The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 139

rights postponed to " sc:>t of Jews. The fRot accordance with Ee.stern usage. The point tlle.t the three friends e.re not named, or in of the e.ccusRtion Rge.inst these three officials any we.y designRted, bnt the whole Jewish wn.s the.t, being offici&le, they did not con- ?Ree i• referred to, shows the.t the purpose firm by obc,Hence the solemn decree of the of lhPse OhRldee.ns involved the whole monarch. Further, if this st&tue or obelisk ,l<'wish people, a.nd that they singkd out were erected to 1111\rduk (Mcrode.oh), whom Shn.dmch, Meshach, e.nd A~dncgo simply Nebuchadnezzar specio,lly worshipped, and ns t<>st cases. Their elevn.t.ion to positions whom he reg:nded ns his spccinl protector, of such trust might well he.ve caused the element of tree.son ngainst tho state jen.lousy of them. might be implied in this rcfusnl to givo Vere. 9-12.-They sp&ke and said to the due obeisance to the tutelnry god of tho Xillg Nebuohadneaar, 0 king, live for ever. Babylonian Empire e.nd its sovereign. The Thou, O king, hut made a deoree, that every politics and warfare of tho.t period proceeded man that ahall hear the sound of the oomet, on the assumption the.t the gods directly flute, harp, saokbut, psaltery, and duloimer, interfered in the affairs of the nl\tions. Anv and &11 kinda of mueio, shall fall down slight done to the national god would-as and worship the golden image : and whoso it wa.s believed-be avenged on the nation f&lleth not down and worshippeth, the.t he who he.d suffered it to pass unpunished. ahould be cut into the midst of a burning They summoned deities to lee.ve cities they fiery furnaoe. There are certain .Jews whom were besieging, e.nd tried to persuade the thou he.st set over the aifairs of the province inhabitants that even their god we.s on the of Babylon, Sha.draoh, ]ll[eshe.ch, and Abed- side of the besieger. Thus Sennacherib (2 nego; these men, 0 king, he.ve not regarded Kings xix. 22) asserts the.t Jehovah must thee : they serve not thy gods, nor worship be offended with Hezekiah, e.nd Pharaoh- the golden image which thou hast set up. N echo claimed to Josiah the.t he went at The differences here between the Septna- God's command to fight age.inst Assyria. gint and the Me.~soretic are slight. Only, (2 Chron. xxxv. 21), According to heathen it may be observed, that in the repetition notions generally, Cbe.ldeo.n e.nd Babylonia&. of the decree to the king, <rvµ4>0,v/a does not included, some very slight inadvertence occur. lnstee.d of saying, "they serve not might vitiate a sacrifice, e.nd chonge it thy gods," it renders," thine idol they do not from being a propitiation to the gods to serve." Further, the word n:,:;iP. (' 0 beedath), an offence to them. If e.n inadvertence translated " business," is omitted, probably might thus be me.leficent, much more direct implying the omission in the original text disrespect such e.s the.tshown by these Jewish of p~;. Theodotion's Version is consider- officials. But the e.ccusers lay stress on e.nother side of the me.tter. N ebuche.dnezze.r ably briefer in regard to the ninth verse, e.s had set them over the e.ffe.irs of the province it omits" answered e.nd se.id," e.nd "Nebu- of Babylon; but be had set up the golden chadnezzar;" otherwise it is in closer agree- image. There we.s thus e.n element of ment with the Ma.ssoretic text, only it too persone.l disrespect hinted at, made all the omit.a trtJµq,uivla.. In the Pesbitte. we find more heinous that the element of ingratitude e. variation in the ninth verse; its render- we.s e.lso present. But how is it that ing begins, "And they se.id to Nebu- Daniel is not introduced into this narrative? chadnezzar the king." As before mentioned. Why was it that he we.a not attacked rather in the list of instruments p'santerin is the.n his friends? It may be argued that omitted. e.nd kinnor appears ; otherwise the this is another tradition, and that the union agreement is close with the Me.ssoretic of Daniel with the three friends is due to text. The Vulge.te agrees with the Peshitte. that dovetailing of which so me.ny traces in its rendering of the ninth verse, but, aro found-or alleged to be found-in the unlike the Greek Version, insert.a symplwnia, l'cntateuch. But the editor who did the e.nd nnlike the Peshitte., ins~rt.s psalterium. dovetailing in the present instance, did .AP, to the A.ra.me.ic text, the most noticeable more than dovetail-they are introduced e.t thing is the fact tbe.t in the K'thlb, instead various points in the narrative of the pre- of ti;",tr;,1?:J (sumplwnia) there appears tt;,b•i;, ceding chapter. Why did he not com- ( siplib1iia). The twelfth verse he.s this plete his work, and explain why Daniel peculiarity in it, the.tit is the only case where was absent? If it is a work of imagina- n~, the sign of the accusative, so frequent tion, it is neceese.ry to account for the in the Te.rgums, occurs in Biblical Aramaic. absence of Daniel; even if it is the re- In the inscription on the Hadad Statue e.t sult of editorial le.hour, still the absence 8indschirli, line 28, we have nm ('0-th-h) of Daniel he.s to be e.ccountcd for or ex- RE the sign of the accusn.tive; e.s in the case plained away. This would press heavily l,efore us, it serves for the oblique cue of on one writing in the days of the Maccabees. 0. pronoun. Tht adulatory address with On oue chronicling events e.s they occurred, wLicL these Che.ldee.ns begin is quite in this might easily be passed over, because ell. Ill, 1-30,J 'l'HE DOOK 01<' DAN IF!L. HJl