The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 292

our riali!roitmeeeee. There le " marked Ewald in rcgrirrl to the ,late ,,r ll,mwh t" ad_vance in spiritual insight exhibited hy ~o correct, it woulrl have been or r1<lvanll\go this. The old position was reward nccord- m our further argument. fng to righteousness, 11nd mercy because of E:wald further a. 0 sumcs thn.t the openin!!; It. The Jews before the Onptivity had very port10n ?f Barnch ha~ been tho ori~ino,L much the heathen Iden of paying God by from which the prayer m the ninth chapt,r,r sacrifice for benefits received or asked; but of Daniel bas been imitated. Tho resem- the long oessntion of sncriflce raised them blance cannot be denierl, the question to be above this. But for thy great mercies, decided is-Which is the ori<rinal and which This plan to God because in the p11st he h11s the imitation? It is a gener;l n1le, anrl onr, multiplied hie mercies, is in the same of almost universal application, that tho elevated pinna. We find a similar line in shorter form of a poetical composition-anrl Neb. iK., only as an occasion of thanks• the prayer in Daniel and in Baruch has giving. It is remarked by Professor Foller the.t character-is the more original. un- that the repetition of the word Adonai, and questionably, if we apply true test, the the short sentences, give a feeling of prayer in the Book of Baruch is later than intensity to the prayer suitable to tbe the parallel prayer in Dan. ix. In Baruch ciroumstanoes. The words used are all the prayer occupies at least sixty verses echoes of Jeremiah; e.g. "forgive," in Daniel only sixteen. We would not "hearken," are used in connections that press the mere fact of brevity, did this stand would BUit Daniel's study of Jeremieh. It alone as evidence for the priority of Daniel is impossible not to observe to how great an as it is possible, but we think little more tha~ extent this prayer is coloured by Jeremiah, barely possible, that the version in Daniel might be a. summary of tha.t in Baruch, though summaries a.re much rarer in poetic Ezcur1UB on Baruch and Daniel. literatnre than expansions. The nature of the di1ferences seem more naturally to be Professor Ewald, in hie 'History of due to expansion than to summarizing. Israel' (v. 206), and afterwards in his Thus if we compare two closely parallel ' Prophets of Israel,' emphasizes the resem- passages (Bar. ii. 9-12 and Dan. ix. 14, blance between the opening chapters of the 15), we find the differences are all due to apocryphal Book of Baruch and the ninth expansions in Baruch on change■ that might chapter of Daniel. After, in the first place, appear to make the succession of thought arbitrarily assigning Baruch to the Persian easier. Of the latter, an example is" works period, he assnmes a tendency to rebel which he has commanded us," compared a.go.inst the Persians-a thing of which we with" works which he doetb." The former have no evidence. Certainly we have no makes the transition to the thought of dis- proof against this, because we have no obedience easier. It is possible this change history of the period at all He assumes may have been doe to the translator mis- the.t there was constant communication reading the Hebrew before him. The ex- between the Jewish community in Jeru- pansions are more obviously additions to salem and that in Babylon during this the text-they have the invariable character period, which, though possible, is not of such things, additions to the words of a certain. The further assumption, however, passage without being any real addition to that the Babylonian Jewish community the sense. Thus the last clause of Dan. would take such a cumbrous device as the ix. 14, "For we obeyed not his voice," is apocryphnl Book of Baruch to convey their expanded into " Yet we have not hearkened advice to the Jews of Jerusnlem, to avoid unto his voice to walk in the co=and- rebellion, is a strange one for a man of ments of the Lord, which be bath set before Ewald's acuteness. By the introdr1otory us." After the first eight words, which hypothesis in the Book of Baruch, the may be regarded as exactly equivalent to Jewish community of Babylon send a letter the six iu Daniel, the rest is mere expan- by Baruch to the remnant of the Jews in sion. Again, the last cl:i.use of Dan. ix. 15, J eruso.lem. If that were so, then it is "we have sinned, we have done wickedly," in Jerusalem, not in Babylon, that this is expanded into "0 Lord our God, we letter, or a copy of it, might be supposed have sinned, we have done ungodly, we to turn up. Therefore the falsai·ills is to hnve dealt unrighteoosly in all thine ordin- be looked for among the Jews of Jerusalem, ances." Any one can see that here the not o.mong those of Babylon, In Jerusalem differences are mere e:i:pansion, without any would, of necessity, the fRrce of finding this addition to the thought, We might cnrry epistle be enncted. Altogether, there our investigation further, and would only seems no support for the date or origin make our point olee.rer; but this would be assigned by Ewnld to this book. Of comae, mere loss of time. This expansion and if we could have assumed the conclusion of paraphrasing prove the dependence of  264 THE BOOK OF DANIEL. [arr. 1x. 1-27.