The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 316

not i'!11, before him. Aqnile. he.a the sRme A thing ,oa.e revealed unto Daniel ,chose Mffl8 reRding; here 11,i~ (tinba) is taken in its toaR calkd Belteshauar. "Thing" is tho nsunl sense of "host," "And I understood it general term dabar, which means sometimes in vision." Here the LXX. has•~ instee.d of "decree," sometimes "word," or somctimea 118 rendered hy the Authorized, "thing." A~ IS. From the fact the.t tbe first person Professor Fuller remarks, this is to be to.ken appears in the next verso, there is 11t least as the title of the rest of the remaining ll probability in favour of this reading. sections. The recurrence of the Do.bylonian Theodotion is, as usnal, oloeer to the MaBBo- name "Beitcshazzar" mo.y bo due to the retic. tq~ is rendered 3.J.,aµ.is. The text recency of the overthrow of the Do.byloninn before him he.e he.d r::ii:,, the hopbe.l, instee.d ~ono.rchy. And tM thing was true, but the of i':n, which is possibly the k&l. The hme appointed tea, long. Hitzia thinks P86hitta seems to hRve usod a text praoti- that in the first clause tbe autbo~ bctriiys oally identioe.l with that of the Maesoretes; his standpoint, as ho would not kn.ow the the se.me is trne of the Vulge.te. The thing was true till fo.ct ho.d proved it so. Peehitta renders 11,1~ by laeel, e.nd the Vul- But, besides that an editor might have g-e,tc by fortitu.do. In the third year of OyrUB. added this clause, a man might well be 1 '1.'he "l'Brious reading of the Septuagint is of certain of tho troth of a thing he had got Til.iue. It is not to be dismissed as due to from G_od ; he might wish to impreBB this a desire to harmonize this de.te with the.t in upon hlB hearers. The le.et clause hero is eh. i. 21, for the nnmere.l "third" might certainly mistra.nsla.ted in the Authorized. easily be an e.ccident.al mi.stake present in The time appointed waa umg. H;IJ (tzaba) 110me few Palestinian me.nuecripts due to the never means "appointed time," although ii beginning of the eighth chapter. The first is twice translnted so in Job, o.s here ; but in chapter,88we have eeen, h88 me.nytraoes the.t all these ea.see the Revisers, with greater it is at once an epitome and a oompile.tion. It aocnracy, render" warfare." With this sense is evident the.t the writer in the first che.pter is to be compared the use we find in Nnmb. would he.ve the rest of the book before him, xv. 23-43, where the Levites' service in thfo and would mean to he.rmonize his statements sanctuary iii oe.lled N;IJ ( tzaba). If we are with that of the chapter before us. It to keep to the M(U!Boretic ree.din.g, then the seems difficult to imagine the.t the com- rendering of the Revised ie really the only piler of the first chapter could have this one to ba thot:gbt of, Professor Devan, statement before him, and yet write o.s he following Ewald, thinking that tzaba means did. We should therefore be inclined to in oh. viii. 13 "temple service," would apply leave the question doubtful. Even if it thi.l:I meaning here. As we so.w, in oonsider- should be admitted that the Maesoretic date ing that verse, the word there was of very is correct, as we have alree.dy soon, the doubtful authenticity, we need not apply difficulties created are by no means in- that meaning here, as it would only suit by superable. Hitzig baa me.de it a difficulty being twisted into "obligation." Hitzig, that Daniel did not avail him.self of the Eranichfeld, Zockler, Keil, and others re- permission. to return to his own euuntry, gi.rd this word as meaning "difficulty," granted by Cyrus. Professor Be"l'an ea.ye, "oppression." Something may, however, be " For those wLo believe Daniel to be an said for the Septuagint rendering, all the ideal figure, no exple.nation is necessary." more that it was adopted by Aquila.. Ac- In that aeeertion he is mistaken. If Daniel cording to these renderings, we conjoin were presented a.s an ideal Jew, why does thee6 words," great hosts," ~i,l ~,11, with the he not con.form to the ideal of Judaisru? The next, which they un.derstnnd ree.d as third statement that Daniel was a man of nearly person singuh1r imperfect kal, or omit the ninety years of age at the date of Cyrus's conjunction," And a great multitude under- proclamation is a sufficient answer to this stood the decree." "The host " in this in- difficulty. Hitzig thinks be rebuts this terpretation wonlu here no.turally mean" the answer of Hii.verniok's by referring to the host of heaven." We find that throughout old men (Ezra iii. 12) who remembered the thl.s chapter, and in the twelfth, we ho.ve to former temple ; but these migLt have been do ,-,ith the angels, eo it is natural tho.t in this children of tcu or twelve when they were title and summary of wbat ie to follow the carried away captive eighteen years after fact that the greo.t host of heaven under- Daniel, and thus might not be more tLan stood this mystery should be stated. Theo- sixty when Cyrus's decree came. Further, dotion's rendering, "power," though sup- "·e know that only a very limited number of ported by Jerome in the Vulgo.te, need not Jews returned, and that so many of the best detain us. The view of Jephet-ibn-Ali is of the Jews remained that it was uecla.red that the Lost me.y be of Edom, probably that the chaff came to Jerusalem, but that meaoing Ly this Rome. And lte understood tl.if: fin<osi c,f thf: wheai remained itl Babylon, the thin[!, and had uridfritandi"U o/ t/11 on. x. 1-21,] THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 289