vorsion of '.rhcodolion ie shorter by this-tho.t dcgr_co ~,f carA. '.['~e ditrorPnces mainly H docs not givo U10 rofolivo situation of C(JDBIP,t In tranHpORI ttons of the BUccesBi Vfl those who threw the throo Hebrews into liturgic summonings. On the whole thl) tho furno.co, o.nd those who fed it with fuel. Septuagint is the longer. ' Tho Byrio.o Version ie on the whole in closer The phenomena before us have 11 certain agreement with Theodotion, but he.e a dif- bee.ring on the question of the ·•½te of ferent o.ocount of the fuel thrown in, o.nd Daniel. If we are correct in our assumption o.leo mentions tho.t the o.coueers were de- of the date of the Song of Azariah, then its voured. The forty-ninth verse, in the exclusion from the caaonical Daniel-written Peshitto., differs C'.onsiderably from the other o.s it almost certainly was in Palestine, and versions, "Then the angel of the dew composed in the Hebrew or Aramaic tongue descended with Hananiah, Azo.riah, and -proves the canon to have been fixed at Misho.el into the midst of the fumo.ce of an earlier date, and, by implication, places fire." The rest of the passage agrees, as Daniel at least as far back ae that earlier we he.ve so.id, with Theodotion, but the de.te, and shows that it then was commonly differences are euflicien t to prove a differ- known, and consequently disposes of the ence of origin. It ie to be observed that Macce.bean origin of Daniel. Farther, in the three names are given in their Hebrew the passage in I Mace. ii. 59, where the form, but in a different order from that in dying Mattathie.s exhorts his sons to valour, which they occur in the first chapter-a he refers to the deliverance of the three from fact that gives greater plausibility to the the fume.ce, o.nd calls them by their Hebrew view stated a.hove, the.t when the Bong of names. This affords a strong presumption the Three Hebrews was originally inter- the.t e.t the time, at all events, when First polated, the Bong of Azariah we.a not Maccabees was written, the song of the three inserted. was not infrequently added to the canonical When we go on to the song of the three, and Book of Daniel. We ce.n try among ollJ'Elelves look at it somewhat; closely, there a.re whe.t to see bow many e.esociate the incident of the appear to be traces of a process. From the fiery fume.ce with the ne.mee of Hananiah, fifty-second verse to the fifty-sixth inclusive Mishael, e.nd Aze.rie.b, compared with those in all the versions, we find the Deity ad- who recall it, when we mention the Baby- dressed. " Blessed art thou," is the begin- lonian ne.mee Shadre.ch, Meehech, and Abed- ning of ea.eh verse ; e.nd the second portion nego. If we could affirm that this gives ue of ea.eh verse concludes with, "to be praised the very words used by the dying priest, we and glorified art thou for ever;" or, e.s the could then place the date of this song back Byria.o rendere it, " to be praised art thou as far as B.O. 200 ; but not to press this, the o.nd to be exalted e.rt thou for ever." The First Book of Macce.beee mllSt have been following portion of the song is an address written not later than B.o. 100. Then at to e.ll living creatures to praise G od-ach the.t time the Book of Daniel had been BO verse beginning, " Bless the Lord," e.nd oon- popular o.nd had enjoyed such a vogue that cludee, "Praise and exalt his Name for there he.d e.lree.dy been added to it e.t least ever." If this difference me.y be regarded the germ of this song. This addition mllSt ae intimating a difference of origin, the have been made eo long before that it too second is the feebler and more diffuse, he.d become popular. It will be very diffi- o.nd therefore likely to be the seoondary cult to imagine that e.11 these processes could formation. he.ve taken place between a.a. 168 11,11d We do not need to go over this with any B.O, 100.
HOMILETICS. Ver. 6.-"The burning fiery furnace." I. IT IS SINFUL TO COMPLY WITH BELIGIOUS ORDINANCES WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH OUR CONVICTIONS. The sin in the present instance would have been apparent, viz.: 1. Jews, who believed in a spiritual God, were invited to idolatry, This is the substitution of a material for the spirilual as an object of worship. To a spiritual man all compliance with religious forms in which it appears to him that material rites take the place of spiritue.1 service, involves the same sin of idolatry (John iv. 24). 2. Jews, who worshipped a holy God, were invited to bow before the image of an unholy god. The character of the Babylonian divinities was immoral, To worship one of them was to do honour to immorality. Where there are morally degrading features of any religion-such as the use of indul- gences and the confessional in the Church of Rome-association with that religion must endanger our moral character. 3. Men who had no faith in a false god were required to worship him, This would involve deceit. The guilt of an ignorant, 118 THE BOOK OF DANIEL. [on, m.1-30,