The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 207

there is no word of I\ procl1une,tion. Thoo- given here of the feast of Delshn.zzar and dotion e,nd the Peshitte. e,gree with tho its results to the foe.et which Antioohue Massoretio text. We have Kl;l~I:' here in- g1we to the people of Antiooh, o.s described 11tead of •rfl'I. The presenoe or" the haphel by Polybius, xxvi., is mere nonsense. The points of contrast are vastly more prominent form inst.el\d of the l\phel, is to bo noted. than the points of resomblo.nco, Bclsbaz- No re1tder whose attention ia directed to it zar's feast is over in one night; Antiochus'e can fail to be etruok with the magnanimity fel\st ln.stcd sernral dn.YB. Delsho.zzar's of Belshazzar; he had promised that who- foast was given in his pnla·cc, to "o. thousnnd evor wouhl interpret the inscription should of his lords;" Antiochus invited tho whole be c.lotbed in purple and gold, a.nd be populace of Antioch to revel in the grove ma.de third ruler of the lri.ngdom. Had he of Dnphne. While, o.s wo have seen, tbero been a mean man, be might have higgled is blnspbemy against Jehovah o.nd defiance abont the ma.tter; be might have declared of him in Belsbazzar's feast, there is no an uncertl\inty as to whether Daniel did 1..-ind of debauchery. In regard to the feo.st not, out of his spite against the murderers of Ant.iochus, on the other hand, while of the BOD of Nebuchadnezzar, invent the there is maddest excess of every kind, e. evil interpretation. The treatment Ahab very orgy of lust and drnnkennoss, there meted out to Micaiah the son of Imlah is no word, either in Polybius or in the shows the way a tyrnnnioal monarch may Books of the Maocabeee, of any special act itct towards one who hns uttered unpo.le.t• of defiance to J ehove.h, or blasphemy of his able prophecies age.inst him. He might, Name. The only point of identity is the.t nccording to the Persian story, have pro- both the bo.nquet of Belshe.zzar and the claimed Daniel exalted to all the promised orgy of Antioch us have been called "feo.sts." honours, and then instantly had him Altogether, the idea that Belshe.zze.r repre- executed. But, no; in noble simplicity sents Antiochus Epiphanes is nearly as he fulfils his promise to the last letter, absurd as that Nebuchadnezzar does. Did without any apparent after-thought of ven- the orthodox interpretation involve such an geance. If Belshazze.r is intended to identification, whe.t boundless scorn would represent· Antiochus Epipbanee, certainly be poured on the unfortunate maintainers the portrait is singularly unlike anything of such a view ? we know of that monarch. Cruel and Ver. 30.-In that night was Belshazzar treo.cheroue, he was very unlikely to keep the Xin.g of the Chaldeans sfain, The such e. promise to one who had made version of the LXX. is here very different, snch e. prophecy concerning him. Even if "And the interprete.tion came upon Bel- he could have done so, no Jew, with blood shazzar the king, e.nd the kingdom wo.s boiling from the indignities and cruelties ta.ken from the Chalcleans, and given to the heaped upon the Jewish race, could have ll.Iedea and tbe Persians." There seems no pictured him doing this. Even the na~ural possibility of connecting these two readings instinct that makes us think that specially so that either should be shown to he.ve terrible misfortune must be the result of come from the other. The Massoretic text, specially unbroken wickedness, would cer- which is here supported by Theodotion and tain) v have led the writer of Daniel, if the Peehitte., is the shorter; but in this drawing on his imagino.tion, to make Bel- instance, as neither can have sprung from shazzar meanly refuse his rewards, or, the other, brevity has Iese probative force. having given them, to threaten the recei:er If we look at the probability of the situation, with death. It is no a.newer to say, with we are compelled to accept the Septuagint Ewe.Id and Jepbet-ibn-Ali, that the reward reading. If the Massoretic ree.ding had once promised was irrerncable, f?~ the &?CU· been the original, the dramatic complete- ro.cy of the reading of the writmg might ness of the disaster, following with such have been contested, and the correctness of rapidity on the back of tbo prophecy, the interpretation denied. Further, as has would certainly have been preserved in been pointed out by Keil, there i,; no evidence every translation. Whe1·eae the desire that Epiphanes ever desecrated the sacred for this dramatic completeness might lee.d vessels at e. banquet; he was regarcllPss to the l\fassorctic verse being fabricated. enoagh to have done so, ~ut his finan?ial Further, when we look e.t the events of the neceesiiies were too pressing for delaymg night, it seems impossible to place e.11 of the coining of these golden treasures. More- them in the short interval of one night. over, in .A.ntiochus such desecration woul<l The feast bad begun after sundown, for the be without purpose, whereas, as we have lamps were lighted. It had already gone seen, there wight be a purpose ~ t~e action on some time ere Bcl.she.zzar thought of of Belsl,azzar. TI.le idea marntamed by the vessels of the hoUBc of God. Tben, in c•)mmentators of the crilical school, that contempt of Jehovah, the guest~ snag tht:re i.,; any i·efertnee in the description praises to the gods of Babylon. It 1e n,fter CH, V, 1-31.] THE IlOOK OF DANIEL. 173