The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 80

hood to dnte a monarch's roign from this. to the iden tb1tt thero I.a something a.miss Another eol ution is that tbe BOOOnl'\ yel\r is with the rea.ding-t1.lwe.ya e. thing to bo reokoned from the time when theee Jewish deprecated-and the eimpleat emendation aaptives stood hefore the ldng. Thie would ie to imagine that the " third" has been have implied II different reading, but, u we mil!l'Olld "second." Thie, a.a we have have 11&id, so far RB this clauee ie concerned, shown, would be easy in Arame.io. On there is no ve.rintion. Another suggestion the assumption that the text before ua ia may be made, viz. that thie appearance of a tranelation and condensation of an Ara- Daniel before the king is the same as that maic text, it iii eaay to underet1tnd how mentioned in the previouschapter(i.18-20). all derivative texts followed ite initial mis- This is Wieseler's hypothesis. As e. reign take. There ie a certain importance hero was not reckoned from the date or IIOOC&sion, due to the copula "and:" "And in the second but from tbe bcginuing of the year following, yee.r of Nebucliadnezzo.r," When any one Nebuchadnezzar's second year might well attempts to read this verse in oonneotion be the third year of the training of those with the last verse of the fir5t chnpter, it . Hebrew oapti\·es. The oooasion of their at once becon1es clear that the twenty-first nppearance before the king may not have verse of eh, i. is an interpolation, It is been that he took thought on the matter- probable that the condensation, which wo.s e. ,·iew which, though that of the Messoretio likely to be oonsiderable in the first chapter, text, i.ti not supported by the LXX.-but becomes lees so now, before passing from may have been caused by this disquieting the one portion to the other; hence either dream. On the supposition which we have the translator or some other added the note suggested, that in eh. i. we have e. con- which is oontsined in eh. i. 21. Nebtl,()had- densed version from e.n Aramaic origina.l, nez.i:ar dreamed dreams. The Greek versions this solution is plausible. The ma.in diffi- e.nd the Syriao of Paulne Telleneie omit the culty, tlie.t the quiet communing implied in name "Nebuchadnezzar," either as nomi- the nineteenth verse does not suit the fury native or as genitive. The Peshitl.a follows of the king and the threatened death of the the order of the Musoretic text. The wise men, cannot .be pres3ed, e.s the com- omission doe3 not alter the sense ; possibly muning might follow the interpretation. the proper names thus oame in close ju:da- It may seem to some better to maintain position in the Maseore.tio in cooeec(nence that the incidents of this chapter oo- of an endeavour to condeDee by omission, curred some little time after Daniel and his without making any further change. It three companions were admitted to I.he roya.l would seem the.t the LXX. had ree.d tt?P,1 council. The band of captives and hostages, (ni,/ra) instead of c~n (~alam), The render- with the m&BB of the Babylonian army, ing is, " It happened ( rn,11//371) that the king e.rrived e.t Babylon, according to Berosus, fell into dreams and visions." Thie awkwBl'd some time after Nebnche.dnezze.r himself, sentence seems to be the result of o. difficulty who had hurried e.croas the desert; still. a and consequent slavish following of the month would probably be tlie utmost of the text before the translator; it is difliouU to difference. There might, therefore, be many imagine what the reading could be which months to run before the first year of could be translated as it is in the Septua- :Kebuche.dnezzar actna.lly began, when these gint, e.nd yet was not totally unlike the c.aptivee were placed under the chBl'ge of Mauoretio text. "Dreama and visions" is the Mel.zar; so that if onr suggestion of a the evident result of e. coalescence of two various reading of "third" instead of renderings of niD½ (~alom-0t11). It is to be " second " be accepted, the years would be over while 1.he "third" year of Nebuchad- observed that it is· " dream.a" the.t N ~bu- nezze.r we.s still proceeding. However, chadnezza.r had, and yet only one "dream" e.lthougl.t me.ny prisoners e.nd llostagee may is spoken of. Kliefoth thinks this refers have beeu seni along with the main army, merely to the class, so tliat "drenmed af!.er Nebuchadnezzar lee.rued of the death dreams" is equivalent to "was dreaming." of hie father, many me.y have been sent Agreeing with this is Hiivemiok. Jephet- earlier, and awong these Duniel. Tile ibn-Ali takes the plurality to refer to the me.in difficulty is to imagine 1.he orders contents of the dream-that it refers to the of Nebuchadnezzar, while merely crown four world-kingdoms and that of Israel prince, being carried out with such exact- (so Kranichfeld e.nd Keil); for e. 1imilar ness, or tliat he should be spoken of e.s use of plural for singular, he refers to "wy lord the king" (eh. i. 10). But their Gen. xxxvii. 8. Moses Stuart thinks that training wast have begun during the life- it is implied the.t tlie dream was repeated. time of Nabopol11.B86r, if the three years It seem.a to be somewhat of e. mannerism of were completed while the second year of Daniel to use plural for singular, e.s the N ebuchadnezze.r Wllll still to finish. If we "visions of the head" of eh. iv. Wherewil/1 reject both these solutions, we a.re shut up his spirit was troubled. The enme phrase Cl!, U. 1-HJ.] 'rIJF, BOOK OF DANmr,. 89