The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 302

nm.ny, and in the middle of the -week 119.cri- covenant, or making it burdeueome, ie flce and offoring shall oeue" - reading without analogy. Doth Hitzig and Hen~- n:11:': (yishbatl, )-" and in the temple shall be stenberg appeal to Mai. iii. l!l; ba. xui. the abominstion of deeolstion "-therefore 5; Job iii. 3, whore a "day " ie represented resding with thll Greek versions and the e.e acting. Thcodotion translates thus. Vetus, l:'Jp instead of ''H:;>-" and even to the The natural meaning, according to the Hebrew, if we do not pR.Bs beyond the cle,uso oonBUmmsti.on and end ehall the deeolation beforo us for the subject of the verb, is continue "-reading, therefore, :it(r:, instead :,,!:;i. (b'reetk), "covene.nt." Thus we ought of 'IJ::\l;I, e.nd omitting the preposition ~~ ('al), nature.Uy to render either - taking the "upon "-the latter i1 not a probable reading. hiphil in its cauBRtive sense - "a cove- From this examination of the venione one nant.," or "the covenant she.11 confirm ; " thing ie clear-we mll&t aooept., with all ite i.6. secure "one week to me.ny," or-aud diflioulties, "confirms." Gratz would obo.nge thi■ is better, e.s supported by Ps. xii. 5 (4), one letter, and tre.nsle.te, "he shall cause in the sense given to the hiphil of '1;!~ many to tranegreee the covenant." The (gaba.r}-" the covene.nt abe.11 preve.il for -wilder supposition of ProfeBSor Devan, which many during one week." This agrees with would change two letters, e.nd translate, "the the first version we find in the Septue.gint, oovenant ehe.11 be annulled for many," is The oovenant-God's covenant with Israel, equally out of court. The next point is e.nd this it must be here-" preve.ils with 1Miaph, "expansion." Here the Greek and me.ny; " his oovene.nt to send. a Messiah, a Latin versions. including that in Matt. xxiv. pa.rt of the eternal covene.nt with Isre.el, 15, but cxoluding the doublet mixed up in would prevail with the hearts of many of the text of the Vatican e.nd Alexandrian Israel during one weok. If we reckon our Codices, have read liJP· The Peshitta e.nd Lord's ministry t.o have begun in tho yee.r the author of the reading intruded int.o the .LD. SO, e.nd the oonversion of St. Paul A.D. Alexandrian Codex have read 9~ (k'flapk). 87, we have the intl;'rval required. After However, these two are not agreed as t.o the conversion of St. Paul, the Gentiles more than the Jews were brought into the the interpretation. The Peshitte. renders Church. Another theory is that it is the "wings," the Vatioe.n and Alexandrian ooming prince who is referred t.o. This is scribes render .,.,.,,..;-y,oP, the word used (Matt. assumed by critics to be Antiocbne; e.v, iv. 5) for a pinnacle of the temple. There Ewald. Moses Stue.rt, who adopts this ie, whichever is preferred, not the slightest view, refers to the covenant made with jueti1ication for the suggestion of Kuenen, Antiochus by many of the J ewe. But b•reelh that we should read '13:.i instead of 9~. thus absolute, is used not of o.llia.nces, but Professor Bevan thinks "this emendation of the Divine covenant. The theory that ie well-nigh certain." If that is so, e.ny the coming . prince is Ja.son the brother of 1111ggestion of a.ny critic may be equ.e.lly Onias does not BUit with the idea of confirm- eommended. We have practically four ing the Divina covenant, so the interpreters Greek versions here, two Syri&c if we the.t hold this view-e.g. Bevan-do not include Paul1ll! Tellensie, two Le.tin, a.nd ma.ke "the prince " the subject of the verb. not one of them gives the slightest hint If b•reetk is the Divine oovenant, as by usage that this " well-nigh certain" reading was it is, then the prince whose people wero to in existence. The balance of evidence is lay we.ate the temple and city cannot be decidedly in favour of ci;,p (qode,k), especi- he the.t confirms the covene.nt. We might ally so in the light of our Lord's words. take the last clanse of ver. 26 as in a pe.ren• Had the text with which his hearers were thesis, and regard the subject of the verb familiar contained the suggestive word "confirm" as the Messie.h who was cut off. 9!:;>, •· wing," it was impossible, speaking as It seems, however, preferable to ta.ke the construction as we have done above, e.nd he did of the setting up of the Roman make b'reeth the subject of the verb. And eagles in the temple, to have avoided re- in the midst of the wee1' he akall cause the lDJl.rking on the word used. Our Lord in ,acrifioo and the oblation to cease. In this case must have had the Hebrew before e.crordance with our interpretation of the him, as he does not render as the Greek previous clause, we would wterpret this, versions do, ,,..l -ro 1,pov, but iv -ro..-q, r,-yiq,. "The covenant she.II co.use offering and We must th1ll! held c';,p to have been the ol,Jation to cco;se." What covenant is this? original text. .And he ,hall confirm the The new llfossie.nio covenant promised in cotJenant toith many. Vi'bat is the subject of Jer. xxxi. 31. The author of the Epistle to the verb here? Hengstenberg, Hitzig, and the Hebrews (viii. 8) quotes this passage von Lengerke make the one week the as lllessianic, and as proving tha~ ~o.crifi~e numin:i.tive of the vc,rb. Profrssor Devan and offerin" had ceased with Christ s sacn- cvjc,cl;; U,ai io reprEosent e. week iµaking a fice of h~elf. Interpreters of tho critical en. n:. 1-27.J THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 2,.j