COMMENTARY

OJITO

BOOK OF DANIEL.

BT

MOSES _TU.ART,
U.T&LT l'JtOll'. Oll' l.t.OUI> LITWTUU
.t.T ilVJIL

ur TIU

TUOL. ISJlllfilT

BOSTON:
PUBLISHED BY CROCKER & BREWSTER.
1850.

THE BEf!l"EST 01"

JOHN WILSON, A. M.
OP

CA.MB :Il>G E.
Hetci .. ed 5 Oct. 186 .

HAIIVAr.O COi LEGE LIIIIAIIY

Entered according to Act of Congreas, in the year 1850, b7

CllOCKEll ar. BllEWSTEll,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Maaachmeua.

.A.lU>OVB'B: JORK D. FLAGG,

ITSUOTT&a D PUJITSL

PREFACE.

WBIL11 engaged in writing my Commentary on the Apocalypse,

I found myself so often remittd to the book of Daniel, for the sake
of illUBtration, that I of necessity was obliged to study that book
with more than ordinary care and diligence. It was natural for
me, in the course of an often repeated study of the book, to contract
a fondness for it, or at least to take a deep interest in it. When I
had completed my apocalyptic labors, and acquitted myself of some
engagements which followed them, I began the study of Daniel
anew, and with a view to the writing of a Commentary on it. The
labor was severe ; for very much has been written upon the book,
a considerable portion of which has much more of chaff' than of
wheat in it. Just as I had completed the exegetical part of my
work, a typhoid fever took strong hold upon me, and brought me
near to the grave. For two years and six months it was utterly
beyond my power to write another paragraph. Toward the close
of January last, I began slowly to mend, and after a while I ven
tured to resw:ne my labor. But for several weeks subsequent to
tms, I could not venture beyond the effort of studying an hour in
a day. The opening Spring brought some further relief ; and thaa
I have been able to complete my original design.
In this personal history the public, I am aware, can take but
lntle interest. But it bas so often been published, in one way and

iv

PBU'A.CB.

another, that I was about to print a Commentary on the book in

question, that I have deemed it not inapposite to state the ground
of my delay.
As to the book of Daniel it.self, I believe tha.t no other of the
scriptural books, the Apocalypse excepted, has called forth such a
variety of discrepant opinions and interpretations. How can I
agree with all of them t And yet the great mass of readers are
ready to say, each one for himself, that I ought to agree with him.
But why? my friend. You take the liberty to differ from others;
and why should. you refuse the same liberty to me? Besides, I
have to ask : On what grounds have you based your opinion ?
Have you studied the book in it.a original languages ; sought for
light on every side, from history, and from antiquitiea; and above
all, have you thoroughly and simply applied to it, irreepecave of any
favorite and preconceived notions about it, the established principle,
of historico-grammatical exegesis? And do you even know, with
any certainty, what those principles a.re ? If not, how much ia
your opinion worth, even in your own eyes, when you look candidly
at such a difficult matter as the interpretation of the book before
ua?
If here and there a self-complacent critic of my Commentary on
the Apocalypse, had asked himself such questions, before he eat
down to write his diatribe, the public would have been spared a
deal of a priori interpretation and spider-web theories. Some had
written their book, on the same work of John, and mine disagreed
with it. Hine illae lacrymae. Some had read that prof""'nd work
of Bishop Newton on the Prophecies; and becaWJe I did nota.gree
with him, I must be in the wrong. The moet confident of my con
demning judges were, of course, those who could not read a word
of the original, and would not be able to form any idea. what one
means, who talks about .. historico-grammatical interpretation. I
have no defence to make against any such aasailant.a.
What happened then, may and probably will happen now. I
have not come to the conclusion, that Daniel has l&id, or knew, BllJ

