The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 81

occurs in regard to Pharaoh (Gen. xli. 8), make~ Hitzig declare, "Tho cbnmetcr or when he h11.d dreamed of the seven kine the kmgo as here represented to us has no and se!en e11.rs of corn. Tho similarity of veri•imilitnde," A Hhongoh Herodntns does the, th,mg_ to be staled might c11.sily lead to make dreai:ns P!ominent in hie history, we a _s1m1lnr1ty of statement, without thero coul~ not 1me.g1ne any of the diadoch·i rc- bm~g o.ny_ neces~ary copying. If, as we cordmg e.nd dating his dreams oe does bchevo, this portion of Duniel 1111d an Aro.- Asshur-be.ni-pe.1. maio ori~ne.1, the resemblance in le.nguoge Ver. 2.-Then the king oomme.nded to call to Genod1s proves very little. In this cnse the me.gioians, and the e.strologera, e.nd the al60 the reading of the Septuagint is sorcerers, and the Chaldee.na for to show different. Inste11.d of in1, (l'U!,o), "his the king his dreams. Bo they oame and spirit," the tranelulors must have he.cl ci?11_1 stood before the king. The Septuagint lv -r,p lvu1rvfq,; also instead of the feminine renders, "And the king commanded that cv~i;,1;1 (titl1'pa'em), the reading must have the magfoians, e.gtrologers, e.nd sorcerers of been c~~\1'. (yith'pa'em). Though yod e.nd the Chai cleans be brought in to tell the kin"' his dream. And they came and stocd be~ tau a.re not readily confused, nun end tau fore the king." The difference is sli"'ht in the older script a.re, e.nd in Ee.stern verbally, but very important. Theodotion Amme.io nun is the preforme.tive of the e.nd the Peshitta agree closely with the third person imperfect, and a change me.y Massoretic. The Vulgate renders m•cash•- he.ve been me.de in tre.nsle.tiag from the pheem, "sorcerers," malefici, "evil workers." Axamaio. Professor Fuller, following 77,en the king commanded to call the magi- Saadia, mnkes too mnoh of the fact that, cians. The scene seems to stand out before while in the present oe.se the conjugation u~-the king, excited and sleepless, co.Hing u_sed is the hithpael, in Genesis it is niphe.l, out to his attendants to summon to his smoe the niphal conjugation ooours in vcr P!esenc~ e.11 the wise men in the co.pita! of 3. Kre.nichfeld holds that the "hithpaei hlB empire. The first that are named a.re heightens the idea lying in the niphaL" In the !,artummeem. The name is derived by Biblical Are.maio hithpeel takes the place Gesenius from c-;u:;i (!,eret), "e. stylus," and of the Hebrew niphal. And his sleep bralce from him. While the meaning here is he supposes them to he sacred scribes. We plain, the words are used in e.n unusunl find the word in Gen. Jtli. 24. Althou"'h sense ; the word here translated " brake the order may he.ve existed among the from'' is the passive of the verb " to be " Egyptians, the name given to them here in this precise sense only used here. The e.nd in Exodus may quite well have a fe.ot that the substantive verb in Ee.stern Semitic origin. The Tel-el-Amo.rne. tablets Aramaic has this significance (Nestle, show us how well the language of Assyria 'Gram. Syr.,' 100) indicates that this is e. was known in Egypt. Hitzig is quite sure co.so where the Syriao original shines that Nebuchadnezzar "est Abbild desPhe.rao through the tre.nsle.tion, This is all the und zngleich Vorbild des Antiochus Epi- more obvious when we remember the.t in phanes." It ~s 11, we.y critics have; they Eaeter_n Aramaio l (nun) we.a in the. pre- e.re e.lwe.ys qmte eme. It me.y be observed forme.t.i ve. Analogous to this is the Le.tin that ,both the Greek versions he.ve for this use of_ the p,erfect of the substantive verb, word l,rao,lio6s, "those who use incant.'l- e.g. fmmus 7 roes; comp. Rom. vi. 17, 11 God tions." The Peshitta has !,arasha, primarily be ~banked that ye were (~.,,) the servants "one who is silent," then "one who mutters" of em." As we have so.id, the meaning of then "one who sings an incantation." Paul~s this verse is perfectly clear and although Tellensis has lelJ,<Uha, "to whisper," e.nd there are differences of reading, there a.re then "to repeat e. charm" or "ince.nte.tion.'' none that affect the sense. "In the second Jerome renders arioli," foretellers." While ( or third) year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar the Peshitte. interprets hartummeem in hnd D: dream." To us in the Weet,living in Genesis by the same word as that used the nmeteenth century after Christ it seems !3-ore, in the Septuagint the word in Genesis pu_erile to d~te so carefully o. dre;m, of all lS o1t1Ji"'l"~• instead of /,ra.o/'/ios, a.nd Jerome thmgs: bu~ m tlie Ee.at, six hundred years uses conjectores insteaJ of, as we have seeu ~efore Christ, dreams he.d o. very different arioli. In Exod. viL 11 hartummeem i~ 1mporte.n~e from what they have now. translated in the Septuagint i,,-a.o,lioi. J eromc lu the history of Asshur-bani-pe.l dreams renders ipsi, as if the word ha.cl not been in play e. great part. Gyges submits to him his text. If, then, the word hartummeem 1n consequence of e. dream. In consequence stood in the text of Daniel when the Greek of a. dream Urduma.ne (Nut-mi-ammcn) in- versions were Ill9:de, there wos an uncertainty vades Egypt. Again e.nd again is Asshur- e.e to the mee.mng to be as;i!med to it in be.ni-pal encouraged by dreams which ap- Egypt. The distiuction bet~eeu tho two pear to seers. It is ignore.nee of this thu.t meanings drawn from the etymology of tl,e word bartummeem, u.ml that derived from the 40 THE BOOK OF DANIEL. [oR. n, 