The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 84

then add&, "unl888 rethor it be derived to bo cquivnlont to ~IH (1mtl). In A1la Minor, where Theodotion made his version, from the Arabic 1..'-'a \ (at,ad), • strong,' or it was unknown. Jerome, who made his from the Rabbinio i!tt, rob,uitua." Buxtorf version, if not in Palestine, yet under Palee- doee give the alleged Rabbinio uee of the tinian guide.nee, tranelo.tes it aleo a.a equi- verb, but gives referenoe only to ooourrcnce valent to aral. Tho natural conclusion is in the passage before us and ver. 8, and that thie book must have been oompoeod rendere nbire. Geeeniue rendere, "to de- not later than the Persian period, and not part," and quotee in support of this the Rab- far from the centre of government, As we binic formula, o•c~o':t Ni,N, " to go to one's have already se.id, our interpretation agr~e own opinion," epoken of ·a rabbi who holds with that of Professor Bevan ; we would ren- a view not shared by any other. At the der the phrase, "The word whioh hs.e gone aame time, Geseniue gives a meaning to the forth from me," ie., "is fixed." .The rea.son clauee as a whole whioh aooords with that of the king's refusal to tell the wise men hia of most comment.a.tore," The word has gone dream is that he cannot do it, not because out from me." FiirBt takes the word aa he has forgotten it, but because he hus meaning "firm," "sure,,, "unalterable." already announced that be wishes these He too quotes the Rabbinic formula, ae if aoothsayers to prove their ability to give it confirwed his view, which really it does the interpretation of the dream by telling him whs.t the dream was whioh he had had, not. Ca.stell gives ?ll as robur, but ap- He he.a committed himself to that course: pends no reference. Brockelmann does not he is a king, and he may not change. If 11• give it at all, nor does Levy. Ho.d Castell will not make knotDn to 1716 the dream, with given any reference, it might have been the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in argued to be a survival of a Syria.c word piece,, and your houses shall be made a through transcription ; but we must remain dunghill. The king, unaccustomed to be in doubt in this, all the more so that the opposed or refneed anything, at once de- l'eshitta. does not transfer the word, which it termines that it is not inability to tell him would naturally have done had the word been what he wishes to know that hinders the extant in Syrinc in .LD. 100. This would eootbse.yers, but unwillingness. Of course, make it probable that it is e.n old word. the abruptneea of the a.ction, immediate The fact that it is need in Talmudic only sentence pronounced on their hesitating to in a formula, and then in a sense unsuitable ae.tisfy his demand, eeems improbable. We to the present passage, confirms the idea of must, however, remember that we have the its age. It had probably a technical mean- e.coount given us in the utmost brevity. We ing, denoting that a certain matter waa have the substance of the dio.logne between irrevocable. The Persian derivation of the the king nnd his astrologers. It is put in word is by no means certain, though sup- dialogue form simply bece.nee the Shemitio ported by Schrader and Noeldeke. It may tongues naturally lend themselves to this hs.ve a Shemitic root. ntt (a.we) Assyrian mode of presentation. The sentence, "ye (Schrader, 526), "to be :finn.," may be the shall be cot in pieces," suggests some of Assyrian form of the word, which becomes the punishments inflioted by Asshurbo.nipal "lTlt in Syriac, and 11,itt in statua emphaticus. on those who rebelled against him. In In Aramaic 1 of Hebrew becomes "I, u :lCll the Aramaic the meo.ning literally is, " Ye (zal,ab) and :l,::T? (d'hab), "gold." The shall be made pieces of." This ia con- Assyrian nee of sibilants is more akin to siderably softened in both the Greek ver- Hebrew ths.n to Aramaic. Ba, "this," is sions. In the LXX. the rendering is, eqnive.lent to m (zeh), Schrader, 'Keiln.,' nap& 1iu-,,,.a.-,u81fu,u6,, "Ye shall be made 5!!6. If ntt wer~ transferred from Assyrian an example of." Theodotion renders, Eis e.nd put in the ,tatu, emphalicue, NJ!t:t is not .¼1r..SA.E1av lCT,uB,, "Ye shall be for destruc- an unlikely form for it to assume. Even tion." The Peehitte. is stronger, if anything, grant the word to be Persian, it is far from from the succession of worde, " Piece piece proving, or even rendering it probable, that ye shs.ll be cut." The punishment certo.inly Daniel was composed in the days of the was horrible, but not more so th11n the Maccabees. There is no trace of Persian puni.sLment Do.vid inflicted on the murderers vroducing much effect on the language of of lshboeheth. Indeed, in European coun- the ,rn,,1erons people;i that were subject to tries a century and a half ago punishments the Persian empire. Thne is no sign that yet more revolting were frequent. The the word was known in Palestine during the punishment for treason in our own country time when the Turgurns were becoming fixed. wae ae horrible as anything well could be. In Akxandri&. where the Septoe.gint ver- The sentence, however, went further than sio11 of Daniel we.a made, the meaning of merely the individuals. .And your liousea tL.~ word was not known, and we.a thought BhaU be made a dunghill. In the ' Records of the Past,' i. 27, 43, arc references to some- OH, II, 1-49.] THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 43