The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 289

J'RBSBges that would suggest e. third form, Nehemie.h, because there is a narre.tive or the independent source of both. Not un- the history of the people. When we com- likely the l!Ouroe wu eome litnrgio prByer. pare the Pee.lter of Solomon, we find the As the shorter, the pBSBBge before us mBy only King of Israel is God: yet Ale:r.e.ndcr be nearer this originBl source. Je.nnRlus, who was not long dead when thllt Yers. 7, 8.--0 Lord, righteouane■a be- Psalter was written, ha.cl. nesumed the lon(a'eth unto thee, but unto us oonfuaion of orown; a.nd bis sona had competed for the facea, a1 Rt thia day; to the men ot J'udah, possession of it. and to the inhabitant■ ot J'eru1&lem, and Yers. 9, 10.-To the Lord our God belong unto ell Israel, that are near, and that are meroies e.nd forgivene11es, though we have far off, through all the oountrie■ whither rebelled againat him; neither have we thou hast driven them, beoe.use of their obeyed the voioe of the Lord our God, to trupass that they have trespassed age.inat w:alk in hi■ law■, whioh he set before us by thee. O Lord, to us belongeth oonfusion of h11 servant■ the prophet■. The Septuagint face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our renders the le.st cle.uee, "The Le.w whioh fathel'&, because we have sinned age.inst thou gavest before Moses, o.nd us by thy thee. The versions are all very close to the servants the prophets." There is a change llle.ssoretic text. The most important vo.ria- here which he.a the e.ppee.re.nce of marking t ion iE Theodotion's repetition of the first e.n interpolation. The pro.yer ceases, and an c!a.UBC of ver. 7 a.t the beginning of ver. 8. explnne.tory narrative begins. In content it Neither of the English versions brings out resembles the parallel pnsBBge in Bo.r. i., the contr&Et in the Hebrew of the second but is much briefer, e.nd therefore more clause of ver. 7; it is "man." not '' men," likely to be the older. "Forgivenesses" of Judah. This contrast is observed by occurs only here and Neh. ix. 17 in a prayer Theodotion .and Jerome, but not by the that otherwise seems borrowed from that LXX. or the Pcsbitte.. These two verses before 118. lmve a strong resemble.nee to Be.r. i 15, 16, Ver. 11.-Yea, all Isre.elhavetre.nsgreased " And ye shall say, To our God belongeth thy Le.w, even by departing, that they might righteousness, but unto us the confusion of not obey thy voice; therefore the curse ia faces, as it u come to pase this day to man poured upon us, and the oath that is written of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusa- in the Law of Moses the servant pf God, be- lem, and to our kings, and to our princes, cause we have sinned age.inst him. The e.nd to our priests, and to our prophets, versions do not present e.ny points worthy of and to our fathers." This confession ia specie.I consideration. The prayer is resumed introduced into the text of Be.ruch as a during the greater part of this verse. The quotation. The captives on the river Lud reference here is to Lev. xxvi. 14 and Dent. send money to Jerusalem for offerings xxviii. 15, the probability being more in nnd B&Cri:fices, e.nd with the money send fe.vnur of the latter, from the reference to certain advices. As the circumstances in the "oath." The lo.et clause is a lapse which the Baruch version purports to be ago.in into the ne.rre.tive style. In the WTitten do not so naturally suit the words pe.re.llel passage in Baruch it is narrative used, we can, we think, h.e.ve no difficulty throughout. This clause me.y easily he.ve in recognizing that it is not the primitive been e. gloss added by a scribe end inserted recension. The words ham the look of a in the text by a copyist. There may, how- litnrgic prayer. The rele.tionship between ever, simply be an error in the prenominal the present pe.sse.ge e.nd Jeremiah is close; suffix. •· confll8inn of face" occurs in Jer. vii. 19 Ver. 12.-4.nd he h.e.th confirmed his as well as Ezra iL 7. The most me.rked words, which he spe.ke against us, e.nd case is the colloce.tinn, "man of Jnda.h, e.nd against our judges that judged us, by bring- inhaUtant. of J eruse.lem." This phrase is ing upon us e. great evil: for under the whole frequent in Jeremiah; e.g. Jer. iv. 4; x.i. 2; heaven hath not been done as hath been xvii. 25. There is also & resemblance to done upon J'eruse.lem. The LXX. differs .Ezekiel in the phrase, " their trespass tha.t somewhat, "And he he.th confirmed ago.inst they hnve treepe.ssed age.inst thee; " e.g. us ([cr.-71cr,v 'l}µiv) his words (1rpocr-rd.-yµa-ra), Ezek. xv. B; x.x. 27. The language thus is such as he spe.ke age.inst us, end against in strict dramatic suitability to one who he.s our judges, such great evils as thou didst just ueen stndying the prophets of the a.cl.judge us ((1<pw,u 11µ,iv), to bring upon us." Captivity. To au,r lring«, t-0 our prince,. This The rest is fairly in accordance with the could not be used ne.tur&lly after the date Massoretic. It is clear that in the text of Daniel. To him who remembered kings before the LXX. translator the word we.a nn<l princes in Ju<le.h e.nd Jerusalem, this ah•phaftarwo instead of sh•phatoonoo, the.t is language is nature.I. In the, age of Epiphanes to se.y, n (tau) instead of , (vav). These it ,,-oul<l Le al,sur<l and meaningless. The letters in eo.rlier scripts were liable to he J>Ln•ss i• used i11 the liturgic pre.yer in confounded. The mee.ning assigned to  CU. IX. 1-27.] THE IlOOK OF DANIEL.