The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 203

ing Dantel." This use of ,rpbs after µ,µ114,- his stead," something might have been said ,,.,,., is unknown in olassio Greek. In for the view mainte.ined by all critics, that Homer's 'Odyssey• it is accuse.tive of person ; the author thought Delshazzar the son of in Plato, 'Laches,' 200 D, it is dative of N ebuohadnezzar. How oan the oritics assert pel'l!On; in • Legg.,' iii. 688, it is BOcusative this, and yet, as does Professor Devan, of person. It is, however, e:rrROtly parallel maintain this author intimate even with the wiih Gen. 11. 14, M"'!.-8ii"l1 ,..,pi ,µ.ov ,rpbs minutest portions of Jeremiah, Kings, o.nd +mpaca. npb, represents S~ in the Hebrew; in Chronicles? If so, how is it that ho did not the T111gum of OnkelOB and in the Peehitta know that both Kings and Jeremiah asserted this is translated by o:rR; in Paulos Tellensis it Nebuchadnezzar to have been succeeded by Evil-Merodach? This information occupies ts rendered by ~- llloreover, ROOOrding to the too prominent a place in both books for him M:aesoretic text, Belehazzar asks Daniel if to have been ignorant of it. We can only he is" that Daniel which art of the captivity understand his action in thus putting down of the children of Jude.h, whom the ling Belebazzar as the son of N obuohadnezzar my father brought out of Jewry?" The by assuming hie acoepto.noe of use.go. 'l'ho queen-mother he.d e&id nothing, according critics cannot explo.in it. 'rboee who main- to the verses before us o.s given in the tain the traditional view may do so by Me.ssoretic recension, of De.niel being a Jew. saying that Daniel, writing at the time, According to the Septuagint, the queen- knowing the real state of matters, the claim mother tells him whence Daniel is. Theo- of Belshazzar to Lo descended from Nebu- dotion agrees with the Maseoretic text, save chadnezzar, the foot that Evil-Merodach that it inserts " watchfulness " instead of had been killed, simply relates facts. Had "light," and omits the repetition of " thy he been inventing history, and acquainted father." The Peehitta is also substantially with the holy books, and all the informa- at one with onr received text. One of the tion they conveyed to everybody, he would great difficulties which ~11:lment_a.tors have of necessity bo.ve spent some pains in found in this part of the m01dent lS how Bel- explaining how his history came to differ ehazza.r could be ignorant of Daniel. Various so much from what one could dre.w from the means have been adopted to get over the Books of Kings e.nd Jeremiah. The two difficultv. One is that Daniel we.s away from accounts of Saul's meeting with David are Bab,\on up to this time (Jephet-ibn-Ali). not comparable with this, as we find the Archdeacon :Rose is certain he must have reason of the contra.diction in the coalescence known abouJ, him. The explane.tion of this of two different accounts. is as incumbent on the opponents of the Vera. 13-16.-Then we.a Daniel brought authenticity of Daniel e.s on its defenders, in before the king. And the king spake for they-the latter-declare it the work and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, of one author, e.nd it has had powerful which art of the children of the captivity of effect on people: it must be artistically Jndah, whom the king my father brought written if it is not a record of farts. No out of Jewry! I have even heard of thee, artist in fictitious narrative would present that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and to his readers so obvious a difficulty. We that light and UJ!-derstanding and u:cell~nt learn now what was the probable reason of wisdom is found 1n thee. And now the wise Belshazzar's ignorance of J?a.niel. . Na.bu- men, the astrologers, have been brought in n.a.hid. a usurper, was at variance with the before me, that they should read this whole clergy, as we may call them,. of writing, and make known unto me the in- Babylon, and most likely Daniel acted with terpretation thereof: but they could not the others, and possibly, as far back ':1s the show the interpretation of the thing: and revolution in which Evil-Merodach perished. I have heard of thee, that thou canst make had been away from the court. It is the interpretations, and dissol~e. doubts i now heiaht of unfairness of any one to press the if thou canst read the wr1t1ng, and make na~e here given to Nebuchadnezzar," my known to me the interpretation thereof, father." That title was very loosely used thou shalt be clothed with scarlet, and have amon" the Babylonians aud Assyria.us. a chain of gold a.bout thy neck, and shalt Jehn is called "the son of Omri," although be the third ruler in the kingdom. '.l'here he had swept the race of Omri oft' the face is a great deal of rhetoric in this, and the of the earth. So Dr. Hugo Winckler, in attempt to restore the stately. etiq_uette of his' Untersuchunaen irur AltorientaliBchen the Babylonian court. The king 1s repr~- Geechicbte,' p. 53: note, says, " This word sented as repeating very much what hlB ' son ' after the name of a Chaldean prince, mother had told him. It ie to be observed is only to be taken in the sense of belonging that, although the queen-mother-as the to the same dyne.sty." Had the phrase used Massoretic text records her words-bas not been that" Nebuchadnezzar slept with his spoken a word of Daniel's origin_, and fathers, and Belshe.zzo.r hie son reigned in implies that Belshazzar knew noth1Dg of  on, v. 1-31.] THE BOOK OF DANIEL. lG!J