The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 205

sn.<'re<l vessels by drinking wine in them him- terioua writing, e.n.d then, he.vlng ree.d tt se H. and his wives. and ltis concubines. It is himself, turn to the king and address him? to be not.ed thnt the princes are omittcd from The word~ of the Maesoretio and of the text the enumerntion here. In pl'OOf that our oon• bPhind the Septuagint differ very oonsider- tention is correct. we find the mnss of this e.bly, but not so much but that the former entir<>ly omitt<>d from the Scptungint. There may have grown out of the latter by ex- are signs of confusion, &nd conlceccnee of pansion, and the insertion of paraphrastio different readings in the text of the Sep• a.drlitious. A peculinrity to bo observed tungint, yet we he.ve no heeita.tion in cla.im• in the Me.ssoretic text (var. 17) is J:V:!7 inJ:; the.t it represents e. muoh ee.rlier state of the text than we find in our Hebrew (lehayf!Yan), the third plUl'al imperfect of Bililcs, "Tben De.niel stood before the 1,w,, "to be." It is difficult to understand writing. and read, e.nd thus answered the this form of the third person, save on the king: Tbis is the writing: It ha.th been supposition that De.niel was written in e. numbered; it wa.s reckoned; it ha.s been region where ~ was the preformative. Thie remornd." The ma.rgine.l ree.dingwhich we preformative &long with l was used in Baby- find in the beginning of this che.pter he.a, lon so late as the period of the Babylonio.n Mane, Pl,,areJ;, Thckel. The interpretation Talmud. Theodotion and the Peshitta prac- here follows a different "succession, "And tioally agree with the Me.ssoretic text. the hand which wrote stood "-e. phrase Even when we omit all the insultin" tha.t seems to be a mistaken rendering elements, we have Daniel's speech to Bei: of the la.tter clause of the twenty-fourth shazzar as we find it in the Massoretic text: verse o.s we find it in the Me.ssorctic text. no reader can fail to notice the difference It seems difficult to imo.gine what Axama.ic of Daniel's demeanour towards Belsho.zzar wor<l has been translated fo-r11. Pe.ulus Tel- e.s narrated here, from that towards Nebu- chadnezzar as narrated in the preceding lensis has ~ (m:ip, q•math), which may chapter. When he lee.rns the disa.ster the.t have been mistaken for sh•liach, though it is impends on the destroyer of his city and not ens, to sec how. The clause is, at ell the conqueror of his nation, Daniel is events; misplaced. The following cle.use astonied and silent, and bursts out from hie also is misplaced, and is o. doublet of the silence, "The dream be npon thine enemies, first chmse of the twenty-sixth verse. The and the interpretation thereof upon them twenty-third verse seems to be the nuclens tbe.t he.te thee." He shows no sign of of the speech ascribed to Daniel, "0 king, sorrow when he learns the fate impending thou madest a feast to thy friends, and thou on Belshazzar. We can underste.nd this, if draukest wine, and iht, vessels of the house we regard Daniel's love for the splendid of the li,ing God were brought, and ye oonqneror making him feel the blood of his drank in them, thou and thy nobles, and m\ll'dered descendants, Evil-Merodach and praised all the idols made with the hands of Labasi-Mardnk ea.lied for vengeance. So men, o.nd the living God ye did not bless, far as we can make out from external history, and thv breath is in his hand, and he gave Belshe.zzar was a gallant young prince, who thee tl;y kingdom, e.nd thou didst not bless seemed to be able to maintain himself him, neither praise him." The wives and against Cyrus, while his father lived in concubines are not mentioned here. There retirement in Tema; but the judgment of is no word of the me.dness of Nebuchad- God often fa.lie on those who are not worse nezzar. Althongh from the disturbed state than their predecessors, only guilt he.s accu- of the text in the immediate neighbourhood mulated and ripened. Lonie XVI. was not one is inclined to BUSpcct the authenticity worse than, but ree.lly greatly superior to, his of this twenty-third verse, given in the two immcdie.te predecessors, yet on him, not LXX., yet there is nothing the.t contradicts on them, broke the vengeance of the French the position created by the two early decrees Revc,lution. There probably was, aa ea.id of Nebucho.dnezze.r, which ple.ced Jehovah above under ver. 2, a special defia.nce of the God of the J ewe on a par with the great Jehovah, which therefore merited special gocls of B:lbylon to whom, though no worship punishment. was decreed, at all events no dishonour was Ver. 2i.-'Ihen was the part of the hand to be done. Belsha.zzar is not so much sent from him; and this writing was blamed for praising the gods of wood and written. As we have seen, the real cqnivo.• stone as for omitting to praise Jehovah. lent of this verse in the Septuagint is a Bdsliazzar had disbc,noured Jel.10ve.h, and clause in ver. 17, "And the hand which therefore this ominous message had come had written (-ypd.iparTa) stood." If we take forth. The firai clause here seems the this to mean that the hand now " cco.sed prirnitiv,; text. Wbat was more na.tural than to write," then the original text might be tLo.t Daniel, coruing into the presence of the I lt=i)J;lr it:i: Pl11?P, the verb being written pk,ium, king, should go and sta.nd before the mya- in MandJiean manner. Then it would easily on. v. 1-31.j THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 171