thing about t.he P and his <Jdt'dmala. Thia will be enough to

pass sentence of condemnation. I>o manua. I can. have no di,.
pute with criticism like this. Of all the boob in the Bible, ezoept
perhaps the A pocalypee, Daniel has been leatt understood, and
most perverted .ud &hllled. I will bide my time, e.nd wait wi
patience to see, whether this will be conceded and myself jaatifitd
in the attempt to vindicate its true meaning.
For the rest, I have only a few things to say, as to the design
and manner of the Commentary. I have kept in my eye, every
where, the wants of a beginner in the study of Hebrew, and spe
cially of the Chaldee. For the Chaldee part, the book is, as I trust,
a complete <Jhrutomatl&y, i. e. it givs the solution of every diffi
culty respecting the forms and the syntax of words. The reader
may depend on its being a sufficient introduction to the grammati
cal study of the Chaldee language. The references everywhere
made in copious abundance to Prof. Hackett's translation of Wi
ner's Chaldee Grammar, will familiarize him, if he is faithful in
consulting that Grammar, with all the forms and peculiarities of the
Chaldee dialect. All the Chaldee words are of course comprised
in Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon.
The few in our country, who are acquainted with the Chaldee,
will take no offence at a brief space being occupied with the solution
of grammatical questions. They can pass on and leave these,
without any hinderance. If they once have studied the language,
and let slip the memory of grammatical minutiae, they will thank
me for rendering it quite easy for them to recal what they had
lost.
Most heartily do I commend it to all Hebrew students, to go on
and study the Chaldee. If they are well grounded in Hebrew,
four or five weeks spent faithfully on the Chaldee, will enable them
to read this with as much .facility as they do the Hebrew. The
study of the Chaldee in Daniel, will be sufficient to enable them to
read the Chaldee in F.zra with entire ease ; and from him they may
go into the Chaldee Targums without any difficulty. The conquest

PBU..t.OS.

is easy, and ought to be achieved by every valiant soldier of the

croee.
Should the present volume prepare the wa7 for a more extemive
study of one of the sacred languages in our country, by yoUDg
candidates for the mmisfiry, the writer of it will not have labored
in vain.

M'J>OVU, MAY 24, 1850.

M. STUART.

CONTENTS
01!' SUBJECTS SPECIALLY DISCUSSED.

Co1111uTA.BY.

Pap.

19

Chronological erron
Alleged error in respect to dates

82

The Chaldeea

8'

Nebuchadnezzar's golden image

74

The names of mmical imtnunenta

82
88

The demeanor of the three martyrs in the fbrnace

96

Nebuchadnezzar's proclamation
The Watchen and the Hol1 Ones
Great Bab1lon built b1 Nebuchadnezzar

11,

119

Various alleged incongruities in chap. i'f'

Alleged incongruities in chap. v.

108

1'1

170

178

205

218

288

Various modes in which the four d,nut.ies are described

248

The fasting of Daniel, and the nature of the seTent, weeb

Alleged incongruities in chap. Yi.

The four grea& empires in chap. 'f'ii. le<!
'.l'be fourth beast
The punishment of the fourth beast

228

Time, and times, and the dividing of time

The 2800 eYeniug-morninp

The N'ven weeb and sixt,-two weeb of 9: 25

251
278

The winged-fowl of abomiuatiom in 9: 27

297

The nrious modes of interpreting 9: 24-27

808
809

Coupectus oft.be Hebrew in 9: H-27, and five translatiom

The guardian angels of natiom
The general relUl'J'tlCQon u developed in 12: 2

824

860

OONTENTI.

CatTIO..t.L HxaTORY AND Duucz.

1.
2,
8.
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10,

Pel'IOnal history ef D--'81

Nature and Design of the Book
Style d &eathet.ical Cbracwl'
Language and Idiom
Unity of the Book or aameneaa of Authonihip
Genuineneu and Authent.icit,
Object.iona againat the Gelauinen-. etc.
Ancient Versions of the Book or Daniel
Apoc ryphal additions to Duiel
Leading Commentaries and critical Dilquiaitiona

378

881
892

895
898
400
, 459
489

498
49,

COMMENTARY.

