and yet may be discovered by a small addition which appears in the Alexandrian Version, the most natural and just conclusion is, that the clause, if necessary, must have been lost from the present Chaldee Text, and which this Version will supply. Besides, that Daniel should not be first summoned to interpret the Dream, in preference to the rest of the Magi, may be attributed possibly to the state of the King's mind, which might not be reduced at once to insanity, but the malady might gradually come upon him. him. Or whatever was the cause, it can scarce seem right to examine questions of this sort at this distance of time with a very scrupulous and nice inquiry; and if we should find some general intimations only* of this Disease of Nebuchadnezzar's in profane History, it might be enough to satisfy candid and impartial minds. I would also add farther with respect to the leading argument, that in this fourth Chapter the Variations of the Chaldee from the Greek of Theodotion are comparatively few, not near so many as in the other three Chapters, nor more than may be discovered in any other Chapter of Daniel of a proportionate length.

With respect to the History of Belshazzar, that Daniel when called in to explain the Hand-writing, after a long and solemn pause, should at length remind the King of his Imprudence, and his neglect of Improvement from his Ancestor's Sufferings, is no more than might be expected from a faithful Monitor immediately authorised by Heaven, to execute a Commission that was a Prelude to the fate of a great Empire, nor can I think such conduct could ever deserve to be characterised under the denomination of unseemly reproaches, or as delivered in an unbecoming manner. To these considerations I will beg leave to add, that the History of these four Chapters is confirmed by Josephus +, who relates minutely the far greater part of

* See the Note at the end of Chap. iv.

f

+ Ant. x. 10.

it, and from hence its authority should seem less questionable.

I have rather dwelt on this subject from an apprehension that the Argument might wear a more equivocal aspect than from the first outset appears to have been stated. Had I conceived it to relate altogether to the nature or form of compositions prior to the adjustment of the Original Canon, I should scarce have thought it necessary to examine it, but must have reckoned the inquiry of too large a nature to fall within the compass of my design. The original Text ought not to be given up in any portion without strong conviction of Error; and to suspect it any where to be an adulterated copy* must have an undoubted tendency to lessen its conviction, and can never be approved by the faithful Advocate for the Writings of Truth.

After all, though I am very much a friend to free and rational Inquiry, yet I cannot but be persuaded, that the Argument from internal notices may in some cases be very fallacious, and that too much confidence ought not to be placed in it. Our own judgments are constantly liable to manifold errors, and often sadly warped by various prejudices: The style of ancient Writers may have been very different at different times, and on different subjects and occasions. The Greek Translation might have been made in a freer manner, or from a defective copy, and by an inferior hand to that of the other Prophets; and that it differs materially from the Original in other parts as well as

*To prevent mistakes, the expression is meant chiefly to be understood of considerable interpolations, introduced on mere human authority.

+ Walton suspects that the Book of Daniel was not publicly read by the Jews, lest it should give offence to the Princes to whom they were subject, since it contains such manifest Predictions of the change and ruin of the greatest kingdoms under which they lived; so many suspect the Apocalypse was not immediately published or received in the Church on this account, because many calamities were predicted in it to the Roman Empire: And that for the same reason perhaps the LXX did not translate Daniel, lest they should offend Ptolemy, but that it was afterwards translated into Greek by some other hand. Proleg. ix. sect. 51.

Some Errors have crept

in these Chapters is evident *. into the original Text of the Old Testament undoubtedly from the mistakes of Transcribers: Other Variations may possibly have found their way into it from early Versions and marginal References. The sense may not be very materially affected in either of these cases, and the Text itself through the labours of the Learned may by degrees be restored to its genuine purity. Upon the whole, from the constant attention of the Jews to their Scriptures, and the general superintendency of the Providence or Spirit of God on this Divine Code, we may fairly conclude, that the Old Testament is come down to us unadulterated as to any very essential Variation; and that the Book of Daniel, as it now stands, and has stood for many years before the Christian Æra, and as far as appears from within a few years after the final Completion of the Canon, is an important part of this sacred Code.

If some of the Articles herein adverted to may seem to have deserved a more full Discussion, or if there are other general Topics which might claim attention in the consideration of this Book, I can only say, that they must belong more properly to Works of a different nature from the present, and have either had justice done them already, or may expect it from future Inquiries.

See Chapters ii. 25; viii. 11, 25; ix. 8; xi. 2, 20; xii. 13.

Oxford, 1792.

THE

BOOK OF DANIEL.

CHAPTER I.

1 IN the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of

THIS Chapter relates the History of Daniel during the early part of his Captivity, and especially the mode of treatment of himself and some young friends, before they were introduced to the personal attendance on king Nebuchadnezzar.

1. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim.-Great difficulties have arisen in ascertaining the chronology of this King's reign, in making it agree with Jeremiah's prophecy relating to the seventy years of captivity in his 25th chapter, and with the reign of Nebuchadnezzar the Great. It may not be amiss therefore to enter somewhat largely into this inquiry, as it has engaged the attention of several learned persons, may be useful in fixing a mark whence many subsequent events may be more readily arranged, and will lead to some observations on the history of the times, and of the affairs of the Jews, at the commencement of the captivity.

After the death of the good king Josiah, the people of the land took his son Jehoahaz, and made him king in his father's stead. But this transaction not proving agreeable to Pharaoh-necho king of Egypt, he dethroned this wicked prince, cancelled his short reign of three months, put him in bonds, and took him away into Egypt, where he

B