The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 278

thRt the present timr. when lerR.el hR.a "ejus." It is difficult to decide what ie neither rountry nor city, is one of indig- tho truo reading here. In tho reading of nation ; but the immediR.te referenoo is to the older versions the meaning is that those the pel'Brcution Rgllinst the Jews inaugu- kings which should succeed Alexander tntcd by Epiphnncs. should not be mighty. The reading of tho Yer. 20.-The ram whioh thou 1awe■t Massorctie and Jerome implies 11, direct nnd having two horns "re the kings of Kedia natural comparison with Alexo.nder the and Persia. All the veraione-the Septull• Great. As for the Greek versions, ou is gint, Theodotion, the Poshitta., and the oosily mist11,ken for "' in uncial manu- Vulgate-hnve rca.d, not •,;,71:?, as we find in scripts. As for the Syriao, \0 is npt to be the Maesol"(1tic text, but 7?!?· The ancient added to en of the third person, o.nd pro- con•truct case in Hebrew was formed by duce the dift'erenoo we find. While the adding ' to the root. Possibly this may be Greek versions and Jerome render, "his a survival of that uBage. In this case the nation" tinstead of " the nation," as in the cha.nge is due to ecrib&l blunder. When Massoretio, the Peshitta follows tho Maeeo- we turn to Jer. xxv. 25 nnd Ii. II, 28, we retio, which is wrong here. The point of have the same phrases used as here: this is the contrast is tho.t the kings that suc- probably the origin of the blunder. For e.ny oeeded Alexander were not of his family. one to ground an n.rgument, e.s does Pro- Ce:rte.inly none of the successors of Alex- fessor Bevan, on this, n.nd maintain that it ander had an empire ne11,rly so extensive as proves the writer to have held that there his. The only one that really even comes were two separate empires-one of Media., into comparison with the empire of Alex• and the other of Persia-is absurd. When the ander is that of Seleucus Nicator. But not trnc ree.ding ie adopted, this passage proves only had he neither European nor Africn.n the very reverse of that for whieh Professor dominions, he did not possess, save for 11, :Beran contends. The reasoning of Klie- little while, Asi11, Minor, nor Palestine, nor foth, that the distinction between plural India. beyond the Indue at all. The Po.r- and singula.r points to the fact that, while thian Empire soon sprang up, and wrested severnl kings reigned over the Persian from the Seleucid a large po1·tion of their Empire, only one ruled over the Greek, is possessions east of the Euphrates. It can very ingeniou.s, but, unfortunately, it has well be said, even of the empire of Seleucue, no foundation in fact. "King," it may be that it had not the power of that of Alex• observed, stands for dynasty, only that in ander the Great. the crisis of history, when the two powers Ver. 23.-A.nd in the latter time of their encountered, each was raled and represented kingdom, when the transgressors are oome by one king-Pe!'Bis. by Darius Codomannns, to the full, a king of fierce countenanoe, and Greece by Alexander. and understanding dark sentenoes, shall Ver. 21.-A.nd the rough go&t is the Xing stand up. The versions here are, on the of Greci.a : and the great horn that is be- whole, in agreement with the Massoretie. tween his eyes is the first ki.n.g. Again all The Greek versions read, "their sine," as the versions agree in omitting the wortl if it were the iniquities of the successors of "rough," and in inserting "of the goats," Alexander that had become full, and thus as in tlic fifth verse. The authority of aft'orded the occasion of the appeare.nce of these is much too great to be resisted. The Epiphanes. The Peshitta and Jerome have l\fossoretic reading is probably due to a "iniquities" generally, without reference confluence of readings, as the word trans- to the kings, but with probable reference lau,d "rough" also means "goats." The to the Jewish people. The probability is omission of the word "of the goats" is decidedly in favour of the Maesoretio probably due to the inclusion of ,,~~ reading; it was an ee.sy suggestion the.t (,a'ee.-). Here, e.s in the previous case, the iniquities to be punished were those of " king" ste.nde for dynasty ; and this is the heathen kings. The whole analogy of proved by the fact that there is implied _a Scripture leads us to look at the iniquity of series of kings, of whom the great horn 18 the people of God being the co.use of evil the first. befalling them. Certainly immediately Ver. 22.-Nowthat being broken, whereas b0fore the persecution inflicted on the Jews four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall by Antioehus, the progress of the unbe• stand up out of the nation, but not in his lieving Hellenizing party he.d been very power. The LXX., if we take the reading great, as we see by 1 Mace. i. 13-16. It of tlH, Roman edition, agrees with the Maseo- was " like people, liko priest : " the people retie, save in the last clause, where it reads, devoted themselves to Grecian games with "their power " instead of "his power." all their heathen associations, and strove to In this variation we find also Theodotion hide their Hebrew origin and the covenant 11.nd tLe P;,ehitte. e.gr;,eing. Jerome has of their fe.ith, and high priests were ready 011. Vilt. 1-27.] THE BOOK OF DANIE~ 217