[CRAP. I. Early history of Daniel. Siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchad

nezzar, capture of Jehoiakim, and deportation of a part of the ve!!Scls of the
temple to Babylon ; vs. 1, 2. Daniel with some of his companions is se
lected by the king's overseer to be trained up in the Chaldee manner, for
the personal service of the king; Babylonish names are given to the young
Hebrews, and they are supported from the king's table, vs. S-7 ; L)aniel
makes earnest request that he and his companions may have liberty to adopt
a simple vegetable diet, so that they may not defile themselves with the
royal viands; he obtains liberty, and thrives remarkably well under bis new
regimen; vs. 8-16. All four of the Hebrew children make unusual pro
gre55 in knowledge ; but Daniel is endowed by God with uncommon sagacity
and knowledge, and becomes able to interpret visions and dreams: v. 17.
At the end of three years, Daniel and his companions are brought before the
king, and they are found to be fur more intelligent and sagacious than any
of the Chaldean astrologers; vs. 18-20. The 21st verse contains an indi
cation of Daniel's long continuance at court, even until the restoration of
the Hebrews to Palestine, during the first year of Cyrus's reign. In other
words, Daniel, in person, was a witness to the beginning and end of the
Jewish exile.]
Cu.t.P. I. 1. In the third year of the rein of Jehoinkim king of Judnh, came
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon to Jerosnlcm, and besieged it.

c,,

1"1:? , lit. in the year of three. This is the usual method of ex

pressing time in this book; see 1: 21. 2: 1. 7: 1 (Chald.). 8: 1. 9: 1. So
frequently elsewhere ; e. g. 2 K. 12: 2. 18: 1. 15: 1. ul. The Hebrew
usually employs cardir,al numbers (1-10) for ordinals, when year, or
day, are reckoned, Roed. Heb. Gramm. 118, 4. e.g. the construct form
of the noun designating year, etc. (as in the case before us), is often em
of the reign, the Gen. in
ployed ; comp. Gramm. 118, 4. such a case being ordinarily marked by prefixing , when it is preceded
by numeral,; Roed. Gramm. 113. 2. c. - :i:i:i;, first the name of
Jacob's oldest son, and (after the exile) employed also for the name of the
1

l"'::l?? ,

CHAP, L 2.

Jewish country; as it is here. - r:t came. Hengstenberg (Authent.

Dan. p. 61) translates it zo9, i.e. proceeded, or ,et out, viz.upon an expe
dition. But the sequel (and baie9ed it) shows, that the usual sense of
r:t (- ll!zoai) must here be attached to the word; and so I have ren
dered it in the version above - The name .,lt;"J;::i? is probably com
posed of i::i? = Mercury, who was worshipped by the Babylonians,
I J.> (chodan) = deua, and -,11,1 = prince, i. e. the name means
prince of the 9od Nebo, or Mercury, i.e. belonging to him, and so of high
rank. - .,; (either Imperf. Hiph. of the root "':=f, or the Imperf. Kal
of .,x, the Pattah of the final syllable being adopted because of the
final ., , Roed. Gr. 22. 2. a and 5. Moreover, a shortened Imperf.
and a retracted accent are normal here, Gramm. 48.b., 2.b. The !)
(with Suff. it becomes "?.) lit. means a9ainst; but here it qualifies the
preceding verb, and the construction resembles Isa. 7: 1, t:'"?. ct:'.
, is usually found after this l'erb in the sense of baie!Jin9; Lex. -,::,;
No.2. (the more probable stem.)
(2) And the Lord )?ave into his hand Jchoiakim king of Judah and a part of the
vcscls of the house of God, and he hrouht them to the land of Shiner, to the house
of his god, and the vessels he carried tp the treasure house of his god.

