The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 60

greRt difficulty; it is coneonRnb.lly identic1tl the word is present, as we before said. We with 7::'t:1, "J\fosbC'cb." the n1tme or one of have above lndioe.ted that it Is possible that the sons· or J1tphct. Dr. Delitzsch would the original word we.e not path-bag, but render it Jlfe-~a-al,a, "Who is &a Aku." pathura. 111 regard to the Maasoretio text aa . SchrRder'e objertione to this &re, th&t in compared with the Greok e.nd Le.tin versions, the first place the Babylonian form would it seems certain the.t patJ1-bag, if belong- be M,,mm-lri-Aku. And next, the.t there ing to the text, was only understood in the would not likely be a simple translation of East-& phenomenon that would be in- th<' HPhrcw nRme into AssyriRn, but rather telligible if this chapter be a condensa- iii<' gi\"ing n new name &!together. This tion and translation of on original Aramaic eecond objection is valueless, for Pharaoh- text, eepeoi1tlly if the Aramaic were Eastern, Necho did not wholly oh&nge the name of not Wostorn. An ancient fee.et had a.lwoya EliRkim when be set him on the throno, the n1tture of e. BBcrifico. It we.e the case i;iuce .lehot>ah may be regarded e.s the equiva- with the Jews: thus in Dent. xii 11, 12, lent of E/,. The fact that " Meshe.oh" is so directions a.re given for eacrifioing in the like "Mesheoh " points to intentional modi- place which the Lord should choose, and fication, and, therefore, to the presence in they e.nd all their household rejoicing. the nnme of the designl!.tion of a Babylonian But if the place ohosen were too far, then god likely to be known to the Jews, such permission was given them to eat flesh, only e.e Merodaoh, whose name we.s known to they were to be careful not to eat with the the Jews by its ooeurrenoe in the names blood. It was the che.re.oteristio of the Evil-Merodach nnd Merod&eh-Baladan, and ole.esio nations all through their whole actually aa a divinity in Jer. 1. 2. Such is history, that the fee.at should be consecrated Lenorme.nt's hypothesis (' Le. Divination,' hy the oft'ering of something of it to the p. 178), whioh would render it Misa-Mero- Deity. The immense probability was that dach," Who is as Merodaoh "-a suggestion this was the oe.se e.lsoe.mong the Babylonians. oertainly open to Schrader's fust objection. It me.y be that this consecration of the fee.at .And to .Aza,i,ah of .Abed-nego. It has long arose from the same jueti11.a.ble religion■ been recognized that this ne.me is a modi- feeling wbioh lee.de us to e.sk e. blessing :fica.ti.on of .Abed-Nebo. This identifioation on our meals. The he.bit of the African is rendered all the more probable, that in Church to celebrate the Lord's Supper at New Hebrew and .Aramaic Naga meant every supper, we.e probably oonuected with the planet "Venus," the.t is, "N ebo." The this oft'ering to God of what the guests consonants are correct for this, bnt the were a.bout to parte.ka. Thie fact, that vocalization is purposely wrong, in order every feast had the char&eter of e. sacrifice, to avoid the heathen ne.me. If the author might ee.eily me.ke these Hebrew youth■ of Daniel was an obscure Jew, living in refuse the roye.l dainties. So fe.r as e.nime.l Palestine during the days of Epiphe.nee, food we.a conoerned, the ce.refnl directions when the influence of Babylon he.d dis- as to not eating with blood made partaking appeared, and its le.ngnage had ceased to be of the fee.ets of the Babylonian monaroh studied, is it not strange that he should peculiarly liable to bring on them defile- deruc ne.mei; which so e.ccura.tely represent ment. The fact that Evil-Merodach pro- those that were in Babylon? One has only vided Jeconie.h with e. portion from hie io read the Book of Judith, in all likelihood table, and that J econie.h did not refuse the product of the Epiphe.nes period (Konig, it, does not necessarily militate against • Einleitung,' 480), to see the wild work the early de.te of Daniel. Jeconiah probe.bly that Palestinian Jews of that time made of we.a not e.e conscientious e.s those youths, Babylonian ne.mes, . a.nd, on the other hand, Da.niel'e inJluenoe Ver. 8.-But Daniel purposed in hill hea.rt by this time may he.ve e.rranged some tb.e.t he would not defile himself with the consideration for Jewish scruples. It is portion of the king's mea.t, nor w'i.th the cerl.am that in 2 Mace. v. 27 Jude.a and wine whillh he drank, therefore he requested his brethren are represented e.e living in of the prince of the eunuchs that he might the mountains on herbs, e.fter the manner not defile himself. The Septuagint renders of beasts, that they might not be defiled ; the first clause somewhat pe.raphre.sticslly, but e.e there is nothing pe.re.llel to this "De.niel desired in hiii bee.rt," led possibly in I Ma.cce.bees, we may dismiss the to this by the more limited meaning statement e.s probe.bly untrue. Bo the assigned to "bee.rt" in the psychology of whole idea. of this action on the pa.rt of ordinary Greek speech. Theodotion is, e.e Jude.s and his nine companions may have nsue.l, in close harmony with the Me.seoretic arisen from the ce.ee recorded before us. text. Tht Peshitte., inirtead of "heart.," he.e It has all the look of a rhetorical addition rina., "mind." As before noticed, the Greek to the narrative, e.nd the dift'erencee of the versions here render l:l-nsi by 5,,,,..,o.,. circumstances were not such e.e would Jerome renders it me,uia. In the Syrie.c strike o. Thetorica.l ecribe i but e.s thi1 OH, I, 1-21.) THE BOOK OF DANlEL.