The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 303

echool o.ro reduood to considerable diffi- the text or tho margin, we hrwc difficuHiee. culties in their endca.voure to square this pn.s- We have no instance of a bir,l supporting sn.go with their proconccivo<l not.ions. Bevrm itself by one wing. If ~p r1,'naph), n.<lrnite tho.t the na.tural eubject of the verb "wing," is retained, the refc,rencc to the yaslibr,eth ie the "prince who elrnll come;" Roman eagles co.n scarcely br, rc8isted. Tho but ha.ving oomo to tho conclusion thn.t this word hns eeveral derivative, mranin~s: coming prince ie Jo.son, ho could not ,be "'fbe edge" of the earth, as Is<t. xxiv. {r;; said to mo.ke sn,cri6co nnd offering cen.se. from this is derived the rendering in the Professor Bevan ie constrained to cho.nge Reviser!. In the present passage, Gcsenins, the reading from hii;>hil into the ko.l. He Fiirst, and Winer regard it as equivalent to has certainly the Juetifico.tion tho.t the .,,,,.,p{ry,ov; but no such meaning is else- Septuagint and Theodotion both make the where found in Hebrew. " He shall make word passive. Ewa.Id regards the coming it desolate." In Hebrew, this is only OM prince ae Epiphanee. If so, then he must be word, m'shomaym, the part,ciple. The wor,1 the subject all through. In tho.t caeo we occurs twice in Ezra. ix. 1, 1, and there e.ro obliged to contradict usage and main- means "aetonished," "stupefied." It is tai,1 that the coveno.nt confirmed refers to imitated in eh. xi. 31, bnt the preceding an alliance ma.de with apostate Jews; but word, rp~ (shiqqootz), is in the singular, this, ae we have said, contradicts the usage in regard to "covenant" in this absolute and agrees with m••homaym. Here we have position. Further, we have, in the end of ver. the nonn sldq,rootzeem in the plural while 26, the "end of the war " referred to. Yet, the participle is in the singular. In eh. acoording to this interpretation, after the xii 11 we have another variation, □R;:i f'p:t. war ie over the prince is making sacrifice The versions translate as if the word had and offering to cease. Ewald, recognizing been in the singular; hence we ma..v doubt the difficulties of his interpretation, declares, whether the noun was not originally singu- " As soon as the discourse touches upon the lar, all the more that in the parallel passage man and hie projects, it ie at once agitated ( eh. xi. 31) we have the singular need. An with the profoundest disorder." The accidental rednplica.tion of the D, which midst of the week. On the ordinary Chris- begins ci;ii;z;i, wonld explain the present tian interpretation, this applies to the reading. Professor Bevan suggests that we crucifixion of our Lord, which took place, read □•,;i~r;:,, the hophal participle plural according to the received calculation, during from □1\!-, ''to sit; " but the evidence of the the fourth year after his baptism by John, versions ie decisive against this. The ren- and the CQneequent opening of his ministry. dering of the clause wonld be thus, "and Hitzig and many critical commentators see upon the temple the abomination of deso- a reference in the ha!f-woek to the time, lation is set." The usage of shi,nootz leads times, nnd half a time, and they identify us to think of heathen idols, a.s l Kin_gs xi. that with the time during which Antiochus 1, Chemosh, the abomination of Moab; had set up the heathen altar in the temple. Molech, the e.bomin::ition of the chilclren It ie to be observed that this view has the of Ammon, 2 Kings xxiii. 13; Ash- support of 1 Mo.co. i. 54, which applies the toreth, the abomination of the Zidonians. next clause to Antiochus. U the traditional More important is Jer. xxxil. 34, "They s~t view is correct-that the prophecy pub- their abominations in the house that is lished in the days of Cyrue applied to the called by my name, to defile it." We have coming Romans-then it was but natural here the combination suggested by Profos::or that a writer in the days of John Hyrcanus Bevan. From the fact that Daniel seems should be prone to interpret the prophecy to have been saturated with J eremiab, his of events in his own time. As we have eu"gestion might have bad weight; but already seen, the reference cannot be to th; utter want of any hint in the versions Antiochue, The extreme popularity of thnt the reading was even doubtful, compels Daniel by the time l Maccabccs was written, ns to be a"o.inst this view. There is no probably about n.c. 100, is to be observed. case wher; shiqqootz means "altar," but Fvr the overspreading of abominations, he many where it means" idol." So the setting Rhall mal,e it desolate. This is rendered up of a heathen nltar is not what would in the Revised Version, "And upon the naturally be thought of in this ~onncction. wing of abominations shall come one that The traditione.l opinion, that tl11S refers to maketh desolate; " in the margin the ren- the Roman eagle standards, which were in dering is, "upon the pinnacle of abomi- a sense " idols," and were regarcled espe- nations." We have seen that the great cially 11s such by the Jews, is certainly at balance of evidence wae in favour of in- least plausible on grammatical grounds, serting td)p, "holy place," instead of ~n:;i, and may be regarded as certain from other "win"." Even if wo take the l\Iassoretio rcnsons; e.g. its suitability to thl3 weaning ,c11di;g, 11nd render it &ocording either to of tho other verses. Even u:1t!! Ch6 co11-  276 'l'HE BOOK OF DANIJ<:L. [oB. IX. 1-27,