ebucbad- e.n image of gold, whose height we.s three nezze.r would traverse the Ion~ distance score cubits, and the breadth thereof six that separated him from his capital merely cubits: he set it up in the pie.in of Dura, in to erect a statue or obelisk. At the so.me the province of :Babylon. The Septuagint time, we a.re told (Jer. Iii 20), as we have Version is full of redundance and interpola- mentioned above, that in the ei~hteenth tion, "In the eighteenth year King Nebu- year of his reign, Nebucho.dae~ar took chadnezzar, who ruled cities and countries, eight hundred and thirty-two persons cap- and all those dwelling (in them) over the tive. This may be that he sent these earth from India even to Ethiopia, me.de a prisoners by a convoy, for it is clear that golden image; the height of it was sixty a larger number of captives were taken cubits, and the breadth of it six cubits, and when Jernsalem wo.a captnred the.r. e{ght set it up in e. plain within the boundary of hundred and thirty-two. Tbeymo.yhavebeen the province of Babylon." The reason for to.ken during the progress of the siege, in translating Dura "boundary" is natural sallies, etc. The number of prisoners ta.ken enough, for the word means something in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar approximate to this. Theodotion begins in does not suggest the great numbers that are the ijame way, giving the date "the eigh- implied in Ezekiel to be dwelling on the teenth year;" the place is l.v .... alq, t.mpi, Chebe.r, otherwise we might be inclined to As for the rest, it is in agreement with regard these differences from the received the text of the Massoretes. The Peshitta chronology e.s due to e. different mode of follows a text that must have been identical reckoning. Even though the date given in with the Me.ssoretic, e.s also does the Vulgo.te. Jer. Iii. 29 were the date of the capture of The date inserted into the Greek Version Jerusalem, it is uot at ell likely that the is improbable. At tho.t time, if we take capture of an obscure city in the hill country the chronology of 2 Kings xxv. 8, Nebu- of Judieo. was an event on e.cco1111t of w,!iich chadnezzar was engaged in the siege of a specie.I thanksgiving woulu be given. Jerusalem. Jerusalem was to.ken in the The description of the empire of Nebu- nineteenth yeo.r of Nebucho.dnezze.r, after a chadnezzar in the Septuagint is borrowed two years' siege. In Jer. lii. 29 we e.re told, however, that Nebuche.clnezze.r took eight 1 This passage, Jer. Iii 2&--30, is omitted
hundred 1rnd thirty-two captives in his from the SeptuagintL and therefore is of eighteenth year, nud the difference between doubtful authenticity.- Although it may Bo.bylonio.n uml Jowish chronology suggests not be by Jeremiah, it may give correct tho.t the eighteenth yoo.r of Jer. Iii. nmy ho infornm lion. 96 TIIE BOOK UF DANrnL. [orr. m. 1-30.