The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 290

1hnplial in this rending is unueu11l; but the.t ba5 mitlieka with the preposition ~ oon- this is rather in fo.vour of it being the not mean" faithfulness," but" trnth." .. This true reading; o.nd the return to the second is e. miste.ke; the preposition mio-ht alter the poreon, while awkward, e.lso he.a weight. significance of the verb it folh,ws, hut not 'fheodotion 11nd the Peshitta do not cn.11 Co-r that of the noun it governs. The tmth is rcm11rk. The uee of the worcl "judges" thn.t the word here is extended to ite f11\lcst for rulers genore.lly ought to he noted. meaning, "God's supreme ren.lity." God'd If we take the Me.esoretio reading, there being God implies necessarily that every mn.y be II reminiscence of 2 Kings xxiii. word he utters of promise or tbren.tening ia 22. Among the Ce.rtho.gini11ns the prin- true; vere.city 11nd faithfalness &re e'lun.lly cipal mo.gistre.tes bore the title 1uffete1, involved in Jehovah being God. At the equive.lent to 11,oph•teen. Umur the whole same time, from the connection it is the evil heaven l,ath not been done tu hath been -the judgments-he had threatened that done upon Jeru,alem. Such lllngue.ge is bulk most largely in the prophet's mind. to be reg11rded in any ce.se as the exe.g- Ver. 14.-Therefore hath the Lord watched gere.tion of grief; but it would he.ve some- upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for thing like a justiflce.tion twice in the the Lord our God is righteous in all his history of Jerusalem, e.nd only twice-after works which he doeth : for we obeyed not the oe.pture of Jeruse.lem by Nebuche.d- his voice. The Greek versions agree with nezze.r, e.nd nfter its ce.pture by Titus. No this, eave the.t the LXX. be.s "Lord God" one he.s me.inte.ined the.t the origin of Daniel in the first case as well as the second. The is so le.te e.s the le.tter event; hence we a.re Peshitta, when one remembers the different thrown beck upon the former. With the fe.ct division of the verses, is e.lso identical. before him that temples he.d been'plundered There is an obvious resemblance here to everywhere, and desecre.ted, and cities sacked, Jer. :xliv. 27, ''Behold, I am watching over the writer could not have rege.rded the case you for evil, and not for good." The verb of Jerusalem, e.nd its temple, in the days 1haqad is somewho.t 111re, occurring only of Epiphanes, as unique under e.11 heaven. twelve times in Scripture, and five of these After the ce.pture of Jeruse.lem by Nebu- times in Jeremiah. It is not always an chadnezze.r, the temple was left in ruins and evil watching ; in J er. u:xi. 28 the two the city deserted. Buch measure, so far e.s meanings are contrasted. Then follows an we know, was not meted out by Nebuchad- acknowledgmeut of the righteousness of nezzar to e.ny other city. Only rarely he.d God in so dealing with them. Bar iL 9 is even the Ninevite monarchs taken suoh re11lly e. version of this venie ; the original terrible vengeance on rebellious subjects. Hebrew would be al.most identical There Ver. 13.-.As it is written in the Le.w of are 1few indications which, did this verse Jl:oses, all this evil is oome upon us: yet stand alone, would enable one to decide made we not our pre.yer before the Lord our which is the more primitive. God, that we might turn from our iniquities, Ver. 15.-.And now, 0 Lord our God, that and understlllld thy truth. The LXX. hast brought thy people forth out of the renders" laws," 81a.811,c71 1 "covenant," which land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast is applied to the "Le.w" (Heb. iL 20, gotten thee renowu, as at this day; we have quoting from Exod. :xxiv. 8; Dent. :ui:x. 1). sinned, we have done wickedly. The ver- Tbeodotion agrees in the main with the sions are in agreement with the Me.ssoretic Massoretic text. The Peshitta. differs only te:xt. This venie also has many resemblances in joining the first clause of the next verse to Jer. :x:x:xii. 20, 21. Hast brought thy to this. Ewald makes the prenomina.l suffix people forth out of the land of Egypt toith at the end of the verse third person, not a mi!Jlily hand. In Jeremiah we have, second. The very awkwardness of tho con- "Hast brought forth thy people Israel with struction is an evidence in fu vour of the signs and with wonders e.nd with a strong received reading, "As it is written in the ho.nd." In Jeremiah it is fuller, in Daniel Law of Moses." The passages referred to we have only a condensed reference. Ha8t a.re those denoted previously (Lev. xxvi. ; ~oltll'TI thee renOtDn, as at this day. This Deut. :xxviii.). All this ei-il is come upon 1s an e:xs.ct quotation from Jeremiah. The w-the ourses referred to there. Yet made exactness is obscured in our Authorized tae not our prayer before the Lord our Version, in which Jer. x::u.ii. 20 is given, God; literally, entreat the face. The fooe "Hast ma.de thee a name, e.s at thia day:" being the sign of favour, "entreated not the the words rendered, "ma.de thee II name," favour of the Lord" would be really what is in Jeremie.h, are precisely the same as those meant: thereforenotquiteo.s Ewe.Id renders, rendered above, "gotten thee renown." The "o.ppee.sed not Jahve." Understand thy le.st clause is very much a repctitiou of the t·rut/1. Hitzig thinks here the refereuoe is opening of ver. 5, "we have sinned," missed to God's faithfulness, either in promises or the mark; "we h11re done wiokeuly," in threo.ts. Keil objects te this, contending violently trangressed.  THE BOOK OF DANIEL. [en. rx. 1-27,