;.,;;, into or in his ltand, very frequently employed by the Hebrews

to designate the idea df puttin9 ir, one's power or at his disposal. As to
the fact of the imasion itself, comp. 2 K. 24: 1. - :""l? , a part of,
(r'l=fl? is an abridged form of r'll:<=fi? = i,:p , from M=fP.) It is disputed
whether 1:? is aprefi:x-formatfre here or a preposltion.. I regard it as being
the latter, i.e. as derived from i, the Daghesh which we should expect
in the p being omitted, because it would make the Sheva l'ocal under this
letter in case of its insertion; Gr. 20. 3. b. This usage (If omitting
Daghesh in such eases, is not unfrequent. Comp.the same word, although
with a sense somewhat diverse, in Dan.1: 15, 18. Here the form is the
same, and l? is unquestionably a prepoS'ition in both these cases. So in
eh. 7: 70, comp. Ps.135: 7. In 2 Chron. 36: 7, the same idea as here is
expressed simply by "? , a part of the iessels, instead of ? r'lP,1:? as
in our text. But the passage in 2 Chron., I cannot well doubt, describes
the second invasion of Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar, at the close of Je
hoiakim's reign, when this king was put in chains to be carried to Babylon,
and probably died in this condition, Jer. 22: 18, 19. 36: 80. Still the
occasion and the ti.-ansaction are of the like nature with those which per
This abridged mode of citation always applies to my edition of Roedigcr's Be
brew Grammar.

CHAP. L 2.

tain to the first invasion. At the first invasion, Nebuchadnezzar, who

made Jehoiakim the Jewish king tributary to him, rifled the temple of
only a part of its treasures; at the second, he took away another portion
of them, 2 Chron. 36: 7. At the third, he repeated the same thing on a
more extensive scale, 2 K. 24: 13. At the fourth and final invasion un
der Zedekiah, when the temple was destroyed, all its treasures were car
ried away, together with king Zedekiah, his family, and his court, 2 K.
25: 6-20. A part of these treasures were brought back under Cyrus,
Ezra 1: 7; and the rest under Dariut1, Ezra 6: 5.
0"'; and he broU!Jht them - who? where? The vessels and Jehoia
kim, (for the verb of itself with its suffix might easily have this meaning),
or only the vessels? The latter only, as the sequel shows; for surely he
did not bring Jehoiakim and put him in the treasure-lwuse of his god.
As the actual coming of Jehoiakim to Babylon is not here mentioned, it
is probable that he died on the way, after he was taken capthe and bound
in fetters, 2 Chron. :36: 6; see and comp. Jer. 22: 18, 19. 36: 30. Lund of SJ,ir,ar is the old name for the province of BaLylon; see i.ti Gen.
10: 10. 11: 2. Isa. 11: 11. Zeeb. 5: 11, the last two cases seem to be a
kind of poetic use. The origin of the name Jiag not yet been developed.
-And the 1ame veueu did he bring to the lwuse of !tis god, is a literal
rendering of the last part of the l"erse. As to the version above, we may
render the second tt"':;::! by deposited, (Sept. 1f1jQEi<Jlno, safely ronveyed
or carried), which will preserve the sense, and avoid a seeming tau
tology in e we here render it brought. In fact, lit"::! often means intro
dUctd, EirJq:EQEU' (Sept.), and corresponds to C?l;I:' , and he put or deposited
them, in 2 Chron. 36: 7. The writer finit designates, generally, the depor
tation of a part of the vessels to Babylon, and then he names the particu
lar locality where they were there depo:;ited. He had special reasons for
i;o doing, in reference to a part of bi11 subsequent history ; see Dan. 5: 8,
4, 23. Besides, the clause in question leads us to flee, that the vessels were
in safe keeping, and that Nebuchadnezzar's motive was probably to make
acceptable presents ( a,aO-q ara, as the Greeks called them in such cases),
to his god Belus - a thank-offering for the victories he had won, and at
the same time an evidence of his glorying that Belus was more powerful
than the God of the Hebrews. The famous temple of Belus, at Babylon,
is known to all. That the vessels were put into the treasure-house
shows, moreover, both the precaution taken for their safe-keeping and
the value attached to them. All the temples of antiquity bad treasure
house..", from which the priests were supported; see Num. 31: 48-54.
Josh. 6: 19. Comp. Mal. 3: 10. Neh. 13: 5, 12, 18.

