The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 54

one the.t we.e nee.rly inVRrie.bly preaent, &1 "from the nobles of Israel." Thcodotion .1h,li11r-akhi-iddin-na bece.me Eearhaddon renders, " from the sons of tho Captivity and Sin-al,hi-irba booe.me Sanhlll'ib. Th~ of Isrsel." If the sentence ran ~tt'it.,• ,,r., •i:i onlr exception to this shortening pl0088e one might understand how it could be read which occurs t.o 1111 ie B°rodach for Marduk ~11,r.,• ':II!:' •i:i ; the natural phrase for this Is and even it ie eoarcely e.n exoeption Nexi t!J_ere is a tendrncy, which Hebre~ shares ~11,r.,, •m~l •i:i, hut the.t would not explBin w1t.h ot!Jer le.ngue.ges, of suiting e. foreign ~he LXX. rendering. The nBme "Isre.el " word to the genius of the language. Henoe 1s the covenant nnme of the w!Jole nBtion we find "Asbpenaz" be.a such e. cloee re- equnlly e.pplicable to the southern and eeruble.nce lo" Aehkene.z" of Gon. x. 3, and to the northern kingdoms. All tho more th:tt "Abiesdri" is identioal with the form so the.t the captivity of Judl\h contained "Ahiezer "-the name of the father of members of three other tribes besides the.t ~iu.eon-assumes in the Septuagint. Judg- o~ Judah, namel;r, those of Benjamin an<l. rng _fro~ "AsnRpper," the name might even Simeon and Levi. Further, Josinh seems begrn with Asshur, only that, R.S .Asshur was to he.ve extended the bounds of the De.vidio the national god of the Ninevites, namoe kingdom to embrace the remnant of the ten w!Jich contained the ne.me of that divinity tribes (2 Chron. x:uiv. 6, 9), therefore his are re.re in De.bJ·lon. The first clement in the sons would cle.im the se.me boundaries word might not impossibly be ablu., "son." and therefore hostnges might be ta.ken by The final element seems certainly to have Nebuchadnez~e.r, from them t.o Da.bylon. been eur or UU1£r. As to the office he filled And of the king• 8eed and of the princes. in the court of N cbuchadnezzar, "the me.ster The two " auds " might be reudered " both of eunuchs," the ne.me of the office in the e.nd," or "alike ... and." The king's text is Rab-Sarisim, which occurs in e. s~cd menus, litere.Uy, "the seed of the slightly different form in 2 Kings xviii. 17, kin~dom," e.s it is tre.nsle.ted by 'l'heo- nlong with Bal>--Shakeh, as if it were e. proper dot1on. The phre.se, "children of the king- name. From the fact that persons thus dom," is applied by our Lord (Matt. viii. mutilated were employed in Eastern courts 12) to all the Jews, e.nd in Me.tt. xiii. as to t!Je word became equi vo.lent to "officer; ,: t~a members of the true Isre.el-perhe.ps hence we find Potiphe.r is ce.lled sari;;, or with e. le.tent reference to the children of "eunuch ; " yet he he.d e. wife. It therefore the trne King thus in captivity to the me.y be doubted whether Dnniel and hie beggarly elements of this world, compelled companions are t.o be understood as placed to stand as servants in t!Je court of Mammon in that condition. The title here given- of which Nebuchadnezzar me.y well be th~ Rab-&risim-beeomes Sar-Sarisim in vers. type. The word part•mim is one which 7 and 10, Sar being the Hebrew equivalent has caused difiiculty; it only occurs bore, of the more De.bylonian Bab. It is also Ara- and twioe in Esther (i. 3 ; vi. 9). In these maic. Thai; he 8lwul,d bring certain of the passages it is rendered by the Peshitte. e.s cJ,ildren of I.M-cuil, and of the king'• seed, and here, Parthouia, "Pe.rthie.ns." It would of tlie prinee11. It me.y be doubted at first seem the.t the Septuagint translator he.d eight whether these m.e.y not be sepe.ra.te before him, not part•niim, but bahureem con- cle.sses-a view the.t seems to he.ve beeu ta.ken necting it_ with y"ladeem," children" (yo~ths), by most of the old tra.nsle.tors, or whether the t!Je opemng word of the succeeding verse, first cl.ass, •• the children of Israel," does In Esther the word part•mim is applied to a not include the two classes tha.t follow. specie.I class of nobles among the Persians, The rendering parl'mim, as "Pa.rlhie.ne," and certainly we.s not applied to the princes adopted by Symmachus e.nd the Peshitt.a, of Judah. '.rheodotion does not nnderstnnd would make e. contrast between " the chil- whe.t it means, e.nd so tre.nslitere.tes it ,pop- dren of Israel" e.nd " the Pe.rthians." Bol'l'lv. Symme.chua e.nd the Peshitta make TLnt, however, is utterly wilikely. Were it " Pe.rthie.ns ; " the Targum on Esther that translatiou the true one, e. strong argu- makes the se.me blunder. The LXX. meut could l,e advanced for tlie late origin Version of Esther renders it lv60!01, as if it of Daniel. The fact the.t the text !Jetore were connected with itt!l and oin. It oer- Symmachne und the Peehi!.ta translator tainly he.a Zend Uratlt~ma) e.nd Pehlevi admitted of the.t translatioD shows how far (pardun) congeners, so it may have oome tlie tendency to modify the text into euit- overfrow Aryan sources into the Be.hylonian. aLility with the kuowledge of t!Je scribe Eqaally certainly it bas disappeared from Lad gone, and therefore how little weight Aramaic Eastern and Western. If part•mim ought tu be given to fotenees of indi- is to be held as part of the original text, viduu.l words. According to the LXX. it must belong to e. period before the Greek ~nd TLeudotion, there id e. word a.wanting domination, as the meaning of the word he.d 1n the first cl11u11c; the Septuagint trans- disappeared by that time. It might, on the ll,.tor would supply " nobles" V,.E")'<t1-rd.Y<Aw) other hand, he.ve beeu a word in the Dab7° CH, J, 1-21.) THE DOOK OF DANIEL. 13