The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 334

oth<'r, iind the finiil leUere are the siime. little of angelio natures o.nd their limitRtiona llfi~tnke, then, we.s ensy. The first letter that the phrase may be quite natur1tl. 'fhe of ·,~ nnd 7Sn is tlio some, and the words meaning is not mRtorially altered if we wnuld be lie.ble to be road in ncoord1mco rend, "Ho stood to strengthen and con• with that given to the propPrname. Further, firm me.'' nil the versions but the Yulgate make the Ver. 2.-And now will I show thee the epee.ker the recipient of the 1tid. Thc-o- truth. :Behold, there shall stand up yet <lotion mav be tl\ken as doubtful. The three kinga in Persia ; and the fourth shall difference is slight, •iop becomes ,:ii,, 1tnd be fa.r rioher than they a.ll : and by his ,', becomes ,',_ Tho Septuagint eocms to strength through his riohes he ehl\ll stir up have read •oi, iostcnd of iov. The first all against the realm of Greoia.. Tho two letters are thUB the same, the daleth rendcrin"' of the LXX. is, "And now I cawo to show thee the truth. Ilohold, three kings maY ha.,·c been an intrusion. Bevan and ha.ve risen, and the fourth shall b3 rich Beiumann would omit the date as spurious, with great riches above all, and when ho and hold it to have been introduced because shall etren~hen himself in his riches, he the pre,;ous four chapters begin each with shall stir himself up against every king of the a date. This ree.son, to have weight, must Greeks." Theodotion is very like this, only aBl!umo the division into chapters to be of the last words of the verse o.re, "all tho ancient date, more ancient than the Septua- realms of the Greeks." The Peehillo. is gint Version. The fact that all the versions very like Theodotion, having "kingdoms" have it compels us to admit a date hero, but, instead of "realm." The Vulgate is in nearly 8ll we have said above, it is to bo reckoned exact agreement with the llfossoretic text. by the year, not of Darius, but of ~ s . When we turn to the Massoretic text o.nd (Al.so 1) in the jirBt year of Oynu the lci11g. compare it with the versions, we find that the The first year of Cyrus was the year when LXX. must have read, \np,r1;i1, o.s it has he decided to set the Jews free, and permit b,. Theodotion reads, µ.-r«.; the Peshitta., them to return to their own land; bnt the ma; the Vulgate, cum. Thie is the first year in this case was reckoned from beginning of the revelation referred to in his e.ssumption of the throne of Babylon. oh. x. 21a. The doubtful authenticity of We saw reason to doubt whether the that clause throws a shadow on this verse. reference in the beginning of eh. L was to It is to be noted that we are no longer in the Ilabylonian reign of Cyrus, or to his the region of symbol, but of distinct narration. reign e.s King of the Persians. Hie first There may have been something in the vear as King of the Persians might be when nature of a vision, and that here we have, he first began to tum hie arms against enlarged, an interpretation of it. The Babylon. We do not know enough of the foarth king is certainly Xerxes. If we history of the first years of Cyrns'e monarchy regard him as one of the three successors to to know what critical events befell in thn.t Cyrus then Cambyses and Darius Hystaspis vear. St,ood to confirm anato st,·ct1gthen him are th~ other two. So Hitzig and Delitzsch. (me). According to the Massoretic ~xt, Keil would more naturally mo.ke the fourth tbe angel Gilbriel stood to co~ e1t~er not the fourth King of Persia, but the the a.rchan.,.el Michael or King Darius. fourth successor of Cyrus. (For the Hebrew Certainly,0.:Darius(Cyrns)is thenearer sub- usage, see Exod. xxii 30.) Profess.or Bevan, stantive, the grammatical prefere~oe. would assuming in hie superior way the i~oranco be to take it, as do Havemick, Hitzig, and of the writer before us, here determines tho.t Calvin. The :majority of commentators he drew "most of his informo,tion" from tho who hold by tbe Maesoretie text take Bible, and, as there are only four no.m0;1 of "him" to refer to Michael-end much can Persian kings given in Ezra and Neh~mio.h, be said for this. Although Darius (Cyrus) that he this careful student of Scripture, i.s the nearest substantive, yet he is not the came to' the conclusion that there were only subject of the main sentence, bu_t merely four kings. In the first place, if this P?I"tion denotes a time, therefore a previous sub- was written as it not impossibly was, ID tho stantive must be chosen. ID the opening Maccabean period, the writer must have got of Cyrue's career, the intimate conn~tion his information of the invasion of Grecco by his prosperity had with the prosperity of Xerxes from classical sources ; he could not the people of Israel might well make fail to know of Cambyses o.nd the pseudo- Micliael interested. As Cyrus had been Smerdis. Further scarcely even the most prophesied of he was under the rule of casual reader of Ez;acould fail to distingujsh tlH: angel of prophecy, hence Gilbriel between the Artaxerxes who before Do,rms strengthtned u.nd confumed the efforts of Hystaspis hindered the work of t~o Jews, Michael. Certainly "strengthening" and and the Arta.xerxes after DanUB who •· confim,ing" are strong terms to apply to fostered it. We ho.vo followed Herodotus the i.rd1an 0d Michac,l, yet we know BO in co.Bing the bl"other of Cambysee, whoao  OH, XI. 1-45.] TIJE IlOOK OF DANIEL. V)i