[92] See Lenormant, _La Divination_, p. 219.
[93] Jer. xxix. 22. The tenth verse of _this very chapter_ is referred to in Dan. ix. 2. The custom continued in the East centuries afterwards. "And if it was known to a Roman writer (Quintus Curtius, v. 1) in the days of Vespasian, why" (Mr. Bevan pertinently asks) "should it not have been known to a Palestinian writer who lived centuries earlier?" (A. A. Bevan, _Short Commentary_, p. 22).
[94] _Avodah-Zarah_, f. 3, 1; _Sanhedrin_, f. 93, 1; _Pesachim_, f. 118, 1; _Eiruvin_, f. 53, 1.
[95] Jer. lii. 28-30. These were in the reign of Jehoiachin.
[96] Jer. xlvi. 2: comp. Jer. xxv. The passage of Berossus, quoted in Jos., _Antt._ X. xi. 1, is not trustworthy, and does not remove the difficulty.
[97] The attempts of Keil and Pusey to get over the difficulty, if they were valid, would reduce Scripture to a hopeless riddle. The reader will see all the latest efforts in this direction in the _Speaker's Commentary_ and the work of Fabre d'Envieu. Even such "orthodox" writers as Dorner, Delitzsch, and Gess, not to mention hosts of other great critics, have long seen the desperate impossibility of these arguments.
[98] _Balatsu-utsur_, "protect his life." The root _balâtu_, "life," is common in Assyrian names. The mistake comes from the wrong vocalisation adopted by the Massorets (Meinhold, _Beiträge_, p. 27).
[99] Schrader dubiously connects it with _matstsara_, "guardian."
[100] Lenormant, p. 182, regards it as a corruption of Ashbenazar, "the goddess has pruned the seed" (??); but assumed corruptions of the text are an uncertain expedient.
[101] On these see Rob. Smith, _Cambr. Journ. of Philol._, No. 27, p. 125.
[102] Juv., _Sat._, x. 96: "Cum grege Chaldæo"; Val. Max., iii. 1; Cic., _De Div._, i. 1, etc.
[103] _Keilinschr._, p. 429; Meinhold, p. 28.
[104] Isa. xxiii. 13; Jer. xxv. 12; Ezek. xii. 13; Hab. i. 6.
[110] See Jer. xxxix. 3. And if he held this position, how could he be absent in chap. iii.?
[111] Namely, the words for "satraps," "governors," "counsellors," and "judges," as well as the courtiers in iii. 24. Bleek thinks that to enhance the stateliness of the occasion the writer introduced as many official names as he knew.
[114] The Persian titles in iii. 24 alone suffice to indicate that this could not be Nebuchadrezzar's actual decree. See further, Meinhold, pp. 30, 31. We are evidently dealing with a writer who introduces many Persian words, with no consciousness that they could not have been used by Babylonian kings.