The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 143

In regard to the remaining words-attm- Thcodotion e.nd the Peshitta, dtitcd about f>ltanya and p••anterin-it is argued that they A.D. 150; the Me.ssoretio text, boing fixed a.re of Groek origin, and that, while Daby- somewhere about A.D. 600, 1md represented lonio.n intercourse with Groeoe is not denied, by manuscripts, the earliest of which is of the origin of those words is me.int&ined to be the tenth century-the Q'ri e.nd K'thih re- le.te, e.t all events, in the sense in whioh present two forms of reading. Of these thoy e.ppear in this pn.sAAge. 'l'hue, p'aan- authorities the latest is the Me.ssoretio tRrin is dl'olared to he the Greek ,j,IVl.'M/p/o,., text. Rnd it is further ea.id that ,j,a~.,..,,plov is not To begin with the lllassorctio text, the a term R)lplied to musical instruments till first thing that meets us is that, while in the late, Arist-0tle and Theopbm.slus bein9, the fifth, tenth, and fifteenth verses, the word is euliest suthors th1<t nee the word. That 1•,moll, in the seventh verse it is rir::iioll. this word p'•anterin is derived from ,j,al\• This is not so insignificant e.s at first eight -nipiov is supposed t-0 be proved by an argu- seems, for n and l!l do not sppear to ho.ve ment which shows the.t the Greek letter 1/, is been pronounced in the same way originally, resolved, in pa88ing into Aramaic, into ll any more than the Greek 6 and .-. But and ~; second, the.t ', me.y be changed into further, it is an acknowledged canon of ;, and the.t -rnv becomes not infrequently crit~ci~m that "'.he~ a. passage has many r-- Even though 11ll these points be ad- vo.rmt!ons of re'!-dmg m diff~i;ntmanuscripts, mitted, it does not follow that p'i!unurin is that itself raises a suspicion that it has derived from psnUerion; e.s fair a case come from the margin into the text. This might be made out for deriving "mystery" variation of r::i and n in e. word is OJI instance from "mist." V.'hile j"" sometimes repre- similar to the.t of varying words in the case sents -,ov, it much more frequently is simply of e. pa8so.ge ; e. varying letter is, in the the sign of the plural ; e.nd while ~ may be case of e. word, a note conveying suspicion. at times the first half of lj, resolved, it also When we tum to the versions, we find does represent at times the Coptic article that while the Greek-the Septuagint e.nd 'l'heodotion-have it, the word is quite TI€. While it is not impossible that omitted from the Syriac Peshitto.. If it had aanter may represent the remaining letters dropped into the text from the margin, it of the name of the Greek instrument, would be most likely to do so in the Greek 0A.ltTtcp€ has a meaning in Coptic versions first, e.nd then find its way into the also ; it may mean a chorus - " those Massorctio text afterwnrds. Hence the singing to an instrument." This, then, positive value of the evidence of the Greek would show that p'sanJerin might mean versions is comparatively small, although those singing in ncccmpaniment to the their negative value is considerable, On pre'l'ionely named instruments. Confirme.- the other hand, the word is not present e.t tor'I' of this is the fact that in Lower e.11 in the Peshitta, which originated beyond Egypt, e.t the present day, there is a musi- the sphere of Greek domination. The.t being cal instrument called the aanuer. When the stat.e of the matter, we venture to main- one remembers the great intercourse that te.in that the word p•sn.nterin does not existed between Assyria e.nd Egypt when belong to the genuine text of Daniel. Esarhaddon and Asshnr- bani - pal held The case against N'l!ll:l10 is yet stronger. In possession of Egypt-the former of whom regard to this word there is a divergence frequently held his conrt in Babylon-that between the Q'ri and the K'thib. Hence we E~1·ptian words should come into Babylon may regard this as a case in which we have w~uld not be extraordinary. We admit twenty manuscripts. If we now examine readily that possibility is not proof of the evidence supplied by these, we she.II actuality, yet it weakens the force of the find that the evidence for the presence of other argument, which also is merely from N'l!ll:l10 in the original text is very weak, possibility. In the K'thib, which represents in general A prior question he.s to be settled before the better text, we have l!'Umphonya only in we d"ducc anything from the origin of this two cases, in one case we have siplionya, in word p'santerin. Is it really part of the the fourth case nothing at all. In the Q'ri original text? There a.re in this third we have three cases of sumplwnya. When chapter of Daniel fonr diBtinct lists of we tum to the Greek texts, we find that what pU1pOrt to be musical instruments. symplwnia occurs in the Septuagint in two And the.a a.re e.rrangod in such a way cases, in Theodotion only in one case. When that the reader expects them to be we tum to the Peshitta, we have no case of id,,ntical. Each of these may thus be ,umplwnia, but we ho.ve in e.ll cases r~gard~d as i;eparate manuscripts. We tziplwnia, e. form akin to what we find in liave further three old versions, as already the tenth verse in the Massoretic text. If, mentioned, as well e.s the Ma88-0retic text : then, we take these various cieses together, iLt Septuagint dated eJ,out B,C. 200 ; e.nd sum them up, we find eight cases of on. Ill, 1-30.) TllE BOOK OF DANIEL, 105