219). But this is a desperate expedient
to support his view of the whole story being intended for a 'vision,'
and it would be hard to find any parallel to such a proceeding on the
part of the sacred writers.[79]
So far as Babylon is concerned, there is no indication of anything but a
time of peace, which is quite in accordance with the supposed period of
the narrative.
There is perhaps more difficulty, C, in making Habakkuk than in making
Cyrus, a contemporary of the grown-up Daniel. Indeed, with the earlier
date formerly assigned to Habakkuk, the difficulty seemed all but
insuperable, except by postulating two Habakkuks or two Daniels. And,
much as it may lack _vraisemblance_, either of those suppositions is of
course within the bounds of possibility. So Trapp notes, rather
sneeringly, on Hab. i. 1: "Those apocryphal Additions to Daniel, which
either are false, or there were two Habakkuks"; and J.H. Blunt, more
seriously, to a similar effect on Hab. i. 1 and Bel 33. Josippon ben
Gorion (I. 7) joins the whole story with the canonical history, but, as
given by Delitzsch (_op.
Pages:
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254