CHAP.I. 8.
As to the time of the imasion by Nebucbadnezzar, neither Kings, Cbron.,
or Jeremiah give any date; but the facts recorded by Berosus show, that it
could not be later than the time named in v. 1, for it was not possible to
subdue all those countries in less than two years. That the.fir.! year of Nebu
chadnezzar was the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 25: 1. 4G: 2), does not con
tradict this; for the Jews of Palestine (not Daniel) reckoned Nebuchadnez
zar's first year as beginning with his mission upon the western invasion,
and a small part of that year fell in with the closing part of Jehoiukim's third
year, while probably the greatest part of that first year corresponded to the
fourth year of Jeboiakim. For the full discussion of these disputed matters,
and justification of this statement, I mnst refer the reader to the Excursus
at" the close of Chap. L
(3) And th1, king comman<lccl Ashpenaz, the rhief of Jijij eunuchs, to bring some
of 1hc ons d l;rncl, both of the roal seed nnd of the nobles,
The phrase .,tt means to command; see in Esth. 1: 17. 4: 13. 9: 14.
1 Chron. 21: 17 ; mostly in the later Hebrew. Sometimes .,-;: has this
sense before a verb Imperf. with , conversive, and even before the Ace.
This meaning is the usual one in Arabic; and ,ery frequent in the Cbal
dee, see Dan. 2: 12, 46. 3: 13, 19, 20. 4: 23. 6: 24. -Asl1penaz bas been
the subject of many conjectural etymologies ; but none of them are satis
factory. - The cl1iif of the eunuchs. In the later Hebrew, ::i (originally
much or great) is equivalent to.,, pn'nce or praefect; in Cbaldee, this is
the usual sense of the word as a noun, e. g. in Rab-slmkeb, Rab-saris,
Rab-mag, etc. In the N.Test. ea{l{lf, ( our present Rabbi), seems specially
to designate a 'leader in teaching. As to ,,9,.,9 (with Qamets under tl,
sometimes treated as mutable and sometimes as immutable), there is ev
ery probability that the translation here given (eunucl1s) is the true one.
The obcoJJo o.; of an oriental king had charge of his bousehold, including
his Harem and all his house servants, the male part of which of course
were eunuchs. To such an one would belong the training up of ser,ants
who were to be the personal waiters of the king. That young persons of
royal descent and of noble families should be chosen for such a service,
is altogether in accordance with the pride and haughtiness of the Baby
lonian king, and the customs of the East. The proud title, 1..-ing of l..i11g1,
carries with it the implication that kings are servants of the great monarch.
That young lads should be chosen for such a service, was almost a matter
of course. They could easily become acquainted with the language and
the customs of the court, and were specially capable of great personal ac
tivity. In some passages (see Ges. Lex.) it is difficult to say, whether

"

the original idea 0'';9 (from 09 ..Jn;,.:D, castravit) is retained ; e. g.

Gen. 37: 36. 39: 1. At all events, the leading sense occasionally is

C1u.P.

I.

