The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 201

four clNIBee of wiee men Mlled in; IUl th<i Massoretio text.' The trnth aeema to be SC'ptue.gint he.s, otherwillll it e.grees ";~h the th11t the word really was ~lta, as l.n the Me.Moretic text. It is II matter of some Syriao, and the difficulty has risen in not interest to observe tbat the position of the recognizing the transference from one Cl1nlde11.ns i• somewhat precarious here, ns in dialect of Aramo.io to another. It ia tbe second chnptcr. They dise.ppC'ar wlwlly used in the Peshitta (2 Cor. x. 2) of from the list in tbe next veret>, which really the third heaven. Professor Dovan'e inter• seeme to be nnotber version of this. It is a pretoliou, that it means "every third day,'' me.rginal gloSE that he.e crept into the text. may be dismissed as absurd. Ewo.ld (in If we accept the reading of the Septuagint loo.) regards the title as ono of o. bonrd of here, eo far at least Ml to &l!sume the three-not an impossible meaning, in the entr&noe of the wire men before the king's light of what we find in the following dccl&ration of the reward, the succession of chapter. Yet his re11SOning, that it cnnnot cnnte becomes more ne,tural. The king be third in rank, because the queen-mother calls for the presence of these interpreters could not be counted in, is inept now, when of omens, &nd then, when they fail to we learn that Belsho.zzar was colleague interpret the writing to him, he proclaims with his father, and so the third plllcc was his offer of a reward to whoever co.n do all he had to give. On this question so. It is to be noted that there is in the Behrmann ta.kes the view discarded aa Septuagint no question of e.bility to rood impossible by Ewald, and holds that Daniel the writing, but simply to interpret it. It we.s placed third beco.use of the queen- has been pointed out to me by a friend mother. It is one of the commonpln.ces of that if theee words were written in cunei- the critioism of this book the.t the history form, the signs the.t would represent them ascribed to Daniel is borrowed from the might have a great variety of possible history of Joseph: why was the position sounds, e.nd 'lll'ith these differing sounds, offered not made "second,'' as was that of differing mee.nings. Sometimes a sign we.s Joseph? We have the reason in what we phonetic nnd a syllable, sometimes it know of the history of Be.byIon e.t the time. -was idiographie e.nd might represent a The Septuagint and Josephus were unaware whole word. There is this to be se.id for of the facts, and translated as they did. this view-the Assyrian was the writing ex- Ver. 8.-Then came in all the king's wise pected in inscriptions. Still, from the fact men: but they could not read the writing, that the Sep~aint omiui the deme.nd that nor me.ke known to the king the iDterpreta- the inscription shonld be read, we me.y regard tion thereof. As we have already said, the the matter as doubtful. A.ssoming that the ' Septuagint here repeats the list of wise wise men were required to read the in- men, and omits "the Chaldeans." If the 11Cription, some of the Jewish iDterpretem, word "Chaldean" had been in the text as Jephet-ibn-Ali, think that the letters of originally, the fact that astrologers were the word were inverted ; others have it that frequently called Che.ldeans would render the letters were arre.nged in colUIDDS. Even, it unlikely the.t the word should be however, if the words were written correctly omitted. Whereas from this very ground enough e.s Are.maic words, it would be a 1 Professor Bevan is mists.ken in asserting difficult matter to put any meaning in them as they stood, e.s we shall see when we (p. 102) the.t the Peshitta, following the consider Daniel's interpretation. The Septuagint in translating this passage, reward promised is of special interest. The renders the clause, "ruler of !the third part word argvana, traosls.ted "scarlet," appears in of the kingdom." In Dr. Lee's text this is Assyrian as argrnamm ; hamne.eka, the word certainly not the case. Castelli certainly rendered "necklace," is of doubtful origin. gives tertia par, as the meaning of the We find in the Ninevite sculptures and on word here. If, however, Professor Bevan the cylinders from Babylon many instances had verified Castelli's references, he would of splendid robes (flide Rawlinson, 'Five have seen that some of them did not Great Mono.rchies,' 560) ; the rich necklace support the.t translation; when it does is also to be seen(ibid.,ii.497,499). The great mean third part, it is not followed by ;i, but di.tliculty he.s arisen over the rank given to ,. It is amusing to see Professor Bevan in Daniel, " the third ruler in the kingdom." this coDI1ection quoting Josephus as e.n TLe difficulty is that the ordine.l here is authority for translating the clause as the not in its usnal fonn, although Petermann Septuagint doea, making taUa "third part," gives taltu as one of the forms of the ordinal when in p. 4 of his commentary he had TLer.-, is, further, the u.nnsual position of declared the knowledge Josephus had of tLe numeral in relation to the verb, though the book to be superficial Josephus is no the e.bnorme.lity is le• the.n Professor authority when brought in in favour of Bevan represents it, as the Peshitte. follows Daniel, but is an authority when he may be word for word the ana.ngement of the med against him. en. v.1-81.] THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 1G7