1-49, --------------- ----- ----------- Greek equivnlent, is not grel\t. The religion different na.moe. .And th, ChaldeanB. The of the Chaldeans was largely a system of Hebrew word here is c•,il>;i (KBl!'deem); both incantations that l\'ere pr<'served primBrilyin the form Kassatt, aud kaldu oocur in in• the AoC&dilln-a tongue known only to the soriptions. The meaning of this word hos sn<'.red ecribee. Many of the formuhe l\re caused great discussion, &nd its use iu this translated into Assyrian- langoBge, by chapter for R clnse of mngioians hne been the time of N<'buohadnezzar, practi<'.a.lly as hekl as a strong proof tho.t tho writer of muoh restricted to the eorib<'s and l<'&rned the book before us lived long nftcr the time clllse e.e the ACORdi&n. Henoe only a in which he places the events he narr&tos, scribe ocmld know tlio proper words to use The use of "Chaldean" for "mngicio.n," in nn incantation, only he could porpetullte "e.strologer,'' or "soolhlll\yer" in cluseio and preserve them. It is difficult to know times is well known. The difficuH.v hero on wh&t ground the translators of the is that the name "Chaldean" is used for a. Authorized Version eclected the word particular and limited class in the nation, "magioie.ns." The Geneva Bible rendered und at the s&me time for tho.t no.tion ns e. it " enchanters," which is adopted by the whole. This is not necessarily impossible. Rcdsers. Luther is further afield in ren- In Scotland, although the inhllbitnnts are dering sternsehere. The name is Assyri&n, nll called Scots, there is also the cllln nnd nppnrently derived from l,arutu, "a whose surname is Scott, or, o.s it was earlier siaff" (Norris, • Assyr. Diet.'). Thie et&ff' spelt, "Scot.'' It would not show confusion l\·11s possibly used, as the st&if of the Roman or ignor&nce did e. writer of the fifteenth augur, to mark off the regions of the century speak in one pa.ge of the Kers, heavens, or, it may be, to ward off demons. the Hepbume, and the Scots (Scotts) &s And tM a,;troloaers. The Hebrew word forming one army, and then in the next used here is Q.Jl1uihap1,eem. " In A£1Syriau page proceed to speak of the whole &rmy the word asep or asipu is need in the seme as the army of the Scots. His use of tho of diviner. The word was actually borrowed name in the one case for the nation and bv the Aramaic of Daniel under the form the other for the clun, so far from showing of ruihshaph" (Sayce, • Hibbert Lecture,' p. an insufficient acquaintance with the con- 51). It is supposed to mean "one who stitution of Scotla.nd, or the history of its uses enchantments." It is not Hebrew, affairs, really evidences the accuracy of the but re.a.lll' S,·riac or Eastern Are.m&ic. In writer's knowledge. We cannot conclude I.Joth Greek versions the equivalent is µ.,i-yo,, that the author therefore me.de a mistake iu which Jerome follows. The Peshitte. re- speaking-if he does so-of a clnss of the serves ma.qosha far the nerl term. The Babylonian magiana bemg called Che.1- usertion that this word was really the dee.ns bec&uae the natiou bore the s&me Greek uorpol is now abandoned. The Greek name. We certainly have &s yet found no u is never rendered by 11:i, which represented trace of such a usage, but the argumentum s sound not present in Greek at all. The e eilentio is of strikingly little value in fact that this non-Hellenic sotlild is doubled regard to Babylon-her e.nn.e.ls 1tre so very makes it utterly impossible that this word incomplete. We must bear in mind that could be brought over from the Greek. It the text of Daniel is in e. very bad state: i.s impossible to assign to this word the pre- it has been subjected to various inter- ciBC shade of meaning which belongs to it. polations and alterations. It ill, therefore, There is nothing to suggest " astrologers " hazardous to rest any stress on single in the root of the word. .And the sorcerers. words. It is clear the writer knew per- 'file Hebrew here is m•kasluh•pheem. Dr. fectlv well that the nation were called Robertson Smith, o.s quoted in Professor Chaideans. According to the Me.ssoretio Devo.n suggests that the word is derived from text, Dan. v. 30 asserts, "In th&t night wna "JI?:'::, "'to shred or cut to pieces,'' hence "to Belshazz&r King of the Che.ldeans slain : " J-irepe.re magical drugs." . This is_ in agree- &CCOrding to the LXX. version of the same ment with the Greek versions, which render verse it is," And the kingdom was lo.ken q,a.pµ/uw,. The verb, however, is a Syriac from the Chaldeans and given to the Modes one, and means "to worship" (Acts iv. 31; and Persians." If we are sure the writer Phil. i. 4). It occurs in the Hebrew of did make the Cbaldeo.ns also a class of Exod. vii. 11 along will, l,artummeem; in magians, the probability is tho.t be !mew Dcut. xviii. 10, in a verse forbidding to the what he was talking about, and made no Israelites the nse of magical arts; Ul 2 explanation beco.use, e.s a contemporary, he Cllrou. xxxiii. 6, in an account of how took for granted everybody knew how this M,wasseh travereed that law. It may be was. But is it absolutely eerie.in that the uoied tl ,at in this 18,81; verce the Peshitta writer of Daniel does make this asser- re1,due CJ.al.dea "C!Jaldeans." Again we tion ? It is true that UJ. the Massoretic text have to repeat the remark tha.t we do not the Kasdeem are represented as e. claea of know the distinctions involved in these mn.gie.ns co-ordinate with the (lartummeem, on. n. 1-49.] 'l'HE IlOOK OF DAN IET.. 41