4.

li

courtier or courl-ojficer. Among oriental kings, their greatest confidants

have been of this class of persons. In the Turkish court, the Kislar .Aga
is an officer of the like kind. Comp.M :: in Esth. 1: 8. - ttI;? , to
bring, i.e.carry or convey, viz. from Jerusalem to Babylon. So C. B.
Mich. and Ros.; but Lengerke understands the command as having re
spect to captives already arrived at Babylon. But if this were the case,
why not employ M!Ji2? to take, rather than ttr, to convey ? Yet in the
particular sense of bringing tl1em itito the place of their training, this view
of Leng. might be admitted.
Som of Israel. .... Israelites, i. e. posterity of Jacob or J.1rael. This was
the first meaning; the second was the ten tribes, who revolted with Jero
boam; and after the exile, the name was again used in its primitive sense,
as it is here. The sequel designates the narrow limits of the choice to
be made by Ashpenaz. That '? is employed to designate some of the
som, is agreeable to common usage; see Ges. Lex. i'? . - Bot/, of tl,e
royal seed and of the nobles. Such a translation makes this clause an
epexegetical limitation of the preceding expression. C. B. Mich. makes
three classes, by interpreting the three classes as coordinate ; and so Ro
senm. This is a poasible, but not a probable, interpretation. - :, 1 i;i
lit. 1eed of the 1..-ingdom or of the 1.-ingly power, i. e. of royal descent ; see
the same idiom (which belongs to the later Hebrew) in 2 K. 25: 25. Jer.
41: 1. Ezek, 17: 13. - =l;';l!l'J, a word of foreign origin, Pehlvi par
oom, Sanscrit praihama =- primores, ma.,anates, nobles. The Greek 1l(!W
,, seems to be, originally, of the same origin. The word receives the
form of the Heb. plural here; as transplanted words frequently do.
Good is the version of Josephus (Archaeol. X. 10. 1 ), wvi; evrf.JIE<1'f(I.
iou;; so Polycbronius, f(UJI wrEJ'<UJ', Comp. in this the fulfilment of Isa.
89: 7. The whole transaction is strictly in accordance with oriental
customs.

, ::: -;:,

(4) Young lads, in whom was no blemish, and of goodly appearnnre, and ;,killed
in every kind of wisdom, and acquainted with knowledge, and discerning in deme,
&Dd who were able to stand iu waiting at the palace of the king; nnd to tcuth them
lhe writing and the language of the Chaldees.

tr'"!?

The word
is, in our English version, translated children. Of
itself it does not determine the age; and it may be rendered boys, youil,,
or yotntg /,ad.a, as above. The Persians began education, properly so
called, at the age of fourteen, (Plat. Alcib. I. 87); and the young man's
age of action waa seventeen, (Cyrop. I. 2). In all probability, the He
brew lads in qneetion were some twelve to fifteen years of age, when
eelect.ecl. The noun
is in the Acc., and depends on the Inf. tti,;;

=,?

CHAP. L 4.

which latter depends on .,';'. This shows that the &ph P<UtUJ (:)
does not always divide the verses according to the sense or grammatical
construction; comp. 2 Sam. 17: 27-29, where is a notable example of a
similar nature. No blemish, etc.; such a custom still pervades the East,
e. g. in the Turkish and Persian courts, as to the selection of personal
serrnnts. Everything is required to be beautiful or magnificent, which
surrounds the person of the king. c:it = Ctl =-= Greek oi o;, which
hns.the same sense. -M;' ";;, lit. goodl9 of appearance, Gramm.
110, 2.-t:l".,:;,. Part. Hiph., but divested of its romative sense, in
case we translate it sl.:illed, intelligent; but if we revert to the original
signification ef the root (to look), we may see that it is used elliptically
in Hiphil = causing [the mind] to look or attend to, and as a consequence
,l,;illed. - M';;r,, wisdom, is of widely extended meaning io Hebrew, im
porting (in its largest sense) a knowledge of all things, i. e. of what is
true rcsptcting them, and here employed as nearly equivalent to our
English word karning.- l"':!
Part. Const. pl. Gramm. 132, 1. b;
acquainted with knowkdge ip a repetition of the preceding idea in another
form, for the sake of intensity. So also is it with the clause, discerning
in science; ""'! importing properly the power of discriminating be
tween things, or of discerning their properties and relations. Construc
tion as before. This accumulation of different phrases nearly equivalent
in meaning, is after the common usage of the Hebrews, and plainly, as
has been remarked, is intended to designate intensity of expression, be
ing equivalent to the simple declaration, skilled in l,:nowkdge of every
kind. -IJ, lit. strength,force, here abilit9, power.- '1t;:?, standing was
the poition of waiters in readiness to do their master's will. Hence the
secondary sense of the verb '11:, viz. serve, minister to, Ges. Lex. s. v.
I. a. Usually it is followed, in such cases, by "!: before, joined with
the designation of the person served, as in " 5. -:,;;".!, pal,ace, i. e. a

