The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 82

asl1B1tap11eem, nncl m•lm,hsh•pheem, but in sence. All the soothsayers, we seo were the Beptungint we find the word Xa"8alo,v in not summoned, for Dunie\ e.nd his friends the genitive. Consequently, the sontenoe were not, and they were not singulcu, elso reode, "the mngioinns nnd the nstrologers the writer would he.ve given some reason e.rnl the soroerers of the Ohaldee.ns." If e.t for this omission. The writer assumes that lho time the Massoretio recension wns made his ree.dere know so much a.boot the he.bits the nnmo "Ohalclean" hnd gained its le.tar of Be.bylonian wise men 11.nd their schoola, signilice.noe of" soothsayer," one ce.n easily e.s to be awe.re the.t certain indiviclunls unclerstnnd how nature.I it would be to in- might nomine.lly be summoned to the sert the copulative before the preposition. con rt ; and yet it might be some time The construction of the sentence in the beforo they were summoned on any eri lice.I text before the tre.nsle.tor of the LXX. occasion. The absence of the four Hebrews Version is carte.inly lrregulnr, but not un- might be explained in two ways: either exe.mpled. It is not so easy to imagine the only the Chaldee.n magicians were in this Septungint translator changing the nomine.- case summoned, and, as Daniel and bis tive plural into e. genitive, especie.lly when, friends were not Cbaldeans, they were by the time the translation we.s me.de, the omitted; or they were not sum moued be- usnge we have spoken of above wo.s in foll cause their training was not yet complete. force. We mny assnme, then, the.t in the Ver. 3.-And the king aaid unto them, I original text of Daniel the " Kasdeem" have dreamed e. dream, and my spirit was were not spoken of, in this verse at all troubled to know the dream. The Revised events, B8 e. class of magicians. As the Version improves the English of the verse clause e.ppee.rs in the LXX., Nebuchad- by putting the verb in the present, " i\Iy nezzar assembled all the magicians of his spirit is troubled to know the dream." The ne.tione.lit.y, the Che.ldeans e.s distinguished Septuagint Version has the appearance of n. from the Babylonio.ns. Perhaps he had paraphrase, "And the king said to them, I more confidence in them. While the change have seen a dream, e.nd my spirit is troubled. we hnve suggested would make only the and I desire to understand the dreo.m." It m•kashsh'pheem connected with the Che.1- is e.n unusual corn bino.tion "to see a. dream; " deo.ns, the grammatical structure of the from its unnsualness the reo.ding of the verse has the aspect of e. freer rendering Septuagint is to be preferred. In old He- than that in Theodotion; hence it might brew ~ (!) and T (z) are not unlike each other, quite well he.ve been that the original nor are o (m) and• (y). Yet tl,ese two letters Hebrew had the meaning represented by are the only differences between 1p1lamti, ·the Greek of the Septuagint. Lenormani "I have dreamed," and l}azithi, "I ba,e sees in the four classes here an exact seen." The Peshitta has ?ialoma /Jazilh, representation of the four classes of Be.by- which gives the so.me combino.tion, and would louie.n soothsnyers. We do not feel obliged indicate the.t here too the Aramaic original to maintain that all the different classes is shining through. It is, however, difficult should be called in on the occasion of this to see how snch a word e.s alJpatz," I wiah," dream. We do not know precisely the could drop out of the Ma.ssoretic. The characteristics that separated one cl11Ss most ne.tuml solntion is that the translator from the other, bnt it seems little likely added 8,1'., to complete the sense. Cer- that they all devoted themselves to the tainly e. link is awe.nting BB it stands in interpretation of dreams. There were other the ordinary interpretation of this verse. omens and portents tbe.t hnd to be ex- Theodotion agrees with the Me.ssoretic, plained. For to show the king his dreama. while the Vulgate paraphrases the last 'J.'he no.turn! sense is the.t represented by cle.nse, "And the king said to them, I have the Greek versions, "to tell tho king his seen a dream, and confused in mind I have dream." The usuo.\ reason for these forgot what I saw." The king has been officio.ls being ca lied we.s to declnre to perturbed by the dreo.m, e.nd bis perturbo.- the king the interpretation of the dream; tion lee.de him to wish to know the dream but here it we.s to declare the dream itself. -not necessl\rily what the dream actually Yet if they could foretell the future, could had been, but what it meant. Thus in they not muoh more easily tell what had eh. i. 17 Daniel he.d understanding "in all happened 7 They professed to know whe.t visions and dreams;" this me11nt that he we.a coming; they could-so Nebuohe.d- knew the meaning of dreams e.nd visions. nezzor might argue-readily enough reason The other versions give us no assistance to back from the future they knew to the sign explain this. Archdeacon Rose says, " The of the future, the dream whichho.d been given king here pie.inly intimates that, though the to him. So they came and stood before th9 dream had troubled and perplexed him, he Tli11g. We can imagine the long ranks of the could not remember what it was." It does principol olnssee of Oholdel\n soothse.yers not e.ppee.r to us quite so ple.in. It is cer- in Baby Ion ho.stoning into the roye.l pre- te.inly not impossible to imagine that, whilu 42 THE BOOK OF DANIEL. [cu. u, 1-40,