The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 91

hnvo boon II elight difference of rending to Selek-Moulou-ki, e.nd MRrdnk wo 8 tho ncoount for the eontenoe tnliing the vocntive great revealer; but by this hie dwelling form it does. It may be clue to rending 11;, we.a with flesh. As we see, however, thero ins tend of inH in the following cln11se. 'l'heo- were gods whose dwelling was n0t with flesh, dotion ngroee wiLh the Mnssoretio text, nncl who knew secretq hicl even from Marrlnk. tmnsla.Los yalcliirah, f3ap6s, The Pcshittn 'fhis excuse of the wise men is a prepnrn- cloos not differ hero from the Massoretio tion for Daniel'a claim to reveal the secret text. Tho eoothenyers still pursuo their lino of the king by the power of a higher G0r\ of defence, which they hnd ncloptecl in the than any that communicated with the preoeding verso. The ldng onnnot get the Babylonian eootheayera. Hitzig regarda answer he dem11ncle-his deme.ncl is so this ne e.n artistic device of the Ruthor. cliffioult and strange. And there is none We rege.rd it as the proviclentinl intenen- other tbe.t oe.n show it before the king exoept tion of God himself, that these heathen the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh. soothsayers should shelter themselves unrler 'l'he Septuagint rendering differs somewhat, an excuse that forced into clearer light though slightly, from the Mnseoretic text: the snpremacy of Jehovah. It inclicatee a "And there is no one who will show these special knowleclge of Babylonian worship thinge to the king, unless some (us) angel, thus to lay stress on this distinction be- whose dwelling is not Rt all with flesh." tween higher and lower gods. The omission of ahoran, "other," gives some Ver. 12.-l!'or this cause tbe king was slight confirmation of the suggestion the.t ,.,..,. angry e.nd very furious, and commanded lio{os, " strange" or " peonlinr," represents to destroy e.ll the wise men of Babylon. it. It is very ohare.oterietio of the , time The Septuagint rendering differs little in when the Septuagint tranelntion wne made, sense from the above, but in words it does and of the opinion& then current, that the considerably, "Then the king, becoming word J'i1?H (elohin), '' gods," should be ren• gloomy and very grieved, commanded that dered il'Y')'•.\os, " angels." By this time they leacl out all the wise men of Babylonia.." there Wll8 an nvoiclance of the nee of the The main thing to be observed is the Divine name, and anything that suggested softening of the meaning in the hancls of it; further, there· was nu avoidance of the the Septuagint translator. This is so great names of heathen deities. The so.me feel- e.e to suggest that be read ;i7Jid? instead ing that makes the historian of the Book of ;J';J~ ;,,7. The e.phel of '1N is 'not used of Samuel represent (1 Sam. uix. 6) Aohish in Chnlclee, but is used in Syriac. Theodo- ewes.ring by Jehovah rather the.n by hie tion's rendering is, "Then the king in anger own gods, as would certainly be the case, and wre.th commanded to destroy all the makee the translator here represent the wise men of Babylon." The Syriac has a eoothse.yers refening to " angels.'' The shade of difference, " Then W118 the king iclee. of angels of the ne.tione, which we vehemently enraged, e.nd in great fury find Inter in this book, we.a generally commanded to destroy all the wise men of adopted by the Jews in Egypt (e.e e.g. Deut. Babylon." It is evident that 'fheodotion xxxii. 8, LXX.). A question hne been raised ree.d o~~ (b'nas ), " was e.ngry ," as if it were here e.e to whether the statement, "w!Jose dwelling is not with flesh," is to be regarded the preposition :i, and the Syrino noun o~ e.e distinguishing all gods from human (nas), "anger." He also mnst have inserted beings, or as distinguishing certain of the the preposition before ~P. (g_•tzaph), higher gods from the others. The first " wrath; " in this he iii followed by the view is that of Hitzig, Kraniohfeld, Beve.n, Peshitt11. The Septuagint is freer in its e.nd others ; Professor Fuller and V9n Len- rendering in this verse, e.nd one cannot gerke and others maintain the latter argue e.nything from it. The probability opinion. There is one thing certe.in-the.t seema to be that DJ (nas) is used e.s II noun, the soothsayers e.nd interpreters of dreams and that the Te.rgnmio verb was formed a.ad auguries believed, or, at e.11 eveuts, from the mistake of e. scribe dropping the pretended they believed, themselves ea.eh preposition before 9~P. (q•tzaph). If we are under the guidnnce of II specie.I genius or correct in this, we· have nn additional subordinate god. Suoh ll god he.d his dwelling with flesh-the.t is to say, with evidence the.t the original language of hume.nity; but there were in their pantheon Daniel was not Che.ldee, but Syriac, or, at higher gods, whose dwelling was not with all events, ERstern Aramaic. As II gram- flesh. In some of the incantations and matical note, we direct attention to the magionl formulm whioh LenormRnt hns col- form ;i;::ii;i~ where the H of the root has lected in hie 'Ln Me.gie,' we fiud (p. 21) totRlly • dis~ppeared before the ;i of the Sclek-Monlou-ki coming to Ea. his father ha.phel, the equivalent in Biblical Aramaio for information as to ibe co.uses of disease, of tho Chaldee RDll Syriac aphel with its eto, Mcuduk is t!Jo Ilabylonicm nnme for p1·eformative ~- Profc;;,or Dev,m se.ys that  TllE BOOK OF DANIEL. [cH. n. l-40.