The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 323

1nonni11 6 tho voraions o.Ucich to It. The tho previous chapter, vor. 21, the nn"rl opinion wo inrlicnto lirnle support in the Go.hriel "touches" Dank!. The cmplia';.is dumbness of Znchcirine, tho fo.thcr of John of tho a.et, in the present in"tnncc docs not Do.f tiet, nftcr Gnhrlel npponrcd to him, lio in tho fnct or t,,uehino-, 0 bnt in thia-tha.t 11.Dl, still moro, in whnt le relo.tcd in the it WO.R the lips that wcro touchcrl. In IHa.. following voreo. vi. 6 nnd "/ one or the seraphim tonchr, 8 Ver. l G.-And, behold, one like the simili- the lips of the prophet with "a live cof\l tude of the sons of men tonohed my lips : from off the alto.r." In Iso.iah tbP, obje,ct then I opened my month, and spake, and is purification; in the caso bcfom us it snid U11to him that stood before me, 0 my is tbo restoration of the power of speech. lord, by the vision my sorrows are tumed Then I opened my mouth, and 1pak,, and upon me, nnd I have retained 110 strength. ,aid unto him that Bloor! bef01'e me. This is 'l'ho LXX. rendering diff'ere from thie, the result of the touch of the angelic lrnncl.. " And beholsl, o.e the likeness of the hand 0 my lo-,d, by the 'llision my •orTm;;a are of o. mo.n "-une, more likely to explanatory tu-,ned upon me, and I have retained no po.raphrnso tho.n to various reading of ,, for tltrength. "Lord" here is not " J ehovab," •;:i; still tho phro.ee, "a li.kenees of so11B but" Adonai "-a title of respect, certainly, of mo.n," is somewhat violent, and not to be but not necessarily of adoration. Th~odotion pnralleled by Pe. xiv. 3 (2)-" touched my and the Vulgate render "thy vision," under- lips, anrl I opened my mouth, and epake, standing by that " thy appearance." The nnd I so.id to him who stood beforo me, meaning is the so.me as that of the ordinary Lord, even when the vision was turned upon reading. Hence it is probably due to a my side to me." Clearly '1'll (tzeedee) hns desire to emphasize this rather than to any beon rend by mistake for •i•:i1(tzuue). The difference of reading. "My sorrows are sense of the Maeeoretic is di.fli.cult; but turned upon me." This is a term that in- this fa nonsense. "And there was no volves great di.fli.culty. The term is used strength in me," reading •'n•N instead of of the pangs of childbirth (1 Sam. iv. 19), 'n-1llV• Theodotion renders, "And behold, and transferred to sorrows (Isa. xiii. 8). And this is the sense in which it has gene- as the likeness of a son of man touched my rally been ta.ken here; the more readily lips, and I opened my mouth, and spa.ke, tho.t in l Sam. iv. 19 the same phrase is nnd said to him that stood before me, In need e.e here. But the sense does not seem thy appearance my bowels (Tb ivT&s µ.ov) very good ; the appearance of the angel was wero turned in me, and I had no strength." not an occasion of IJOrrow, however much of Theorlotion bas evidently had the singular awe there might be in it. The word bas p instead of '.lr, or perhaps regarded it a.a a number of meanings, which it is certainly a survival of the old form of the co11Btruct. di.flicult to bring into relationship with ea.eh It is probably not due to e. different reading, other. Thus in Prov. xxvi. 14 it means a but to a different meaning given to c•i•:i1, "hinge;" in Prov. xxv. 13 it means "mes- thnt we have JVT&s. The Peehitta. resembles senger," o.nd this is the meaning it most 'l'heodotion very closely, having, however, frequently bears (Prov. xiii 17; lea. xvili. enosh, "man," instead of "son of man." 2; Jar. xlix. 14; Obad. 1). Neither of ,ve ho.ve also go', "body," or "viscera," as these meanings is at o.11 suitable. In Ps. the tra.nslo.tion of tzeeTeem. The Vulga.te xlix. 16 we have the word appearing in the renders to the same purport ; the last por- K'thib, and translated "beauty; " hence it tion of the verse rune thus : In 'lliBiO'lle tua would be equivalent to •i,;i (hodee) of ver. 8. dissolutre sunt compages mem et nihil in me The LXX. is out of court. Theodotion, the rema11sit ,virium. It also has, in the first Pcshitta, and the Vulgate differ from each clF,use, similitudo filii haminis. It seems other, so that nothing is to be drawn from difficult to avoid the conclusion that we them. We would, then, take this phrase should read "son of man" instead of "sons I\S equivnlent to that in the eighth verse, of mo.n." Were there any diplomatic or "I have tela.ined no strength." This fitly other evidence in favour of the reading of follows l.,> what has been already stated. tho LXX., it would be much preferable to Ver. 17.-ll'or how oan the servant of 11.ny other, as we have the description of this my lord talk with this my lord! for as the visitant whose ho.nd touched Daniel, in for me, atraightway there remained no vcre. 5 and 6. Hence the assertion here, strength in me, neither is there breath leit tho.t the likeness of a son of man touohed in me. The LXX. does not preserve tho him, rloee not harmonize with this, as it peculiar use of the demonstrative which seems to introduce a new person. There is we bave here. Theodotion bas it in the no reference to ho.nde in the description in second case only ; the Peshitta. retains it; vcrs. 5 a.ml 6, " the hand as of a man " there but tho Vulga.te omits it altogether. Thi) would not be the introduction of something rendering of 11•,lhama by ,...,.;;,,... in the already mentioned. Touched my lip,. In G!'eek versions may be noted. Jeromo  296 THE BOOK OF DANIEL. [on. x. 1-21.