"=Et';,

large magnificent building; which corresponds to the Arabic verb,

to be great or wft9. The word is properly generic, and so may designate
a pal,ace, or (as often) the tempk of Jeho,ab. -C?, and to teac/1 them,
which falls back, as to construction, upon the
of v. 3; for Ashpe
naz was charged with the education of the Jewish lads.-'11;1, lit. writ
ing. The accent ( Tiphha) separates it from the sequel, and shows that
the Punctators took it as not in the const. state before tl"'=!iz? (implied),
but as standing by itself, and meaning books or literature. This is made
probable by '11;1-;; in " 17, which cannot mean merely every kind of
alpl,abetic characters, but every kind of literature. Gesenius (in Lex.)
understands it as meaning the mtten character, of the Chaldee; and
this, at first view, seems the most facile interpretation ; but v. 17 appean

.,tt,

Clu.P. I. 6,

plainly to modify it.- TM tongue ofthe <Jhalau, is differently interpreted,

Lengerke days it designates the proper language of the original barba
rian Chaldees from nort bern Mesopotamia ; and Maurer ( Comm. in loe.)
appears inclined to_ this, and also Hiivemick (Comm.). Also Winer
(Cbald. Gramm. p. 15, Engli11h version, ed. Hackett) seems disposed to
think favorably of it. But in Dan. 2: 4, the Chaldees address Nebu
chadnezzar in Aramaean (t'I"';';), and I,e replies in the same tongue.
It would seem, therefore, to be the court language of that period. Comp.
2 Kings 18: 26. Isa. 36: 11. Ezra 4: 7, where the same appellation oc
curs. That it should here be called the tongue of the Chaldee, is natu
ral enough, since the court was principally made up of Cl1aldeans. That
ilie Chaldees, in their original and barbarous state, ( provided we admit
Ulat those northern barbarians had emigrated into Babylonia), had a
written language, is very improbable. Rabshakeh, the commander of
the Auyrian forces, addressed the Jewish courtiers in Hebrew, (Isa. 36:
11) ; and be is invited by them to speak in Aramaean. That the court
of !\ebuchadnezzar spoke the same language, Dan. 2: 4 seq. shows. But
ilie young Jewish lads in que.stion, probably were not acquainted with it
90 early in life as when iliey went into exile. Hence it was necessary
iliat they should be taught it. That it was a written language, would
appear from .,'2 being connected with it, in our text. With Ros. in
Ioe., Ges. and Hitzig on Isa. 36: 11, and C. B.:Michaelis (Comm. in
Hagiog. ), I deem it most probable, that the same language, i. e. Ara
naatan- Chauke, ia meant here, as in Dan. 2: 4.
(5) And the king assign ed to them a daily allowan<'c from the deli<'11te viands of
the king and from the wine which he drank, nnd that they should be nurtured three
yean, and after the close of them that they should Aland in waiting before the king.
i':;,, Imperf. Piel of"?, Gramm. 74. Note 9.-ci., .,,, lit. tk
tAing of a day, i. e. quotidianum, something belonging to the day ; which
is made still more specific by it:i":i?, on each dag, lit. during iu da9; see
f
Luke 11: 3, 10 xa( q lqar. The English expression, used in the ,er
sion above, gives the exact idea of the whole phrase. So the Hebrews
say: "?\?=? n - each gear, CI} I! -=- once a, bejQre or one time a,
tJ7UXl,er, etc.-!lt;,1!1? is evidently a foreign word, the meaning of which
is probably given in ilie translation. The most facile etymology seems

i>4.

