The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 287

EXPOSITION. OHAPTER IX. Daniel imagined a Median Empire between the Babylonian o.nd the Persian. "(1) In Vera. 1-27.-TBE SEVENTY WEEKS. the fust year of Darius son of Xerxes, of the This is the chapter of Daniel which has seed of the Medes who," that is. the Medes- oooe.sioned most controversy. Itwo.s appealed the LXX. seems to have read malkoo instead of homlak--"reigned over the kingdom of the to by Tertullian e.nd the early Fathers as Chaldeans. (2) In the fust year of his reign, a demonstration of the correctness of our I Daniel understood by the books the number Lord's claims to Messiahship. It is now of the years when the ordinance (-rrpotT'Ta.-yJ.La.) received by critical commentators that to a.bout the lo.nd we.s (revealed) to Jeremiah our Lord this prophecy oe.nnot refer. Many the prophet to accomplish seventy years to treatises have been written on the "seventy the fulfilment of the reproach of Jerusalem." Theodotion is closer to the Massoretic, only weeks" of Do.niel, and none of them have he does not seem to have read the hophal entirely cleared up the difficulties; indeed, of "reign," but the kal. Further, Theode>- it mo.y be doubted whether all together they tion omits the second statement of the have illuminated the subject very muoh. year of Do.rius, with which, both in the LXX. and in the Massoretic, the second Vere. I, 2.-In the first year ofDo.rius the verse begins. We have in Tertullio.n a son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, few verses from this chapter in the Old which was made king over the realm of the Latin Version, called sometimes the Vetns. Chaldeans ; in the first year of his reign, I It coincides exactly with neither of the Daniel understood by books the number of Greek Versions, nor with the Massoretic, but the year■ , whereof the word of the Lord is in closer relationship with Theodotion. came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would The Peshitta in the first agrees in the me.in accomplish seventy years in the desolation ■ with the Massoretio te:tt, but renders the of Jerusalem. The version of the Septuagint second verse thus : " In the first year of hi 11 goes on the aasumption th11t tho critics are reign, I Daniel understood iu tho book tbe corroct in their belief th11t the 11uthor of number of years; I saw what w...i the ordi- DANIEL, B 258 THE BOOK OF DANIEL. [ OH, IX, l-'.27, -------·--------------------- nanoc of the number which Jeremie.h the ••pharecm ia by no mean■ hlvarie.bly used prophet l1ad snid concerning the completion oolleotivoly for the booka of the Dible but of the de~olation of Jeruse.lem-sevonty K'thubi.m, e.g. Te.lmud Babli Bhe.hbath years." Tbeodotion, the Vetus, the Pe- (Mishna), p. 115a, was e.lso used. Mnny s~itte., e.nd al BO Jerome, neglect the fact that of the caeca where e'pharecm e.ppce.re it is 7?1?:;J (l1om'lak) is bophe.l, e.nd transle.te 11.8 if used distributively, not collectively; e.g. the word were ke.l. This neglect is due to Te.lmud De.bli Megillah (Mishna), p. 8/i. the difficulty of nnder11te.nding the semi- From the fact that the so.me word wns used •atrnpie.l posit.ion occupied by Gobryas. He for the third division of the ea.non, o.nd for had rege.1 poweTB given him to appoint ee.- the books of the oauon as a whole, there wo.s t.rape in the division• of the provinoe of De.- lie.ble to be a difflculty, and hen co confusion. h_,·Jonil\. Not improbably, further, he could Traoea of this we find in the prologue to tho fulfil certe.in ee.ored functions which oustom- Greek Version of Eoclesiasticus. Thus in ari]~- on!~· a king could fulfil. This is the the first sentence the tranalo.tor speaks of only case where the bophe.l of this verb " the Le.w, the Prophets, and the other, occurs. Such a unique use of a verb must c.-,;,,, ~.. ,,)," 88 if ..,,;,,, /31/3/1.