The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 199

the second bninb bed l'CRched the know- The faot that the vessels belonging to the ledge of ibc Bebylonien police. If rn, the temple of the God of the Jews were brought act of Delsbnzznr wee an act of dcfinnce forward from the treasury of Del would again.et Jehovah of Israel. nfford an occa.sion for praising llol, the god Vel'll. 3, 4.-Then they brought tbe golden who had (,!;iven them the victory. Whilo vessels that were taken out or the temp1e or they praised these gods of the ne.tions, thoy tbe bouBe of God which was at Jerusalem; did not even mention Jehovah-nu o.ddition and tbe king,and hie princes, his wives, and in the text of Thcodution o.nd the LXX., his concubine■, drank in them. They drank bnth text and margin, o.nd therefore ona wine, and praiBed tbe gods of gold, and of tho.t, we think, ought, in some form, to be in silver. of bra11 1 of iron, of wood, and of the text. It is singular that in the Oyrus ■tone. The oorresponding verses in the Sep- Cylinder, 17, the overthrow of No.buno.bid tue.gint dilfer in several points from those is attributed to llfarduk," whom No.buno.hid above ; the Septuagint third verse contains, did not feo.r." The reason of Belshazzar condensed, the Maseoretic third and fourth thus ostentatiously praising the gods might rnrses, but adds new matter in its fourth be to get over tho reputation of unfaithful- ,·eree : "(3) And they were brought, and ness to the gods, which wo.s weakening them, they drank in them, and blessed their idols father o.nd son, in their struggle with Oyrus. me.de with bands; (4) and the God the Belsha.zzar most likely was, et this very eterne.l, who bath dominion over their time, carrying on war o.ga.inst Oyrus. The spirit (' breath,' ,,-p,vµa), they did not object of this festive gathering of his nobles blea." In the introductory portion, which might be to hearten them in their struggle contain&, as we think, marginal readings, against the King of Persia. we have the second and fourth verses Ver. 5.-In the same hour oame forth brought into connection, "In that day fingers of a man's band, and wrote over Bait.a.ear, being uplifted with wine, and against the candlestick upon the plaster ot boasting himself, praised in hie drink all the wall of the king's palace : and tbe king the gods of the nations, the molten and the saw the part of the hand that wrote, The carved, but to God the Highest be gave two versions given in the Septuagint here not praise." The re.a.ding of the latter do not seriously differ from ea.eh other or portion of this seems better than the text, from the Ma.ssoretic text, only that they as it is briefer; the description of God as both omit "the part of," and represent the he that has power "over their breath," is a king as seeing the hand. Tbeodotion has preparation for what we find in ver. 23, lur,,-p,ryd>..ovs, which maybe rendered "finger- "and ihy breath is in his hand." Theo- joints;" otherwise this version is very like dotion is, es usual, much nearer the Mae- both the Ma.ssoretic nnd the LXX. The soretic t.ext, but while the M n.seoretic Peshitta presents no point of remark. The only mentions the " golden " vessels being word translated "lamp" (nebhrashta) be- brought, Theodotion mentions the silver came in Talmudic times the eq1J.ivo.lent of also, and the verb hanpiqoo is translated menoorah, "the golden candlestick." From singular, es if it were hanpayq, and "Nebu- this it he.a been supposed that "the co.ndle- chadnezzar" understood. A various reading stick" we.s the golden candlestick which later adds, "and the God of eternity, who ha.th proved the crowning glory of Titus's triumph, power of their breath, did they not bless," and is still to be seen carved on his aroh. a.ccording to the Alexa.ndrine and Vatican When the other vessels of the house of the codices. In both these cues Jerome follows Lord were brought to deck the table of the Theod.otion.. The Peshitta agrees only in monarch, it would not be unnatural that the latter, putting the verb in the singular. the golden candlestick should also be Modern trsnelators,ae Luther and Ewald, the bronght. In the greo.t ha.11 in which a Authorized and Revised English Versions, tbonsa.nd gnests were accommodated, more retuill the plural,'but make the verb pusive, lamps than one would be required. The n.s if it were written 1wnpaqoo. Calvin Septuagint (text) e.dds, "over ago.inst the o.lone preserves both number and voice. king:" this would individualize the lamp The French Version, which makes it im- referred to ; but there does not seem to bo per;,ona.l, is proba.bl y e.s good as any. It any support for this reading, which me.y be is, however, not impossible that the true due to the desire to explain the status em- reading is hnpha.l ; that seems better than phaticru, Gesenius derives the word NJ;11?:'?} Calvin's suggestion, that what Nebuchad- from ,u, " light," and :i,111 "fie.me." As , 11ezzar had done is now transferred to all e,s a. consonant we.a unused in Assyrian, this the Babyloninns. The praises of the gods derivation is by no means impossiblo. We L<:ing snug was espr,cially natural, if this know that the Ninevite monarchs sur- were a dedication of a palace. In such a rounded the great ha.Us of their pa.laces with case the various elemental deities would be bas-reliefs of their victories. The remains invokr,d to blese the residenoe of the king. of Babilon have not given us anything like cu. v. 1-31.) Tirn nooK OF DANIEL.