The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 137

1,.,;;, -rb ,r>..,irr-ro• µ.lpos ), then of the Romo.n some indubite.bly Poreio.n, as a~ashdarpan, world oe dietinot from tho bo.rbo.rian (Poly- others unmistakably Aseyrie.n, sagan pehah '. biue, i. 4. O, Tb -ri;s HM1s ol1<011µl"'I• rrx;jµ.a); e.nd there are 'some that have no rec0 .,.: in this latter eenee it is used in Luke ii. 1. nized etymology, as tiphliiye; but thP,rc ";e 'l'he phro.ee, "notions, peoples, o.nd tongues," none that e.re even plau8ibly deri verl from is one thnt occurs with great frequency in Greek. Yet this class of words is precisely Revelation, o.nd o.lso the o.bove phro.ee, -r,i• the class where the influence of the l,in- 8,1.71, ol,covµ.lv11•. 'rhie is o.n indico.tion of g-uago of the military governing nation the use mo.de by the Apostle John of thie would be manifest. 'fhe fact the.t while version of Dnniel o.s distinct from the the Mo.ssoretic text he.a eight classes of l\foeeoretic text. It mo.y o.leo be observed rulers who are summoned, the Septuagint tho.t the phrase," o.ll in the whole inhabited has only six, throws e. suspicion on the earth," is placed os equo.l to " o.11 the rulers whole list. The LXX., however, adds, of the provinces," which mo.kee it o.t least "e.11 those in the whole earth (1r&....-cz, -ro&s possible tho.t o. misreading of tho original 1<cz-rct -r1w oi,covµlv11v)," which may be the text ho.a occasioned the exaggeration in this result of misreading of kol ,!tilto-ni m'deen- particular clause. In the third verse the atha, or it may be a rendering of it, refer- order is different, and to some extent the ring back to the classes already enumerated names of the officials are different also; (6.pxovras being understood, omitting the ua-rptl,ra, is left out, and -r6pa.vvo, e.ppee.re in "11a1J). In Theodotion and Jerome there are its stee.d, though not in the same place. seven classes. Only in the Peehitta e.re Further, there are persons mentioned " great there the same number of claBBes as in in authority." Thie variation may be due the Maeeoretic. The Peshitta. has ae this to e.n uncertainty in the mind of the trans- first class rabai ~eela', used in the New lo.tor as to the exact equivalent in Greek for 'reetament, e.g. Luke xxii. 4, of "chief the Aramaic terms. It is to be noted that captains." It is possible that rabuti, or some "the inhabitants of the whole earth" dis- derivative from it, was in the original text appear from this repetition. The last editor here, and this was changed into the better of the Greek text may have had two render- known satrap. Sagan does not call for ings before him, and drew from the one the remark; as said above (eh.ii.~ 8), it is derived second verse, e.nd from the other the third. from shakun (Assyrian); the Hebrew equiva- Theodotion'e rendering, while in closer lent appears in J er. Ii. 23 and Ezek. xxiii. agreement with the Maseoretic text, yet 6, e.nd elsewhere. Pe~ah is e.lso Assyrian differs from it to some extent, appearing to in origin, e.lso elsewhere used in Scripture. me.ke the latter half of ver. 2 explanatory of .Ada,-gazrayya seems a compound from adar the former, whieh contains the more technical e.nd gazar, "to divide." Fiirst would ma.ko designations. In ver. 3 there is a change in this word mean "astrologers of the godAdar." the order of the terms, as to some extent a Professor Beve.n would derive it from endarz- cho.nge in the terms. In the Peshitta there gar, a Persio.n word meaning "counsellor" are evident traces that the translator had -" e. word which was still in use under the, not understood the technical meaning of Sasso.nie.ns." That the word had any con- the terms here used. 'rhe list given is nection with this is disproved by the fact "great men of might-lords, rulers, .A.gar- that in the Peshitta it is rendered Agardaei. daei, Garabdaei, 1'arabdaei, Tabathaei, and If the word in question had survived from o.11 the rulers of the province." These mys- the Achremenide to the Saese.nids, its mean- terious names, the.t seem thoee of tribes, ing would necessarily be known to the have no existence elsewhere. It is singulo.r Peshitta. translator, whose date held be- that these words, if they are in their origi- tween the periods of these two Persian nal shape-which they seem certainly to be dynasties. A Persian word of the date of -and to appearance of Persian origin, wero the Achremenide to have survived to the unintelligible to one writing on the Persian age of the So.ssanide, must he.ve been known frontier ot most three centuries after the in the intervening P(uthio.n period. A critico.l date of Daniel. The Parthio.n similar difficulty occurs in regard to the Empire retained much of the Persian cha- next word, g•dabrayya-the Syrian trans- racter. How we.a it that words of Persian lator has simply transferred it. The meaning ho.d disappeared there, and still simplest interpretation is that it is a varia- remained in use, or at least still continued tion on gizbarayya (Ezra vii. 21), o.nd means to be intelligible, in Palestine? The pro- "tree.eurere," which is still in use in the bability is the.t the names ho.ve undergone Syriao of the Peehitta, e.g. 2 Kings x. 22. so great ohe.nge in course of transcription The question is complicated by the fact that their original form can no longer be that the word which oocupiee the ea.me recognized. The Vulgo.te does not oa.11 place in the similar list in ver. 27 is had- for remark. The no.mes of these different dabrii. When we tum to the Peshitta for gro.dee of officio.lee.re (as wo now have them) that ve~e, there is another word, raur- DANIEL, ll  98 THE BOOK OF DANIEL. [011. m. 1-30.