(a,,11 were men- i':'1ply unique cir?umst1t:nees; suoh unique tally supplied before 11&µ.ou. Whila aepher ia circumstnnccs eusted m the position of used for any individual book of Scripture Gobryas in B1tbylon. Only a oontempore.ry and a<phareem used for a group of these books' l\'ould have indicated this singule.r state of as tbo Books of Moses, it is not used for th~ me.tters by the use of e.n out-of-the-we.y Bible a.s a whole, just as in English we portion of a verb without further explane.- never call the Bible "the booka," but not t.ion. It is singule.r that critics will not unfrequently "the Scriptures; "on the other give the obvious meaning to the persistent band, we speak of " the BookR of Moses " indications the.t the author of this book gives, never of the "Scriptures of Moses." i:, the.t he rege.rds De.rius, not as e.n independent a'phareem does not mee.n the canon whe.t sovereign, but as in some sort e. vassal of a does it mean? We lmow from Jer. ~xix. 1 higher power, on whom he is dependent. Of that J erem.ie.h sent to the exiles a "letter " the eeed of tlw Medes. This statement natu- and in that letter (ver. 10) it is said "F~r rally implies the.t wbile Darius was of Median thus sai!h the Lord. After seventy y~a.rs be descent. he was natura.lized into some other accomplished for Babylon, I will visit you, race. In the first year of hill reign. This e.nd perform my good word toward you in phrase has the nppea.raneeofrepresentingthe causing you to return to this place." It is original beginningofthenarrative. Probably true the.t this letter is called sepher in Jere• there were originally two recensions of this miah, but in 2 Kings xix.14 and Isa. x.uvii narrative, one of them beginning with the 14 we he.ve B'phareem, the plural, used for :first verse, the other with some modification a sin;le le~r. This is proved by the fe.ot of the second verse which h.as been still that m Isaiah all the suffixes referring to further modified till it has ree.cbed its pre- it are singular; in Kings one is in the plural sent form. The year indicated corresponds by attraction, but the other is singular as to ac. 538, the yee.r of the capture of in Isaiah. The correct rendering of •the Babylon, therefore sixty-eight years from paese.ge, then, is, "I De.niel understood by the time that Daniel w&B carried captive. the letter the number of the years, whereof The period, then, which had been foretold the word of the Lord came to J eremie.b the by Jeremiah during which the Jews were prophet." It is clear the.t the reference in to be captive e.nd Jerusa.lem desolate, we.a this verse is to Jeremie.h's letter, for we be.ve drawing to a close. According to the the UBe of mn•, Jah'IJ(J (Jehovah), which out critical assumption, that this de.te is to be of this eh.apter does not appear in this book; reckoned from the captivity of Jehoiaohin we have in this verse n1t71?, which we have (B.c. 598 ), there were yet ten yee.re to run, in Jer. xxix 10; it is vocalized as infinitive e.nd if it reckoned from the capture of piel in Daniel, and infinitive ke.l in Jere- Jerusalem during the reign of Zedekiah, miah, but there is probably some error in thert: wert: twenty years. There is a certa.in Daniel. Another peculie.rity whioh connects dramatic e:iitaliility, if no more, in Daniel this pe.sse.ge with the "letter" of Jeremiah studying the prophecies of Jeremiah, witb is the form the prophet's name assumes. In always growing eagerness as the time the rest of his prophecy it is usually called approached when God had promised rele&Be. m:,;l':1: ( Yir'myahoo); in the section of whioh I Danul u;n.derBtood by books. The critical the 'letter forms part, as in this verse in echool have assumed that this phraae Daniel, he is called l"l!l;l".1: (YiT'myah). It is "bc.okll" applfos, and must apply, to the thus clear that Daniel had in ,his mind Jore- canon ; th.,reforE: it is concluded that tb.ia miah's "letter; " hence it is far-fetched to bouk was written after the formation of the imagine that he claims acquaintance "ith Ciillun, and therefore very late. Unfortu- all the books of the Hebrew canon, in ordor ll!1teJy for tl.1<, :J.>suruption l,rougbt fonrn.rd, C'II, IX. 1-27.] 'l'HE BOOK OF DANIEL.