to be the old Persian a

(pad-bah) father's meat, i.e. king', food,
and so it designates figurati;ely delicate viands, oo.tly bits, or choice
food. This agrees well with the other passages where the word is em:.
ployed, viz. in vs. 8, 18, 15, 16. 11: 26; and also with the Syriac
, as employed by Ephrem Syrus (I. 382 F. 423 A.), and by

Ca.u. I. 6,

Bar Hebraeus (p. 831 ), to designate Wntiu, luzuriou., food. So Gese

nius, Winer (in Lex.), Van Bohlen (Symb. ad interp. SS. e ling. Pers.),
Rosenm., Maurer, and Lengerke (Comm.); but Lorsbach (Archiv. etc.
IL s. 312 f.) prefers the etymology from ,.::.,"-:;' (pot) idol and
(halt)
food; to which Hivernick and :Furst (Concord. Heb.) give their hearty
assent. But the context (see v. 8, specially v. 10, where'!, is substi
tuted for .t:r'll! , with vs. 13, 15, 16) shows that the ordinary food of the
king is assigned to the young Hebrews, and not merely such food as is
presented to idols, on feast-days appropriate to the honoring of them.
Of course, the former sense is preferable.

114

Vcry different conclusions are drnwn from this passage, in respect to the alleged
demeanor of Daniel. Lengerke (Comm.) and others argue, that it was only during
the Maccabcuan times that such superstition about food existed among the Jews,
and therefore that the author of the book drew his views from that source, and most
have livd at that time; while Ha vcmick and others, urging the view of Lorsbach as
to etymology, strenuously vindicate the conduct of Daniel on the ground of avoiiling
participation in idolatrous feasts. Both parties Hcm to have mode too much of the
matter. Daniel needs no other ,indication than the perusal of Lev. 11: 4 seq. 20:
25, and th consideration, that oftenties the king's choice food would not only con
siat of animals forbidden to the Jews, but also that not nnfrcqnently what had been
presented before idols would be furnished for him. The Eame was the case with his
roine. Of course, as conscientious JO!ws, Daniel and his companions were bound to
avoid eating it indiscriminately, if it wns in their power to Ehun it. Snd1 de111eanor
was peculiar to no age, as it respected sincere disciples of Moses. To represent such
abstinence as a grave argument for the composition of the book so late as the time of
the Mnccabecs (soLengerke), is little short of trifling. Even if Daniel's conduct was
tinctured with superstition, was there no case of this nature before the time of the
Maccabees!

The ''I? before !lf'11! means (as often elsewhere) ,ome of, a portion of;
and so also before the following , . - ,"Z,1:?1? , lit. of hi, drinking, i. e.
what he drank. The noun is ling., although it appears to have a plur.
suffix:; for in nouns from roots ri;, the original third radical (") often
returns before a suffix, when the noun is in the Bingtdar, and gives it the
appearance of a plural; Gramm. 91, 9, in Note. - c1; , lit. to
grow tm, or to make them grow large; hence to educate or nurture tMm.
-Three year,, the Acc. of time, Gramm. 116, 2. For the plural C" with
a numeral, 118, 2. - cz:iP.1? , from or after the termination of them, viz.
the years; Dag. forte omitted in the I', 20, 3. b. - .,'r , as before,
,tand in waiting; for the form of the vowels, see 62. 3. This verb
also depends on i; at the beginning of the verse; so that we have here,
first an Acc. case, then an Inf., and lastly a verb in the Subj. ; all de
pendent on the same verb. Such changes in the construction of a sen-