The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 293

BRruch upon Daniel, and therefore the them, do not necessitate this sense, as we priority of the lntter. have shown above. In Daniel Ilelehazzar More important is the utter failure of is nev<lr deaoribed aa the son of Nebuohad- the writer of Bn.ruoh to oomprebend the nezze.r in the same way as Darius is condition of mattel'I! e.t the time he suppoeee oe.lled the son of Ahe.auerua. It is true himself writing. In Be.r. i. 2 we e.re told Nebuchadnezzar ia called his father, and that the Chaldeane "had taken Jeruee.lem, he himself, according to the MMsoretio and bnmed it with fire." Jeruee.lem there- text, speaks of him as hie father; but this after oe&Bed to be inhabited, for Gede.lie.h means no more, in the court languo.ge of stayed in Mizpe.h. Yet (Bar. i. 10) the .Assyria, than that be we.a his predecessor Babylonian Jews say they have sent money e.nd we.a famous. .AJJ there is uo note of "to buy you burnt offerings, and sin offer- ohronologiaal succession in Daniel, Ilel- ings," whioh it would be impossible t.o shazzar's ocoupe.tion of the throne o.s repre- present before God ae the temple was a sentative of hie father Nabune.hid might m&BB of ruins. Jer. xli. 5 cannot be quoted be any number of years after the death against this, because the Sheohemitos and of Nebuchadnezzar, without oontre.dicting Samaritans there mentioned are carrying anything in it. .A writer acqun.inted with an unbloody sacrifice, which might be Daniel, and living long after the events, offered to the Lord at the ruins; bnt there would naturally drop into the blnnder of ill no word of burnt offerings or sin offerings. the writer of Baruch, and me.ke Belshazzar And in harmonv with this there ie no stress the son of N ebuohadnezzar. On the other laid in the prayer in Baruch, as there is in be.nd, it is difficult to imagine the writer the prayer in Daniel, on the aheolnteness of of Daniel-if he were a novelist-having the desolation of Zion. On the supposition Baruch in his hand, and not introducing in the Book of Baruch, Jerusa.lem bad still Belshazze.r alongside of Nebuchadnezz&r. inhabitants, and there was still a high The artistic possibilities of the situation priest, a state of matters utterly at variance would have been too great to be resisted. with that implied in the Book of Ezra. No We then feel ourselves necessitated to place such anachronism can be detected in Daniel; Barnch long posterior to Daniel. his whole prayer speaks consistently of It ie difficult to settle the date of Bunch. the desolation of Jerusalem. We do but The latter two chapters, which are certainly mention the fact that the high priest by a ha.nd other than the first three, and "Joaclti.m.., son of Chelcia.s, son of Se.lorn" probably later, have signs in them that (Bar. i. 7) has no exisienoe in the list of make them late. Be.r. v. is an imitation of the priests we 1ind in Chronicles and the Peo.lter of Solomon xi. The utter in- Nehemiah. In 1 Chron. vi 15 we are told ability to comprehend the cess&tion of burnt that Jehozadak "went into captivity," and offering and sin offering, implied in Bar. i. we know that Joshua was his son. We 10, shows that it was written before the shall illy no etrese on the otherwise unheard- destruction of the temple under Vespasio.n of return to the land of Judah of the vessels It is eco.rcely poseible that it oould have been " which Sedeciae, the son of J osie.s, king of written after the desolation of the temple Judah had made" (Bar. i 8), nor on the by .Epiph&nes. Thie definitely overthrows date in the mt verse, " the filth yeu in the theory of Kneucker, that Baruch was the seventh day of the month; " they are written in Rome after the capture of Jeru- in perfect harmony with the general non- se.lem by Titus. One who he.d seen the historical tone of the whole book. The desolation of J ernse.lem under the Romans Book of Daniel has notl.ring like them. would not have been under the he.llucine.tion .Another historico.l blunder must be noted of the writer of Baruch, or im&gined that -one that proves the dependence of Baruch burnt B&crifices could he.ve been offered by 11 on Daniel, e.nd disproves the opposite view. high priest in J ernsalem e.fter the destruc- The Be.bvlonian Jews declare their in- tion of J ernse.lem by N ebncha.dnezzar. Not t.ention (Bar. i 12) to Iive " under the unlikely the first three chapters were she.dow of N ebnchodonosor King of Be.by Ion, composed in the reign of the L&gid prince11, e.nd under the shadow of Be.lthe.sa.r his and had for their object tu reconcile the son." This makes Belshe.zzar the son of Jews to subjection to the foreign yoke.I Nebucbadnezze.r, e.nd Lis e.eeociate on tLe Israel certainly we.a still sce.tterecl e.mong throne, in contradiction of history as we the countries. The huge Jewish com- know it now. We know now the.t Del- munities in Egypt and Babylon, not to sL :i.zzo.r was not the son of N ebnchadnezzar, speak of the smaller communities scattered Lut of Nabunahid. He may have been the over every city round the be.sin of the grand.son of the great conqueror, but not Mediterranean, e.mply proved that. They hill e.ctue.l son. The statements in Daniel, were no longer an independent nation, they while lie.blc to be interpreted in the sense were always subject to some power, e.nd ill which the e.uthor of Baruch Las taken that was a cause of humiliation. If we are 1 See note on page 350. en. 1x. 1-27.] TUE nooK OF DANIEL. 265