The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 322

11ng-<'ls mcntionPd, but thoir names l\re follow tho LXX. and Thoodotion in reading given, and functionB arc assigned to them• cithor RB Moinhold a.nd Dehrma.nn, )'1;1~,:iln) but they arc numbered ae four, not seven'. or better, 118 Grii.tz, •1;1-:u:,111 \r-it:t, RB tho 0011 Enoch is posterior to 'fobit, and finds I\ pl?re for J\lichnel, Raphael, and Gabriol. in the former oa.ee would nRtura.lly be rend " c have no mee.nB of testing whether the convorsivcly. Besides, Gril.tz'e reading ex- number of the chief &ngelic princes, of plains the needlessly cmphatio ')~· Furt.her, whom J\Iiche.el wa.s one, w&s four or seven it seems needful to accopt the· rending of ncoording to the opinion of Daniel. FroU: the two Greek versions and the Pcehitta., the f1tct that Enoch is, eo to speak, in e.nd instea.d or •:::,~o read i:.,, None of the old the direct line of apocalyptic deeoont from yersions snpportithe Maesordic; the Vulga.to Dani<>l, nnd Tobit is not, and, moreover 1e the nee.rest; and all of them he.ve either n. the ang<'lology of Tobit is in close oon! read ,i~i? or regarded •:::,~z:, 88 a form of the nection with the Persian hierarchy of am- ho,pentns, of whioh there were eeven,-we construct state, and eo vocalized differently. may_ rcg1nd four RB the more genuinely Further, the later context here implies the Jewish number. The later Jewish e.ngel- continuance of the confl.iot or controversy olog-y hRs ma.ny Persian elements, ae (vers. 20, 21). We must understand, then, shown by Dr. Kohut, in his • Angel- that Gabriel left Michael to mainte.in the ologie und Demonologie.' Whether the confl.iot against the angelic "Prince" or number of the Rrchangele be made four or Persia, while he came in obedience to seven, both Gabriel and Michael are of Daniel's prayer. We can have but little the number, whereas Gabriel's words would idea of what is meant by this confilct ir rather indioa.te that, though Michael be- the heavenlies between angelic beings. longed to the rnnk of chief prince, he did Ver. 14.-ll'ow I am oome to make thee not. .AiJ we ca.nnot tell the nature of the underste.nd whe.t shall befall thy people in opposition, we cannot tell the nature of the the latter days: for yet the vision is tor help afforded. .A.nd 1 remained there unth many days. None of the versions ea.II for th, 1,ings of Persia. It is very difficult t.o remark. The Peehitta inserts Z•sooph, " at in terprct this if we retain the Massoretio the end," before "days.'' The Massorctio rending. In the first pla.ce, the sense given Hebrew has a peculiarity unsupported by to notharlee in the Authorized and Revised the earlier versions: it has "for the days.'' is unsuitable. The RJ1gel is explaining Of course, these versions may simply have how, after having delayed three whole neglected the o.rticle, as hRvo our English weeks, he has now come. The sentence, 88 versions, Authorized and Revised. ln tha interpreted above, would have explained why latter days. Kranichfeld holds that this he could not come at all to Daniel. It is refers to the latter portion of the vision in attempted to get over this by explaining eh. viii., not at the end of time. For yet the that Gabriel he.d beaten off the " Prince " 1'iaion is for many days. Professor Bevan of Persia, a.nd that Michael reme.ined with would translate, "since there is yet o. vision the King of Persia instead of him. This for the days,'' i.e. for the days already re- view, however, oontr&dicte the function as- ferred t.c> in the eighth chapter. This signed to angels of nations, and implies a would make both clauses have practically quasi-omnipresence on the pa.rt of Gabriel, the same meaning, which this logical con- nnd would render hie explane.tion no ex- nection implies. There seems no need to planation. The explanation of Gesenius, take the "end of days," as the end of the llii.vernick, and von Lengerke, tbe.t ,wtharlee world. is to be to.ken as meaning "I received Ver. 15.-And when he had spoken such the pre-eminence," as Winer, "superior words unto me, I set my faoe toward the di,;cessi apud reges Persarnm," has no ground, and I became dumb. The versions justification in usage. Gesenins would agree with the above. I set my fac.e toward bring in the Syriac use of the hithpael the ground does not mean that Daniel again of this verb, but though both Castell fell prostrate, but that his eyes naturally and Brockelmann BBsign meanings snit- sought the ground. .A.nd I became dumb. o.hle, none of their quotations represents a Not to be regarded as equivalent to "I sr;W!c precisely similar to that assigned to remained silent,'' though there is nothing the verb here. Hitzig's interpretation, "I in the narrati vo to indicate that Daniel had wo.s delayed," fails to explain his coming. been speaking; he may have he.d the sen- ~wa\d's explanation, "I was snperllnous," sation of paralyzed vocal cords. Certainly ~ logical, but has no grammatical jostifice.- the verb 'al.am means "to be dumb,'' al- tion. Professor Bevan's explanation, which though, as with ourselves, this phrase does ~ould take this last clause o.s parenthetical, not mean always pliyaiological dumbness, 11, untenable, rua it snpplias no reason for the but simply a silence which. from shyness or 1,re,,,1Je<: uf Ge.l,riel with Daniel. We most fear, one ia unable to breo.k. Thie is tile cu. lt. 1-21.) 1.'FIE BOOK OF DANIEL.