The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 177

it WIMI delivered to a guard, and in brazen The Septua.gint nt this point inserts "Anil Cotters nnd sho.okles was it bound with them. having risen tarly in the morning, '1 sum- I marvelled exceedingly o.t these things, o.nd moned Daniel, tho mler of the wise rnen the sleep depo.rted from mine eyes." The and chief of the interpreters, and relllte<l first thing tho.t strikes one with this is the to him the dream, e.nd he showed all th~ fnct tho.t it is a. tro.neiation from Aramnic. interpretat;on of it.'' In Gen. xii. we h11v,, 'fhe clo.uee, " in brazen fetters and shackles two accounts of Pbaraoh's dream, first iA wo.s it bound with them," seems nearly connection with hie actual dreaming, and demonstro.tive of this. 'Ev ,ri6a.« 1<a.l iv xeipo- next in his 11arrating to Joseph his ex- 1rl6a.ir XC1.A1ta.is 16,811 {m' .. ~To:P is not a. perience. If the orii(inal tract-from the sentence which any one would naturally union of severe.I of which we imagine our write in Greek, but the sentence is natural book has been compiled-from which thia if the transla.tor followed his Aro.maic chapter is condensed confainecl, like Gen. original slavishly. If, then, this is correct, xli., two accounts of Nebuchadnezzar's the hypothesis of a falsarius is reduced to vision, and the Egyptian recension followed that of an Aramaic falsarius, who intruded one condensation of thld tract, and the this verse into the Aramaic original which Palestinian another, the phenomena are was conveyed down to Egypt. On the explicable without the idea. of a. vague gra- other hand, the verse in the Septuagint tuitous variation, such as that of which, o" completes the narrative which the Mas- the traditional view, the writer of the Sep- eoretic text leaves unfinished. Thie may tuagint has been guilty. On the ground be used as an argument ago.inst the authen- that the Massoretic text may represent also ticity of this version, e.s the need of com- a true text of Daniel, c.notber fragment of pletion may have suggested the mode in the original document, we may examine it a which the need we.a to be supplied. Bat little more closely. The king declares the it is also to be noted the.t there is present dream to Daniel in a way that indicates a. the same mixture of sign and thing signi- certain attestation of the accuracy of the fied, whlch, natural in a dream, is so un- report of what he had seen. "This is the natural in ordinary ne.rre.tion, the.t the dream which I Nebuchadnezzar the king falsarius who he.d observed the incomplete- saw." 'fhen follows the command to declare ness of the Me.ssoretic text, e.nd he.d the the interpretation, "You are master of magi- necessary skill to supply the we.nt, would cians. I have duly brought before yon e.n not have increased the confusion, e.lreo.dy accredited dream which I have had, fulfil manifest enough. When we turn to Theo- now your office, interpret to me my dream." dotion, we see symptoms of trouble, "This This much is natural. What follows is an is the vision which I Nebuche.dnezze.r the obvious interpolation. It contradicts what king he.d, e.nd thou, Beltase.r, tell the has preceded, which, by implication, asserts interpretation, because none of the wifie men Daniel's duty to interpret, and therefore the of my kingdom were able to show me its probability that not last, but first, would interpretation; but thou, Daniel, art able, Daniel have been appealed to. It contra- because a holy spirit of God is in thee." The dicts e.lso what follows, which is a com- introduction of the Jewish name Do.niel in mendation of Daniel's powers, which, as the miclst of a speech in which he is always known to the king, ought to he.ve led him elsewhere addressed by his Babylonia.n at once to S11IDmon him, e.s the Septuagint no.me, is suspicious. The repetition, in this says N ebuchadnezze.r did. The commenda- e.s in the Me.ssoretio, of the original incon- tion of Daniel appears e.n addition to get gruity the.t Daniel, the hea.d of the court over the difficulty, but, like many other magicians, is only summoned after the other attempts of the so.me .kind, it foils, and magicians ho.ve proved unable to solve the really adds to the confusion. mystery of this dream, is to be noted. The Ver. 19.-Then Da.niel, whose name was Pe,hitta. here partly follows the so.me text Belteshazzo.r, was e.stcnied for one hour, and as the.t followed by Theodotion, and partly his th~ughts troubled him. Thu, far the tho.t of the Me.ssoretes. Like Thcoclotion, two main recensions arc agreed. The "Daniel" is inserted, but, following the Septuagint renders practically to the so.me basis of the Me.ssoretio text in opposition to effect as our version, only that ~,rovo,,. Theodotion, it he.s "a spirit of the holy 1ta.T€cr1f'euBev airr&v means rather "snspidons gods." 'fliere seems no possibility of imagin- disturbed him," which is the renderi"g of ing tho LXX. reading to have developed Paulus Tellensis. There are traces in it of from the Me.ssoretio, or vice versa. If there doublet; tbo rendering of the LXX. is, were any proof of Dr. 0. H. H. Wright's "Ancl Daniel greatly marvelled, aud sus- hypothesis, that our present D.iniel was a picions disturbed him, and ho wa, terri- conrlensation of a forger work, it might be fied, trembling having taken h0ld of him, supposed that tho Mnssorntio represented and his vi>age wo.s eliangecl, having moved ono eondense.tion, o.u<l the LXX. another. (1<,v~uci,) hig head, having been a.mazed one  140 THE BOOK OF DANlEt. [orr. rv. 1-87.