The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 98

ns P<Jui,•a.lcnt to l'ach othe.r, "Thv drca.m beginning of this verse as the end of vcr. nucl the ,iaions of thy hPad upon· thy bed: 19, omits it now; hence it renders," Dlessod a.re these." "'hile wo a.grcc with HiLzig be tho Name of tlic great Lord for ever, thnt the rcvclnti0n ·wns to Da.niel in a. because the wisdom a.nd the greatness are <lreo.m, we <lv not a.,lmit the p•yclwlogical his." Tho fact that Nl;l~J/;-)',l (min'alma) impossibilil~·. sa.,e only in tho pede.ntio seru;e in which it is snid tha.t no two people, "from eternity," is not rendere1l in this howernr close they mo.y stand to ea.oh other, vereion, and Uuit the a.djcclivo "great" is see the same rninbow. Drca.ms are very added in its place, indicates o. difference of generally the product of what the subject rca.ding. Probably there was a transposition lia.s experienced during hie waking hours. of 7,:io and ~0Sv70 and the JO omitted. Surely lii(zig never meant to e.esert that it Then ~o',v would be regarded as sfaius em- wo.s a ps~·cholog-ical impossibility for two phaU~ of the adjective 0 1';,p (a1Uni) This indiriduals to witness the same e,ent. Cer- lS not likely to be a correct reading, as allim tainly the improba.bility is very great that means "robust," "possessing the vigour of the sight of the ea.me physioa.l event should youth." Thcodotion differs somewhat more meet the eyes of two people in similar states from the llfassoretic text than is his custom, of hody, and produce on them precisely the " And he so.id, De the N amo of Goel roma rort nnd <lcgr('e of impression. That, blessed from eternity to eternity, for (the) howeycr, is akin to the Hegelian pedantic wisdom and (the) understanding are hi.a." sta tcmcnt, which asserts that we cannot go This is shorter; tho omission of tho pico twice down the same street. Though it might na.stio formula, "answered and said," has even be admitted to be an impossibility in an appeara.noe of genuineness that is im- the only ser.se in wliich it can at all be pressive. It would seem as if Theodotion admitted, yet still it is not self-oontra- had ~m•:i (been•t11a), "understanding," in- dtctory. The self-contradictory is the only stead o'r n:11:i,1 (g"boorah), "might." The impossibility we can. assert in the presence of th2 miraculous. Hitzig's objection to Peshitta and the Vulgate do not differ from this is ren.lly that it was a miracle, and the Ma.ssoretic text. The first word of the all the parade of giving the statement a Hebrew text of this song 'of tlianksgiving new face by calling it, not a. miracle, but has an interest for us, as throwing light on a psychologicul impossibility, is only throw- the question of the original language. lj)r!~ ing dust in the eyes of others, perhaps has the appearance of an infinitive, but ·it of himself. Ewa.Id does not see e.ny is the third person plural of tlie imperfect; psychologiaa.l impossibility, and declares ', is here the preformative of the third thut the author meant to represent this at person singular and plural as in Ea.stern all e,·cnte. Up, then, before the mind of Aramaic a.e distinct from Western. This Daniel rose the gigantic statue of the preformative is foucd occo.siona.lly in the monarch's vision, and with the vision came .Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud, along also the divinely given certainty that this with l, the preforma.tive we :find regularly wa.s willl.t the king ha.d seen. He needs, in Syriac. In Biblical .Aramaic this pre howen,r, more thnn the vision : the inter- formative is found only with the substantive prcta.tion of the vision is vouchsa.fed to verb; the renson of this, however, we havo him also. Then Daniel bleFBed the God of considered in regard to the langna"'e (see /.eaDet,. The LX X. rendering here joins Introduction, p. xxiii.). Suffice it that we the first clause of ver. 20 to tliis, "Then regard this as an evidence that Daniel Daniel bleSBCd the God of heaven, and was originally written in Eaetem Aramaic. li:l\ing cried e.lond, se.id." Theodotion, Professor Beva.n's explanation, thnt the fo~ Peshitta, o.nd Jerome agree with the phenomenon is due to the likeness these Massorctic text. As we have said above, parts of this verb have to the Divine Na.me, Daniel returned thanks to God for his is of force to afford a roa.eon why, in the great goodness to him and his friends. midst of the general process of Occidentaliz- -Our bfossing God does not increase Divine ing the .Aramaic, they shrank from applying felicity, Lut it expresses our sense of this it to thia verb. That they had no scruple felicitv, and we recognize it all the more in writing it :first hand, we find in tho readily when, as in the ease of these Jews, Ta.rgnms; thus Onkelos, Gen. xviii. 18, :in:. it is exhibited in making ue partakers of We might refer to other examples in the it Hence blessing God and giving God later Aramaic of the Talmud and other tkmks become in such cases one and the Rabbinic works. The Name of God. Later llllIDC thing. Judaism, to avoid using the sacred cove- -v er. 20.-A.nd Daniel answered aud said, nant name of God, was accustomed to use Blessed be the Name of God for ever and the" Name," in this sense. This me.y be ev&r : for wiadom and might a.re his. The noted that throughout this whole book, Septuagint, haviDg prnctically given the "Jehovah" occ'Ul'B c,nly in ch..i,x. This lWIY OJI, II. 1-10.] 'l'IIE TIOOIC OF DANIEL.